ACLU: Kick Jesus Out of High School - Page 7

Jaxian · 07-11-2006, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

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.

No no, you are very wrong about what the Constitution says. The Establishment clause does far more than say that the government cannot establish a religion, and the Constitution does sort of grant people freedom from religion in some cases, not only the freedom to exercise their own religion. The first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This does say that people have the freedom to exercise their own religion. However, take a look at the establishment clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Christianity is an establishment of religion, therefore the government may make no law respecting Christianity.

It would not make sense for the government to be denied the power to violate these rights, if they could simply delegate the power to deny these rights to someone else. So those people who are delegated power by the government are bound by the same restrictions as the government officials who delegated that power.

The school board officials who use this picture of Christ to respect Christianity should never have been allowed the power to respect Christianity. They have no power to let the school show preference to any religion through the first amendment.

Quote:

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.

But my logic does not say, "we can't have pictures of reverands or religious figures." It says nothing of the sort. My logic says that we can't have anything which respects a religion. In the case of hanging a picture of Christ in the school, the school is giving a clear endorsement of Christianity above other religions. It is a clear signal that the school prefers Christians to people of other religions. A school should not send such a message to its students.

Quote:

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.

No, absolutely not. Just because Congress gave preference to Christianity once does not mean that it is Constitutional to pass any law which gives preference to Christianity.

I have explained why I do not think declaring Christmas as a national holiday should be declared unconstitutional. But the government endorsing Christianity for this holiday does not mean that the government is free to make all the endorsements of Christianity it wants. Government officials still have to act within the boundaries set by the Constitution. The logic of "they gave preference to Christians once, therefore we should let them do it as much as they want" simply isn't reasonable.

Can you tell me exactly why you want the government to be able to endorse Christianity? It may give you some kind of warm feeling to know that the government endorses your religion. But what about all the people of different religions? How will they feel if the government sends a clear signal that their values and their lives are not approved by the government? Why not keep the government free of any religious preference? Why not keep religion up to the individual? Why must your religion get preference over the next man's?

Tabris · 07-11-2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxian

No no, you are very wrong about what the Constitution says. The Establishment clause does far more than say that the government cannot establish a religion, and the Constitution does sort of grant people freedom from religion in some cases, not only the freedom to exercise their own religion. The first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This does say that people have the freedom to exercise their own religion. However, take a look at the establishment clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Christianity is an establishment of religion, therefore the government may make no law respecting Christianity.

It would not make sense for the government to be denied the power to violate these rights, if they could simply delegate the power to deny these rights to someone else. So those people who are delegated power by the government are bound by the same restrictions as the government officials who delegated that power.

The Legislature didn't make any law respecting a religion by hanging a picture. Where is that amendment broken?

Jaxian · 07-11-2006, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabris

The Legislature didn't make any law respecting a religion by hanging a picture. Where is that amendment broken?

I have touched on this in post #39 in this thread. Let me explain some more:

It is state law which determines how public property is used. In this case, state law gives the power to control schools to school boards and other government employees.

Now remember that state law is bound by the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. This means that states cannot pass a law which, for example, denies freedom of speech. Now, what if instead of passing a law which denies freedom of speech, they delegate the power to decide freedom of speech to some other public official. Would it be a violation of the Constitution for that other official to deny freedom of speech? Of course, it still would. State laws cannot simply circumvent the Constitution by delegating the power to violate it to someone else.

Because state law is bound by the Constitution, state law is not allowed to recognize an establishment of religion. Passing a law which hangs a picture of Jesus on public property is respecting the establishment of Christianity, and therefore that law cannot be passed. By the logic presented in the previous paragraph, the law cannot delegate the power to violate this protection to some other official, such as a school official. Therefore, school officials could never have been given the power to recognize an establishment of religion in schools, and this includes hanging a picture of Jesus in that school.

Tabris · 07-11-2006, 01:17 PM

But there is no law that hung a picture there. It's not a law or even a school policy that it's there, and it's not coercive at all. Seeing a single painting of Jesus does not influence children that their religion is sub-par, especially since while it's titled "Head of Christ", it doesn't have the other attributes which typically represent the Christ versus regular Jesus (such as the halo).

