First!

If you want to argue incorporation of the 1st Amendment to States through the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause, then you must be consistent in your argument. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, therefore when incorporating the clause to the states one must incorporate it through the State Legislature, and when dealing with the cities one must incorporate it through the City Councils.

The Department of Education is an extension of the executive branch of government. It is controlled by the President, Governor, and Mayor at the various levels of government.

Therefore, the posting of a picture of Christ, by a school board, or for that matter a principle falls under the executive branch of government. As such, it is outside the boundaries of the Establishment Clause. The Constitution does not establish a separation of church and state, but insteads prohibits the Legislature from establishing or recognizing a religion, nowhere, does it prohibit the executive or for that matter the judiciary from recognizing religion.

Second!

This picture has hung in the schools for 30 plus years. Why suddenly is it a violation???

Third!

The picture is entitled the Head of Christ. Upon observation of the picture there is no halo representing the Christ of Christianity. Therefore if it can be proven that Christ is recognized by other religions, then the school is not establishing a religion. Since Christ is recognized as a prophet in the Islam religion, and as a Rabbi in the Jewish religion, it would seem that this picture is not a clear representation of just a single religion. Furthermore, atheism and agnosticism have been known to recognize Jesus Christ as a moral teacher. So it would seem that a portrait of Christ cannot be claimed to be a clear indicator of Chrisitianity, any one doing so should be immediately suspect of being intolerant to Christianity.

Finally!

Christmas is recognized as a federal holiday. The Government has sought to recognize the day that is celebrated as the birth of Christ as a holiday. As such, should not the students know who is the man behind the holiday? Although schools have seen fit to change the calendars to allow for a Winter Break, the holiday that allows the schools this time off remains Christmas. In either case, it would seem that Christ is recognized by the government, and until such time as the Court sees fit to rule Christmas as unconstitutional, well, there lies the dilemma.

dmk

The establishment clause does a LOT MORE than just restrict laws of the "legislatures"...
Because don't the legislatures SIGN THE PAYCHECK for the funding that goes to these schools?

If the legislature supplies the funding for the schools, and then the schools endorse a religion, then you have your link.
You can't backdoor your endorsement by insisting that it isn't legislation.


You assume too much in your question.
It's not "suddenly" a violation. It's always been a violation.
Just like segregation was always a violation before the courts finally ruled that it was.
Just like miscegenation was a violation of the constitution for about 100 years before SCOTUS finally acknowledged that it was.


It's funny how you claim it's not religious, but then claim religious intolerance if it's not allowed to stay.
Isn't that a little contradictory?

You can't claim the picture's purpose isn't religious and then claim religious intolerance if it is removed. You're arguing against your own point then.

And if no religious picture is allowed, then it's an equal application, isn't it?


If the purpose of the government recognizing Christmas is to recognize the birth of Christ, then it is also unconstitutional.
However, in looking at the situation, I think you have again assumed too much.
Why do you think that the government recognizes the day of Christmas because of the religious importance that Christians attach to it, instead of the secular treatment of it that non-Christians utilize?

Do you need a reminder of the history of "Christmas" and it's pagan roots? And how Christians have co-opted it for their own devices?

Now you tell me how a picture of Jesus on a school wall violates Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Alias, we've already been down a similar road like this.
I showed you a perfectly good web-site that explained it all, and you ignored it.
Sure. You lied and claimed you understood it. But the truth is that you ignored it as you demonstrated you had no clue what the web-site actually said.

http://members.tripod.com/candst/est01.html
This web-site has an excellent explanation of what "establishment" means.
Read it and we'll talk about it.
Ignore it and there is no point in responding to somebody who refuses to acknowledge answers to questions he is asked.

The "choice" is yours...

All your site did was confuse me and give me a headache. I don't call spin an explanation. I understand the clause perfectly well. The problem in my opinion are the judges who have to torture a perfectly clear phrase of the English language to make it say something else. I am not alone in the belief.

What delicious ridiculousness.
You admit that you don't understand what the web-site is simply saying, but then you label it as "spin"?

That is the truth of the matter on a LOT of these issues.
You DO NOT KNOW what we are actually saying, but you condemn it anyways without a thought.


Yes. You, a lay-person, understand that clause perfectly and its history (although you have proven that false) better than the lawyers and judges who actually apply the establishment clause.

