School Gives Up Defending Jesus Picture
This was the smart move because this painting of Jesus hung all alone rather than as part of some larger display which might be used to justify its presence. The school board may still have to pay the legal costs of the groups which brought the lawsuits; this is likely to lead to all sorts of complaints from right-wing groups which don't think the government should ever have to pay the legal costs of violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
“If we do decide to utilize the reproduction again, it will be used in a context that appropriately reflects the secular purpose of the hanging,” the board wrote in its resolution.
Source: Gazette-Mail
This sounds like they recognize the fact that the painting was not being presented in a reasonably secular context. I have to wonder, though, what “secular purpose” they think the painting had — or if they are just saying that just in case they need it for future lawsuits?
[School board member Mike Queen] said the person who stole the painting might be affiliated with one of the civil liberties groups. “They knew the strength of the case rested on the fact that the portrait had been there for 30 years,” he said.
It seems unlikely that it was stolen by a supporter of the painting or even someone who doesn’t care — so the chances that it was stolen by someone who opposes its presence seem pretty good. However, accusing someone affiliated with the civil liberties groups is a pretty serious accusation and I doubt Queen can support this.
The fact that the painting was there for 30 years should not have been a good enough reason for a judge to decide that it was constitutional. It is true that some judges, including a few on the Supreme Court, have begun to impose a statue of limitations on the First Amendment unfortunately. Notice, though, that this was apparently the only think Mike Queen could come up with to claim that the painting would have been found constitutional. If age is the best argument they had going for it, then it doesn't sound like it really did have a "secular purpose" after all.
Even though this should have been the end of it, someone got the bright idea to put up a mirror on the spot. That doesn’t sound so bad, right? Well, they included a plaque with the inscription “To know the will of God is the highest of all wisdoms. The love of Jesus Christ lives in each of us.” Who thought that this would be less constitutionally problematic than a painting of Jesus? The school realized how dumb this was and took the plaque off, but some Christians are annoyed by that:
“That inscription really blindsided everybody,’’ said Harrison County Schools Superintendent Carl Friebel, who learned of it from news reports. “It was the board’s understanding that the mirror was to be presented to the new principal, Mark DeFazio, as a show of respect. No inscription with Jesus or God mentioned in it was discussed.’’ ...
The mirror was presented to the school by student members of the Christian Freedom Alliance, an organization that raised money to pay the school board’s legal fees in a federal lawsuit brought by two civil liberties groups that want to remove religious articles from Harrison County public schools. The groups argued that the painting endorses Christianity as the school’s official religion.
Source: Charleston Gazette
With a name like “Christian Freedom Alliance,” what are the chances that they knew exactly what they were doing by including that plaque with that message? What are the chances that their intention all along was to get the government to provide an endorsement of their religion in the public school?
After learning the plaque had been removed, Queen said removing the plaque infringes on the rights of the students. ... “But if the lawyers say take it down, I guess we have to take it down. But at some point we have to stop apologizing for being Christians and step up to the plate and do the right thing.’’
Here we go with that tired old claim that when the state doesn't endorse or promote Christianity, then the rights of Christians are being infringed upon. That's absurd — since when did Christians obtain a civil right to have the government promote their religion? I haven't seen the state endorse or promote Hinduism any time lately, so have the rights of Hindus been violated all these years? Of course not — no sane person could conclude such a thing. What does this say, though, about people who think basically the same thing in the context of Christianity?
Religion in Public Schools:
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment