There are numerous rulings on this which can be found on the DOJ website. Though some states have tried to change the idea of the first amendment it doesn’t hold up in law. The idea that one religion takes precedence over all other is what some people who first came to the US wanted to avoid. I think they were wise. Government should stay out of religion and religion should stay out of government lest we go the way of the Taliban in some “christian” form.
1 Like
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’re actually curious, the current understanding is referred to as the lemon test. Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia , more recently Kennedy v. Bremerton School District - Wikipedia
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.
1 Like
You didn’t read them.
This is about butthurt. It has no basis in law or precedent. Pretending otherwise is farcical.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
Wait a minute: are you telling me there’s no reason for that funny little pocket that come in jeans?
1 Like
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.
1 Like
Right…'cuz the ‘n’ word and ‘mom and dad’ are TOTALLY in the same category, good observation.
I don’t need your help to determine what is outrageous to me.
Whoa, whoa, whoa…just where is your evidence that this guy is butth…
Ah…yeah, totally butthurt.
Not if you want to get a shopping cart at ALDI.
6 Likes
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.
1 Like
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))
2.6% on average.
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.
For ratings.
2 Likes
That’s not historical either so
Thank you for sharing your opinion. I disagree.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
What “liberal spin”?
I’m talking about reality and you’re raging mad about something you made up (or whatever news show you watch made up and told you to be mad about).