Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Some Guy)   ACLU sues to have a portrait of Jesus removed from a principal's office, but doesn't mind the statues of Buddha in the classrooms. "They're very selective about what they consider a violation of the Establishment Clause"   (opinionjournal.com) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

695 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Nov 2006 at 12:08 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



165 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2006-11-17 10:39:13 AM  
The only thing that surprises me is that there is a Jewish family in Bridgeport, WV.
 
2006-11-17 10:39:19 AM  
What is that teaching our children about obesity, though? Jesus had definition and endurance. The man was a carpenter AND a follower of the Mediterranean diet.
 
2006-11-17 10:42:54 AM  
And allah forbid you mention what religion is most prone to produce followers that like to blow themselves up on busses.
 
2006-11-17 10:43:25 AM  
The important thing is that this article was fair and balanced and included as much pertinent info as was available.

Oh, wait. It's opinionjournal.com and no one asked the ACLU about the statues. Yet they "don't mind" them. Fascinating. It's almost as if the author and submitter pulled something from their collective asses. Do yourselves a favor and learn how America's legal system works, mmkay?
 
2006-11-17 10:43:29 AM  
WSJ, that great bastion of liberal thinking, couldn't have an agenda here. Unpossible
 
2006-11-17 10:44:43 AM  
submitter: "They're very selective about what they consider a violation of the Establishment Clause"

I hope so, if they stop persecuting the Christians exclusively then I'll stop donating so fast it will make their heads spin.
 
2006-11-17 10:50:25 AM  
The Jesus painting should be removed. And so should the Buddhas. But the ACLU is only going to go after what the complaining party seeks. It's not their job to scour the school for every religious icon.

/card-carrying member
 
2006-11-17 10:50:29 AM  
submitter: ACLU sues to have a portrait of Jesus removed from a principal's office

No, Smitty. From TFA, the portrait hangs OUTSIDE the principal's office. Not that that really matters, but that would suggest to me that it was in a public area, thereby suggesting it being a school display, and not a private display.

Nevermind the fact that this is the WSJ, and i'd like to see the real facts in the case.

Bad Smitty. No biscuit.
 
2006-11-17 10:50:30 AM  
I think the ACLU's true value is to perpetuate the obsurd. That keeps everyone on their toes.
 
2006-11-17 10:50:40 AM  
Mordant: I hope so, if they stop persecuting the Christians exclusively then I'll stop donating so fast it will make their heads spin.

I'm sure your donation makes a big impact on their budget.
 
2006-11-17 10:52:05 AM  
You peeps know why christians hang those pictures of Jesus up, right?

It only takes one nail.
 
2006-11-17 10:52:50 AM  
And the fact that one religion actively tries to convert everyone, while the other can technically be practiced by anyone of any faith...
 
2006-11-17 10:53:18 AM  
You peeps know why christians hang those pictures of Jesus up, right?
It only takes one nail.


So Jesus walks into a hotel, hands three nails to the clerk and says "Can you put me up for the night?"
 
2006-11-17 10:53:47 AM  
FTA: But if Democrats want to shore up support among religious voters, passing the Public Expression of Religion Act might go a long way toward helping them.

Memo to democrats soon to be in power: If you pass the "Public Suppression of non-Christian Civil Rights Act", I will go third party.

Nothing like taking away the possibility of challenging any un-constitutional display by making it financially impossible to give right-wing Christian loonies a hard-on.
 
2006-11-17 10:54:27 AM  
GaryPDX: I think the ACLU's true value is to perpetuate the obsurd. That keeps everyone on their toes.

You know, I see your mouth moving, but I don't hear any words.
 
2006-11-17 10:55:00 AM  
GaryPDX: I think the ACLU's true value is to perpetuate the obsurd


Could be...they seem to have mastered it, eh?
 
2006-11-17 10:55:31 AM  
2006-11-17 10:53:18 AM kronicfeld [TotalFark]

You peeps know why christians hang those pictures of Jesus up, right?
It only takes one nail.

So Jesus walks into a hotel, hands three nails to the clerk and says "Can you put me up for the night?"


hahaha...yep...
 