As I had said earlier, it's just silly that they're making a big deal out of this. It's been there three decades, so just leave it. It's not hurting anybody. Would you really be offended if you walked by a picture of Jesus? I'd think it's weird, considering yes it is a public school, but I also grew up in a very liberal area so you wouldn't see any of that to begin with. I think it's more of an issue of just finding stuff to be offended about and go after. I've lost most of my respect for the entire ACLU after finding out how hypocritical they are regarding free speech.

alias · 07-11-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxian

No no, you are very wrong about what the Constitution says. The Establishment clause does far more than say that the government cannot establish a religion, and the Constitution does sort of grant people freedom from religion in some cases, not only the freedom to exercise their own religion. The first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This does say that people have the freedom to exercise their own religion. However, take a look at the establishment clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Christianity is an establishment of religion, therefore the government may make no law respecting Christianity.

It would not make sense for the government to be denied the power to violate these rights, if they could simply delegate the power to deny these rights to someone else. So those people who are delegated power by the government are bound by the same restrictions as the government officials who delegated that power.

The school board officials who use this picture of Christ to respect Christianity should never have been allowed the power to respect Christianity. They have no power to let the school show preference to any religion through the first amendment.

But my logic does not say, "we can't have pictures of reverands or religious figures." It says nothing of the sort. My logic says that we can't have anything which respects a religion. In the case of hanging a picture of Christ in the school, the school is giving a clear endorsement of Christianity above other religions. It is a clear signal that the school prefers Christians to people of other religions. A school should not send such a message to its students.

No, absolutely not. Just because Congress gave preference to Christianity once does not mean that it is Constitutional to pass any law which gives preference to Christianity.

I have explained why I do not think declaring Christmas as a national holiday should be declared unconstitutional. But the government endorsing Christianity for this holiday does not mean that the government is free to make all the endorsements of Christianity it wants. Government officials still have to act within the boundaries set by the Constitution. The logic of "they gave preference to Christians once, therefore we should let them do it as much as they want" simply isn't reasonable.

Can you tell me exactly why you want the government to be able to endorse Christianity? It may give you some kind of warm feeling to know that the government endorses your religion. But what about all the people of different religions? How will they feel if the government sends a clear signal that their values and their lives are not approved by the government? Why not keep the government free of any religious preference? Why not keep religion up to the individual? Why must your religion get preference over the next man's?

You misunderstand what the clause says. This is what you stated: "Christianity is an establishment of religion, therefore the government may make no law respecting Christianity".

Establishment of a religion means that government cannot make Christianity the state religion. Christianity was established as the state religion of England.

The clause means there can be no "state" religion established.

alias · 07-11-2006, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxian

I have touched on this in post #39 in this thread. Let me explain some more:

It is state law which determines how public property is used. In this case, state law gives the power to control schools to school boards and other government employees.

Now remember that state law is bound by the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. This means that states cannot pass a law which, for example, denies freedom of speech. Now, what if instead of passing a law which denies freedom of speech, they delegate the power to decide freedom of speech to some other public official. Would it be a violation of the Constitution for that other official to deny freedom of speech? Of course, it still would. State laws cannot simply circumvent the Constitution by delegating the power to violate it to someone else.

Because state law is bound by the Constitution, state law is not allowed to recognize an establishment of religion. Passing a law which hangs a picture of Jesus on public property is respecting the establishment of Christianity, and therefore that law cannot be passed. By the logic presented in the previous paragraph, the law cannot delegate the power to violate this protection to some other official, such as a school official. Therefore, school officials could never have been given the power to recognize an establishment of religion in schools, and this includes hanging a picture of Jesus in that school.

You are vastly mistaken. The clause states "congress" shall make no law establishing a religion. That means congress cannot make Christianity the religion of America. That has nothing to do with a child hanging a picture of Jesus in the school. Nothing.

Tabris · 07-11-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote: