If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   The obvious solution to this problem is to hang up a portrait of Mohammed   (foxnews.com) divider line 66
    More: Obvious, Ohio, Freedom From Religion Foundation, activists  
•       •       •

7536 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 1:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 03:28:50 PM  

durbnpoisn: AliceBToklasLives: darian1919: KangTheMad: The obvious solution is to hang up a more realistic portrait of Jesus

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 378x500]

That could be both Mohammed and Jesus! On a serious note, why not display it inside with other historical items from the school and explain the significance in a plaque. Hopefully the historical note isn't, its been displayed since the 1940s. At least then it would be educational

Freedom from religion folks really ought to promote the teaching of religion in school as an historical subject. Kids go through public school knowing nothing about Christianity, Islam, etc. except the bullshiat they (typically) learn in church. Separation of church and state is all fine and good, but religion is still part of our cultural heritage and we shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist.


I agree. I think that being a radical atheist is no better than being a radical religious person. If you really want more people to open their eyes to ahteism, it actually makes more sense to teach them about it. Let them decide for themselves. Trying to sweep relegion under the carpet altogether is doing everyone on both sides a great disservice.


True, but trying to force it upon others as fact (who's to say your religion is the right one?) is not the way to go. There needs to be a critical thinking discussion on this, but both sides get emotional and the rest of us enjoy the popcorn.
 
2013-01-09 03:30:03 PM  
This is where I miss the days where you could summon Bevits to a thread like this in 6 seconds.
 
2013-01-09 03:35:24 PM  

durbnpoisn: This is where I miss the days where you could summon Bevits to a thread like this in 6 seconds.


I don't miss him at all.
 
2013-01-09 03:39:37 PM  

Strik3r: Mock26: 11thmetal: Could a fellow farker enlighten me as to why the First Amendment always gets invoked in cases like this?

This is the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now as I see it:
1.) No law is being established. It's just a picture the school wants to keep up.

2.) This case has nothing to do with Congress.

Can someone explain to me what is being violated here?

Putting up a picture of jesus can be perceived as promoting christianity above all other religions. It is in essence saying that you are to practice any religion you want, but we would prefer it if it was christianity. Now, whether or not this was the actual intent behind such an image is irrelevant, because some people can perceive it that way. And, over the years the Supreme Court has ruled that schools are in essence part of the State government, therefore they cannot promote any one religion over another. As for Congress, States are forbidden from doing certain things that Congress is forbidden from doing. So, if Congress cannot promote one religion over the other then State governments cannot do so, either.

That really seems like BS.

If the opportunity is available to all religions, then how is the state "promoting one over the other" or showing favortism?


So you think the school should put up pictures of Buddha, Mohammad, and so on?  That's the solution?
 
2013-01-09 03:42:11 PM  
I really don't like the freedom from religion foundation.

/from the limited information in the article they're probably right about this one though
 
2013-01-09 03:52:41 PM  
Why not a poster of one of the Great Old Ones?
www.blackgate.com

Cthulhu here, shows his love for Earth as he rabbit-farks a rock.
 
2013-01-09 03:59:46 PM  
"Leave it up! Who cares what the 1st amendment says?"
"Leave my guns alone! It's my 2nd amendment right!"

Who would have thought conservatives would pick and choose the parts of a document they wished to abide by. Shocking.
 
2013-01-09 04:02:06 PM  
It took me a while, but I got it. Nice one, subby.
 
2013-01-09 04:38:28 PM  
b>Lev_Astov: It took me a while, but I got it. Nice one, subby.

I'm sure they don't have problems of pictures of Mohammed hanging in Muslim schools.
 
2013-01-09 04:59:19 PM  

ciberido: Strik3r: Mock26: 11thmetal: Could a fellow farker enlighten me as to why the First Amendment always gets invoked in cases like this?

This is the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now as I see it:
1.) No law is being established. It's just a picture the school wants to keep up.

2.) This case has nothing to do with Congress.

Can someone explain to me what is being violated here?

Putting up a picture of jesus can be perceived as promoting christianity above all other religions. It is in essence saying that you are to practice any religion you want, but we would prefer it if it was christianity. Now, whether or not this was the actual intent behind such an image is irrelevant, because some people can perceive it that way. And, over the years the Supreme Court has ruled that schools are in essence part of the State government, therefore they cannot promote any one religion over another. As for Congress, States are forbidden from doing certain things that Congress is forbidden from doing. So, if Congress cannot promote one religion over the other then State governments cannot do so, either.

That really seems like BS.

If the opportunity is available to all religions, then how is the state "promoting one over the other" or showing favortism?

So you think the school should put up pictures of Buddha, Mohammad, and so on?  That's the solution?


Only of representatives of those religions want them up there, ya. why not? You got a problem with that?

In fact I think "religious studies" (where kids learn about ALL religions and non-believing theologies) would probably be a good thing for them to learn. Why not expose them to ALL the options?
 
2013-01-09 05:09:53 PM  
Y'know, my dev team works like that superintendent, too.