2006-11-17 10:56:56 AM  
HulkHands: And the fact that one religion actively tries to convert everyone, while the other can technically be practiced by anyone of any faith...

Even if true, making value judgments about religious faiths and tailoring the law accordingly is precisely what the Establishment Clause is designed to prevent. It's fine for us to do it, but the government and the courts should not do that (though they certainly have with cases of animal sacrifice, use of various controlled substances, polygamy, etc.)
 
2006-11-17 10:57:47 AM  
Puppeteer_23: Nevermind the fact that this is the WSJ, and i'd like to see the real facts in the case.

I know. Google is very difficult. It's okay.

A quick search for "Bridgeport High School ACLU" revealed:

A press release from the WV chapter of the ACLU

Another one

An article quoting the Jewish man

Go team!

The Christian Coalition's take on it (halfway down)

Stop the ACLU's take on it

The other suing organization (Americans United)

A blog entry with updates on the case

A settlement offer by the two organizations to the school
 
2006-11-17 10:57:56 AM  
ThatDevGuy: I'm sure your donation makes a big impact on their budget.

About as much impact as your posts make here.
 
2006-11-17 11:00:36 AM  
Well, we can't ban one religion, that would be unconstitutional.

What about banning them all? Equal Protection...right?
 
2006-11-17 11:01:21 AM  
BigTuna: About as much impact as your posts make here.

I would not expect Drew to cave to my demands if I should threaten to withdraw my $5 a month, either.
 
2006-11-17 11:01:42 AM  
Nabb1
I suppose so. Although one could argue that Buddha statues push philosophy and not religion. And probably the same goes for crosses and the like... in other words, I have no idea.
 
2006-11-17 11:02:35 AM  
What a slanted, dishonest, illiberal, bullshiat hit piece from the WSJ. It's not illegal because it's been hanging there a long time?! That's his argument? You can fix it by having a wall of religious icons?! In a public school?! Seriously, shiat like this makes my head hurt.

I love these wingnuts' version of Jesus. He's the Son of God but is apparently so powerless that he needs to have his portrait in public schools or he can't save the children. Won't somebody think of the children?!

I swear, dimbulbs who want to mix religion and public education don't get the point of either one.
 
2006-11-17 11:03:10 AM  
HulkHands: Although one could argue that Buddha statues push philosophy and not religion.

I'm pretty sure that both the Buddha statue and the Jesus picture are inanimate objects which are not pushing anything.
 
2006-11-17 11:03:37 AM  
elchip: In all seriousness, this kind of crap gives the ACLU a bad name and distracts from the genuine good stuff that they try to do.

Indeed.

GaryPDX: Well, we can't ban one religion, that would be unconstitutional.

What about banning them all? Equal Protection...right?


It's that oft overlooked part of the First Amendment that forbids the government from restricting the "free exercise" of religion.
 
2006-11-17 11:04:10 AM  
GaryPDX: What about banning them all? Equal Protection...right?

It's cool with me. What's so wrong with individual faith? fark religions. They cause nothing but problems.
 
2006-11-17 11:05:35 AM  
filth: What a slanted, dishonest, illiberal, bullshiat hit piece from the WSJ.

It's almost as bad as the Fark headline.
 
2006-11-17 11:06:06 AM  
HulkHands: I suppose so. Although one could argue that Buddha statues push philosophy and not religion.

Yeah, I tend to agree. Buddhism is a little fuzzier, but it does contain heavy elements of spirituality. Again, these are fine points to debate in theological and philosphical settings, but debating it in the courts is a BAD IDEA.
 
2006-11-17 11:06:39 AM  
Here's a great example of why this is a problem:

McKenzie told Church & State that baser solutions were offered within the community to resolve the battle.

"I've heard a lot of anti-Semitism from the community," she said. "I've heard other parents suggest that the problem would go away if that Jewish guy would put his kids in another school."

McKenzie said the issue is becoming "religiously divisive." She described Bridgeport as small, but increasingly religiously diverse.


But that picture's really no problem, right? I mean, geez, it's not like any other religion would feel like it takes precedence over another in this country. Minorities are completely equal in race and religion, right?

Thank Eris the founders were smarter than most of the current folks.
 
