ACLU Sues For Jesus Painting

[Dong]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070703/ap_on_re_us/court_jesus_painting

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the city of Slidell on Tuesday for displaying a painting of Jesus in a courthouse lobby, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

In other news, courthouses across America are looking closely to ensure that there are no intersecting lines in their buildings. They fear the ACLU may sue them for displaying something that appears to be a cross.

[Drekor]

I don't think the picture violates the constitution but I'm no expert on the subject. However in a public place typically associated with the "state" I think that particular picture especially with the caption may be slightly inappropriate. Although people getting butt hurt over it are completely overreacting.

[Mutt]

Anytime you think someone is over reacting in a situation like this just imagine that instead of an image of Jesus they used one of these instead:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Maome.jpg
http://www.venganza.org/images/th_FSM3d.jpg
http://www.comicmadness.com/img/ebay/auctions/large/thor1.jpg

Not so offensive on its own but then remember that some people think their real and some of those rank them as a higher moral authority

[Maj]

Fuck I love Thor, THOR RULES

[Mutt]

lol Ive been toying with the idea of starting a church of thor. Been seeing if I can get any tax breaks or something :P
If nothing else it should give me an excuse to carry a giant sword around. I mean if the sheiks get to bring their little knives into elementary schools, I damn well better be allowed to take my sword on the bus.

[Maj]

Thor is the official god of Majopolis. Way superior to the puny gods of Gniosstopia and Dongilia.


This is a recent photograph of Thor calling down the thunder on the Gniosstopians.
http://www.elroyonline.com/files/thor/thor_003.jpg

[Maj]

The Church of Thor only allows giant hammers to be wielded on buses.. Look it up.

[Mutt]

Yea but Im not lugging a heavy ass hammer around just to make a statement.

[Slak]

http://static.flickr.com/112/314136425_c92e5f113d_o.jpg

[Diraker]

And if it were a picture of Mohammad (lol more riots) holding the Koran the christians who are currently defending the courthouse would be on the offensive. Remember when that congressman wanted to swear in using his koran? Or if the court was displaying a Wicca symbol, again the same christians who are defending would be crying foul. Anyone following the story about backpack mail teachers send home with school kids? One school fought to allow their church fliers and when a wicca group and a secular summer camp wanted to send home fliers, of course, in typical fashion, the same christian parents who fought (via the courts mind you) to allow them to send home christian stuff now were fighting to stop others from the same privileges they fought to have for themselves. Anyway the bottom line is the there is a separation of church and state in this country and some christians (and others I imagine although I don't ever see courts putting up praise allah signs) don't seem to give a crap about that very important american principle. For me, when the religious mark up public places, like town halls and courthouses (not just out on the street, thats not what is meant by "public places" ) I consider it like a dog pissing in a spot to mark their territory. Territorial pissings. Remember not only does religion corrupt government, government also corrupts religion. Be thankful for the wall. (and I'm totally stealing this from Christopher Hitchens) "Mr. Jefferson, Build up that wall!"

[Dong]

I’m not against separation of church and state. I don’t think public display of a historical figure violates the constitution, though.

In another article, Darrell White said, "How far are we going to take this? The First Amendment simply did not protect persons against being offended."

I think that sums up my thoughts on it. People who love being the victims really… offend me.

[Diraker]

Firstly it's not just a picture of some ancient looking guy, it's a picture of glowing halo jesus holding a bible with a caption that reads, "To Know Peace, Obey These Laws."

It's not about being offended it's about the government favoring one religion over another or favoring religion over nonreligion. It's about constitutional law not someone's feelings getting hurt.

In these cases context matters. So are there other pictures of other (supposed) historical figures? What about pictures of other religious heroes? Any other pieces of art at all? What about passages from the koran or jewish bible? Is there a history of this courthouse hanging up various pieces of art, as like a museum? Is there special significance regarding that particular picture (if for example it belonged to an ex-president) or is it simply someone's feeble attempt to mark the territory as christian? Also as a reminder this is a court, where people are sometime forced to go and it's not like it's hanging in someone's office or cube, it's being displayed in the lobby for everyone, defendents, plantiffs, lawyers, reporters, workers, everyone. Not just for the folk who put it up. Why do they feel the need to push their religious views on to everyone? Why do they feel like they need to use the machinery of the state to push their religious views? Isn't their religion able to stand on it's own without the government endorsing it?

[Drekor]

It's not about being offended it's about the government favoring one religion over another or favoring religion over nonreligion. It's about constitutional law not someone's feelings getting hurt.
According to the article the picture has been up for numerous years, as you said it's in the lobby of a court a very public place. Why now? I'm guessing someone had their feelings hurt and lashed out at whatever they could find. If it was a big deal about breaking the law I'd think there would be consequences within weeks of it being put up.