"We can't fix that - we know it's wrong, but we wrote that code a long time ago, before we agreed it was wrong, and so it's grandfathered into the product. Customers will just have to accept that it's wrong and doesn't work."

What an asshole. "It's wrong, but we're grandfathering it in, so whatcha gonna do?" Can you imagine that argument applied elsewhere?

"Yes, the laws over the last century indicate that whipping minorities for misdemeanors is wrong, but as we have a good deal of historical literature describing the process, the items used, and the scenarios in which whipping was applied historically, we believe there's enough historical precedent to continue whipping minorities for misdemeanors. Besides, we had all the whips commissioned from the same guy that did the whips for Mapplethorpe's art, and that was expensive - we certainly can't stop using them, at least not until they wear out or become too clogged with flesh to continue using."

/hyperbole rocks
 
2013-01-09 05:11:28 PM  

Strik3r: ciberido: Strik3r: Mock26: 11thmetal: Could a fellow farker enlighten me as to why the First Amendment always gets invoked in cases like this?

This is the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now as I see it:
1.) No law is being established. It's just a picture the school wants to keep up.

2.) This case has nothing to do with Congress.

Can someone explain to me what is being violated here?

Putting up a picture of jesus can be perceived as promoting christianity above all other religions. It is in essence saying that you are to practice any religion you want, but we would prefer it if it was christianity. Now, whether or not this was the actual intent behind such an image is irrelevant, because some people can perceive it that way. And, over the years the Supreme Court has ruled that schools are in essence part of the State government, therefore they cannot promote any one religion over another. As for Congress, States are forbidden from doing certain things that Congress is forbidden from doing. So, if Congress cannot promote one religion over the other then State governments cannot do so, either.

That really seems like BS.

If the opportunity is available to all religions, then how is the state "promoting one over the other" or showing favortism?

So you think the school should put up pictures of Buddha, Mohammad, and so on?  That's the solution?

Only of representatives of those religions want them up there, ya. why not? You got a problem with that?

In fact I think "religious studies" (where kids learn about ALL religions and non-believing theologies) would probably be a good thing for them to learn. Why not expose them to ALL the options?


Man, I can't wait for the portrait of L. Ron Hubbard to be hung up along with Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and Luke Skywalker. It'll rock!

See, "all or none" means "none" is really an option. "None" makes more sense than "all", because the second you leave someone out, you're sued. "None" ensures everyone's equally satisfied or offended.

"One" is right out.
 
2013-01-09 06:09:19 PM  

Strik3r: So you think the school should put up pictures of Buddha, Mohammad, and so on?  That's the solution?

Only of representatives of those religions want them up there, ya. why not? You got a problem with that?

In fact I think "religious studies" (where kids learn about ALL religions and non-believing theologies) would probably be a good thing for them to learn. Why not expose them to ALL the options?


No, actually I think we more or less agree.  It wasn't a rhetorical question; I was asking because I was genuinely unsure what your position was.
 
2013-01-09 06:11:58 PM  

FormlessOne: Strik3r: ciberido: Strik3r: Mock26: 11thmetal: Could a fellow farker enlighten me as to why the First Amendment always gets invoked in cases like this?

This is the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now as I see it:
1.) No law is being established. It's just a picture the school wants to keep up.

2.) This case has nothing to do with Congress.

Can someone explain to me what is being violated here?

Putting up a picture of jesus can be perceived as promoting christianity above all other religions. It is in essence saying that you are to practice any religion you want, but we would prefer it if it was christianity. Now, whether or not this was the actual intent behind such an image is irrelevant, because some people can perceive it that way. And, over the years the Supreme Court has ruled that schools are in essence part of the State government, therefore they cannot promote any one religion over another. As for Congress, States are forbidden from doing certain things that Congress is forbidden from doing. So, if Congress cannot promote one religion over the other then State governments cannot do so, either.

That really seems like BS.

If the opportunity is available to all religions, then how is the state "promoting one over the other" or showing favortism?

So you think the school should put up pictures of Buddha, Mohammad, and so on?  That's the solution?

Only of representatives of those religions want them up there, ya. why not? You got a problem with that?

In fact I think "religious studies" (where kids learn about ALL religions and non-believing theologies) would probably be a good thing for them to learn. Why not expose them to ALL the options?

Man, I can't wait for the portrait of L. Ron Hubbard to b ...


upload.wikimedia.org
I call live with "all" even if it means Luke Skywalker, Bob, and His Divine Noodliness.
 
2013-01-09 06:52:22 PM  

KangTheMad: The obvious solution is to hang up a more realistic portrait of Jesus


yumeoidaku.info

In Ohio? Not gonna happen. They're all about mythical Aryan Jesus over there.
 
2013-01-09 10:40:35 PM  
The school portrait of Jesus in question:

www.theblaze.com

Boring! Improvements?

www.damnlol.com

lukehumbrecht.com

i.imgur.com

www.lolbrary.com

lukehumbrecht.com

25.media.tumblr.com
 
Displayed 16 of 66 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report