ACLU sues to get Jeebus picture taken out of courtroom:
Offline Why can't these fuckwads just keep their religion out of where it doesn't belong?
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
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
It's called pride.
Prov 16:5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
Whoop-dee-doo. What else is new? Who cares about some painting inside a courtroom? How does it affect my life? It doesn't. Just get on with life and quit caring about petty little things like this. Looks like the Abominable Communist Loser's Union is at it again.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
It's promoting Christianity in a government building. And I'm an ACLU member.
And if there was a Darwin fish in the courtroom and the American Center for Law and Justice filed suit, would you hold the same opinion?
Why do I strongly suspect that you would be talking about those stalwart defenders of the faith that work for Pat Robertson?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
These same morons who want "Jesus" in the courtroom rightfully recoil at the thought of a non-muslim living in a Muslim country having to be judged by Islamic law in their courtooms.
These idiots who do this do not understand that keeping it out of goverment institutions PROTECTS THEM AS WELL.
Ok, lets say for arguments sake, secularists gave up the fight tommorow, and every Christian can display their pictures of Jesus and the 10 commandments.
Which "true" version should be displayed? The Catholic Jesus? How about a Priest/Judge, who wears a collar? How about Catholics being forced to swear in on the book of Mormon? How about a Baptist swearing in on a KJV rather than an NIV?
Do these idiots even understand the division and infighting they will cause?
This is merely a fearmongering that the religious right has successfully marketed for the past 20 years.
"Secularism" is not an atheist label, it can be held by Christians both liberal and conservitive. A "Secularist" is merely someone, atheist or theist, who recognizes that mixing government and religion is a bad idea and such a personal belief should be left up to the individual and not be promoted by goverment. THAT IS IT.
Are these idiots willing to put up the Jewish 1O commandments? Are they willing to put a statue of Buddha next to that picture of Jesus? Are they willing to allow Quran quotes on that same wall?
These idiots dont want "freedom of religion", they want freedom to monopolize what it means to be an American and that only THEY get to promote Jesus through goverment institutions.
If a Catholic would not want Baptist immages in a courtroom, If a Baptist would not want Catholic immages in a courtroom THEY WOULD BOTH BE RIGHT!
So why dont BOTH do what EVERYONE has the freedom to do. Practice your religion on your own time with your own resources and stop pretending that goverment institutions are strictly there for the promotion of your sect or your religion.
OUR CONSTITUTION is there for everyone. OUR goverment is there for the use of everyone. The ACLU is not suing to create a goverment that burns down churchs. The ACLU is simply saying, "You guys have enough outside this setting to display this and this courtroom is not a church so pease dont treat it like one".
How the fearmongers end up with "They want to opress us" is absurd and nothing but crybaby propaganda.
No one, be they atheist or Christian or whatever who supports freedom for everyone, who is in their right mind, wants to opress their neighbor. But these idiots for far too long have been selling this idea that anyone who says mixing goverment and religion is a bad idea, somehow those people want to become Nazis.
NO, as a minorty I have to value freedom. Without it I cannot dissent the way I do here. In order to maintian my freedom, I DO, value the rights of people who's beliefs I find rediculous.
BUT, in doing such it is absurd to call your neighbor an citizen and then expect them to go into govermen institutions and look at religious icons that they dont support. No Christian would want to go into an Islamic court in an Islamic country and be constantly reminded that THEY are not MUSLIMS.
So why are so many Christians desperate to gang tag goverment property with there club logo when they dont even see that they are doing the exact same thing Islamic countrys do.
Is that what we want to become? Isnt freedom dependant on our government leaving that issue up to the individual? Do we really want to plaster the word GOD/JESUS/10 COMMANDMENTS on everything governmental?
Again, the issue becomes "WHO'S JESUS" The Mormon's, The Baptists, The Catholics, Jahovia's Witnesses?
You really have to have your head up your ass to be blind to see the division that it will cause. All of us, believer of any label of any religion and atheists as well have pleanty of time outside of government institutions with mass resources and mass media that is consumed on a mass scale.
360,000 churches, phone books, websites, radio and tv shows, newspapers, books, private stadiums, billboards, marquees, magizines, bumperstickers, jewlery, clothing, ect ect ect ect.
NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE THOSE THINGS WAY FROM YOU BY FORCE OF GOVERMENT! SO PLEASE DROP THE BULLSHIT ARGUMENTS THAT ATHEISTS ARE OUT TO BECOME HITLER.
What secularists(who can be religious too) want is a goverment not favoring anyone. The First Amenment is an anti-trust law. It is designed to prevent monopolies of speech and power, especially religious corision over goverment.
It was never ment to say, "Jesus gets his gang logo on goverment property while others take a back seat"
It meant, "We(govement) will not come after you for your religious beliefs, but we wont aid you either. ON YOUR OWN TIME WITH YOUR OWN RESOURCES!"
If your particular sect or religion cannot support itself financially why do you get to put pictures of Jesus in courtrooms while denying other citizens of other religions the special right of goverment promotion?
It doesnt take a genious to see the bad road where that will lead if the Bible becomes public law. We see what Islamic country's do when using the Quran as public law.