Although the article also talks about Michael Johnson saying:
... the painting sends an inclusive message of equal justice under the law...
Which is nonsense, the picture to me is quite clearly saying to obey the laws written in the bible, and is most certainly a religious painting. I think it's the caption that's worse then anything but even still I think it's more of just expression of faith and not really trying to jam it down people throats. If the caption was "OBEY THESE LAWS OR DIE" then that's something else, the picture claims that if you obey the laws written in the bible you can find peace(which is false advertising but still!).

[Ablate]

I want pictures of Thor and Oden in my local courthouse, those are some historical figures I can get behind.

[Diraker]

If people want to express their faith they can do so in a myriad number of ways. However you can not use the machinery (in this case the courthouse lobby) of the state to do so.

And as far as the argument that people are free to express their faith, well of course they are, however the government isn't afforded this right, the people are. The Bill of Rights limits governmental power; that's the whole point.

[Gnioss]

I couldnt find any context of the painting. Is it a little 11x9 painting hung up next to historical documents or it it under a big banner saying DEATH TO THE UNBELIEVERS!!??!1
I don't think I'd have a problem with it if it was with pictures of other historical figures, but if it's all alone then i think clearly it sends a different message.

[Dong]

The great thing about art is it can be interpreted differently depending on who sees it. I find it interesting that people feel as if someone is pushing them towards Christ after looking at it. Would you have the same feeling if you saw a picture of Thor hanging from in the same building? I doubt it.

[Ternach]

I want pictures of Thor and Oden in my local courthouse, those are some historical figures I can get behind.

10-4 Buddy

[Whisper]

The great thing about art is it can be interpreted differently depending on who sees it. I find it interesting that people feel as if someone is pushing them towards Christ after looking at it. Would you have the same feeling if you saw a picture of Thor hanging from in the same building? I doubt it.Er, it's a picture of Christ....how else is that to be interpreted giving it's placement and caption? It's not just art when a religious icon is placed in context of the environment. The caption reinforces that it is not just a pretty picute of Jesus, but a combined statement directly relating to the purpose of the courthouse.

If you saw that picture hanging anywhere else, fair enough it can stand alone at a piece of art open to a myraid of interpretations. In a courthouse? Where, by constitutional law, the proceedings are supposed to be free from any and all religious considerations?

I see your point though, and I agree that the flinch reaction is probably overly excessive in a lot of cases. I still think that if it was a pentagram, or a star of david, or any other religious icon placed in the context of a place of objective law, folks would scream bloody murder.

Though, truth be told, that hasn't ever really been put to the test, has it? It would be interesting to see how people would react to any other religious icon displayed within the exact same context, and if the ACLU would be just as rabid about it.

-W

[Slak]

And as far as the argument that people are free to express their faith, well of course they are, however the government isn't afforded this right, the people are. The Bill of Rights limits governmental power; that's the whole point.

I just don't buy this though. While the painting in question is obviously religious, I don't believe the separation of church and state means that that means that all religious symbols are banned by use of the government.

Take for instance the Mt. Soledad cross. Yes its a cross, which is religious, but it also represent a number of other things, especially in a western country, that are readily recognized by viewers. In the case of the cross:

Death - its a memorial
Sacrifice - dying for our country
Transcendence - We honor their memories

What I find stupid is that some believe that because religious symbols are religious that we must expunge them from public society. Thats stupid. I would LOVE to see more diversity in religious symbols in the world. I thought The Koran thing was an enormous step forward in the diversity of America showing up in public life.

Some people want to delete all religious references from public life. And that, to me, is a total cop out. It means that we accept our society for being stupid, ignorant, and childish. I prefer to see more religious symbolism, more diversity in thought and culture, and more art.


ps however i do recognize the sad truth that in many cases teachers, schools, parents are too immature to handle a "discussion" of religion.

[Gnioss]

The great thing about art is it can be interpreted differently depending on who sees it. I find it interesting that people feel as if someone is pushing them towards Christ after looking at it. Would you have the same feeling if you saw a picture of Thor hanging from in the same building? I doubt it.

Face it, jesus wasn't famous because he made great pancakes.
He's the symbol of christianity.
If I saw a picture of Thor I would associate it with an ancient mythological figure, since 33.03% of the world doesnt follow him as a religious figure. 33.03% of the world does, however, believe that jesus had superhuman abilities and was in some fashion a deity or controlled by one. That's the difference.

[Dong]

What I'm asking is, "Does viewing a painting of Christ make you feel like the person who hung it is trying to convert you to Christianity?"

[Whisper]

What I'm asking is, "Does viewing a painting of Christ make you feel like the person who hung it is trying to convert you to Christianity?"
Not at all. Some of the greatest art in the world is religious in nature and I've never felt anyone showing it to me or having it displayed was "pushy" at all.

