Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Faith

Atheists Push Legal Battle Over Constitutionality of Jesus Portrait — But Is It Protected Student Speech?

Mar. 16, 2013 2:49pm Billy Hallowell

FFRF Battles Jackson City Schools Over Jesus Picture Inside Public School

A replica of the photo of Jesus that is hanging in Jackson Middle School (Photo Credit: Jackson County Daily)

CINCINNATI (TheBlaze/AP) — A Jesus portrait that has embroiled a southern Ohio school district in a federal lawsuit has been moved from the middle school to a high school at the preference of a Christian-based student club that the district views as the picture’s owner.

It’s the latest development in a case that TheBlaze has been monitoring since earlier this year.

Phil Howard, superintendent of the Jackson City Schools, said Friday that the portrait was moved earlier this week at the request of the Hi-Y club, which put it up in 1947 in a building that is now the middle school.

A complaint about the portrait left the district in the midst of an ongoing national debate over what displays of religion are constitutional. The lawsuit filed last month against the district by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio and the Wis.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation contends the portrait unconstitutionally promotes religion at school.

Schools Superintendent Phil Howard said he is not sure what, if any, effect moving the portrait might have on the lawsuit, but he said the district had no choice.

“We have to respect the rights of the club,” Howard said. “Failure to do so might open the district to even another lawsuit – this time by the H-Y club” — or violate the U.S Constitution by “turning the portrait into government speech.”

Officials have maintained that taking the portrait down would censor students’ private speech.

“It belongs to the club,” Howard said. “It’s student speech, not government speech.”

The school board had voted last month to keep the portrait up while allowing other student groups to hang portraits related to their focuses. Howard said that the board policy created a limited public forum at both the middle school and the high school for student groups to be able to display portraits.

“The club has the right to hang it in either school,” Howard said.

Bob Eisnaugle, an art teacher and adviser to the Hi-Y service club, said that the group of about 60 students decided last week to move the portrait to the high school, where the club meets and where its current members are students. He said the middle school building housed the high school when the club presented the portrait, and it had just never been moved to the newer building.

Eisnaugle said the club wants to keep the portrait up because “the club is Christian-based and it represents the club and the Christian principles that the club values.”

He said the purposes of the club haven’t changed through the years “and neither have the principles it values.”

The portrait now is hanging on a wall alongside a trophy case.

Nick Worner, a spokesman for the ACLU of Ohio, said Friday that he couldn’t comment on legal strategy, but he stressed that the group’s position hasn’t changed.

“It doesn’t matter which public building the portrait is in,” Worner said. “It’s an unconstitutional endorsement of religion on the part of a public school.”

The 2,500-student district is in Jackson, a city of about 7,000 in mostly rural Appalachian Ohio.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (140)

garylee123
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 7:08pm
It’s freedom OF religion,,,,not freedom FROM.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Remember_Benghazi
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 9:04pm
  Be careful with the words you choose. The mullahs in Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt don’t believe in freedom from religion either.
  
  Report this comment
- RealLiibertarian
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 9:13pm
  Dependhow you intrpret ‘freedom from religion’. While there is absolutely nothing preventing religion from existing, we all have the right to ignore any and all religious thought or any parts of it. That’s the problem. While the idiots on the left want to ban religion, the idiots on the right want to legislate it in terms of their morality. Neither extreme has the stones to admit that people have the right to live the way theyprefer. While the militant atheists are wrong for trying to ban all religion, the militant christians are just as wrong for trying to force their outdated morality on the rest of us.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 9:43pm
  No one is forcing anyone to worship or reverence that image, let alone, to convert to Christianity. Nor is the school endorsing or promoting that image, but is allowing students to exercise their rights to freedom of association and speech. Only ignorant liberals don’t see the stupidity in their attempt to bastardize the Constitution to mean something else. By the way, our Constitution was not meant for an unruly and depraved populace. If our form of Government intends to exist, it must preserve the values and principles which helped found it.
  
  Report this comment
- S G Applebee
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 10:45pm
  In FACT, it’s freedom FROM congress “making a law RESPECTING an establishment of religion”.
  
  In the 1950′s when CONGRESS made a LAW putting “In God we Trust” on the currency, it certainly WAS “respecting and establishment of religion”. You can have religion without “God”, but you cannot use the term “God” without connoting some type of religious perspective. And this is easily provable by just asking a simple questions:
  
  To those of you who have no problem with our government using the term “God”, would it be ok with you if the government used the terms “Allah” or “Gods” instead? Answer that question honestly, and the debate is over.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 11:15pm
  How about before we go assuming what the 1st Ammendment means, we first investigate how these early Americans defined and used those words during their time?
  