I bet you know how to build bridges better than engineers and operate better than surgeons too, eh?

<end sarcasm>

You claim to understand the clause "perfectly well", but then admit that a simple explanation as to what the clause means CONFUSES YOU.
Quit with your lying already alias. NOBODY is buying it...

Tell me, what law was passed that caused the picture to be hung, NONE!!!! Furthermore, government monies are the money of the people that is paid in taxes, if the people were the ones who elected the school board, which approved the hanging in the first place it would seem that the people have spoken. Furthermore, funding the school is not funding the religion. No monies go to any church, instead they go to the school district for the education of the children. There is no correlation between the monies paid by the legislature and the hanging of the picture.

Assumption is just that, assuming. After thirty years there is this conflict, perhaps the reason for waiting is that the swing of the court has finally changed where the petitioners might actually win. Once again, correct me if I am wrong but did not the ACLU help to overcome segregation during the 60's, they have been around long enough to have had time to challenge this picture, so the question must be asked Why Now?


But once again you are not reading the argument. I stated that if the picture could be shown not to support a single religion then it would not be violative of the establishment clause. I clearly showed this to be the case, therefore, the only extention possible when a judge rules that the picture is a clear indication of supporting a religion, Christianity, is therefore intolerance toward that religion. No mention of any other religion, or of any secular purpose of the Head of Christ was made by the judge, he immediately ruled that it was a representation of Christianity. Furthermore, nowhere in the plaintiffs suit was any mention of the other religions made, there were no challenges on the representation of Christ as a prophet in Islam, nor as a Rabbi in the Jewish tradition, nor of Christ as a great moral teacher as held by some atheist and agnostics. The plaintiffs stated that the representation of the picture was an endorsement of Christianity, this is clear intolerance on the part of the plaintiffs toward a single religion. Outright Bigotry!!!!! Being upheld by the courts........Taney must be proud!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No I need no reminder, I fully recognize the scope of the Christians chosing the date of December 25th to coincide with the celebration of the winter solstice. However, the fact remains, Christmas, which is recognized as the birthday of Christ remains a federal holiday. However, even by your own argument it would seem that there is a clear secular purpose for the man, which one could reasonably then argue that if this is the case, then unless the court be hostile toward religion, there is not other motive for ordering the removal of the picture. Once again your own argument. If there is an importance outside of religion, a "secular" reason for the celebration of this man's birth, then by the same extension there most be a secular purpose to the man.

dmk

As I pointed out, the legislature provides funding for the school. The legislature passes legislation which provides funding for the school, and as such, it cannot be related to the endorsement of a religion.
Your other comments are irrelevant. The establishment clause doesn't care about whether funding going to the religion. It doesn't care whether or not "the people have spoken" to violate the first amendment. The legislature is forbidden from endorsing religion. Period.


It's an irrelevant question.
For all we know and care, they just now found out about it.
This line of thinking is entirely irrelevant to the actual issue. Neither of us can answer the question definitively, and the answer doesn't really matter to the point of issue.


This is a ploy frequently utilized by people to ignore the endorsement of religion. And it's a transparent one.
You scream about religious discrimination, yet you refuse to acknowledge the religious significance of the picture?
It does not matter if it was a "single religion" that was endorsed. It must be secular, showing preference for no religion.
The fact that Judeo-Christianity (/Islam) is the religion involved doesn't make the argument moot. It doesn't matter if it shows preference for a range of religions. Others are still excluded. And as such, it's unconstitutional.


And Easter, which is recognized for the holy powers of the Easter bunny, is also a federal holiday.
You are picking and choosing which focus to use, and ignoring the reality that the REASON Christmas is recognized is not because the government wants to recognize baby Jesus. That is how YOU use that holiday, and you are welcome to it.
Since the government does not use that holiday for that purpose, the rest is meaningless.


1) My argument on "Christmas" wasn't about "secular purpose for the man".
It was to point out that there is a secular purpose for DECEMBER 25TH.
Don't confuse the two.

2) You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim that it's religious discrimination to remove the picture, but not a religious purpose for wanting it there. ESPECIALLY considering your last argument...


The government does not celebrate Christmas to celebrate Christ.
The government puts up Christmas trees. It puts up Christmas lights.
CHRISTIANS put up mangers on governmental property. NOT the government.