Viewing a picture of Christ in a courthouse, however, would make me feel that beliefs that I may not share or understand, and that are not a part of the judicial process, may be present during the proceedings. If Christian mores are present in the courthouse, what then for non-christians? I know one picture doesn't imply all of that to me, but to others? Can you see that perspective? It would make me feel slightly uncomfortable.

Then again, so would any picture of any religious icon in any courthouse.

Not enough to get all butthurt and sue about it, but it would make me feel a little sketchy.

-W

[Dong]

I get what you're saying about the discomfort, and it makes sense. I just don't think the constitution protects against that. If there was evidence that the courthouse judged based on law outside of the US's, then indeed, the courthouse is violating church and state separation.

[Diraker]

What I'm asking is, "Does viewing a painting of Christ make you feel like the person who hung it is trying to convert you to Christianity?"

Your question fails to acknowledge the idea that people representing the government are restricted by the first amendment whereas the people of the town are protected by it. That there's a difference in what the government can do and what ordinary citizens can do. That there's a difference in the government hanging up a picture of jesus in the courthouse lobby and joe bloe average citizen hanging up a jesus picture in his restaurant.

Anyway the answer to your question is no, but the breadth of the establishment clause extends much greater than outright conversion. In other words it takes a lot less than conversion attempts for something to be deemed unconstitutional. You could look up the Lemon Test for some information on the history of these sort of cases. Anyway IMO the Lemon Test has it's flaws but it's a place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#.22The_.22Lemon_test.22

[Dong]

I'm talking about how people insist on making the complaint, "Why push your religion on me?"

Hanging a painting is not pushing a religion on anyone else. Sorry.

[Diraker]

Because the context matters. What's inconsequential in one context can be highly inappropriate in another.

[Roxie]

hey gnioss buddy

[Gnioss]

hey buddypal c^_^

[Gnioss]

Anyway, I'm not worried about being converted. It would take a pretty good argument to do that. The thing i'm worried about is the intent. The road to government sponsored religion isn't black and white. You dont wake up one day in a theocracy, you get there inch by inch. The separation of church and state must be absolute, or it doesnt exist at all.

[Soushia]

I'm talking about how people insist on making the complaint, "Why push your religion on me?"

Hanging a painting is not pushing a religion on anyone else. Sorry.


Lets run a little experiment then.

When you go to work on monday morning I want you to hang a picture of Mohammed in a public place with a caption written below it that says "To Know Peace, Obey My Word". Or better yet...hang a picture of black jesus.

I'll set the over/ under for your pending unemployment at one day.



What I'm asking is, "Does viewing a painting of Christ make you feel like the person who hung it is trying to convert you to Christianity?"

No it doesn't. But it does make me think that the person who hung it is letting everyone know where he stands and what he believes. After all, I don't know too many orthodox jews hanging pictures of Jesus in the living room.

Anyway, hanging that picture with that quote in a courthouse leaves a distinct taste of bias in the one place where impartiality is needed to maintain the facade of "equality under the law".



And just a few other notes while getting caught up on this thread of awesomeness:




Slak: The "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" guy just got shot down by the Supreme Court.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html

Ablate: I want to hang a picture of a head of lettuce with a caption below it denoting it as Ralph from the holy order of the bhaba rhumbaba (if no one here remembers "What's Happening" I'm going to eat my own eyeballs).

[Slak]

A student in one of my classes made a really cool picture of Jesus beheading a guy (It was a samari jesus). Everyone thought it was funny, except the teacher :banghead:.

LOL at 1st amendment i suppose.

[Dong]

I would love to see a painting of Mohammed hanging somewhere. I bet the ACLU would fund it's defense.

I don't care about the content of any painting hung anywhere. I can go to court and know full well that regardless of the judge's religious beliefs, he is bound by US law. There is a system of appeals in place, and I can go to the next level if I feel my rights were violated. I'm certainly not going to sue until I have been wronged. A painting of Jesus, who is a figure in both Islam and Christianity, is not enough to show bias. If there was evidence, such as a judge dismissing a case against a prostitute after telling the prosecutor that let he without sin convict her, then I would say the courthouse is biased.

If I sued a courthouse that displayed a painting of a woman, would I be considered silly for suing on grounds that because there are no men paintings, it's possible that they're discriminating based on gender?

Come on. This is not a serious infringement on anyone's rights.

Gnioss, speaking of slippery slopes, I'm waiting on government funded museums to be sued for displaying paintings with religious symbols. There's just too much risk of a theocracy otherwise!

[Diraker]

But Dong just because you say you won't doesn't mean everyone wouldn't. You know that when someone wants to do something that deals with Islam people cry foul. I mentioned when that congressman wanted to swear in using his koran. There's literally hundreds of cases where people demand certain rights and privileges for themselves but simply do not want to extend these same rights and privileges to everyone else. (again my previous post mentioned a clear example with the backpack fliers) See for me, I don't think that government ought to push atheism in the same sense that it shouldn't push christianity, islam, or juju-on-the-hillism. That the best approach, the approach written into our constitution that the government is to remain neutral on such matters. Now if some judge somewhere can't understand this, well then too bad for him/her. Ask ex-Judge Roy 10 commandments Moore.

