Public School Takes Down Painting of Jesus

[*PhilHos*]

You know, I am constantly amazed at how weak-minded atheists and agnostics are that a simple picture or a few words are enough for them to consider being converted to a particuar religion.

Just sayin'.

(08-27-2015, 10:52 PM)Nately120 Wrote: One might argue that the person who put a painting of a specific religious figure on display in a public school was the one deciding his/her personal traits/beliefs were special enough to circumnavigate common law. "Well, this is a public school so we aren't supposed to present or support a specific religion, but I love Jesus and I'm putting this painting up because I'm a special snowflake!  Also, I'm offended the godless heathens want me to follow the law and take it down!" Woah, wait...Christians and conservatives get offended and are deluded into thinking they are "special"?  No way, that's totally a liberal thing!

Why are things that are "public" so exclusionary? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Allow ALL religious iconography. Allow the Jesus painting. Allow the Quran. Allow Mjolnir. Allow these things because it's PUBLIC property, not ATHEISTIC property.

[GMDino]

(08-28-2015, 09:10 AM)PhilHos Wrote: You know, I am constantly amazed at how weak-minded atheists and agnostics are that a simple picture or a few words are enough for them to consider being converted to a particuar religion.

Just sayin'.



Why are things that are "public" so exclusionary? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Allow ALL religious iconography. Allow the Jesus painting. Allow the Quran. Allow Mjolnir. Allow these things because it's PUBLIC property, not ATHEISTIC property.

I kinda feel the same about the weak-minded religious who have to have constant reminders that someone is watching them in order to be good and behave.



And as to your question the Christians would be filing a lawsuit to have the others removed.  They don't even want science taught.  Do you think they want other religions too?

[*PhilHos*]

(08-28-2015, 09:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: I kinda feel the same about the weak-minded religious who have to have constant reminders that someone is watching them in order to be good and behave.

No doubt there are weak-minded, easily offensable religious people and they tick me off even more.

Doesn't excuse the atheists and agnostics, though.

GMDino Wrote:And as to your question the Christians would be filing a lawsuit to have the others removed.  They don't even want science taught.  Do you think they want other religions too?

You're right, they would. Doesn't make them right, either. 

Like I said, it should be INCLUSIONARY. Just because Christian nut jobs want it to be exclusionary (but in their favor) doesn't make it right that all public property should be exclusionary for atheists/agnostics.

[GMDino]

(08-28-2015, 09:30 AM)PhilHos Wrote: No doubt there are weak-minded, easily offensable religious people and they tick me off even more.

Doesn't excuse the atheists and agnostics, though.


You're right, they would. Doesn't make them right, either. 

Like I said, it should be INCLUSIONARY. Just because Christian nut jobs want it to be exclusionary (but in their favor) doesn't make it right that all public property should be exclusionary for atheists/agnostics.

I have no problem teach about ancient religions in history.  I have a problem with one religion hanging their icons around a public school.

I guess we agree.

Edit: So all the people who protest that the picture should stay or that the ten commandments needs to be on public buildings are weak? Are there ANY strong religious people?

[*PhilHos*]

(08-28-2015, 09:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: I have no problem teach about ancient religions in history.  I have a problem with one religion hanging their icons around a public school.

Why? Are you that weak-minded you might feel compelled to join that religion? Or are you saying it's only ok to hang what YOU want to hang?

You know, maybe we should just have separate walls; Christians hang their crap here, Muslims here, Jews here, etc. It worked when there were separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites, right?  :snark: 

I hate to break this to you, but this country has citizens with all different kinds of religious affiliations. Why, then, is only YOURS acceptable to be hung in a PUBLIC space?

(08-28-2015, 09:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: I guess we agree.

Obviously not.

(08-28-2015, 09:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: Edit:  So all the people who protest that the picture should stay or that the ten commandments needs to be on public buildings are weak?  Are there ANY strong religious people?

Yes. There are millions in this country. Millions who say nothing when people openly bash their religion or when people take down their iconography. Just because the ones you hear are the weak ones, doesn't mean they represent their religion. Unless you think otherwise, like all Muslims are terrorists, for example.

