ACLU vs Jesus painting: free speech ?

[bethm1b]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACLU sues city over Jesus painting By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 31 minutes ago

NEW ORLEANS - The American Civil Liberties Union sued the city of Slidell on Tuesday for displaying a painting of Jesus in a courthouse lobby, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The ACLU sued after the Slidell City Court refused to voluntarily remove the picture and a message below it that reads: "To Know Peace, Obey These Laws." The ACLU says the portrait — an image of Jesus presenting the New Testament — is a religious icon of the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity.

"We did not file this lawsuit because the ACLU is anti-religion ... We did file this lawsuit because we believe this display is clearly in violation of the law," said Vincent Booth, president and acting executive director of the Louisiana ACLU chapter.

The suit was filed on behalf of an unidentified person who complained to the ACLU about the picture. Named as defendants were the city of Slidell, St. Tammany Parish and City Judge James Lamz. St. Tammany Parish is being sued because it partially funds the court, the ACLU said.

On Saturday, Lamz said the picture would stay up unless a federal judge ordered it removed. He said he didn't believe the portrait violates the Constitution, but the issue should be decided in federal court.

Lamz could not comment Tuesday because of the pending litigation, his office said.

Before refusing to take the painting down, Lamz consulted Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School who has argued before the Supreme Court.

Laycock said he told Lamz that the legal issues in the case aren't clear-cut and could set legal precedent.

"I don't know how far the two sides will want to push things," Laycock added.

The painting has been on display at the courthouse for nearly a decade and hadn't provoked any complaints prior to the ACLU's recent objections, said Michael Johnson, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian civil rights group representing the city and parish.

Johnson, whose group is often at odds with the ACLU, said the painting sends an inclusive message of equal justice under the law. He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that similar displays in public forums are constitutional.

[MrBogey]

Man, fuck the ACLU.

Free Speech ain't got shit to do with this.

[fuckwit]

why does there have to be a fucking picture of jesus in a court house?

[LiddyRules]

why does there have to be a fucking picture of jesus in a court house? x2

[Creampier]

So they fight for Muzzie's rights to have a call to prayer in Michigan http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/20/national/main612805.shtml... but they have a problem with a PAINTING of Jesus?

How is a painting of Jesus more offensive than
HUM DEE LEE DA, HUM DE LEE DAH, SLAUGHTER THE INFIDELS, HUM DEE LEE DA?!??! blaring throughout the entire fucking town?!

Fuck the ACLU! They should have better shit to do than this!

[LiddyRules]

So they fight for Muzzie's rights to have a call to prayer in Michigan http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/20/national/main612805.shtml... but they have a problem with a PAINTING of Jesus? The ACLU is not mentioned in that article.

[Creampier]

The ACLU is not mentioned in that article.

Fuck, you're right! I always get the "call to prayer" and that taxpayer Muzzie foot bath for UMich-Dearborn mixed up. They were silent on the call to prayer. But they did pull for the footbath.

Despite the non-mention of the ACLU in that article, it proves my point. They should be in there, vowing to make that "call to prayer" a public nuisance under the law. Instead they're taking down Jesus and Baby Jesus mangers at Christmas time! Thanks ACLU! I'm fucking atheist, but it's not hard to ignore Christianity and its symbols! Really, it's not!

[ImAlrightSpider]

If the ACLU is arguing that this is an issue of seperation of church and state, then they are wrong. The constitution seperates church and state in order to disallow the establishment of a national church (as the Catholic church was the church of Rome, and the Anglican church of England). The intent is not to completely seperate religion from the goings on of society.

The U.S. is a country founded on religion. The Pilgrims came here in search of a land where they could worship as they chose, didn't they? The laws of the U.S. are based on established religious laws. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc. It appears that this painting is there to reinforce (for many, albeit not all people) the meaning and source of the words "To Know Peace, Obey These Laws." What is wrong with that?

Isn't the larger problem centered around the murderers who enter that court and are set free because of some technicality or some conniving lawyer?

[LiddyRules]

The U.S. is a country founded on religion. The Pilgrims came here in search of a land where they could worship as they chose, didn't they? Or not choose. The Pilgrims didn't make the constitution, the founding fathers did and they did not want to intermingle church and state.

The laws of the U.S. are based on established religious laws. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc. No, those are more "don't be a dick"/public safety laws. Religion might have mentioned it but that's not the same as it being religion based. If our laws were really based on religion, there would be laws against false idols, swearing and adultery.

Isn't the larger problem centered around the murderers who enter that court and are set free because of some technicality or some conniving lawyer? No. These are two totally different issues. I might as well say "who cares about terrorism since the sun's going to explode in a couple million years."

[TrybalRage]

...there would be laws against false idols, swearing and adultery.


Well, adultery is illegal as far as I know in many places, I'm pretty sure some places have swearing laws, and a false idol law would not surprise me in the south somewhere.

But what does this have to do with free speech?

And how is that unconstitutional? The constitution says that "congress may make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Since this is not congress, and not a law, it is clearly not a constitutional issue. The ACLU can Fuck off.

[THE FEZ MAN]

why does there have to be a fucking picture of jesus in a court house?
to scare sparkling wiggles and children. i for one find it offensive and superfluous. it should have never been put up, just like those jack asses that insist on having the ten commandments tacked up to the wall

[BeerBelly]

Hey buds, Jesus is just alright with me
Jesus is just alright
oh yeah

[Capt.Caveman]

i couldn't care either way. as long as they don't qoute the bible when they bust me for picking up hookers i'm fine with it being there

[CM Mark]

Meow

[DeltaPin]

Meow

QFT

[YourAmishDaddy]

It's funny how the "hardcore" so called conservative types here dance around these kinds of things when they come up. too chicken to fully commit I guess"


"Bomb the Muslims!!!! Yeah!!!" Fuck the *******!!!!! Yeah!!!! Fuck the wetbacks!!! Yeah!!!! We Want Jesus and the Ten Commandments!!!!! er... hold up a second....."

[Sinn Fein]

"We did not file this lawsuit because the ACLU is anti-religion ... We did file this lawsuit because we believe this display is clearly in violation of the law," said Vincent Booth, president and acting executive director of the Louisiana ACLU chapter.


They did, and they are.

[BeerBelly]

Art is against the law now.
Was it really a picture of Jesus? or some guy with a hairy face.
it's not a portrait

[ShiftyMH]

Well at least we dont set off car bombs for displaying pictures of Jesus.

[BeerBelly]

Well at least we dont set off car bombs for displaying pictures of Jesus.

but thats the key,if they don't say it's Jesus ,theres no case

[Capt.Caveman]

It's funny how the "hardcore" so called conservative types here dance around these kinds of things when they come up. too chicken to fully commit I guess"


"Bomb the Muslims!!!! Yeah!!!" Fuck the *******!!!!! Yeah!!!! Fuck the wetbacks!!! Yeah!!!! We Want Jesus and the Ten Commandments!!!!! er... hold up a second....."

well i agree with the 1st three points:icon_razz

[weakside]

why does there have to be a fucking picture of jesus in a court house?

X3

It drives me nuts when people try to argue we should allow religion into the government. I just wish the government would come into a church and start forcing it to hire female priests. We would then see a lot of people acknowledge that perhaps the separation of the two was in fact a good idea.

[MJMANDALAY]

Fuck hang a picture of Mickey Mouse too, they are both cartoon characters in my book.

[Razor Roman]

Silly question - about the title of this thread.

What does a painting of Jesus hanging in a courthouse have to do with free speech? Having it there doesn't keep people from speaking their mind. Doesn't keep people from expressing their own different religious beliefs... heck, if anything, forcing the painting to come down would be the anti-free speech thing.

And MJ, Jesus was a real person, devine or not.

[MJMANDALAY]

And MJ, Jesus was a real person, devine or not.

Yea I grew up with a Jesus in Newark, even played on the same baseball team with him.

[Razor Roman]

did he wear sandals when he played, or same cleats as everyone else?

[Fruit Monkey]

Man, fuck the ACLU.

Free Speech ain't got shit to do with this.


Sounds like a Job for PAC, get going to New Orleans and fightt the good fight. :action-sm

[abudabit]

There is no reason to have a picture of Jesus in a court room, and it shouldn't be allowed in there.