  RESPECTING, ppr. Regarding; having regard to; relating to. This word, like concerning, has reference to a single word or to a sentence. In the sentence, “his conduct respecting us is commendable,” respecting has reference to conduct. But when we say, “respecting a further appropriation of money, it is to be observed, that the resources of the country are inadequate,” respecting has reference to the whole subsequent clause or sentence.
  
  The word respecting back then was not used as a verb, as when we use it today to mean, “to hold in esteem or honor”.
  
  The 1st Ammendment also does not say, Congress shall make no law [regarding] religion, but specifically inserts, Congres shall make no law [regarding] an “establishment” of religion.
  
  ESTABLISHMENT, n. Confirmation; ratification of what has been settled or made. Settled regulation; form; ordinance; system of laws; constitution of government. That which is fixed or established. E.g. The Episcopal form of religion.
  
  The word establishment dismisses the rediculous claim that the 1st Ammendment prohibits Government from making any law touching anything regarding religion. The 1st Ammendment specifically prohibits any law touching, or affecting, a “fixed or organized form” of religion, like say, Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Presbyterian Church.
  
  Report this comment
- binge_thinker
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 11:24pm
  “freethinkers” can’t think rationally. They have a superstitious fear of anything that resembles a Christian symbol; so much so that they will spend millions of dollars to remove those symbols from any place in this nation. Like the vampires in the horror movies, atheists tremble in fear when they see a cross. The reason for the fear is never clear, and never rational; but then, again, atheism has never been rational to start with.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 11:27pm
  You can believe in the existence of God, and be totally non-religious. The assertion that believing in the existence of God, or simply acknowledging him, makes you religious in any way is absurd. One can believe in God, and completely, intentionally, with purpose, reject all his laws and commandments, and never worship or obey him, thus becoming a rebel before him. No one would claim such an individual is “religious” just because he believes God exists. Religion consists of actual acts and works which pay reverence to God. An establishment of Religion is an organization or form of fixed or settled rules by which someone adheres to or attends to in order to uniformly worship God along with others, as through an official association. consisting of members and a constitution. The mere acknowledgement or making reference to God does not create an Establishment, just as making lemonade and burgers at home does not create a restaurant.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 11:56pm
  Notice how they twist what the Constitution says: “unconstitutional endorsement of religion”
  
  The constitution bans the ESTABLISHMENT of religion. This meant something like the Church of England, a government saying “this is how you must worship, and other kinds of worship are discriminated against”. It says nothing at all about endorsing religion — meaning “being supportive or allowing towards religion”.
  
  This is even worse then most atheists’ missing the second part of the religion statement, which they seek to violate — our right to “free expression” of religion.
  
  Every time one of these stories come up, we need to repeat the truth about this and reach those with open minds. We have the right to freely express our religion, however we want. This is what the Bill of Rights guarantees. Trying to ban any such thing, whether on public or private land, is a violation of our rights.
  
  Report this comment
- S G Applebee
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 3:38am
  valiant1776,
  
  “One can believe in God, and completely, intentionally, with purpose, reject all his laws and commandments, and never worship or obey him”.
  
  Really? So please tell me what “His laws and commandments” are, and how you know it.
  
  Report this comment
- StonyBurk
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 6:46am
  If Americans cared to consider the establishment of education in the Colonies-and the history of American education -until the reform after the Civil War. . . . IF Americans considered the twice passed Northwest Ordinance Article III Religion,Morality, and Knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind ,Schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”And the words of men like Dr.Benjamin Rush -and others who believed we needed to teach the Bible in school –yet we allow the enemy to claim it unconstitutional to display a portrait of Jesus Christ -a gift of a class graduated. Calling all the Clans together.Time we started insisting on America being American again Not some secular porta-potty for the Progressives.
  
  Report this comment
- Caniac Steve
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 9:21am
  Amen !!
  
  Report this comment
- U4eeeahhh
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 12:17pm
  Several decades ago the SCOTUS included “freedom from” as an equivalent position to “freedom of” so that the precedent has been set for about 40 years which follows that the secular position properly is to askew all religious iconography in government-owned public facilities. To have a faux portrait of any mythical deity in a place of honor at a public school is not appropriate. In a classroom where history was taught for example, I could see a Jesus pictured along side a Vishnu and a Buddha and a Zeus and a Ra and Stalin. It is important to know about the myths, legends, superstitions and religions that have guided mankind’s actions around the world throughout history. But to show honor to Jesus of Nazareth in a public school is to disrespect the one in five non-believers, the Jewish, Wiccan, Muslim and Buddhist citizens among us.
  