No one is demanding the forcable end of Christianity in America, but secularists both Christian and atheist want our goverment to stay out of that personal issue so that WE as individuals can decide for ourselves.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
So what? Symbols are meaningless. Actions and words have meaning. Pat Robertson needs to shut his mouth about a lot of things. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be overly concerned about the little things in life. We should be going after the "big fish", so to speak. If the ACLU wins this lawsuit, then fine, I don't care. I'm not affected by the painting. Few people are.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Keep kidding yourself if you think acts like that dont affect both Christians and non-Christians. I do care and I am glad more and more people do care, unlike you.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
And when the symbol triggers actions? Where are you then?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Most likely in a bad place. But what kind of actions would a painting like that trigger? Most likely it wouldn't be anything harmful.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
We cannot let any cracks in the wall if we really want to protect the seperation of Church and State.
Edit forgot the word "let"
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Far too many Christians dont see a painting of Jesus merely a painting otherwise they wouldnt care about having a courtroom place it there. We are not talking about a museum or private property. We are talking about people who want it there as the express intent to stake a claim that goverment is Jesus owned and our laws are based on the bible.
Again, I am not talking ALL Christians, but ones who can do damage to our freedoms as well as the freedoms of other Christians. That is why you cant view it as a mere picture, because THEY DONT.
They see it just like a lion pees on a bush to mark its territory. Christians who dont insist that the picture be in that courtroom understand why it is important not to have that immage there. That is why it is important. Because we as a nation should not want to become a theocracy. The people who insist on that picture being there want you and I to take a back seat to them.
These very same people who insist that the picture of jesus be there WOULD if given the chance to force us to live by their dogmatic laws.
"It is just a picture" is like saying "it is just a swastica". In what context? Yea, in a museum or on non-goverment property you could make that case. But you put that same immage on goverment property it sends a message to the people who buy it and believe it to be more than an immage as having special rights over law based on what their god says.
"God Is With Us" was on the belt buckles of Nazis who also sported swhasticas. Do you think those were just "immages" to them?
Again, this is not about whiping out religion via force. This is about preventing any sect of any religion of getting the impression via goverment that they and they alone are somehow divinely intitled to have special rights over others.
It would be nice if people thought like you that it was "just a picture" but you are fooling yourself if you think there are no Christians at all that think putting that picture of their god and their god alone is their right to do in a courtroom.
It is important to prevent things like that so that both believers and non-believers can be free from goverment corision using religion. For the life of me I cannot understand why you wouldnt think a neutral goverment is not important?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Of course we should have a neutral government. Unfortunately, it's going to be next to impossible to have a completely neutral government. Religion or beliefs in something will always be a factor. What I'm saying is that this doesn't really seem to be too big of a deal. I mean, there are even atheists who believe that Jesus was a real person and walk around with the "Atheists for Jesus" t-shirts.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
You keep missing the point. YOU may think it is not a big deal, but to the Christians who insist it be there IT IS, AND THAT IS PRECICELY WHY IT SHOULDNT BE THERE! Not just because of atheists but for the protection of other Christians as well.
AGAIN, lets say for argument's sake you are a Southern Baptist who has to face a Judge in a Mormon community and that Judge is a Mormon WITH a picture of Jesus behind him. How much confidence are you going to have that that Judge is going to be objective?
If for example the Washington Redskins go to Dallas to play the Cowboys and the reffs are wearing Cowboy shirts, how much confidence should the Redskin players and fans have in the play calling of those reffs.
IT WOULD mean something different to that Judge and to the Baptist facing that judge. If religion is that important to someone they should never risk puting it in the hands of goverment because that person may not view "god/God" the way you do or may not have the same god at all.
Putting that picture up is not innocuous. It is goverment putting Christianity above all other religions. Those same people would blow a gasket if a statue of Buddah was placed next to that picture of Jesus and they would blow a gasket if atheists got a picture of Ellen Johnson or Madolyn O'hair put next to that picture of Jesus.
Jesus existing or not existing is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is keeping goverment from intruding on or playing favorites to anyone on the basis of religion.
Again, I wish it were "just a picture" to all like you say it is to you. But it isnt and you cant say that there aren't Christians, especially the ones who want to mark goverment like a lion peeing on a bush, those people DO see that picture as more than a picture. They see it as their divine right to rule government and rip our laws or of their book. That makes them not only dangerous to me, but to Christians outside that particular sect.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Ok, I get the point. Consider yourself as having won our happy little argument.
Is that an honest consession or a "Your crazy brian" flippant remark?
It is your choice if you think complacancy or "dont rock the boat" will keep the peace.
The fallacy in that attitude of "what is the harm" is well written in the human history of religion and government mixing and the well documented dangers of doing such go way back before modern monothiesm.
Those who dont read their history are doomed to repeat it. It has nothing to do with me wanting to opress religious people. It has everything to do with maintianing everyone's freedom, the freedom of Christians and freedom of non-Christians.
What is "just" something to you is not "just" something to others and is why both Christians and non-Christians should object to that picture being there.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
It's an honest concession.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Thank you. I am not right about everything. I'm not even sure if I am human. But I damned sure love being comic relief.
In all serioousness though, there are some things to be protected and freedom is one of them. But even more importantly is in protecting freedom is spreading the message that it is not my idea of freedom, your idea, or their idea, just the simple fact that it is part of our nature to be free from corision. Putting that picture up is a dileberate act of goverment advertising one religion as being more important or more special than another.
So although I am blasphemous and sarcastic and silly, this is one issue I take very seriously.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Well she told me not to contact her any more and said I'm mentally ill after posting that little essay.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Am I the only atheist who thinks the aclu has to much time on their hands?