[Smokezilla]

The Christian movement in this country is REALLY starting to scare the shit outta me. . . I know the Bible-thumpers in this area have everything and everybody in a stranglehold. They shove their beliefs right in your face and, if you have a different belief, will absolutely throw a "hissy-fit" on you if do the same. Hypocritical fascism disguised as a "message of hope and Love". . . Fuck 'em!!!:p

[MrBogey]

The Christian movement in this country is REALLY starting to scare the shit outta me. . . I know the Bible-thumpers in this area have everything and everybody in a stranglehold. They shove their beliefs right in your face and, if you have a different belief, will absolutely throw a "hissy-fit" on you if do the same. Hypocritical fascism disguised as a "message of hope and Love". . . Fuck 'em!!!:p

You're scared by a picture of Jesus. You serious?

[LiddyRules]

You're scared by a picture of Jesus. You serious? Way to downplay the issue. I don't want a picture of Jesus in a court house. What if they put up a picture of Mohammed in a court house? Would you be OK with that?

[MrBogey]

Way to downplay the issue. I don't want a picture of Jesus in a court house. What if they put up a picture of Mohammed in a court house? Would you be OK with that?

If it had a quote by the man saying, "Don't blow shit up" I'd be perfectly fine.

[Xyn]

Fuck hang a picture of Mickey Mouse too, they are both cartoon characters in my book.

I like the way you think sir.

:clap:

[Xyn]

If it had a quote by the man saying, "Don't blow shit up" I'd be perfectly fine.

What if they had to have "don't blow shit up" in the Jesus picture?

No wait, that could be taken as an anti war message.

Jesus says: Go ahead and nuke the towel heads!

I've got no problem with people going to war if it's needed, but it's certainly not something that Christ would have advocated.

Atheism for the win.

[commish13]

Way to downplay the issue. I don't want a picture of Jesus in a court house. What if they put up a picture of Mohammed in a court house? Would you be OK with that?

Well, they wouldn't, since, ya know, that religion doesn't allow images of Mohammad.

[Smokezilla]

Fuck hang a picture of Mickey Mouse too, they are both cartoon characters in my book.

You're gonna smoke a turd in Hell for dat one!:haha7:

[Smokezilla]

You're scared by a picture of Jesus. You serious?

The only picture of Jesus I want in a courthouse is a mugshot of a Hispanic gentleman awaiting his day in court. . . Seperation of Church and State is what this country was founded-on. . . We don't need a bunch of religious wack-a-doos dictating public policy. . . especially in the courts! Those are the same types who would LOVE to run O&A out of town on a rail. They'd lose their minds over what gets discussed on this very website at times. . . I seriously want to believe that you were just "breaking balls" here.:action-sm

[MrBogey]

The only picture of Jesus I want in a courthouse is a mugshot of a Hispanic gentleman awaiting his day in court. . . Seperation of Church and State is what this country was founded-on. . . We don't need a bunch of religious wack-a-doos dictating public policy. . . especially in the courts! Those are the same types who would LOVE to run O&A out of town on a rail. They'd lose their minds over what gets discussed on this very website at times. . . I seriously want to believe that you were just "breaking balls" here.:action-sm

Atheists, just like the kind who ran the gulags in Russia, are trying to destroy our culture. See how hysterical that sounds.

There's nothing wrong with a painting of Jesus in a courthouse that says people should follow the law. It's hyperbolic to expand any support of that to be indicative of religious fundamentalists.

[YourAmishDaddy]

Oh please. I'm not even an atheist and I know most of them could give a shit.

What I do notice is how these pious idiots who love to post the Ten Commandments forget the main part of what the gospel is. Free will. And until I see Jesus himself fly down on a celestial rope intervening in the affairs of man I take it he's as non interventionist as I am about anyone elses life.

I won't call most people who believe and follow Christ nuts. Although there are a fair share of them. What I will go after are these sanctimonious idiots who like to post the Commandments everywhere, tell you how to live, pass judgement on everyone else and do some of the sickest shit around.

Here's the bottom line on religious imagery. There is no law prohibiting you from posting any of your religious items anywhere where you actually own it. Knock yourselves out.

But on public owned property. Where a collective of people have paid taxes the standard is set. The law is no respector of any one religion over another. And one shall not be featured to the exclusion of any other. Post, print, tack, nail, paint or plaster the Ten Commandments, and Jesus' image anywhere you want. On your own property.

And if you really want to do God a favor, and better yet do him justice. Instead of posting the Ten Commandments in a court house, why not try living by them for a change.

[DoughBoy]

Keep your fairy tales out of the legal system, get it off my money, and keep it away from the 'state'. If you want to bow down to some mythical being, then do it on your own time. Don't do it on my time and my buck.

Atheists, just like the kind who ran the gulags in Russia, are trying to destroy our culture. See how hysterical that sounds.



There's nothing wrong with a painting of Jesus in a courthouse that says people should follow the law. It's hyperbolic to expand any support of that to be indicative of religious fundamentalists.

You're out of your fucking mind. Go back to your house of worship where they can tell you what to think and how to live your life. You're obviously not intelligent enough to participate in a logical discussion with rational thinkers.

This country started because a MINORITY group of "religious fundamentalists" came to this hunk of land for FREEDOM. It was founded on the freedom FROM things and FROM the religious rules of OTHERS. Freedom OF comes once you allow the freedom FROM being told what you can or cannot do on your own time.

[YourAmishDaddy]

Amen.

[MJMANDALAY]

You're gonna smoke a turd in Hell for dat one!:haha7:
That would worry me
BUT
Because there is no such thing as heaven
Hence there can be no Hell

[MrBogey]

Keep your fairy tales out of the legal system, get it off my money, and keep it away from the 'state'. If you want to bow down to some mythical being, then do it on your own time. Don't do it on my time and my buck.



You're out of your fucking mind. Go back to your house of worship where they can tell you what to think and how to live your life. You're obviously not intelligent enough to participate in a logical discussion with rational thinkers.

This country started because a MINORITY group of "religious fundamentalists" came to this hunk of land for FREEDOM. It was founded on the freedom FROM things and FROM the religious rules of OTHERS. Freedom OF comes once you allow the freedom FROM being told what you can or cannot do on your own time.

Way to go. Speak in platitudes, throw out some obsenities, and call the opposition names. You're just a regular fucking Plato.

As far as the seperation of Church and State, there's no mandate that all possibly religious iconography be removed from public lands. If there were then the Capitol would have to be nuked because every building has some reference to some religion. What happens though is the gov't is prohibited from allowing a preferential treatement to exist creating a defacto advocation towards a religion.

What we have here is an icon of Jesus telling people to obey the law. It's vastly different from the 10 Commandment cases in that the 10 Commandments actually advocate people worship the Hebrew God.

I don't expect world class discussions on Whackbag but can you keep from looking like a drooling retard while hysterically attacking another group of drooling retards. And yes, I recognize you're staff but considering you started the targeted insults it's fair game.

[DoughBoy]

Way to go. Speak in platitudes, throw out some obsenities, and call the opposition names. You're just a regular fucking Plato.

Aren't you just so witty?


As far as the seperation of Church and State, there's no mandate that all possibly religious iconography be removed from public lands. If there were then the Capitol would have to be nuked because every building has some reference to some religion. What happens though is the gov't is prohibited from allowing a preferential treatement to exist creating a defacto advocation towards a religion.

The first amendment is the defacto opposition to govt. sponsored religion. As such, the display of any specific religious doctrine and/or imagery shows support of that specific religion by the govt rather than the 'freedom of religion' and "wall between church and state" which the first amendment states is not allowed.


What we have here is an icon of Jesus telling people to obey the law. It's vastly different from the 10 Commandment cases in that the 10 Commandments actually advocate people worship the Hebrew God.


What you have is singular religious imagery being used in a govt. building that has zero ability under the first amendment to do it.


I don't expect world class discussions on Whackbag but can you keep from looking like a drooling retard while hysterically attacking another group of drooling retards. And yes, I recognize you're staff but considering you started the targeted insults it's fair game.
You've had zero intelligent input prior to this post therefor you were treated as such. Until someone acts as though they are capable of some sort of reasonable discourse on a subject, I will treat them as an idiot.

[Creampier]

This has become quite the cringe worthy thread!
:popcorn:

[jb9152]

Display of a painting of Christ in a court building has *zero* to do with infringement of freedom of speech, so drop the sanctimony about the First Amendment.