  Report this comment
- TexVet61
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 9:48pm
  I do not understand the logic of our corrupt legal systems (that is more of a joke because with Eric Holder I understand completely on the corruption, you look up the definition of corruption and you will find it listed like this: Corruption – Barack Obama and Eric Holder. Corruption:
  Now, I find it odd that based on the ACLU, the communist Liberals and the “Im better than you” atheist that christians violate the “non existant” law of seperation of church and state by posting the 10 commandments, praying in school etc…; so it stands to reason that since athiest believe in nothing including their steadfast belief that there is no god and since these beliefs are all based on a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices agreed upon by (a number of persons) basically all atheist, then athieism is itself a religon, therefore by forcing everyone to abide by THEIR beliefs (the athiest) then the courts, city councels, school boards and the ACLU (who by the way according to their mission statement is supposed to “fight for ANYBODY WHO’s CIVIL LIBERTIES HAVE BEEN VIOLATED” ) are violating the seperaton of church and state by FORCING everyone including christians to follow the beliefs of ATHIEST. I find it even funnier that NOBODY has even attempted to take this on using this rational, especially since its not only a fact, but it proves the courts are not impartial, they are showing their bias towards the liberal agenda and giving the atheist a pass but not christians.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 11:42pm
  @S G Applebee What the hell does it matter, and why do you care?
  
  “For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.” – Sir William Blackstone
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 11:51pm
  @U4eeeahhh Why must all those deities also be included? Should we also include the Spaghetti Monster because one person in a remote island off the coast of China worships him? On how many different sacred writings did our founders take their Oath? THow many deities did our founders refer to when appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World? Does not Supreme, and the singular word Judge, refer but to one entity? When our founders wrote the Articles of Confederatin why did they only reference one Governor of the Universe instead of multiples gods like did the Romans? When our delegates during the Continental period signed Government papers why did they put forth in the Year of our Lord and not in the year of the sun or dragon?
  
  Report this comment
- andrewcvety
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 5:31am
  “Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
  
  We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
  
  Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320. This is his second known use of the term “wall of separation,”
  
  Report this comment
- csaaphill
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 6:15am
  right on!
  
  Report this comment
- ComeTakeIt
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 9:45am
  it doesn’t matter if it’s freedom OF or freedom FROM, it has nothing to do with a SCHOOL. The Constitution wasn’t written to keep schools in check, it was written for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
  
  Why are we taking a rule book for the federal government and applying it to everything else except the government?
  
  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
  
  Someone use the wording above and tell me why this has anything to do with a school in the first place. Let alone try to explain to me how removing the picture wouldn’t be “prohibiting a free excercise thereof”.
  
  If “Piss Christ” can be funded with taxpayer dollars and be ok, then I’d like to hear a LOGICAL argument for removing this picture
  
  Report this comment
TheGrtDcptn
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 7:02pm
“It doesn’t matter which PUBLIC building the portrait is in,” Worner said. “It’s an unconstitutional endorsement of religion on the part of a PUBLIC school.”

What part of **PUBLIC** do they NOT understand…?!?!…Are atheists the ONLY ones who pay school taxes…?!?! Talk about a SCAM, they are the MASTERS of deception.

Enjoy yourselves godless heathens, your day IS coming and you WILL bow before Christ…

…what a glorious day it shall be…!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- binge_thinker
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 11:28pm
  Freedom from religion should also mean freedom from atheists with their overzealous attempts to squish any and all religious expression. Obviously these aren’t tolerant people; they are bullies and anti-Christian bigots who use the threat of legal action to squelch freedom OF religion of all U.S. citizens. If someone doesn‘t want to believe in God they don’t have to; but don’t expect the rest of us to silence our beliefs for you.
  
  Report this comment
- blinknight
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 3:34am
  So basically your logic is that because Christians pay taxes too their religious views should be given preferential treatment? It’s the fact that we are a nation of varying beliefs, including the lack of a belief in god, that makes this portrait a problem. It’s specifically endorsing one religion and excluding anyone who believes differently.
  
  The Constitution excludes no one. Our original all inclusive national motto was “Out of one, many” and it excluded no one on basis of faith.
  
  Incidentally Binge_Thinker the only way your religious ideas would be oppressed would be if we tried to stop religious expression in homes and churches. I believe you will find precisely zero atheist organizations dedicated to that cause and the overwhelming majority of atheists would be opposed to it.
  