[djs7685]

(08-28-2015, 09:44 AM)PhilHos Wrote: I hate to break this to you, but this country has citizens with all different kinds of religious affiliations. Why, then, is only YOURS acceptable to be hung in a PUBLIC space?

I don't think anybody has advocated their religious paraphernalia being put up in any public schools. Why would you ask someone why theirs is acceptable when they never said that?

Public school isn't the place for religion, plain and simple. We aren't "weak minded" or "afraid" of a picture of Jesus. We just don't need religion in general in public school, not just your religion, but any of them.

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-28-2015, 09:44 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Why? Are you that weak-minded you might feel compelled to join that religion? Or are you saying it's only ok to hang what YOU want to hang?

You know, maybe we should just have separate walls; Christians hang their crap here, Muslims here, Jews here, etc. It worked when there were separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites, right?  :snark: 

I hate to break this to you, but this country has citizens with all different kinds of religious affiliations. Why, then, is only YOURS acceptable to be hung in a PUBLIC space?


Obviously not.


Yes. There are millions in this country. Millions who say nothing when people openly bash their religion or when people take down their iconography. Just because the ones you hear are the weak ones, doesn't mean they represent their religion. Unless you think otherwise, like all Muslims are terrorists, for example.

There are many more Atheists that would walk by the painting (or other iconography/written words) and just ignore it, than there are making a fuss.  Your need for them to be the majority while at the same time holding to the idea that the majority of Christians/religious are strong within their beliefs and would not make a fuss is telling.

The people that make huge issues out of these things, either atheist or religious, are in the minority within their respected beliefs.  They get heard because the law is on their side.  It is truly the week minded that act as if everyone in a group is represented by the few.

[GMDino]

(08-28-2015, 09:44 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Why? Are you that weak-minded you might feel compelled to join that religion? Or are you saying it's only ok to hang what YOU want to hang?

You know, maybe we should just have separate walls; Christians hang their crap here, Muslims here, Jews here, etc. It worked when there were separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites, right?  :snark: 

I hate to break this to you, but this country has citizens with all different kinds of religious affiliations. Why, then, is only YOURS acceptable to be hung in a PUBLIC space?

Actually I was saying there's no need for it.  And if you are going to do it you'd have to do it for all religions...but that TEACHING ABOUT religions without trying to convert is OK in the history class setting.

(08-28-2015, 09:44 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Obviously not.

Obviously.

(08-28-2015, 09:44 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes. There are millions in this country. Millions who say nothing when people openly bash their religion or when people take down their iconography. Just because the ones you hear are the weak ones, doesn't mean they represent their religion. Unless you think otherwise, like all Muslims are terrorists, for example.

Could it be that when someone complains they are in the minority and don't represent the majority either? Or does that only work for your side?

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(08-28-2015, 02:17 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Every parent has the option of where to send their kid or to home school them.   no one is forced.

Exactly.  If a parent want to have religious icons hung up in their child's classroom, then they can send them to a school where that is allowed. 

Public school is all inclusive, and in no way, should promote a religion.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(08-28-2015, 09:10 AM)PhilHos Wrote: You know, I am constantly amazed at how weak-minded atheists and agnostics are that a simple picture or a few words are enough for them to consider being converted to a particuar religion.

You can read a lot of moronic statements in these forums, but ones like these take the cake. 

The fact that this dude is simple-minded enough to think that this is actually a reason that people feel that religion shouldn't be peddled in school is nuts.  We need more intelligent people.  Stop putting up with stuff like this.

[jakefromstatefarm]

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/9-investigates-dad-protests-islamic-lessons-school/nj7Ny/

SEMINOLE COUNTY, Fla. —

A history book used in school districts across the state is sparking controversy in Seminole County.

A parent called 9 Investigates after finding out his son was learning too much about the Islamic religion in a public classroom.

Ron Wagner read from part of his son's world history book, "There is no god, but God. Muhamad is the messenger of God."

Wagner, who is not religious, said he had no idea the public school was teaching so extensively about religion until he spotted a text on his son's phone from a teacher reminding him to complete a prayer rug assignment and study an Islam packet.

[*michaelsean*]

I would remove the little brass tag if it says Jesus and say prove it's Jesus, because I guarantee Jesus looked nothing like that painting.