Until the Congress proposes a bill making Christianity the "state religion", then all this hyperventilating over a portrait of a moral leader (whether you believe that he was real or not, he is the central figure in a system of morals and beliefs about morality) in a courthouse is self-indulgent (oooo! Look at me! I'm an atheist! I'm offended!!) and silly. You might as well be one of those Christian far right fucks trying to get people thrown off the radio for saying "poopie".

We have a lot bigger problems than worrying about a fucking painting. Get over yourselves.

[YourAmishDaddy]

Display of a painting of Christ in a court building has *zero* to do with infringement of freedom of speech, so drop the sanctimony about the First Amendment.

Until the Congress proposes a bill making Christianity the "state religion", then all this hyperventilating over a portrait of a moral leader (whether you believe that he was real or not, he is the central figure in a system of morals and beliefs about morality) in a courthouse is self-indulgent (oooo! Look at me! I'm an atheist! I'm offended!!) and silly. You might as well be one of those Christian far right fucks trying to get people thrown off the radio for saying "poopie".

We have a lot bigger problems than worrying about a fucking painting. Get over yourselves.

Yes, like my tax dollars subsidizing the places where they put them. If you want to pay taxes set up a place and put pictures of jesus in them fine. Stack them as far as the ceiling. But as long as I am a taxpaying citizen, my wish to not them have them there weighs just as much as yours for wanting them there.

Go do your worshipping and pay your tributes to the Lord in your house. I'll see fit how mine is run.

Which is what this all boils down to. people like this aren't happy worshipping, praying, fellowshipping in their own spaces. They want to come out and influence everyone. Somehow the rest of us are evil sinners and the only thing that will save us is some slack jawed idiot's blue velvet Jesus on a wall.

The argument for is it doesn't mean anything in particular. That having a picture of Jesus in a courtroom isn't doing anything. Then fine. Since it's so meaningless, take it off.

[PCLoadLetter]

So they fight for Muzzie's rights to have a call to prayer in Michigan http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/20/national/main612805.shtml... but they have a problem with a PAINTING of Jesus?
The call to prayer isn't blaring from a speaker in the lobby of a city court that is funded with tax dollars.

Furthermore, the ACLU didn't "fight for the Muzzie's rights" in any way, near as I can tell from that article or a quick Google search. If anything, the ACLU would fight AGAINST the prayer call... So, as Opie would say, your point is mute. Or, more accurately, completely wrong.

[Glenn Dandy]

I dont want even an inclination at a court house that i may be treated under gods law and not American law.

how would you feel going into a middle east court looking at a picture of alas fat head.

[LiddyRules]

What we have here is an icon of Jesus telling people to obey the law. But why should that be allowed in a secular court house? (And do you realize how silly that sounds?)

[PCLoadLetter]

how would you feel going into a middle east court looking at a picture of alas fat head.
If such iconography exists (which it must, but I can't recall ever seeing a depiction of Allah), I'll bet it's all over the fucking walls in a court in the ME. They really DO prosecute "God's Law" 'round thataway, I'll bet... And they don't even need a "court" to do it.

A good old-fashioned stoning, anyone?
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18148/despicable-animals

[Creampier]

The call to prayer isn't blaring from a speaker in the lobby of a city court that is funded with tax dollars.

Furthermore, the ACLU didn't "fight for the Muzzie's rights" in any way, near as I can tell from that article or a quick Google search. If anything, the ACLU would fight AGAINST the prayer call... So, as Opie would say, your point is mute.

No, you're right, but as I corrected myself a few posts down from the one you quoted, a footbath for Muzzies at the University of Michigan in Dearborn, IS taxpayer funded. And the ACLU doesn't mind, so long as the university, a PUBLIC university on PUBLIC PROPERTY, funds it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284652,00.html

Wow, thanks for looking out for my civil liberties ACLU, you fucking hypocrites! I feel so much civilly liberated now that Jesus isn't staring at me from a fucking court pulpit somewhere in bumblefuck Louisiana!

Look, I'm atheist, and I'm neither conservative or liberal. I'm for common sense and fairness. I don't agree with any religious items on any government property that isn't a cemetary, but fight ALL religions, especially the much more dangerous one named Islam! Like I said, they should have better shit to do and they do have better shit to do, so they should start doing it!

[MrBogey]

The first amendment is the defacto opposition to govt. sponsored religion. As such, the display of any specific religious doctrine and/or imagery shows support of that specific religion by the govt rather than the 'freedom of religion' and "wall between church and state" which the first amendment states is not allowed.

The first amendment says nothing about seperating Church and State. Do I need to post the text? You're arguing what you believe the Constitution says instead of what's actually in it.

And you're calling me stupid? I at least not babbling about what I think is in the Constitution.

And your hysteria over Christianity is just odd. I could understand if you were molested by a priest or something, but to see a full grown man so passionate about being offended by a picture of Jesus is odd.

Next you'll be telling me Los Angeles and Corpus Christi are unconstitutional.

[YourAmishDaddy]

This wouldn't even be such an issue if some of the people that pawn this religious iconic sanctimony are some of the most filthy fucking perverted shiteating trash walking the planet. And then have the nerve to look down on others as if they're evil.

The court system is an arbitrary purveyor of balanced justice. Not a place to go to learn morals. If anyone who spewed this nonsense would take the time to read the Federalist Papers they'd know this.

[LiddyRules]

And your hysteria over Christianity is just odd. I could understand if you were molested by a priest or something, but to see a full grown man so passionate about being offended by a picture of Jesus is odd. I don't really see a hysteria over Christianity in this thread. I see people who rightfully don't think that a picture of Jesus should be in a court house. And you know if some Islamic group wanted to put a picture of Allah or Mohammed in a court house, you'd be the first up in arms crying about how all Muslims want to do is blow us up and how dare they.

[MrBogey]

But why should that be allowed in a secular court house? (And do you realize how silly that sounds?)

Because someone that lived there donated it and the city gov't was fine with it.

If you don't like the way theydecorate your city then bitch to the city.

Don't get a sandy vagina about some place you don't live. Atheists like to bill themselves as mature intellectuals who don't need a god to make themselves feel better. Well fucking grow up and stop being offended so easily. Sheesh. Bill Donahue could take some tips from people here on self-crucification.

[DoughBoy]

Display of a painting of Christ in a court building has *zero* to do with infringement of freedom of speech, so drop the sanctimony about the First Amendment.

Until the Congress proposes a bill making Christianity the "state religion", then all this hyperventilating over a portrait of a moral leader (whether you believe that he was real or not, he is the central figure in a system of morals and beliefs about morality) in a courthouse is self-indulgent (oooo! Look at me! I'm an atheist! I'm offended!!) and silly. You might as well be one of those Christian far right fucks trying to get people thrown off the radio for saying "poopie".

We have a lot bigger problems than worrying about a fucking painting. Get over yourselves.

Incorrect. The diplay of any singular religious figure in any govt. buidling displays a specific partiality/preference of that religion ESPECIALLY when taken in the context of this country's faux 'two party' system and the conservative right's agenda to push THEIR idea of religion and morality upon all non-believers rather than letting people beleive and live their lives FREELY.

Allowing ANY religious imagery to get past the 'wall between church and state' defies the nature and spirit of the first amendment.

[YourAmishDaddy]

I just love how anyone who disagrees with this is an "atheist" Well spank my Catholic ass. I never knew.

[MrBogey]

I don't really see a hysteria over Christianity in this thread. I see people who don't think that a picture of Jesus should be in a court house.

Of course you wouldn't see it.

This wouldn't even be such an issue if some of the people that pawn this religious iconic sanctimony are some of the most filthy fucking perverted shiteating trash walking the planet. And then have the nerve to look down on others as if they're evil.

Go back to your house of worship where they can tell you what to think and how to live your life. You're obviously not intelligent enough to participate in a logical discussion with rational thinkers.

We don't need a bunch of religious wack-a-doos dictating public policy. . . especially in the courts! Those are the same types who would LOVE to run O&A out of town on a rail. They'd lose their minds over what gets discussed on this very website at times.

And the granddaddy of them all.