  You can pray all you want, worship all you want, nobody will stop you. You however can’t use a public space, such as a school or a court house, to promote religious ideas even slightly.
  
  Report this comment
- 1FreeVoice
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 9:17am
  reply to BLINKNIGHT
  “the only way your religious ideas would be oppressed would be if we tried to stop religious expression in homes and churches. ” Do you want to force the religious community underground, having small secret services in members homes and not talking about what they really think in public if it would let other people know that they are religious? There have been times and countries where one or all religions were treated this way. Are you sure you want to live there?
  
  Report this comment
- TheGrtDcptn
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 11:14am
  ‘Because Christians pay taxes too their religious views should be given preferential treatment?’
  
  Who is asking for preferential treatment…??? NO ONE…!! Perhaps you should be outraged over PUBLIC schools taking students to a mosque…!! But that’s okay, RIGHT…?! Christianity must be silenced/abolished while students are FORCED to participate/study islam…?!
  
  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/09/16/mosque-shock-school-rocked-by-field-trip-vid-of-kids-bowing-to-allah/
  
  Why aren’t atheists screaming/demanding/suing about the overstepping islamic faith…?!
  
  Keep your blinders ON, it’s what you do best…
  
  ‘Our original all inclusive national motto was “Out of one, many’
  
  That would be…’Out of many, one’…
  
  Here is another site for your blind eyes to SEE…
  
  http://www.tc.columbia.edu/muslim-nyc/education/reembracing_diversity/inst_guide.html
  
  Headline for above site…’(Re)embracing Diversity in NYC Schools’…and don’t overlook ‘Module Three’…
  
  Lesson 1. A: Field Trip Preparation: Islamic Institutions in New York City
  Lesson 1. B: Field Trip to an Islamic Institution
  Lesson 2: Culminating Event: Presentation of Action Plan Projects
  
  When can American citizens (Christians) expect a lawsuit…?! pffttt…
  
  Report this comment
- U4eeeahhh
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 12:26pm
  A religious person, a church member, should not wag about taxes to atheists. We do not enjoy the plethora of tax breaks, special treatments and privileges that organized religions do. Example; a Atheist 501c3 organization gets many tax exemptions as a non-profit but it’s executives still pay social security and if they own a building they still pay local property tax. Church pastors are exempt from Social Security payments, get special housing tax treatments and churches are exempt from property tax. Organized religion steals from non-believers with these special tax exemptions every day.
  
  Report this comment
- TheGrtDcptn
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 1:22pm
  ‘A religious person, a church member, should not wag about taxes to atheists.’
  
  1. God is NOT a religion…
  2. Christianity does NOT equate to a religion, nor being a church (structural) member…
  3. I, as a citizen of the U.S. ‘PAY TAXES’…It has NOTHING to do with religious views or being a church member, what an assinine comment…
  
  ‘Church pastors, Organized religion’
  
  I am a private citizen, what part of that do you NOT get…?!
  
  …better to be quiet then to type your stupidity and remove all doubt…
  
  …go wag your finger of hypocrisy elsewhere…
  
  Report this comment
- TheGrtDcptn
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 1:43pm
  ‘Organized religion steals from non-believers’
  
  And non-believers use taxpayer money (MINE) for their ‘liberal arts’…
  
  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/21/gop-lawmaker-religious-leaders-accuse-obama-admin-of-religious-hypocrisy-over-controversial-piss-christ-photograph/
  
  ‘a small plastic crucifix soaked in the artist’s urine’
  
  …time is short, enjoy…
  
  Report this comment
- J Connally
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 10:10pm
  You assume all of us atheists are liberal thugs. I’m a conservative atheist of high school age, I enjoy liberty and love our Constitution especially its economic freedoms . I ignore the radical Christians (West Beuro ), and realize that it does not represent the majority of christian believers.I understand and respect displays in parks during Christmas time.I can see a reason to keep it as an reminder of a protestant historical heritage and its relation to a community , but in that context. Many people don’t understand how strange it can be to have a someones god looking down on you. I think the people of that area could find a better place for it.
  
  Report this comment
Carlinpa
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 6:57pm
So, the lonely loons are at it again. So, A crucifix in piss, termed “art” paid for by federal dollars is ok, but and actual portrait of a real person, that was free, is NOT?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SovereignSoul
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 1:41pm
  You’re not really claiming that picture is an ‘actual’ portrait of Jesus, are you?
  