[GMDino]

(08-28-2015, 10:28 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/9-investigates-dad-protests-islamic-lessons-school/nj7Ny/

SEMINOLE COUNTY, Fla. —

A history book used in school districts across the state is sparking controversy in Seminole County.

A parent called 9 Investigates after finding out his son was learning too much about the Islamic religion in a public classroom.

Ron Wagner read from part of his son's world history book, "There is no god, but God. Muhamad is the messenger of God."

Wagner, who is not religious, said he had no idea the public school was teaching so extensively about religion until he spotted a text on his son's phone from a teacher reminding him to complete a prayer rug assignment and study an Islam packet.

I wonder if it was a quote about the religion in relation to how it is taught vs being a command from the teacher.

Out of context I mean.  I have no problem teaching about the history of religions and their evolution through the ages in history class.  Its great for understanding how and why people did things throughout history.

[xxlt]

(08-27-2015, 10:52 PM)Nately120 Wrote: One might argue that the person who put a painting of a specific religious figure on display in a public school was the one deciding his/her personal traits/beliefs were special enough to circumnavigate common law.

"Well, this is a public school so we aren't supposed to present or support a specific religion, but I love Jesus and I'm putting this painting up because I'm a special snowflake!  Also, I'm offended the godless heathens want me to follow the law and take it down!"

Woah, wait...Christians and conservatives get offended and are deluded into thinking they are "special"?  No way, that's totally a liberal thing!

And bingo was his name-o.

[Benton]

(08-28-2015, 02:17 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If the local school board decides then that's their business.   They are elected by the locals.   They answer only to them.  

This lawsuit is a joke.

Every parent has the option of where to send their kid or to home school them.   no one is forced.

If locals stoning was an acceptable punishment for a crime, would that be acceptable?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-28-2015, 12:44 PM)Benton Wrote: If locals stoning was an acceptable punishment for a crime, would that be acceptable?

'Til a bunch of activist judges say we can't.

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-28-2015, 12:44 PM)Benton Wrote: If locals stoning was an acceptable punishment for a crime, would that be acceptable?

(08-28-2015, 01:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 'Til a bunch of activist judges say we can't.

I mean I guess St. Lucie is saying that as long as the community agrees we should allow them to continue as is.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/two-indian-sisters-raped-punishment-6335954

[Benton]

(08-28-2015, 01:22 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I mean I guess St. Lucie is saying that as long as the community agrees we should allow them to continue as is.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/two-indian-sisters-raped-punishment-6335954

Man my grammar was bad in that.

But, yeah, that's kind of what I'm wondering. If we agree to let local level government handle everything, then where are we going to draw the line? I found it especially odd for someone talking about how Florida has been overrun by savages or whatever colorful word it was, given that those communities would then be governing themselves.

[GMDino]

(08-28-2015, 01:26 PM)Benton Wrote: Man my grammar was bad in that.

But, yeah, that's kind of what I'm wondering. If we agree to let local level government handle everything, then where are we going to draw the line? I found it especially odd for someone talking about how Florida has been overrun by savages or whatever colorful word it was, given that those communities would then be governing themselves.

No, no.  See its Christian law...none of that Sharia stuff.  We'll pass laws to stop that. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-28-2015, 09:10 AM)PhilHos Wrote: You know, I am constantly amazed at how weak-minded atheists and agnostics are that a simple picture or a few words are enough for them to consider being converted to a particuar religion.

Just sayin'.



Why are things that are "public" so exclusionary? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Allow ALL religious iconography. Allow the Jesus painting. Allow the Quran. Allow Mjolnir. Allow these things because it's PUBLIC property, not ATHEISTIC property.

"Public" schools are financed via the government by our taxes and have elected school boards.  Our government is prohibited from elevating one religion above another.  If there is only one religious icon in a public school then the government is elevating that religion above others.  You and other Christians are perfectly happy to ignore this when the painting is Jesus.  However, if it were a painting of Muhammad I doubt Lucie would be so understanding.

I wonder if anyone would complain if I came to your church to teach PhilHos, Jr. the theory of evolution and teach him Genesis is a myth?