The Christian movement in this country is REALLY starting to scare the shit outta me. . . I know the Bible-thumpers in this area have everything and everybody in a stranglehold. They shove their beliefs right in your face and, if you have a different belief, will absolutely throw a "hissy-fit" on you if do the same. Hypocritical fascism disguised as a "message of hope and Love". . . Fuck 'em!!!

[MrBogey]

I just love how anyone who disagrees with this is an "atheist" Well spank my Catholic ass. I never knew.

It was easier to say "Atheist" than "atheists or any people with sandy vaginas".

[YourAmishDaddy]

This has to be what it's like trying to negotiate with Al Sharpton. Generalities, and nonsense. And a good healthy dose of victimization.

[DoughBoy]

The first amendment says nothing about seperating Church and State. Do I need to post the text? You're arguing what you believe the Constitution says instead of what's actually in it.

I know the exact verbage quite well, I also know the various letters surrounding such verbage by Mr. Jefferson (re: baptist letters) and quite a few supreme court cases ruling back into the late 1800's that mention the precedent which I speak of.


And you're calling me stupid? I at least not babbling about what I think is in the Constitution.

I'm not calling you stupid, I'm stating that you haven't put forth an intelligent arguement and until you do so, I will treat you as you are. As far as what I 'think' is in the Constitution, I know it quite well. I also know the various interpretations and precedents that have been set.


And your hysteria over Christianity is just odd. I could understand if you were molested by a priest or something, but to see a full grown man so passionate about being offended by a picture of Jesus is odd.

Next you'll be telling me Los Angeles and Corpus Christi are unconstitutional.

I have nothing against any specific religion. It isn't about you (or YOUR religion) douchebag. (see, I even worked in a witty show quote)

I have issue with the fact that the govt. is not supposed to endorse ro make laws for any religion. The fact that any religion or religious imagery is displayed is BS.

[MrBogey]

I know the exact verbage quite well, I also know the various letters surrounding such verbage by Mr. Jefferson (re: baptist letters) and quite a few supreme court cases ruling back into the late 1800's that mention the precedent which I speak of.


I'm not calling you stupid, I'm stating that you haven't put forth an intelligent arguement and until you do so, I will treat you as you are. As far as what I 'think' is in the Constitution, I know it quite well. I also know the various interpretations and precedents that have been set.



I have nothing against any specific religion. It isn't about you (or YOUR religion) douchebag. (see, I even worked in a witty show quote)

I have issue with the fact that the govt. is not supposed to endorse ro make laws for any religion. The fact that any religion or religious imagery is displayed is BS.

No, you seriously fucking don't know what the hell you're talking about. You can claim to know the referring cases and various citations but if you're going to keep making huge mistakes in citing them it's clear you don't.

Justice is herself a religious icon. Moses along with other religious icons are found all over the USSC building. What's the USSC take on it all? Slidell asked legal scholars. They said it's okay. The same as what I have stated.

Christians can be whiney. But god dammit it if they're becoming rank amateurs next to some of the "victims" in this thread.

[LiddyRules]

Of course you wouldn't see it. I don't see it because it's not there. If it was Buddah or Mohammed or Moses we'd have the same feeling.

Christians can be whiney. But god dammit it if they're becoming rank amateurs next to some of the "victims" in this thread. What a good right winger. Can't make an argument so try and insult the people trying to debate you and (poorly) make them seem all crazy and whiney.

[MrBogey]

What a good right winger. Can't make an argument so try and insult the people trying to debate you and (poorly) make them seem all crazy and whiney.

The irony of that stement is lost on you. That says enough there.

[LiddyRules]

The irony of that stement is lost on you. That says enough there. Bogey dodges the issue again! :clap::clap::clap:

[DoughBoy]

No, you seriously fucking don't know what the hell you're talking about. You can claim to know the referring cases and various citations but if you're going to keep making huge mistakes in citing them it's clear you don't.

Justice is herself a religious icon. Moses along with other religious icons are found all over the USSC building. What's the USSC take on it all? Slidell asked legal scholars. They said it's okay. The same as what I have stated.

Christians can be whiney. But god dammit it if they're becoming rank amateurs next to some of the "victims" in this thread.

I don't know what the hell I'm talking about? The endorsement of any specific religion is the problem.

There are multiple "USSC" rulings setting the precedent that the 1st amendment does indeed cover banning the display of relgious imagery based on the idea that it is 'government sponsored religion'(Allegheny v ACLU or Stone v Graham), the only time that they have ruled the other way is in a case such as Lynch v Donnely where they ruled that it was not 'endorsing' a specific religion based on the fact that it was a 'seasonal decoration'.

[MrBogey]

I don't know what the hell I'm talking about? The endorsement of any specific religion is the problem.

There are multiple "USSC" rulings setting the precedent that the 1st amendment does indeed cover banning the display of relgious imagery based on the idea that it is 'government sponsored religion'(Allegheny v ACLU or Stone v Graham), the only time that they have ruled the other way is in a case such as Lynch v Donnely where they ruled that it was not 'endorsing' a specific religion based on the fact that it was a 'seasonal decoration'.

Seriosuly, citing cases is nice but you don't understand what they reached and the arguments surrounding them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCreary_County_v._ACLU_of_Kentucky

Holding:Displaying the Ten Commandments bespeaks a religious object unless they are integrated with a secular message. The court saw no integration here because of a lack of a demonstrated analytical or historical connection between the Commandments and the other documents.(Thus, the displays were in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_County_v._Greater_Pittsburgh_ACLU

Allegheny vs ACLU

They found that the manger display contained no relevent secular message. As such it advocated solely a religious message and thusly violated the Establishment Clause clause.


As such here we do have a religious icon but with a relevent secular message. Had it just been a painting of Jesus then you'd have a point. But you don't because the placement of the paiting isn't advocating a religious message but rather a relevent secular mesage.

And to Liddy, Of course you don't get the irony in you insulting right wingers for resorting to insults instead of debate (especially considering I wasn't the first to start insulting other posters).

[DoughBoy]

Seriosuly, citing cases is nice but you don't understand what they reached and the arguments surrounding them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCreary_County_v._ACLU_of_Kentucky

Holding:Displaying the Ten Commandments bespeaks a religious object unless they are integrated with a secular message. The court saw no integration here because of a lack of a demonstrated analytical or historical connection between the Commandments and the other documents.(Thus, the displays were in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_County_v._Greater_Pittsburgh_ACLU

Allegheny vs ACLU

They found that the manger display contained no relevent secular message. As such it advocated solely a religious message and thusly violated the Establishment Clause clause.


As such here we do have a religious icon but with a relevent secular message. Had it just been a painting of Jesus then you'd have a point. But you don't because the placement of the paiting isn't advocating a religious message but rather a relevent secular mesage.



:huh:

I think you're confused. An image of the religious idol of a specific relgion displaying the holy book of said religion while a caption presenting scripture isn't a "religious message"?

[MrBogey]

:huh:

I think you're confused. An image of the religious idol of a specific relgion displaying the holy book of said religion while a caption presenting scripture isn't a "religious message"?

Context is what matters. According to the cases cited the USSC has ruled that if the context of the religious icon fits and sends out a secular message then the icon is permitted. This is not comparable to a Nativity scene as there is an exclusively religious message in a Nativity scene.

What you're doing is akin to saying that **** jokes are never funny. There's a context here.

The quote is what seals this as permitted.

[DoughBoy]

Context is what matters. According to the cases cited the USSC has ruled that if the context of the religious icon fits and sends out a secular message then the icon is permitted. This is not comparable to a Nativity scene as there is an exclusively religious message in a Nativity scene.

What you're doing is akin to saying that **** jokes are never funny. There's a context here.

The quote is what seals this as permitted.

You're incorrect there as the context of the image, not just the quote itself is important. The image portrays a religious figure displaying a religious text of religious rules with that quote. In the context of the image, the quote and its 'message' is most certainly NOT secular in nature.

[MrBogey]

You're incorrect there as the context of the image, not just the quote itself is important. The image portrays a religious figure displaying a religious text of religious rules with that quote. In the context of the image, the quote and its 'message' is most certainly NOT secular in nature.

In a courtroom a statement saying you should obey the law doesn't fit? You do realize they allow people to be sworn in on a Bible. Look at it this way, if a person who knew nothing of religion saw this in a courthouse would they think that it advocated people follow Christianity? Most likely no.

You're reaching.

Just relax and let the people of Slidell decorate their courthouse how they see fit. It doesn't concern you otherwise.