  Report this comment
1FreeVoice
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 6:35pm
There is a difference between saying you should believe this, and saying these beliefs are allowed.
Eliminating the picture is implying that these beliefs are not acceptable. The government can’t do that. It is a form of discrimination. Implying that religious beliefs are not allowed or acceptable is an indirect or subtle form of religious persecution… which is certainly illegal.

The government cannot require specific religious beliefs – except to gain exemptions for government control of their children’s education. ( Yes, check the law.) Arguably that is a constitutional violation, and government has exceeded it’s constitutional limits already. Wisconsin vs Yoder 1972 : ” A way of life, however virtuous and admirable, may not be interposed as a barrier to reasonable state regulation of education if it is based purely on secular considerations.” It can also be argued that atheism is itself a religion, and one that receives state support/approval above the considerations of other religions.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- JGraham III
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 7:34pm
  C’mon Christians! Where is the push back? These schmucks a.k.a. FFRF et al don’t have the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth behind them, only ol’ split-foot. All they can do is yell for us to shut up and we can go into our prayer closets and entreat Him to give aid in time of need. May the Lord send so much legal opposition to the FFRF that their funds will dry up over night.
  
  Report this comment
BlesstheJews
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 6:22pm
Where is the outrage over footbaths and special prayer rooms for muslims in schools? Oh that’s right, it’s perpetual open season on Christians, but don’t dare cirticize the mudslums.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- U4eeeahhh
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 12:33pm
  That offends me equally, that is a special accommodation that serves only a population group defined by their religious affiliation and that needs to be denied and removed from secular civil venues as well as fake Jesus portraits. Devout Muslims are only about 0.8% of the population, around 2 million. Most Arab American [est. 7 million] become secular, leave Islam and live like most American outside of religious belief generally.
  
  Report this comment
WhiteFang
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 6:15pm
There is no portrait of Jesus.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Chuck Stein
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 2:20am
  No, it is even better than a portrait. The caption to the image identifies it as a replica of “the photo of Jesus that is hanging in Jackson Middle School.” Photography almost 2,000 years ago. Who knew?
  
  Report this comment
haplyss
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 5:47pm
Harold Toledo Ohio: I’m sure that most people in this country, the United States, are aware of the basis of the founding, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. Therefore, this complaint should be dismissed using one statement, i.e.: America, love it or leave it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- comforteagle
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 1:16am
  Where in the constitution or DoI does it mention jesus? Cant seem to find him
  
  Report this comment
lbesq
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 5:41pm
Wonder how many times the ACLU and Freedom From Religion, Westbourgh and like groups Lose their lawsuits? When they do, ARE THEY REQUIRED to cover the Costs of the OTHER party? IF not Why Not?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- binge_thinker
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 11:29pm
  AL Gore, CLinton, and Westboro go way, way back.
  http://www.georgialogcabin.org/news/Fred-Phelps-Al-Gore-Westboro-Baptist-Church-God-Hates-****/200010251159.shtml
  
  Report this comment
- comforteagle
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 1:20am
  If you wonder why not do some research?
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck Stein
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 2:27am
  Under the statutes according “private atorney general” status to plaintiffs in civil rights cases, the “prevailing party” is entitled to costs and reasonable attorneys fees. Because the plaintiffs are supposedly doing the work for the public benefit, a recovery of attorneys fees is limited for prevailing defendants — only where the plaintiffs case was “frivolous” will the defendant be entitled to attorneys fees. “Frivolous” does not mean what many defendants would like. A case is only “frivolous” where the case was CLEARLY brought contrary to established precedent or where the underlying purported facts were false assertions.
  
  Report this comment
kfalcon22000
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 5:22pm
What a waste of time. What are they talking about religion for? That is a picture of some unknown model. It is not Jesus. It is nothing like what Jesus would have looked like. Therefore, there is no religion involved to begin with. Case dismissed. Doesn’t anyone have any common sense. Is the ACLU trying to say that because some people think that this picture is of Jesus, even though it is not, that makes it religious. Are our tax dollars involved in this stupidity?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Goodi3shooz
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 5:37pm
  as much as I appreciate your main point… unless you’ve seen Our Lord lately, or ….ever… you can’t possibly say what He looks like.
  
  Report this comment
- ImTheNana
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 8:14pm
  GOODI3SHOOZ, We can, however, know that he wasn’t a white man with blue eyes.
  
  Report this comment
- Rayblue
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 12:36am
  For historical evidence referring to the portrait of Jesus, reference “Abgar V”.
  