And your museum analogy fails because, like I've been saying, context matters. A museum like display generally allows for religious imagery and references because they are part of larger displays involving comparative religion, history, archeology, anthropology, demographics, etc, more so than statements about theological claims made by the folk who put up the display.

[Shokar]

Hmmmm ...

Juju-On-the-Hillism vs The Holy Order of the Bhaba Rhumbaba?

Who would win?

[Gnioss]

I'm waiting on government funded museums to be sued for displaying paintings with religious symbols. There's just too much risk of a theocracy otherwise!
The function of a museum is to display artifacts of the past.
The function of a courthouse is to interpret and enforce the letter and spirit of the law.
That's why one can have religious displays and one can't.
That's not to say this display was inappropriate. I still dont know enough about it to tell. Things like giant stone monuments of the ten commandments are obviously inappropriate, but a painting of a christian deity can be tastefully included. The context of the painting is the deciding factor here, I think.

[Mutt]

If I sued a courthouse that displayed a painting of a woman, would I be considered silly for suing on grounds that because there are no men paintings, it's possible that they're discriminating based on gender?Perhaps. Imagine that the woman in the picture is the most prominent feminist ever and her every word empitomizes femonism. Now, image that the judge is a femanist herself. You're damn right I'd be worried as a man.

Its not that Im worried that shes going to throw me in the slammer for 20 years because I was shoplifting, no. There are certain constraints to that. However, justice isnt often, you did this you go for 5 years. You do that, well thats 3 years. There is a range of punishment generally. I would be concerned that if the judge is a feminist that she would be less adverse to handing down the maximum penalty to me because I am a man.

Now imagine you are a homosexual perhaps and you know the judge is a devout christian and finds homosexuality distasteful and against god as Jesus outlines in the bible. Who's to say his opinion isnt skewed by his beliefs?

[Dong]

I don't think the authors of the Constitution intended to regulate the decor of courthouse lobbies.

I read a quote my Matt Groening of Simpsons fame today that made me think of this.

"In America there's someone willing to pretend to be offended by everything and so we annoy people and that's part of the appeal."

[Diraker]

The issue isn't decor, don't be silly.

"In America there's someone willing to pretend to be offended by everything and so we annoy people and that's part of the appeal."

Reminds me of chocolate jesus.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11669242/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/31/the-daily-donohue-rantings-of-a-lunatic-bully-over-a-chocolate-jesus/

[Whisper]

Guess it boils down to intent and context. Without knowing either, it is pretty assumptive to fill in the blanks with what you want to believe is the motivation for the picture being there in the first place, or the lawsuit being filed.

Common sense would maybe indicate that it is just might be a cool pic of Jesus that someone thought was fitting for a "house of law" due to the caption. Not some nefarious plot to impose Christiananity on the unsuspecting through the legal system.

It probably wasn't even on their radar that some heathenistic east coaster would find it odd, much less offensive to the point of legal action.

Be interesting to see how this one turns out.

-W

[Dong]

Whisper, I agree. Without intent, we can't really make judgment.

I just read the following article. This will indeed be an interesting case to follow.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070704/28296_Christian_Law_Firm_Defends_Courthouse_Jesus_ Painting_from_ACLU.htm

[Nadric]

If you don't like the picture, don't look at it. Case closed.

[Infuriare]

If you don't like the picture, don't look at it. Case closed.

Sadly not. I'm Christian and I still understand the reasoning behind this. The fact that it could be construed as going by biblical law and not constitutional makes it highly suspect.

There is definitely a time and place for religious art and expression and it isn't really a courthouse; especially art as controversal in nature as that one. I, for one of the first times ever, agree with the ACLU.

[Whisper]

Interesting read, though I tend to think monuments fall under the same umbrella as museums. There is a difference between the contexts of historical rememberance at memorials and active metting out of the law in a working courthouse.

I was actually thinking about this today, and wondered if Christians feel this kind of suit is an attack on their religion thinly disguised as a legal Establishment issue.

Given that probably 90% of these cases involve Christianity, simply due to its prominance in this country, after a while I could see where Christians would start to take it personally.

It seems to be a very easy thing to blur the distinction between "inappropriate in that location" and "inappropriate" period. Both sides sound like they are doing a bit of that.

Did the ACLU bring the suit of behalf of anyone? Or just because? If the citizens of Slidell are cool with it...hm. Kind of has that carpetbagger feel for some DC lawyer to roll down to a small rual town in LA and tell them Jesus has no place in their courthouse. That has nothing to do with the strict legalities of it though, just a nod of understanding that the people of Slidell are like, "wtf is the big deal? gtfo."