[DoughBoy]

In a courtroom a statement saying you should obey the law doesn't fit? You do realize they allow people to be sworn in on a Bible. Look at it this way, if a person who knew nothing of religion saw this in a courthouse would they think that it advocated people follow Christianity? Most likely no.

You're reaching.

Just relax and let the people of Slidell decorate their courthouse how they see fit. It doesn't concern you otherwise.

I find it rediculous that we swear people in on the bible.

If a person who knew nothing about christianity looked at that picture, they would see a person displaying a text and telling them that to find peace they must follow that text. The fact that that person and that text is a foundation for a religion is what makes it the advocation of a specific religion.

[MrBogey]

I find it rediculous that we swear people in on the bible.

If a person who knew nothing about christianity looked at that picture, they would see a person displaying a text and telling them that to find peace they must follow that text. The fact that that person and that text is a foundation for a religion is what makes it the advocation of a specific religion.

First, it wouldn't be a Bible that Jesus would be holding. It would be a Torah. Second of all, as I said, the context counts. Of course someone who is hostile to religion would be upset by anything religious.

I saw the picture and it never occured to me that "these laws" referred to the book. Since it was in a courthouse it just seemed obvious it was referring to the law.

[TheDrip]

Yep, God sure does bless the people of Slidell:

http://blog.nola.com/tpnorthshore/2007/07/associate_pastor_in_slidell_bo.html

[DoughBoy]

First, it wouldn't be a Bible that Jesus would be holding. It would be a Torah. Second of all, as I said, the context counts. Of course someone who is hostile to religion would be upset by anything religious.

I saw the picture and it never occured to me that "these laws" referred to the book. Since it was in a courthouse it just seemed obvious it was referring to the law.

Funny how someone who advocates the religion wouldn't percieve a picture of a religious figure holding that religion's religious book and saying follow this for peace as being 'religious'.

/yawn

[MrBogey]

Funny how someone who advocates the religion wouldn't percieve a picture of a religious figure holding that religion's religious book and saying follow this for peace as being 'religious'.

/yawn

He didn't say "follow this". He said, "Obey these laws".

Obey these laws...in a courthouse... the nerve.

[LiddyRules]

He didn't say "follow this". He said, "Obey these laws".

Obey these laws...in a courthouse... the nerve. But they aren't our laws, they're his laws (or at least that's what being said). I hope you see the difference.

[MrBogey]

But they aren't our laws, they're his laws (or at least that's what being said). I hope you see the difference.

And this isn't your city. So why the hell does it matter to you? Especially when to a lot of people the notion that it's exclusive in referring to the Bible doesn't occur. As I said, refer to the previous case history. There's a context to the quote that makes it appropriate.

I sure somewhere closer to you a Christian is doing something that pisses you off. Why don't you go harass them instead.

[Xyn]

Atheists, just like the kind who ran the gulags in Russia, are trying to destroy our culture.

As an atheist, let me just say, in my humble opinion, you are completely fucking nuts.

What's the matter, are you upset about fluoridation? Worried that I'm some communist pinko hell bent on contaminating your precious bodily fluids?

I don't actually care much about the Jesus picture, beyond the point that I don't think it is an appropriate piece to display in a courthouse. I also have no problem with anyone who wants to get involved in removing it.

I'm sure Christians are doing all sorts of things that would annoy me. I don't give a shit because they are doing it in their homes or at their churches or at their own public gatherings. Places I don't have to see if I don't want to.

What I don't want is some religious faggot pushing their shit in my face or doing anything illegal/unconstitutional.

Sure it doesn't affect me, but since when has that been a good argument for legal precedent? Are you out of your mind? Should I not give a shit if someone breaks the law so long as I wasn't robbed or shot? Should I sit back and laugh about the misfortune of some radio show I never listened to if their freedom of speech gets trampled on?

I'm not an activist, however I do support the ideas of the constitution, including the very important separation of church and state. I think it's clear that you aren't coming from a rational mindset with your misguided attacks on the motivations of those who oppose your views.

[LiddyRules]

I sure somewhere closer to you a Christian is doing something that pisses you off. Why don't you go harass them instead. Is there some deficiency in you whereby you don't understand that this has zero to do with Christianity

[MrBogey]

As an atheist, let me just say, in my humble opinion, you are completely fucking nuts.

Well apparently you missed the point. IT'S CALLED SARCASM!!!!

Someone made a hysterical post about Christians and I made a hysterical one about Atheists to point out how stupid it sounds.

I know this is a fansite for a radio show but c'mon. I can't be surrounded compeltely by mouthbreathers.

I think it's clear that you aren't coming from a rational mindset with your misguided attacks on the motivations of those who oppose your views.

I've outlined the court cases dealing with this and how icons alone are not objectionable but rather the context of the display is what must considered. In return I get "OMG!!!!!!! TEH CHRISHUNS"

So yea, I'm getting pretty tired of arguing about this. Seriously, the ACLU is reaching on this and although it's certainly not without merit, they're not in the right here. This is no different than displays all across America that invoke religious symbolism for secular purposes.

[MrBogey]

Is there some deficiency in you whereby you don't understand that this has zero to do with Christianity

That reading sure is hard ain't it? Considering several people here took it upon themselves to rant about Christians it certainly does.

[Smokezilla]

Is there some deficiency in you whereby you don't understand that this has zero to do with Christianity

QFT

It's about the seperation of Church and State. . . it's not the particular religion represented here (although I personally find the Christian religion to be getting almost as fanatical at times as the Muslims). It's the fact that there is a religious figure in a place where people's lives are being weighed in the balance supposedly unbiased and by the Law of the Land alone. No religious qualms need to effect these decisions. . . Once again: Our country was founded upon the idea that State and Church should be completely seperate.

[Xyn]

That reading sure is hard ain't it? Considering several people here took it upon themselves to rant about Christians it certainly does.

It does actually have a little to do with Christianity, although not as much as some may crack it up to be.

It's a Christian image, thus it's a Christian issue.

The point is, that I would feel the same about an image from any religion. In that way, it is not a Christian issue. This isn't some witch hunt against Christianity or some ploy to hijack the culture of the country.

This is a Christian image, thus is has as little place as a statue of Buddah in the courthouse.

Simple.

[MrBogey]

This is a Christian image, thus is has as little place as a statue of Buddah in the courthouse.

Simple.

What about a statue of a pagan god that extols people be fair to one another? Would that piss you off?

[YourAmishDaddy]

Well what can ya say? Some people want to live in a theocracy. Then rant and rave about how those evil Muslims have it all wrong for making religion paramount.

Religion is man made garbage. Everything Jesus ever stood for and taught about was totally contrary to religion. But people wish to cling to their idols still. Like trinkets, statues, and items will get them into heaven.

Clinging to all that false hope and false works. And will bust hell wide open.

[jb9152]

Yes, like my tax dollars subsidizing the places where they put them. If you want to pay taxes set up a place and put pictures of jesus in them fine. Stack them as far as the ceiling. But as long as I am a taxpaying citizen, my wish to not them have them there weighs just as much as yours for wanting them there.

You don't get to choose where your taxes are spent, fuckwit. More sancitmony..."Why, MY taxes won't be spent on pictures of Jesus...I am SO OFFENDED by this...why, next they'll force me to go to church!!"

Go do your worshipping and pay your tributes to the Lord in your house. I'll see fit how mine is run.

More sanctimonious bullshit. Your wife runs your house. :icon_mrgr

Which is what this all boils down to. people like this aren't happy worshipping, praying, fellowshipping in their own spaces. They want to come out and influence everyone. Somehow the rest of us are evil sinners and the only thing that will save us is some slack jawed idiot's blue velvet Jesus on a wall.

Yes, because just the mere sight of a picture of Jesus on a wall forces...FORCES, I say, you to bow down and worship. Or maybe it's the armed guards FORCING you to your knees in front of the picture. Get the fuck over yourself.

The argument for is it doesn't mean anything in particular. That having a picture of Jesus in a courtroom isn't doing anything. Then fine. Since it's so meaningless, take it off.

It's not meaningless. If you were to identify one socio-religious culture with which the start of this country is identified, it would have to be Christianity. That doesn't mean that you have to be a Christian. It doesn't even mean that you have to respect Christianity. But only pussies are threatened by pictures on walls.