2006-11-17 11:06:47 AM  
2006-11-17 11:01:01 AM elchip [TotalFark]

GaryPDX: I think the ACLU's true value is to perpetuate the absurd.

In all seriousness, this kind of crap gives the ACLU a bad name and distracts from the genuine good stuff that they try to do.


But isn't that really the point? The try to cover all the bases..especially when it's the obsurd.
 
2006-11-17 11:07:00 AM  
filth: I swear, dimbulbs who want to mix religion and public education don't get the point of either one.

Dimbulbs who want to mix religion and political affiliation also don't get the point of either one.
 
2006-11-17 11:09:19 AM  
elchip: In all seriousness, this kind of crap gives the ACLU a bad name and distracts from the genuine good stuff that they try to do.

No offense, but you just couldn't be more wrong. There's a reason that the First Amendment came first, and there's a reason that the Establishment Clause is the first part of the amendment. The whole country was founded by people trying to get away from the kind of thinking that makes people hang Jesus pictures in public schools.
 
2006-11-17 11:09:34 AM  
Puppeteer_23: Thank Eris the founders were smarter than most of the current folks.

The founders were just more afraid of being beheaded.

Cause, you know, that happened back then if you were the wrong religion.

Today you, um, might get somebody knocking on your door once or twice a month. Or like, teased. Or maybe, like, your kids can see a picture of Jesus and instantly begin worshipping him.

Awful, what people do these days.
 
2006-11-17 11:10:29 AM  
ThatDevGuy: I'm pretty sure that both the Buddha statue and the Jesus picture are inanimate objects which are not pushing anything.

GaryPDX: What about banning them all? Equal Protection...right?

From ThatDevGuy's "press release" link:

"In a victory for religious freedom, a federal judge approved a settlement in which the Harrison County Board of Education agreed not to post any more unconstitutional displays endorsing religion. The settlement ensures school officials will neither restore the portrait nor a replica to the school nor post unconstitutional pictures, paintings, posters or other items with religious content."
 
2006-11-17 11:11:00 AM  
filth: There's a reason that the First Amendment came first

Yep. It's cause some bloke (George Mason) decided it was a great idea in Virginia, and the Congress that wrote the Bill of Rights just kind of copied his stuff.
 
2006-11-17 11:11:52 AM  
A. Just a point of clarification: the portrait was hung outside the principal's office, not in it.

B. The suit was generated as a result of a specific complaint(s) lodged about the portrait by Sklar and McKenzie. Clearly, those two did not include the buddha statue in their compalint, and the ACLU did not consequently include it in their suit. Did anyone file a complaint with the ACLU regarding the Buddha statue? And the ACLU is choosing to ignore the complaint? Is that what happened, or did opponents just happen to notice that there are other religious icons located in the school, and since they weren't mentioned in the suit it somehow negates the complaint?
 
2006-11-17 11:12:18 AM  
2006-11-17 11:09:34 AM ThatDevGuy [TotalFark]

Puppeteer_23: Thank Eris the founders were smarter than most of the current folks.

The founders were just more afraid of being beheaded.

Cause, you know, that happened back then if you were the wrong religion.


Not much has changed in the world.
 
2006-11-17 11:13:27 AM  
ThatDevGuy: I know. Google is very difficult. It's okay.

Hey now, most of those sites are blocked due to me being at work. Yeah, I know. ;)

Anyway, what I could read seems pretty straightforward. Big-ass jesus picture in prominent position in school, lawsuit filed after numerous requests, ACLU steps in as it should, etc...

The whole Buddha thing is referred to briefly by the stop the ACLU site, but doesn't give any details, so again, i'm cautious in judging without knowing the context.

Bottom line is, sounds like if you believe in the constitutional separation of church and state, you'll most likely approve of the lawsuit, if you don't, you won't.

How's this different from every other hate the ACLU thread we get on here?

Enh.
 
2006-11-17 11:14:08 AM  
willywanka: or did opponents just happen to notice that there are other religious icons located in the school

...and then completely ignore that the settlement included the unmentioned other icons.
 
2006-11-17 11:14:23 AM  
b...b...b...but Buddha!


/sorry, couldn't resist...
 