-W

[Diraker]

1) intent doesn't matter, this is not criminal law. The picture hanger could be a militant religious dickhead preacher type or it could be some aid who liked the colors
2) to sue one needs legal standing, so the ACLU always has someone (hopefully with standing, since this has to be decided in court). But sometimes all a case needs is a taxpayer for standing. The ACLU didn't bring the suit, they brought it on behalf of someone. But, of course, saying that the ACLU does this and that sounds worse than joe bloe citizen Fred Jones did this and that.
3) the ACLU defends chritistians and their right to freely express their religion. All one needs to do is go the their website and find the link to the ACLU's cases where they help, for example, christian public school students keep their right to hand out religious stuff to other students. They've defended street preachers and folk wanting to place religious themed ads on city buses, etc. Currently the ACLU is fighting to allow a state run university to install foot baths for muslim students.
4) look into the ADF, see what they do before passing judgment on the ACLU. Read the comments they make (and their supporters) in the christianpost link.
5) the standard for these cases is the Lemon Test. If you haven't read the wiki link to it, and you claim to be interested in this case, read about the landmark case. There are also hundreds of cases with precedent to look at. eta: one can also read all the briefs and decisions and such online. You get the reasoning behind the suits and for the defenders, you also get to read about why judges make their particular decisions, even the judges who dissent from the majority opinion. Read these to be informed.
6) notice how according the dong's link, the townsfolk rallied some protesters, got their political figure involved, etc etc? Who again is making the big deal about this? If the painting is not a big deal then just change it's location or alternatively add other pictures, maybe one that celebrates our Nations secular heritage and secular constitution. Ya know in Wisconsin, during the holidays, there are a bunch of displays, and since this is the US there's equal access, so there's a sign which goes about saying how religion "hardens the heart and withers the mind" or something. And of course every year it gets vandalized. Again, who are the one's making a big deal?

Dong and anyone else who think religious symbols are appropriate for a courthouse, was Roy Moore acting appropriately when he hauled in that giant granite 10 commandments display? Was he acting appropriately when he defied the courts and insisted that it stay? Remember he was disbarred and his judgeship removed. Is there any situation where someone places religion into a court and it's inappropriate, in your eyes? Would you be defending the Wiccan judge putting up pentagrams and icons displaying Pan or the goddess (or whatever they do)? Would the ADF defend them? Again, this is about marking the courthouse with christian iconography not about any sort of underlying rights.

eta: italicized edit

[Diraker]

Straight from ACLU's website: bold by me

"Religion in the Public Square

Religion is pervasive in the public square in the United States - and it is constitutionally protected. The ACLU has long defended individuals, families, and religious communities who wish to manifest their religion in public. (Learn More) Particularly when compared to other industrialized democracies, religion plays a prominent role in American public life. Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, cathedrals, and Gurdwaras are plainly visible in the public sphere and their right to display religious symbols and to construct religious edifices is protected by the Constitution and by statutes.[3] The ACLU has supported the right of people to preach their religion in public places and to go door-to-door to spread their religious messages. The Constitution properly protects the right of religious figures to preach their messages over the public airwaves. Religious books, magazines, and newspapers are freely published and delivered through the U.S. Postal System. No other industrialized democracy has as much religion in the public square as does the United States.

Some people, however, mistakenly use the word "public" when they really mean "governmental. "This can be seen, for example, with Ten Commandments monuments. The right of churches and families to erect such monuments on their own property is constitutionally protected, regardless of whether it is public or private and regardless of whether someone is offended or not. A Christian cross that is fully visible from a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected when placed in front of a church. But if that same cross were moved across the street and placed in front of city hall, it would violate the Constitution. The issue is not "religion in the public square" - as the rhetoric misleadingly suggests - but whether the government should be deciding whose sacred texts and symbols should be placed on government property and whose should be rejected."

[Diraker]

And Slak, the Mt. Soledad cross was not a "memorial site" until the litigations started. They turned it into a memorial site so help protect it from litigation. Also, in the "end" (because it's not over) the federal government took over the land to nullify all the previous litigation, litigation that, time and time again, favored removal of the cross. Activist federal government coming in a taking over a local case. So much for small government and conservative values...never mind the sour idea of honoring the dead of only one religion at the exclusion of others. Where are the wiccan pentagrams (note that military folk still cant get their graves officially marked as wiccan), the jewish stars, the islamic crescent moons, etc?

[Konrad]

Just want to throw this side discussion in:

The Founding Fathers wanted it to be known and understood, and declared so in the Declaration of Independence and many other documents, that the rights and liberties of man came not from the generosity of the state, but were endowed by the creator, meaning the Christian God. This being the case, does the presence of Judeo-Christian art and decor in public places such as statehouses and courthouses not serve as a reminder of where our rights come from, as well as remind those in power that our rights are inalienable and do not require their consent?