First, it is not exactly the due process clause of the 14th Amendment which extends the first amendment to the states. It is this:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

The "privledges or immunites of citizens of the United States" refers to privledges or immunities granted by the federal government. This includes the privledges and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution, along with the privledges and immunities guaranteed by bills passed by the legislature.

The first amendment prohibits federal Congress from violating some rights. Federal Executive and Judicial branches can't even make laws, so it was not important to specify their prohibition from doing those things.

In the fourteenth amendment, you can clearly see that the "privledges and immunities" of the people are extended to the states. Among these privledges and immunities are the freedom of religion rights guaranteed in the first amendment. The state cannot violate these privledges and immunities.

You may have been thinking that we should apply the first amendment exactly as it is written to the states, thus only preventing state Congress from violating the first amendment while allowing the state Executive to do so. However, that is not what the fourteenth amendment says. The fourteenth amendment says that the privledges and immunities are applied to the state, not to only Congress. (Remember that states don't even necessarily have to have a Congress. State Constitutions could set up whatever government form they wanted. As it happens, all states decided to set up a government similar to the Federal government.)

You may next be thinking, "Ah, but the fourteenth amendment says that no law can be passed which violates the freedom of religion. But no law was passed which put this portrait up in the schools, therefore the fourteenth amendment is not violated." However, this thinking is incorrect, for it is state law which decides who has the power to control what goes up in schools, and that state law could never have given an administrator the power to violate the freedoms of religion guaranteed in the first amendment.

It has always been a violation, however no one really cared enough to challenge it, and at many times, the Supreme Court may not have decided to rule it unconstitutional, even though it certainly is. Not every Supreme Court has ruled according to what the Constitution says.

This is all very true. However, by your logic, Christ is a figure important to many religions, not only Christianity. In this case, the government could be respecting multiple religions, not only Christianity. This is just as bad as recognizing one religion. Remember that not every person's religion recognizes Christ, and so long as that is the case, it is innappropriate for the government to put up pictures of Christ.

Furthermore, even though other religions recognize Christ in some fashion, the effect of putting up this picture is that it appears the school endorses Christianity. And that is the real problem here: the school is sort of coercing children to worship Christianity.

Some people don't want to send their kids to a school where they'll be coerced in any fashion to believe a religion different than their parents' religion. Public schools should be for everyone and should not express their approval of any religion(s) because doing so alienates people of different religions. They should try their best to accomodate the beliefs of everyone, and a school which puts up a picture of Christ is definitely not trying to accomodate the beliefs of everyone equally.

Christmas has become day of celebration for most Americans of all religions. Maybe they think of Christ on that day. Maybe they think of Santa. Maybe they think of buying gifts for people. That's up to the individual. But I do think it's good to have national holidays, times when employers and schools are obligated to offer extra vacation time because I do think people deserve vacations. And I have no problem with making those national holidays fall on the times when the most common religions have their significant religious days. I mean, why not put our holidays on those days?

Just don't take the extra step. Don't say "Well, you don't mind the government declaring holidays on our religious days, so you must not mind the government expressing its preference for our religion either." I do mind the government expressing a preference. So the holidays are fine with me so long as the government isn't promoting a religion or religions.

That meaning of Christmas is what it is now, though. It was made a federal holiday in the first place to recognize Christ, same with Easter, as 99.9% (possibly a slight exaggeration?) celebrated them and were Christians when the country was founded, and for a couple decades after that (and I don't think there were many non-Christian citizens for a while, which is what counts). Only recentlyt has Christmas taken on a more commercial aspect to it, and even then it's mostly in the US. Over in Europe, Christmas is still very low-key and more family-oriented (surprising).

The main problem I see with this Jesus picture is if it doesn't actually show jesus in a religious light (his head, sans-halo), then who cares? It's just kind of...there. It doesn't coerce anyone to believe in him, imho. If it's there and wasn't a problem before, why bother now? Speeding is illegal, but nobody really cares about that. Many things are illegal that nobody really cares about because they really don't matter. It's stupid that people are fighting so hard to get rid of it, and equally stupid that people are willing to fight even harder to keep it.

I just see the whole thing as more of a non-issue than anything else...If it's been there for a while and isn't do anything, why waste the resources to get rid of it? If the debate was about it being hung up....then I could understand it being prevented from going up in the first place.