[MrBogey]

Religion is man made garbage.

You said you were Catholic. Converted that fast?

[YourAmishDaddy]

But only pussies are threatened by pictures on walls.

How Christian of you. And only cunts are threatened by posts on a radio show message board.

Have a nice day.

[YourAmishDaddy]

You said you were Catholic. Converted that fast?

It isnt the rosary that will get me into Heaven, nor will saying 10,000 Hail Marys.

Religion has nothing to do with it. It's faith. Which works if they lack is dead.

[Xyn]

What about a statue of a pagan god that extols people be fair to one another? Would that piss you off?

Yes actually. Is that what this thread is about? Am I an activist?

I'm just some schmuck on an Opie and Anthony board professing verbal opposition to an issue I find to be unconstitutional. It is not the only unconstitutional case out there.

Also, I do feel that there are degrees of severity. What is it that Jesus is there to symbolise that isn't already reprisented in the courthouse? If it's Christian values, I don't see why it deserves to be there. If it's there just to say "obey the law" then why Jesus? He advocated obeying the law only up until the point that it conflicted with the will of Jehova. I disagree with the symbols that courthouses frequently display, but I understand what they are there to symbolise.

I'd be more than happy to see all religious symbols removed from government buildings. I'm also not an activist trying to do anything about it. We all pick and choose our battles.

[MrBogey]

It isnt the rosary that will get me into Heaven, nor will saying 10,000 Hail Marys.

Religion has nothing to do with it. It's faith. Which works if they lack is dead.

That's fine and dandy. But Catholicism has a Dogma to it. Saying religion is bullshit then saying you are a member of a religion is really fucked up. It sounds to me like you're just saying you're catholic out of convenience.

[YourAmishDaddy]

It sounds to me like you're just saying you're catholic out of convenience.

No, more out of habit. One that was drilled into me at an early age. But, more and more i'm 12 stepping my way out of it.

[MrBogey]

Yes actually. Is that what this thread is about? Am I an activist?

Ever heard of Iustitia? She's Lady Justice. Like I said, context. the thing the USSC has ruled is the most important issuing when determining the appropriateness of an icon on public land.

This is not a violation of the Constitution. It's about what the community wants. If they don't want it then let the locals demand and rally against it. Let them decorate their public lands how they see fit as long as it's not unconstitutional. And what I'm saying here, as I've been saying, is the context of Jesus extolling the virtues of following the law are allowed in the context of a courthouse. Had it beent he picture alone it would definitely be over the line.

[LiddyRules]

What about a statue of a pagan god that extols people be fair to one another? Would that piss you off? Well, the Ten Commandments was originally a Jew-thing and people seemed kind of ticked about that.

Yes, because just the mere sight of a picture of Jesus on a wall forces...FORCES, I say, you to bow down and worship. Or maybe it's the armed guards FORCING you to your knees in front of the picture. Get the fuck over yourself. I am shocked by how people simply do not get the point.

It's not meaningless. If you were to identify one socio-religious culture with which the start of this country is identified, it would have to be Christianity. Yeah, and? A lot of people are Christian. So? We came to this country so not to deal with a religion-based government.

It does actually have a little to do with Christianity, although not as much as some may crack it up to be.

This is a Christian image, thus is has as little place as a statue of Buddah in the courthouse.

Simple. This specific instance is Christian. The actual issue we're discussing is religion. Exactly.

I can't wait until December to hear Bogey rant about how there really is a war on Christmas.

is the context of Jesus extolling the virtues of following the law are allowed in the context of a courthouse. Had it beent he picture alone it would definitely be over the line. Is he holding the Federal Rules of Evidence or is he holding The New Testament? The quote makes it worse.

[Xyn]

Ever heard of Iustitia? She's Lady Justice.

Yes, she is the Roman Goddess of Justice. She is there to symbolise the justice of the legal system. Again, I disagree with such symbols being present. If it were up to me, Iustitia would not be on display in courthouses.

That doesn't answer my question: What does Jesus represent in this context and why should it be put on par with even the current precedent? Christian values are not appropriate for a secular building. Jesus does not represent obeying the law in the same way Iustitia represents justice. So again, I do not see why a picture of him is justified.

How bout a picture of Hitler that says "Don't lie in the courtroom?" Sure Hitler represents all sourts of fascism and human atrocities, but you see, Hitler isn't saying to do any of that, he is saying you should be honest.

Hitler doesn't represent honesty in the courtroom. Jesus doesn't represent obeying the law.

[THE FEZ MAN]

jebuz will love you more if you give him 10% of your gross income

[DoughBoy]

He didn't say "follow this". He said, "Obey these laws".

Obey these laws...in a courthouse... the nerve.

He is displaying the text which clearly outlines the faith of christianity, in which each of the 'laws' or commandments can be found quite readily. He is showing the book of a faith which contains the methods, rules, and laws of following said faith and the caption is "Obey these laws".

If, he was holding the constitution of the US, then yes, you would have a point about context, but in this case, the picture is a religious symbol and should not be endorced by ANY govt. It doesn't matter that this isn't my town because it would set an non-constitutional precedent in which others could follow suit.

If it was pagan god, I would care just as much, just as if it was a Rabbi, Buddah, Vishnu, Mohammed (although the image itself would be blasphemous and cause a riot), Thor, or any other religious symbol.

The fact that you, a christian/catholic, are arguing so vehimently for it is further evidence that this is INDEED a religious image.

[Capt.Caveman]

wow people really care about this shit huh?

[MrBogey]

Man, what's great is you posted before reading further where I pointed out that Lady Justice is a religious figure.

And Jesus would never be displayed holding the Constitution. It was before his time. The text he is holding is simply a symbolic representation as the script is not visible.

Still, as I said. Context. Slidell wins.

[Xyn]

wow people really care about this shit huh?

It's all just bled over from larger debates and dissagreements. Nobodies losing sleep over a stupid painting.

[LiddyRules]

Man, what's great is you posted before reading further where I pointed out that Lady Justice is a religious figure.

And Jesus would never be displayed holding the Constitution. It was before his time. The text he is holding is simply a symbolic representation as the script is not visible.

Still, as I said. Context. Slidell wins. Right. There's never anachronisms in art.

The quote is "To Know Peace, Obey These Laws." Has anyone ever associated inner peace with following the laws of the state? If you looked at the picture outside of the court house, would you think once that he meant State/Federal Law? I haven't the faintest clue how you can argue/think that the "law" in this case refers to non-religious law.

Nobodies losing sleep over a stupid painting. Except Magic Eyes.

[Smokezilla]

Right. There's never anachronisms in art.

Except Magic Eyes.


Be dialin'!:action-sm

http://www.merch-bot.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=448

[Xyn]

Man, what's great is you posted before reading further where I pointed out that Lady Justice is a religious figure.

Are you talking to me? Use quotes or the persons name when addressing them for clarities sake.

If you were, I did read the entire thing. I do understand that she is a religious figure.

I stated that I do not think she should be in the courts.

I also pointed out that her presence there is an understandable piece of symbolism. I do not agree with its presence, however I understand that it represents something that the courts try to represent as well (justice).

Jesus does not represent obeying the law, so Jesus does not fall under the same context as Iustitia.

Also, why not put an anachronism into the painting? What, it has to be "historically accurate?" That is still no excuse for the paintings inherently religious tones.

Besides. You guys believe he rose from the dead right? Why not do a modern painting of the big guy and have him wearing a nice suit and holding the constitution? Or give him a powdered wig and have him sitting with the founding fathers.

Make the picture be really late at night. Call it: The last midnight snack

[Capt.Caveman]

It's all just bled over from larger debates and dissagreements. Nobodies losing sleep over a stupid painting.

i'm not a jesus freak nor am i a hippie church sucks person. i just couldn't give a fuck about it either way. who cares.

[Xyn]

i'm not a jesus freak nor am i a hippie church sucks person. i just couldn't give a fuck about it either way. who cares.

Shut up with your sanity sir, we don't want your kind here.