[Diraker]

Just want to throw this side discussion in:

The Founding Fathers wanted it to be known and understood, and declared so in the Declaration of Independence and many other documents, that the rights and liberties of man came not from the generosity of the state, but were endowed by the creator, meaning the Christian God. This being the case, does the presence of Judeo-Christian art and decor in public places such as statehouses and courthouses not serve as a reminder of where our rights come from, as well as remind those in power that our rights are inalienable and do not require their consent?

Wow this is patently false. 100% revisionist christian apologetics.

The powers of the government derive from the "consent of the governed". If they meant Jesus and the Christian God, then why did they fail to mention it? They use phrases like Creator (they were deists) and Nature's God (the were children of the Enlightenment). Never mind the fact that the DoI has no legal bearing whatsoever.

I find it amazing that when dealing with consitutional issues one has to retreat to the DoI for rationalization of their ill informed opinions.

[Konrad]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident (lacking religious necessity), that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (religious necessity) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," - Declaration of Independence

The powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed, not the rights of man. You can play the Deist card all you want but nearly all literature at the time affirms that they are speaking of the Christian God and literature does assert their desire to create a Christian nation, and that their fear was an organized church on the scale of the Church of England or the Catholic Church which would trample on the rights of citizens.

To your point about using the Declaration of Independence, yes, I understand that it has no legal basis as far as constitutionality, but to completely ignore it is convenient. It is this document that enumerates our reasons for breaking with England and establishing our own nation, it asserts the rights of man as well as where those rights come from, and it certainly should play a role in our understanding of our liberties, freedoms, and the foundation of our nation.

[Whisper]

Easy killer. I'm not looking to stroke your argumentative hard-on over wiki entries, just saying that the citizens of Slidell, who as a community protested this suit, could easily be feeling that it is their faith being hammered by this.

Sorry, I can't hyperlink a communities feelings on something as personal and subjective as faith and their sense that someone is fucking with it.

Not slamming the ACLU, nor casting any "right or wrong" opinion on the case here, merely expressing opinion on the non-legal, personal aspects.

Part of the problem with these and similiar suits is that they aren't always firing on all cylinders. The letter of the law can take on a very cold, disspassionate face that fails to take into consideration things like intent and the wishes of those affected. You can vomit up wiki links to examples and analogies to shoot holes in that, but there are enough non-extreme, common fucking sense cases as well. Letter of the law says what these people feel and how they represent themselves in their community doesn't matter here. Fair enough, but taking something like intent 100% out of the equaltion dehumanizes it as well.

The ACLU and ADF both come of like insulting, know-it-all, never wrong fucktards in their pursuit of being absolutely right 100% of the time in almost any case they engage in.

Kind of like some forum discussions...


-W

[Diraker]

First, thanks for keeping the discussion civil.

You can play the Deist card all you want but nearly all literature at the time affirms that they are speaking of the Christian God and literature does assert their desire to create a Christian nation, and that their fear was an organized church on the scale of the Church of England or the Catholic Church which would trample on the rights of citizens.

You can assert this all you want, it's just simply not true. The big quote people usually use is from the Treaty of Tripoli where it says that the US is not founded on the christian religion "in any sense". Thomas Jefferson, author of the DoI (and one of my favorite historical persons) also has a quote where he says christianity was never part of common law. The literature is exactly opposite of what you claim it is.

Now wiki certainly isn't the definative source for information but it's a good place to get some starting points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Religious_views

Creator (religious necessity)

Even intelligent folk of the 18th century didn't have knowledge of evolution so the sentiments of humanity's best minds were that of creation. Even people today can be nonreligious and deistic. People can also certainly be theists and nonchristians as well. The phrasings in the DoI do not lead to the conclusion that the authors were christians attempting to create a christion nation.

Bottom line is that the constitution has no mention of god or jesus and that all three mentions of "god" (quotes because "god" is only mentioned once, as in "Nature's God") in the DoI, all refer to a deistic god. It would have been easy to simply mention jesus, the bible, or christianity if that's what they "desired".

[Diraker]

I know whisper. I suppose I could enjoy watching FILA soccer without knowing anything about the teams or history of rivalries, rules and game mechanics and stuff but isn't the game better when you do have knowledge of such things?

The court documents are not dry and impersonal as you make them out to be. They are about the people and their motivations. It's not just about citing cases. Read some and what the heck, you might find them interesting and illuminating. They might even help you follow this case.

[Dong]

Dong and anyone else who think religious symbols are appropriate for a courthouse, was Roy Moore acting appropriately when he hauled in that giant granite 10 commandments display? Was he acting appropriately when he defied the courts and insisted that it stay? Remember he was disbarred and his judgeship removed. Is there any situation where someone places religion into a court and it's inappropriate, in your eyes? Would you be defending the Wiccan judge putting up pentagrams and icons displaying Pan or the goddess (or whatever they do)? Would the ADF defend them? Again, this is about marking the courthouse with christian iconography not about any sort of underlying rights.

