So if a child puts up the picture, you are okay with that? Great.

Nor does your spelling

Ah, yes of course. Then we are in agreement on this one, I think.

In what type of school does a CHILD get to pick out the pictures that hang on the wall?

This is common sense.
If the kid wants to hang a picture, he hangs it IN HIS ROOM.
Or asks his dad and hangs it on the fridge.
Or for all I care, ask his dad and paint it on the garage.

But the point is that the child DOES NOT have a claim to what should and should not be hanging on the school wall.

I was thinking like maybe in art class a student might draw a picture of Jesus. Then all of the kids have their artwork hung up in the hall or something. Did your school do anything like that?

That's what people on forums always say when they don't have an answer.

Probably. It's been so long that I can't remember grade school except for miss Gunderschatt. I was in love with her.

Apologies Jaxian.
I didn't realize we were leaving the story behind to work on hypothetical scenarios. I assumed we were still in the context of the originating article.

To your example, I would think it a serious problem if the student weren't allowed to hang his picture of Jesus along with the rest of the students.

If the teacher TOLD the students to paint Jesus, that would be something else entirely though....

For a third time, you have FAILED to show any evidence that the mere hanging of this picture in a school somehow is linked to the funding of religion by the legislature. Your argument is that because the legislature funds school there cannot be any religion in the schools. Well under this broad and utterly futile argument, any school whose library contains a Bible, a Torah, a Quran, or any book on Christ, or for that matter Dr Martin Luther King is now suspect. You have failed in a way, shape or manner to show that the funded received by this school in any way goes to fund religion either directly or indirectly. Your argument is without merit and without any facts to back your claim. All you have done is three times said that the legislature funds the schools, which is does, but have offer no evidence of any kind to show that it is funding religion. As such the funding by the legislature is not an issue.

It is not an irrelevant question. Part of any proceeding is to understand the motive behind the claim. This is needed to show and justify any plaintiff's claim of harm. This question should have been answered first!

I in no means fail to acknowledge the religious significance, however, you fail recognize the secular significance. You see Christ an immediately equate him with Religion. There is a word for having a preconceived preference or idea: prejudice.

You have failed in any way to show how the action of the hanging of the picture does not have a secular purpose, you totally ignore the fact that schools are responsible for making children good citizens in a society. Part of being a good citizens includes some basic moral precepts, i.e. The Golden Rule......established by the teaching of Christ in doing unto others.

Secondly, you have failed to show how the hanging of the picture advances religion in any way. The students are not required to pray to the picture, or for that matter even look at it.

And finally, you have not shown how the hanging of this picture in any way causes and excessive entanglement between government and religion. Again, you totally ignore the historical significance of Christ as a moral teacher.

For those of you that haven't realized, I just used the Lemon test, the Court Standard for the Establishment Clause. It would seem right now other than the fact of the matter being the picture is of Christ, you have provided no argument.

You are clearly showing a bigotry for religion. The Court has even declared that in striking down laws or actions, no hostility can be shown toward religion. However, this is your only action.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but easter is not a federal holdiay!!!!

Christmas was established as a federal holiday to clebrate religion, family happiness, childlike mirth, and generosity. That was the purpose of the legislation in 1870. HMMMM it would seem to be that the very reason was established as a holiday was because of in no limited part religion.

As long as I can show that the picture has a secular purpose, its religion purpose it mute under the establishment clause. Clearly there remains a clear secular purpose in the moral teachings of the historical figure Christ.

dmk


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.[/quote]

Yet you have failed to show how the placing of this picture establishes a religion, thus even using your application no right has been violated. Once again the Constitution does not guarantee freedom from religion, but rather freedom of religion.

Again you assume the same prejudice as foundit. Christ also was a historical figure and a great moral teacher. Many of the lessons he taught play an integral part in people living in a free society. The Golden Rule, charity, being generous, etc...

There are pictures in many schools of the Revernd Dr Martlin Luther King, Jr. By you statement they must all be removed as well, simply because he is identified as a Reverned, this is the endorsing of religion. Regardless of his secular accomplishment he is tainted by his religion.

I never took that step. I used the holiday as a point. And as I have now pointed out, the 1870 Congress that passed the act recognizing Christmas as a federal holiday did so to include the celebration of religion in this country. So it would seem that was one of the purposes of declaring it as a holiday, that means that religion is and can be recognized.


dmk