  Report this comment
ellietoo
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:59pm
There is nothing in the constitution or any of the amendments that prevents the free expression of religion in schools, government buildings, or any other part of our free society. As a matter of fact the first amendment prohibits the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court that thew almost 200 years of prayer out of our schools did so by citing an obscure letter written by Jefferson years after the constitution was written. They overruled the first amendment by citing a personal letter! They totally ignored hundreds of years of Christian teaching in public schools and focused on an obscure personal letter written many years after the country was formed. Shame on them and shame on the people of this country for allowing this to continue.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Goodi3shooz
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 5:39pm
  you speak the truth sister.
  
  Report this comment
123456beatriz
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:54pm
I am starting to think that this group Atheist is paying by CAIR! This CAIR group are doing anything to destroy Christianity. Well GO TO HELL!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Indo
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 5:30pm
  Christianity is destroying itself, a result of its own hysterical claims.
  
  Report this comment
- PATTY HENRY
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 6:18pm
  NO INDO, the Creator of the Universe and HIS followers are not destroying anything. They are telling the truth and you, dude, are cruisin’ for a bruising the likes of which you will never believe. How long do YOU think that you little pots can ridicule the Potter and get away with it? You can’t make zilch, you can’t create life on your own, you can’t make a single star shine or the sun throw off heat or the oceans move and waves to roll in. BUT YOU think you can ridicule the GOD we KNOW created all these things? Crawl off to your little cave, sad sack. We’ll pray for you, but you need to know, the day of reckoning is coming and it’s way closer than you think. How silly from some little twerp to even begin to think that he can take on GOD. Good GRIEF!!!
  
  Report this comment
- JGraham III
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 7:30pm
  @Patty Henry:
  You go girl!! Couldn’t have said it better myself!
  
  Report this comment
- comforteagle
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 10:42am
  Patty… first of all indo wasnt saying anything about God, he was talkin about christianity. second if you believe indo is an atheist then he wouldnt be ridculing god becuase there is nothing to ridicule. they would simply not believe in any gods… i enjoy your logic;;; stars shine, the sun is hot, there are waves, and indo (or people) didnt do those things, therefore God.
  
  Report this comment
- U4eeeahhh
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 12:49pm
  For Miss Patty Henry, first must say I do love a good turn of a phase and “you little pots can ridicule the Potter….” was a great one.
  
  Just one question, in all that you attributed in the post above to your great Creator there are many natural phenomenons with logical scientific explanations for how and why they occur. From my perspective you are using a supernatural explanation based on a legendary mythical deity for which there is no positive physical proof to explain Nature where science does a better job without supernatural intervention. Does the question ever enter your mind that you following a delusional path? Don’t you ever doubt that a desert tribe of 2000 years ago held the answer to all the questions of the universe?
  
  Report this comment
standupforthegood
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:44pm
Can’t help but wonder why all these so-called aetheists get so offended by a potrait of Jesus in a
School. Could it be there conscience is bothering them? Like someone else said here freedom of religion is an American right not freedom from religion.If get that worked up over a picture in a hallway I think you have issues.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Jnuke
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 5:08pm
  Neo-atheists are militant and hate Christians and what they say they don’t believe in..God
  
  Report this comment
- RealLiibertarian
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 5:26pm
  Jnuke-And militant Christians hate all other religions. What’s your point? This is not just about Christians and atheists. there is a whole range f non- christian religions involved.
  
  Report this comment
zgomer
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:31pm
It stays.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
MACaTAC
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:30pm
Gee..I guess supplying the Native Americans with Bibles and paying for a Church to be built, and pay for the Pastor’s salary, was unconstitutional. Someone needs to inform the founding fathers.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Dr Vel
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 9:43pm
  The founding fathers had nothing to do with it. It was private entities in the form of zealots first and later new progressives who came into power with their ‘manifest destiny’. The concept that dragged my ancestors down the Trail of Tears after robbing them of everything they rightfully owned. I do not blame the founding fathers for this likely they saved Indians from even worse fates if the history of what England did to natives in conquered lands in the last 600 years is any guide. Or the Spaniards, or any one of many conquerors through history. I think a more careful and precise study of actual history is in order before anyone goes bashing the memory of anyone.
  
  Report this comment
- comforteagle
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 1:24am
  Macattack….. They should mention slavery too.
  
  Report this comment
Joyzee
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:19pm
Atheist’s Playing God again

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Soulfire1975
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:18pm
When people start to get it into their heads there is NO LAW for separation of church and state in the constitution.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- firearm
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 2:01am
  Not since the commies lost the Soviet Union and it’s constitution.
  