The Ten Commandments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments) and the painting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painting) in question (http://media.bonnint.net/apimage/be3ff05a-b5f7-4f1b-8f1b-1d22206a1ee0.jpg) are two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two) different things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing). The courthouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courthouse) lobby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobby) is different from the courtroom. There’s already 50 Wiccan icons on the US flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_flag), so of course I'd be upset with more religious icons (I have a lawsuit pending, waiting on the ACLU to respond to my emails). I don’t know if the ADF would represent a Wiccan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiccan) judge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge), but I’m sure they wouldn’t represent the North American Man/Boy Love Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambla) as the ACLU has (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14432).

[Diraker]

LOL

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19729245/

A Hindu clergyman made history Thursday by offering the Senate's morning prayer, but only after police officers removed three shouting protesters from the visitors' gallery.

...

The male protester told an AP reporter, "we are Christians and patriots" before police handcuffed them and led them away.

...

For several days, the Mississippi-based American Family Association has urged its members to object to the prayer because Zed would be "seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god."

...

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the protest "shows the intolerance of many religious right activists. They say they want more religion in the public square, but it's clear they mean only their religion."

for a video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9To30Hz7A

Personally I think any invocation is silly but the hypocrisy coming from some of the religious is hilarious.

[Mutt]

Are you sure, them shouting "this is an abomination" simply weren't refering to his clothes? :P

[Diraker]

I dunno Mutt, but the Canadian supreme court gets my vote for the most ridiculous outfit award. Also, I think Jesus would have worn something similar although bright orange might not have been his first choice.

[Mutt]

lol you mean all the santa claus wannabes?

[Silver]

I can't fucking stand religious zealots.

[Diraker]

Rather than start a new thread I figure I'll just put this here. If you aren't interested, so be it. I just find it interesting when religionists get all bent out of shape because of something someone said ("Suck it, Jesus.") or did about their religion (chocolate Jesus, or mohammad cartoons).

Also the Jehova Witnesses came over today. And schools around here all have "god bless america" on their marque's. Never mind all the religious sentiments from 9/11 talk. So religion is on my mind.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22404898-23109,00.html


'Offensive' Jesus remarks cut from Emmys

US Comic Kathy Griffin's "offensive" remarks about Jesus at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards would be cut from a pre-taped telecast of the show, the US Academy of Television Arts and Sciences said today.

Griffin made the provocative comment on Saturday night as she took the stage of the Shrine Auditorium to collect her Emmy for best reality program for her Bravo channel show My Life on the D-List.

"A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus," an exultant Griffin said, holding up her statuette. "Suck it, Jesus. This award is my god now."

Asked about her speech backstage a short time later, an unrepentant Griffin said: "I hope I offended some people. I didn't want to win the Emmy for nothing."

The speech drew fire from a leading Roman Catholic group, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, which condemned Griffin's remarks as "obscene and blasphemous".

"It is a sure bet that if Griffin had said, 'Suck it, Mohammed', there would have been a very different reaction," Catholic league president Bill Donohue said in a statement posted on the group's website.

He called on TV academy president Dick Askin to denounce Griffin's "hate speech" and on Griffin to apologise.

An edited version of the Creative Arts Emmys is set to air on US cable television's E! Entertainment Network on Saturday, the night before the live Fox network broadcast of the main Primetime Emmy Awards.

"Kathy Griffin's offensive remarks will not be part of the E! telecast," an academy spokeswoman said today. An "abbreviated version" of her acceptance speech will air, instead, she said.

Griffin's reaction to the imbroglio, according to a statement issued by her publicist: "Am I the only Catholic left with a sense of humour?"

Dong had a couple of good thoughts about "offense".

In another article, Darrell White said, "How far are we going to take this? The First Amendment simply did not protect persons against being offended."

I think that sums up my thoughts on it. People who love being the victims really… offend me.

and

I read a quote my Matt Groening of Simpsons fame today that made me think of this.

"In America there's someone willing to pretend to be offended by everything and so we annoy people and that's part of the appeal."

Anyway, with that said, I do think that christianity is the brunt of many jokes, some are sorta mean spirited, or just bad misrepresentations, etc. And I think maybe people make way too much a deal about it. I mean why is it even news that some third rate comedian made a joke and some old school, grumpy old man got upset? btw the CNN article left out the phrase, "suck it, jesus" altogether...guess they are afraid of being intimidated by the Catholic League too.

[Konrad]

I was playing Medieval 2: Total War last night and conquered the pope and installed a papal puppet...it felt good.

[Diraker]

dude, that's blasphemous!

[Konrad]

I'm a protestant...those idol worshiping bastards damned me to hell centuries ago.

[Mutt]

lol, the sad part is thats the funniest thing Ive ever seen her do and its going to get zero air time.

[Infuriare]

lol, the sad part is thats the funniest thing Ive ever seen her do and its going to get zero air time.

wtf?