[izzy izkowitz]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACLU sues city over Jesus painting By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 31 minutes ago

NEW ORLEANS - The American Criminal Liberties Union sued the city of Slidell on Tuesday ...
.


there, fixed it

[LiddyRules]

there, fixed it

http://www.morningsun.net/images/073102/TRAIN_DERAILMENT_KELR.jpg

[Smokezilla]

Here's the question: The ACLU gets involved in this issue, but where were they when O&A's and Imus' civil liberties were being infringed-upon May 15???:huh:

[Creampier]

Here's the question: The ACLU gets involved in this issue, but where were they when O&A's and Imus' civil liberties were being infringed-upon May 15???:huh:

Probably off defending NAMBLA or some other "misunderstood" group
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000831/aponline171914_000.htm

That's why it looked like I was defending the Jesus portrait in this thread. I don't think it should be in the courtroom, but the shit the ACLU goes after and/or defends is fucking ridiculous. They are far from having our best interests at hand, and anyone who believes otherwise, I'd seriously question their sanity.

[Xyn]

Probably off defending NAMBLA or some other "misunderstood" group
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000831/aponline171914_000.htm

That's why it looked like I was defending the Jesus portrait in this thread. I don't think it should be in the courtroom, but the shit the ACLU goes after and/or defends is fucking ridiculous. They are far from having our best interests at hand, and anyone who believes otherwise, I'd seriously question their sanity.

I whole heartedly agree that the ACLU does a shitty job of picking which cases to go after.

[MrBogey]

Are you talking to me? Use quotes or the persons name when addressing them for clarities sake.


I was replying back to the poster right before me that it concerned.

As far as Jesus and peace. If you ignore the laws of the state there won't be peace in your life. It's pretty obvious.

Jesus is a symbol of justice and law also. If you're not a Christian he should have the same connotation to you as Lady Justice.

[PCLoadLetter]

Here's the question: The ACLU gets involved in this issue, but where were they when O&A's and Imus' civil liberties were being infringed-upon May 15???
Probably defending someone whose civil liberties were violated. What a publicly-held company decides to do with its on-air talent when bowing to the pressure of special interest groups or advertisers has nothing to do with the Constitution, no matter how pissed off we may be about how Imus or O&A were treated.

[PCLoadLetter]

No, you're right, but as I corrected myself a few posts down from the one you quoted, a footbath for Muzzies at the University of Michigan in Dearborn, IS taxpayer funded.
If you really look into the issue, they're basically using taxpayer dollars to provide a place for these shitheads to clean their feet that ISN'T the sink in a regular restroom... I'd happily pay the tax burden to keep filthy Islamic feet out of the sink that I wash my hands in. It's not like they're providing a place for them to unroll their carpets and pray in, ya know, it's just a place to wash up. I'm not particularly excited by the use of public funds to provide a place or facility that promotes personal cleanliness, no matter how alien that sense of cleanliness may be to my personal sensibilities.

[jb9152]

How Christian of you. And only cunts are threatened by posts on a radio show message board.

Have a nice day.

You too, dickfuck. :action-sm And you're still a pussy if Jebus scares you.

[YourAmishDaddy]

You too, dickfuck. :action-sm And you're still a pussy if Jebus scares you.

Took you that long to come up with that lackluster reply? And who the fuck is "Jebus?"



Vos, is that you?




Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot. I was going to just not bother with it, but why the hell not?

[SIC] Put it where it goes.

[DoughBoy]

Man, what's great is you posted before reading further where I pointed out that Lady Justice is a religious figure.

And Jesus would never be displayed holding the Constitution. It was before his time. The text he is holding is simply a symbolic representation as the script is not visible.

Still, as I said. Context. Slidell wins.

Being deliberately obtuse isn't an argument that is viable. My original assessment of your intellect was accurate. Good day.

[MrBogey]

Being deliberately obtuse isn't an argument that is viable. My original assessment of your intellect was accurate. Good day.

You couldn't even cite your case law accurately. You think anyone of sufficient intelligence would take your assessment of me seriously? You're the Boardroom Jimmy of Supreme Court cites. Amusing but nonetheless, not worthy of listening to for serious decisions.

[krisko]

if the jesus painting was painted with pigs blood or dog shit they wouldn't have a problem with it...the goddamn ACLU are the worst group of individuals in this country right now and they make me fucking sick

[PCLoadLetter]

if the jesus painting was painted with pigs blood or dog shit they wouldn't have a problem with it...the goddamn ACLU are the worst group of individuals in this country right now and they make me fucking sick
I hope you'll elaborate on what you're referring to with the pig blood/dog shit comment.

[ern]

what annoys me is that someone had an issue with it after it had been there for ten years (I think the article said), and the ACLU acted on an anonimous persons behalf.

Sounds cowardly to me.

I think everyone could potentially agree that whoever called the ACLU is a pussy. Not for calling them, but for not having the courage of conviction to stand behind their belief.

At least the people on this board let you know where they stand on the issue.

Me, I coulnd't care less what they had up there. The court system itself is corrupt, and I blame the ABA for that. First, hang all the lawyers...

[PCLoadLetter]

I think everyone could potentially agree that whoever called the ACLU is a pussy. Not for calling them, but for not having the courage of conviction to stand behind their belief.
It seems you're assuming that the person who ratted on the courthouse knew that the painting was there for the years that it was hanging on the wall. For all we know, the person who reported it called the ACLU the very moment they first saw it or knew of its existence. Never having been in the courthouse in my city, there may be a painting of Jesus hanging over the front door... and if there is, I'm not a pussy for not standing behind my beliefs, because I don't know it's there.

[krisko]

I hope you'll elaborate on what you're referring to with the pig blood/dog shit comment.

remember when the guy made a chocolate jesus, the ACLU would defend something like that, there was also an art exhibit that was a jesus painting made from elephant dung. I believe the ACLU would fight tooth and nail for that "art" but this painting is offensive for some reason. This may have been said already but Jesus is an historical figure, having a painting of him isn't prescribing a religion, it's having a fucking painting of him.

[PCLoadLetter]

remember when the guy made a chocolate jesus, the ACLU would defend something like that, there was also an art exhibit that was a jesus painting made from elephant dung. I believe the ACLU would fight tooth and nail for that "art" but this painting is offensive for some reason.
Perhaps the difference was one painting was in an art gallery and the other was in a courthouse with the inscription "To Know Peace, Obey these laws" while Jesus forks over the New Testament.

Perhaps the real lawsuit should be over the incongruousness of Jesus handing forth a book that was written far after his death...

[PCLoadLetter]

remember when the guy made a chocolate jesus, the ACLU would defend something like that, there was also an art exhibit that was a jesus painting made from elephant dung.
BTW, I can't find any reference online to the ACLU having anything to do with the chocolate Jesus incident.

I did a little reading on the elephant dung situation to remind me of what that was all about... And of course it was less about the specific piece of work that included elephant dung and more about the city threatening to yank all funding for the museum if they exhibited it. I won't defend the piece as being "art" any more than a piece showing a cross submerged in urine is "art", but don't you find it necessary to have someone out there to keep government censorship in check?

If anything, I'd think that a fan of a certain radio show would be happy that there's a group out there that defends the rights of artists (think: O&A) to exhibit or perform controversial and offensive material/work (think: XM show) that enrages the bulk of the population (think: the vast majority of the country).

[krisko]

BTW, I can't find any reference online to the ACLU having anything to do with the chocolate Jesus incident.

I did a little reading on the elephant dung situation to remind me of what that was all about... And of course it was less about the specific piece of work that included elephant dung and more about the city threatening to yank all funding for the museum if they exhibited it. I won't defend the piece as being "art" any more than a piece showing a cross submerged in urine is "art", but don't you find it necessary to have someone out there to keep government censorship in check?

If anything, I'd think that a fan of a certain radio show would be happy that there's a group out there that defends the rights of artists (think: O&A) to exhibit or perform controversial and offensive material/work (think: XM show) that enrages the bulk of the population (think: the vast majority of the country).

if you read what i said: remember when the guy made a chocolate jesus, the ACLU would defend something like that, there was also an art exhibit that was a jesus painting made from elephant dung. I believe the ACLU would fight tooth and nail for that "art" but this painting is offensive for some reason. This may have been said already but Jesus is an historical figure, having a painting of him isn't prescribing a religion, it's having a fucking painting of him.

a group that supoprts pedophiles and terrorists is not a group that i'll support anytime soon sir, o&a don't do crazy enough shit to get the ACLU's attention. if they were interested in showing their love to little boys and that got them fired then maybe the ACLU would take a stand against such a heinous firing.