  Report this comment
MistyMountainGranny
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:58pm
Didn’t the athiests say Christians are Pushy?! When is someone going to set them straight? Ours is a country with freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM religion!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RealLiibertarian
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:42pm
  That’s the problem. We are founded on freedom of religion, whiuch means that every religion has equal rights and should have equal time and space at the public podium. Anytime the Christians are told they have to share, or can’t have primacy, they whine about being ‘victims’. I don’t care who or what you worship, but I do care if you demand to be the only one with your symbols and icons on the public wall. Stop trying to eliminate everybody else’s religion and maybe their won’t be so many people pissed with yours.
  
  Report this comment
- From Virginia
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 5:24pm
  @Reallibertarian – Except that no other religion is under assault – only Christianity is. I’ve yet to see a lawsuit to remove muslim footbaths from college campuses. I’ve yet to see a lawsuit to force schools to refraim from allowing their students from pryaing to allah. I’ve yet to see a lawsuit to complain about schools that force children to have islamic week where every child MUST participate in the religion (even taking a muslim name and recite the prayers) for an entire week.
  
  So…..Until you whine as excessively about all these “violations” between church and state that these people freely excersize in I’m not really interested in anything you have to complain about.
  
  You are liars and hypocrits.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 10:23pm
  Our founding fathers did not believe that every religion should have a soap box at the public podium. They abhorred the Muslim religion, and Popery. They allowed them to freely worship here and practice their religion, but never allowed them to significantly influence our form of Government. In fact, the Pope wasn’t even allowed to visit the US for a long time. Our founders understood that the most wholesome values and principles needed for a Constitutional Republic to survice were best found in biblical Christianity, and none other.
  
  Report this comment
- TheCalmOne
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 2:49am
  @VALIANT1776 – Utter nonsense. If this were true, the Bible or Jesus would be mentioned in the Constitution. They are not.
  
  Report this comment
- 1FreeVoice
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 9:27am
  To REALLIIBERTARIAN
  No one said they should be the only ones with an icon. We are saying that other groups have put up displays and neither this religious group nor any other should be discriminated against. If some school club of nature worshipers want to put up a piece of art representing the “Green Man” or something, they should be allowed also. “Equal time” does not mean sit down and shut up.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 11:56pm
  @TheCalmOne Oh, you must forgive me. What was I thinking? For a second there, I actually thought they all took their Oath to defend and support the Constitution with their hand on the Christian Holy Bible. Silly me.
  
  Report this comment
- firearm
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 2:11am
  VALIANT1776 does not even realize that Catholics are Bible believing Christians. Some Protestants are so misinformed and seem to prefer it that way.
  
  Report this comment
crystalsky
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:55pm
Call it art Jesus Christ was a man but also the son of GOD, This picture has been used as a familar face as Jesus Christ. But in reality we do know he is a man the son of GOD to the Christians, But we really should not be arguing over what some1 painted that said this is JESUS and that JESUS looked like this.
In reality we have no Idea what color he was only he was jewish, and there are diffrent colors of jewish people. but you can be sure he is the word of GOD and if you study prophecy you willl see it is true. I believe he died for my sins because I sin and I have hope in forgiveness of my sins and when GOD looks at me he sees JESUS my savior who became sin for me who died for me. Man can’t forgive your sins they can accept them but only GOD can forgive and he is very clear about what is sin. They may tell you times are changing but Christians know Jesus Same Yesterday, today and tomorrow. He does not change.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- christos
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:19pm
  You do not believe +JESUS+GOD+ would not have +HIS+ picture accurately painted,the Bible says if you have seen +JESUS+ you have seen +GOD+ there are people living in this era who have seen +JESUS+ just as in +JESUS+ era they saw +HIM+ a painting of course is never as accurate as in person.TA
  
  Report this comment
teapartyconservatism
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:51pm
Wake up America!

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

Obama often omits “Creator” when speaking of our “unalienable” rights, reducing rights bestowed by God, to mere privileges permitted by politicians! Dems boisterously booed God three times at their national convention!*

One of their ploys uses atheism to attack America with a false argument of separation of church and state, which is not in the Constitution! Quite the contrary, Judeo-Christian tenets form the foundation of our Constitutional Republic. If there is any valid pretense for separation of church and state at all, it is that government influence on religion is the antithesis of Christian influence on government.

*Fox News, Democrats BOO GOD At Convention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUJE9YfsbNQ (9/5/2012)

The Constitution matters!

Dr. Herb Titus, Esq., constitutional law professor, former dean of the Regent University School of Law, YouTube Video, “Born In HI Does Not Make Obama Natural Born Citizen,” http://youtu.be/esiZZ-1R7e8 (5/9/2011)

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TheCalmOne
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 3:21am
  How did God bestow these rights you speak of?
  