[Diraker]

reminds me of an Emo Philips joke (might before some folk's time)


Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

I found the actual words from an article here...http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1580452,00.html ...the article is actually relevant too, it's written by Emo Philips and about freedom of speech and how in England (and in AU) there were laws being concocted to limit speech (even jokes) about religion. I don't think these laws passed although I certainly don't follow other country's politics and policy making moves.

"Second, I learned why Ship of Fools was running the poll ... to shed light on the possible effect if the British government goes ahead with its intention to outlaw "offensive" religious jokes. Such a law would be a bad idea, for the simple reason that jokes are how we humans avoid violence. Jokes are our safety-release mechanism. Sure they can sometimes be offensive. So can burps. But if you ban them even worse results happen. And believe me, if someone tells a joke that truly offends, he or she will be punished for it. That's one area for sure where the government can take it easy and relax.

So I hope the ban never goes into effect. But in case it does, I had better seize this last glorious moment to tell the rest of my religious jokes. Here goes:

[Gnioss]

...I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.


ololololl

[Dong]

I've seen Kathy Griffin's show before (Roxie likes it) and offending people is a lot of her act. I believe one episode involved her using inappropriate language in front of children. I'm not surprised or offended by her joke.

Hate speech is one of the gayest (lol) things I've ever heard.

Everyone does pretend to be offended by everything - even Christians.

[Diraker]

Just an update on this.

So it turns out that the folk running the courthouse added 15 other pictures of "lawgivers" and a copy of the US Constitution. ACLU went ahead with their claim anyway and lost. However the judge did say that if the added pieces of art were not put in place he would have found the lone jesus display unconstitutional.

So yeah basically I was right, context matters. What's funny is that those who were in favor of the lone jesus portrait claim victory even though they were wrong.

[Dong]

Okay.

[Infuriare]

Just an update on this.

So it turns out that the folk running the courthouse added 15 other pictures of "lawgivers" and a copy of the US Constitution. ACLU went ahead with their claim anyway and lost. However the judge did say that if the added pieces of art were not put in place he would have found the lone jesus display unconstitutional.

So yeah basically I was right, context matters. What's funny is that those who were in favor of the lone jesus portrait claim victory even though they were wrong.

Really, both sides won. Jesus stays in the courtroom for the people that want him, and the people that don't get other diversions so they don't have to think of themselves going to hell all the time.

[Ablate]

Besides, whats wrong with letting them think they won?

[Diraker]

Yeah I agree. I can definitely live with a jesus painting in a courthouse as long as there's context along with it. I was just taking a jab at those who would argue that the sole jesus painting was a-ok. That the people involved knew that the sole jesus painting display wasn't going to stand up in court.

With that said I wonder why the ACLU went on with the suit even though the courthouse folk sort of capitulated. (and capitulate might be too strong of a word). But it seems to me that without the lawsuit the jesus painting would still be there, alone, without context.

Win win is good for everyone, IMO.

[Infuriare]

If the ACLU asked for context instead of removal, I think that there wouldn't even have been a lawsuit. I bet a good amount of people on the ACLU side think that it was not even a compromise. I did say that both sides won in this situation, but the more I think about it, both sides kinda lost.

[Konrad]

so they don't have to think of themselves going to hell all the time.

Haha, win!

[Diraker]

Well in the ACLU's brief to the court they talked all about the portrait's lack of context but their initial letter to the courthouse was a bit harsh and confrontational.

Both are online

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009402508230197346568%3Abrlxojc6fvs&q=slidell&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A0

(I don't know if the link will work, it's a search page link)

Again I will emphasize that the court added the other paintings because they knew they would lose their case if they hadn't. But I will agree that the manner in which the LAACLU went about sending the letter and going to the press was not a good approach. And with that said I've had issues with my town hall and religiosity and I was met with nothing but dickishness form the town hall. So this notion of folk playing nice is sort of a pipe dream, at least when regarding divisive issues like religion and government.

eta: It's also worth mentioning, regarding my town hall issue, that no one threatened a lawsuit but the ADF still butted in, offering their services to the town. Never mind the town supervisor being a total dick (including bold face lies and putting up more (and more elaborate) signs) about it. Civility is lost in many of these cases.

[Gnioss]

yay everyone goes home happy. Now we can kill this zombie thread.

[Diraker]

People mentioned that they were interested in how this turned out. :pevil:

[Gnioss]

THIS THREAD BROUGHT TO YOU BY
http://www.applefritter.com/images/zombie_1-9316.jpg
ZOMBIE THREAD -FIRST ANNUAL UNDEAD HALLOWEEN CONTENT RESURRECTION

[Slak]

I think this was by far the best of things they couldve done. More diversity FTW!

[Gnioss]

THANKS AGAIN!! LIGHTENING FAST POSTING!! A ++++++++++++