[LiddyRules]

if you read what i said: remember when the guy made a chocolate jesus, the ACLU would defend something like that, there was also an art exhibit that was a jesus painting made from elephant dung. I believe the ACLU would fight tooth and nail for that "art" but this painting is offensive for some reason. This may have been said already but Jesus is an historical figure, having a painting of him isn't prescribing a religion, it's having a fucking painting of him.

This is a painting of Jesus holding the New Testament in a court house saying "OBEY THESE LAWS." There's a huge difference between that and a painting in an art gallery. It's implicitly putting the laws of Christianity (and only Christianity) above the laws of the government and that should not be allowed in a court house.

What I find insulting is the way you are trying to make it seem like the people against the painting as crazy whiners. How the fallback response seems to be "You're offended by a painting! You're crazy!!!!" That's not the issue, that's not the point, and it's just making yourselves look ignorant.

[MrBogey]

What's funny is you can't tell what book he's holding. It's just a standard Eatern Orthodox icon.

The quote fits the circumstances. Remember those case cites I gave. Context!

[LiddyRules]

What's funny is you can't tell what book he's holding. It's just a standard Eatern Orthodox icon. http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/4574/capt0feeac4c8ab94b9790adw7.jpg Yeah, must be a cookbook.

Even without holding a book, it still should not be allowed.

[ern]

It seems you're assuming that the person who ratted on the courthouse knew that the painting was there for the years that it was hanging on the wall. For all we know, the person who reported it called the ACLU the very moment they first saw it or knew of its existence. Never having been in the courthouse in my city, there may be a painting of Jesus hanging over the front door... and if there is, I'm not a pussy for not standing behind my beliefs, because I don't know it's there.

Your reasoning is skewed sir. If you are anonymous, then you are not standing behind your beliefs, your a coward hiding behind someone elses shield. In this case behind lawyers, a profession right about the same standing as politician in my book. To further elaborate my point, if you do not know that a thing exsits, or reasonably should know, that you are not a coward for taking a stand on it - one way or another.

[MrBogey]

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/4574/capt0feeac4c8ab94b9790adw7.jpg Yeah, must be a cookbook.

Even without holding a book, it still should not be allowed.

Sorry, this is America. You don't have a right to not be offended. Once again, the country is filled with religious quotes and icons on gov't property. The USSC ruled that as long as the icon can fit into a secular context it's allowed. Nativity scenes can't be made into a secular message. The Ten Commandments can, depending upon the circumstances. And herte we are. With Jesus telling people to follow the law... in a courthouse.

[LiddyRules]

With Jesus telling people to follow the law... in a courthouse. IMO, it is so much more obviously referring to religious law over secular law. That's how I read it. You, apparently, read it differently.

[PCLoadLetter]

To further elaborate my point, if you do not know that a thing exsits, or reasonably should know, that you are not a coward for taking a stand on it - one way or another.
You're going to have to translate the above statement.

[PCLoadLetter]

Yeah, must be a cookbook.
Exactly. The title should really read "Obey these recipes".

[PCLoadLetter]

a group that supoprts pedophiles and terrorists is not a group that i'll support anytime soon sir
Ah, the old "pedophiles and terrorists shouldn't get the same treatment as the rest of us when in court" argument. Roger.

So.... ANY cause the ACLU gets behind is bad because they have supported the constitutional rights of people that are abhorrent to you?

[Plunkies]

IMO, it is so much more obviously referring to religious law over secular law. That's how I read it. You, apparently, read it differently.

He knows how it's read. He supports it because it's his religion. If it was Muhammad he wouldn't be making the same argument.

[ern]

You're going to have to translate the above statement.

Alrighty then.

Lets say that there is a picture hanging in your local courthouse of satan, holding a bouqet of flowers (absurd for the purposes of illustration). And lets say that this picture would, upon viewing it, cause you such intense internal strife that you would curl up in the fetal position, pee yourself, and sing sweet home alabama.

If you did not know that it was there (in the courthouse), and you did nothing about it (like nothing), then you would not be a coward. However, knowing and reasonably knowing are different. Now, for purposes of illustration again, lets say you are the head janitor at the courthouse. You are in charge of three other retarded people, who constantly crap themselves and drool. A high priest of satan in the local parish comes to your office (the bathroom) and hands you a picture of satan holding a bouqet of flowers and says I want this hung. You give it to your band of brothers to hang (you can't hang it, it causes the internal strife described above). You should now reasonably know that it was going to be hung in the courthouse. If you do nothing about the picture now, then you are a coward, because you should have reasonably known that the picture would have been hung in the courthouse.

[THE FEZ MAN]

the old drunk rich guys that didnt want to pay there taxes, didn't want to be told what god to worship either

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

[krisko]

Ah, the old "pedophiles and terrorists shouldn't get the same treatment as the rest of us when in court" argument. Roger.

So.... ANY cause the ACLU gets behind is bad because they have supported the constitutional rights of people that are abhorrent to you?

most terrorists are not citizens of this country, thus they have no constitutional rights. I don't think anyone in their right mind would sue on behalf of a group who supports man-boy love, but thats just me, i guess we all have our opinions of what is right. No, every cause the ACLU gets behind isn't bad, the ACLU is just a hypocritical organization.

[LiddyRules]

He knows how it's read. He supports it because it's his religion. If it was Muhammad he wouldn't be making the same argument. Well if it were Muhammad, he very well should make the same argument.

[MrBogey]

He knows how it's read. He supports it because it's his religion. If it was Muhammad he wouldn't be making the same argument.

Yes, I would. Man, you people can't get anything right in this thread.

[YourAmishDaddy]

most terrorists are not citizens of this country

Got that part wrong. There's a shitload of them in DC.

[PCLoadLetter]

If you did not know that it was there (in the courthouse), and you did nothing about it (like nothing), then you would not be a coward.
Well, that was my point after all. All I was saying is that the argument that it hung there for ten years is irrelevant if the person who did the snitching didn't see it in those ten years.

[PCLoadLetter]

I don't think anyone in their right mind would sue on behalf of a group who supports man-boy love
Well, you find much argument from me on that point... I think that the ACLU doesn't do themselves any favors when getting involved in such highly unpopular causes/cases.

[Plunkies]

Yes, I would. Man, you people can't get anything right in this thread.

Let's agree to disagree.

[SatansCheerledr]

Let's agree to disagree.


Why would you want to disagree to agree? That's just ig-no-rant.

[THE FEZ MAN]

Why would you want to disagree to agree? That's just ig-no-rant.

like believing that following some one else's interpretation of a 5000 year old fairy tail is a good idea?

[SatansCheerledr]

like believing that following some one else's interpretation of a 5000 year old fairy tail is a good idea?

Ha-ha! Read it again Fez Man. I think you missed the joke. :icon_mrgr

[THE FEZ MAN]

Ha-ha! Read it again Fez Man. I think you missed the joke. :icon_mrgr

i didnt miss the joke im just poking the bees nest with a stick

[SatansCheerledr]

i didnt miss the joke im just poking the bees nest with a stick

Damn, I guess I just can’t get anything right in this thread.

[Xyn]

Damn, I guess I just can’t get anything right in this thread.

I declare this thread FUBAR.

[YourAmishDaddy]

God, make it stop.

[Jolie]

Sorry, this is America. You don't have a right to not be offended. Once again, the country is filled with religious quotes and icons on gov't property. The USSC ruled that as long as the icon can fit into a secular context it's allowed. Nativity scenes can't be made into a secular message. The Ten Commandments can, depending upon the circumstances. And herte we are. With Jesus telling people to follow the law... in a courthouse.

Nativity scene could easily represent home and hospitality - Joseph and Mary travelled for 11 days (or so - maybe 9), looking for a place to stay and were turned away by all but the last one. It represents the true spirit of giving and love that are the embodiment of the holiday season.

There. Nativity scene is now secular.

Oh, and you have three guys bringing them presents. Also what the holiday is all about.

[LiddyRules]

Nativity scene could easily represent home and hospitality - Joseph and Mary travelled for 11 days (or so - maybe 9), looking for a place to stay and were turned away by all but the last one. It represents the true spirit of giving and love that are the embodiment of the holiday season.

There. Nativity scene is now secular.

Oh, and you have three guys bringing them presents. Also what the holiday is all about. We agreed to disagree. What the fuck is wrong with you?