  Report this comment
- ChongRRMC
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 9:52am
  How did God bestow upon us these rights ? By simply CREATING us. That is how.
  
  Report this comment
- Yuuperguy
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 10:10am
  They did NOT boo god. They booed a vote procedure that ignored their votes. It had nothing to do with booing god. Quit listening to faux news and get some “real” facts once in a while.
  
  Report this comment
BlackCrow
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:50pm
If it was the Buda no one would care. Can you say double standard?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
COFemale
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:46pm
Maybe we should target schools that have MLK’s portraits. After all he was a Reverend and a Christian and his portrait would indicate the school supporting Christianity. Lets see who squeals the loudest. Bet ACLU would be squealing.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
hi
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:39pm
The government is not here to protect people that are offended. It is here to defend freedom. Offended people should stop trying to take away our rights. If you put a photo of Mihammad up that’s fine. I’ll just feel bad for you that you honor a pedophile.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Kathleen
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:44pm
  But atheists have a their portrait up on the wall. You can’t see it because it’s called The Nothing. I don’t particularly like it and find it offensive but I’m willing to allow them the freedom to keep it up there.
  
  Report this comment
- hi
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:11pm
  Lol!
  
  Report this comment
- comforteagle
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 1:28am
  If you put a photo of muhammed up i think people would be in a bigger uproar. remember the comics o
  
  Report this comment
momrules
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:30pm
These militant atheist busy bodies with there VERY deep pockets really just want God and anything pertaining to Him out of public view. They are trouble makers, extortionists and antichrists who roam the countryside searching for their next target.

I find it funny, in that dark kind of way, that should these people be alive during the Tribulation they will be some of the first to take the mark and swear allegiance to the Antichrist believing him to be the Messiah.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- justangry
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:46pm
  I’ve been thinking that if you tracked the money from these groups and groups like Westboro we’d find they were being backed by the same people. Just a random thought with nothing to back it up.
  
  Report this comment
- RealLiibertarian
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:52pm
  Momrules- would you be happy if there was a picture of Diana and Herne on the wall, or Satan? That’s the real problem, as far as I can see it. It’s not that everybody want’s God removed from the schools, most people don’t care. But a lot of people are fed up with the Christians demanding that they be the only ones to be recognised by any government entity, and the Christians crying ‘victim’, when anyone challenges them over it.
  
  Report this comment
- momrules
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:29pm
  Realllibertarian……….America was founded on Christian principles,not Hermes, not Diana, not Satan. The militant atheists really don’t care about about any of that anyway. They target Christianity, period.
  
  Report this comment
- momrules
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:34pm
  Hi Just………Your guess is as good as mine about where their money comes from but they sure do have a lot of it. Wouldn’t you just love to get a look at their financial books?
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 10:07pm
  @Momrules “Wouldn’t you just love to get a look at their financial books?” Well the Cliffnotes anyways. I’m sure scouring the actually data would be mind numbing. :)
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 10:26pm
  We should do what our founders did. They took their Oaths on a diverse selection of holy books, not just on one. They had Buddhist texts, the writings of the prophet Muhammed, the Egyptian book of the dead, the Jewish talmud, the Illyad, Beowulf, and the Christian bible. Oh, wait… nevermind.
  
  Report this comment
justangry
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:04pm
Just call it ‘art’ and be done with it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- honestynow
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:09pm
  I’ve said this before- Jesus Christ is also an historical figure. Do they remove all portraits?
  If they remove this painting, then surely Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s likenesses will have to
  be removed also, no?
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:48pm
  Exactly. If this one can’t stay then take them all down.
  
  Report this comment
- turkey13
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:02pm
  First you must find out if the Athiest is an Athest. A true Athiest will name his son Judas and their daughter Jesiabell!
  
  Report this comment
- MDECKER
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 6:26pm
  It hasn’t been dipped in urine yet, to be called art. By the way, when is the ACLU going to stick up for American citizens’ rights?
  
  Report this comment
IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:00pm
As far as I am concerned Jesus is a great part of my life and in all our lives. We can not separate the love of God for us nor should we should separate our lives from Him. If we but look around we can see the work of God by the marvelous way our body parts work together and nature is a marvelous wonder in itself so why would we stop believing in His Son. You have a choice to see or not to see, to love or not to love, to believe or not to believe. If you don’t want to believe don’t but leave us that do.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- IMCHRISTIAN
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:36pm
  corr ….not leave… but let us have our beliefs.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.