There is absolutely nothing in current constitutional law prohibiting or even mentioning the display of artwork with religious imagery in Federal buildings. There is artwork with religious imagery in federal buildings across the country. Take a quarter out of your pocket. Tell me what it says.
If you want to advocate for the barring of artwork with any religious imagery on Federal property go ahead, but don’t claim some sort of historical precedent. You’re going to be awfully busy in the Smithsonian anyways.
I didn’t claim a historical precedent in the form of a judicial ruling. I said we have a separation of Church and state, is that not the case? I’m not ignorant, I know there is religious, specifically Christian, art incorporated in government. My point is this; if it’s that annoying to someone just put it in the building on campus dedicated to religion. It’s really a simple fix.
You guys are losing your shit over such a minor inconvenience.
Only old people carry quarters in their pockets these days.
No. You’re using the phrase out of context, both historically and in current law.
If there was a speech bubble coming out of Jesus mouth that said ‘Catholics are idolators, America is a Protestant nation!’ and the artwork was used in a class named ‘A Prudent Mariner is a Protestant Mariner’ it would violate the Establishment clause.
It’s relatively easy to censor art to avoid hurt feelings, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea.
FWIW, although Thomas Jefferson introduced the expression “wall of separation between the church and state” in 1802, the seeds had been planted by Roger Williams in the 1600’s. Williams was a controversial figure whose purpose was to preserve the integrity of the church rather than that of the state.
There’s actually quite a bit of constitutional law on this subject. And it’s messy. See generally the “creche cases”. (i.e. Allegheny County v. ACLU (1989))
Yes, when referring to OTHER PEOPLE’S PARENTS that you DON’T KNOW THE STATUS OF you should refer to them as their “parents” and not their “non and dad”. How is that controversial at all?!?
There was absolutely NOTHING ridiculous about the slide you posted.
At least Tucker Carlson lies about enough things that Fox News’s official legal position is that no one in their right mind takes what he says seriously.
Why? What is objectionable to asking people to not assume everyone has a “mom and a dad” and so to not refer to their parents as such until you know? Why the fuck does that bother you so much?
Because it’s not the government’s job to tell the citizenry how to speak. Not all of us are sheep who are supplicant to our government masters there comrade.
They weren’t. They were telling students at a federal college not too be dicks to each other and advising them in how they can do that. How much work does it take to be this intentionally dense?
Very little in comparison to the work you’re doing trying to back the liberal spin on this.
Look, let’s not waste our time here… You’re not going to change my mind on this, and vice versa. I don’t respect you or your positions on this and most every other thing you post here and vice versa. So let’s just recognize that reality and move forward.
I have no intention of wading into the left/right tempest in a teapot political aspects of this debate but quick question: if the majority of same sex couples refer to themselves as husband and wife, why would their children refer to them as anything other than mom and dad?