2006-11-17 11:15:46 AM  
ThatDevGuy: Today you, um, might get somebody knocking on your door once or twice a month. Or like, teased. Or maybe, like, your kids can see a picture of Jesus and instantly begin worshipping him.

Awful, what people do these days.


Why does the slippery slope argument only apply to non-religious rights?

Why don't we see just how much religious freedom we'd have in this country if we didn't have the principle of separation of church and state?

We could use Mississippi as a trial, as nobody worth anything lives there anyway. Make it the official Christian state, and see how long it'd take for the death penalty to start being applied for using birth control, etc.

Slippery slope, mother farker, slippery slope.
 
2006-11-17 11:16:07 AM  
ArcadianRefugee: ...and then completely ignore that the settlement included the unmentioned other icons.

sorry, confused: the suit mentioned the buddha statues, or the resulting settlement included the mention/removal/preservation of the statues?
 
2006-11-17 11:16:48 AM  
Puppeteer_23: Bottom line is, sounds like if you believe in the constitutional separation of church and state, you'll most likely approve of the lawsuit, if you don't, you won't.

Not entirely.

It's not quite so black and white. There are also people (elchip and myself) who believe in said separation, but don't believe that this is an instance of it. I'm perfectly fine with the Buddha statue and elements in the classroom, as well as the Jesus photo outside the principal's office.

There's not enough information about the portrait or the office. Did the office open into a hallway or other public access area, or, like my high school, was it a room within a self-contained administration area? Did the portrait belong to the current principal or a past principal? If so, did he choose the location in which to hang the portrait? Was it donated to the school by some wealthy benefactor and displayed with his name on it with thanks for the donation? Did any students (not parents - they don't attend the school) feel that their religious beliefs had been influenced in any way by the portrait?
 
2006-11-17 11:18:51 AM  
hey, anyone check if buddha is part of a classroom display about learning about teh religion or a country that practices bhuddism?
 
2006-11-17 11:20:12 AM  
elchip: I was referring to the ACLU's image in the public eye. Because of things like this, every time the ACLU tries to do anything, a good portion of the country automatically says "Ugh, the ACLU..."

I'm also on the fence as to whether or not this is a violation if the first amendment.


Defending separation of church and state isn't a popularity contest. Look at it this way, even if the ACLU only picked 100% clear winners (though, this one seems pretty obviously unconstitutional), there'd still be the same farkers making the same arguments.

The reason the whole thing is in the Constitution is to protect the minority. By definition, it's not going to be too popular now, is it?

Why do so many people hate the Constitution?
 
2006-11-17 11:20:45 AM  
elchip I was referring to the ACLU's image in the public eye. Because of things like this, every time the ACLU tries to do anything, a good portion of the country automatically says "Ugh, the ACLU..."

Yeah, I understood your point, but I strongly disagree that this case is less important that the ACLU's other work. If a good portion of the country disagrees with me, then they're free to be wrong. It's America after all.

I'm also on the fence as to whether or not this is a violation if the first amendment.

Then hit the books. This isn't even a close call. (not trying to pick a fight, but the ACLU is right on this one)
 
2006-11-17 11:21:33 AM  
Puppeteer_23: You know, I see your mouth moving, but I don't hear any words.

That must happen a lot to you.
 
2006-11-17 11:22:25 AM  
Puppeteer_23: Defending separation of church and state isn't a popularity contest.

I wouldn't say that the ACLU has defended separation so much as produced it.

The reason the whole thing is in the Constitution is to protect the minority.

It's actually to protect the people who, like I said, were beheaded in Europe for refusing to follow the same religious beliefs as the government, whether they were a minority or not. See this one, for a good example. (While that was a long time ago, it was actually about the same time before the first Congress as the first Congress was before today.)
 
2006-11-17 11:23:29 AM  
willywanka: the suit mentioned the buddha statues, or the resulting settlement included the mention/removal/preservation of the statues?

I don't know about the suit, but the settlement, according to the WV ACLU (according to the press release linked to by ThatDevGuy clearly states that "no religious iconography" shall be displayed.

Bear in mind the press release is date October 20, 2006, while the linked OpinionJournal article is dated November 17, 2006.
 
Displayed 50 of 165 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.