Federal judge rules lone Jesus painting in Louisiana courthouse was unconstitutional

Is Displaying a portrait of Jesus in the foyer of a Louisiana courthouse(or any other courthouses too ) constitutional ?

US is not only Christians country, then displaying only portrait, pictures representing only Christianity is unconstitutional I think . There must be symbols of other religions too

 

Technically it is Constitutional so once again the court system has failed

 

I from Louisiana, I find stupid. I mean the founding fathers instituted prayer in Congress. And that clause wasnt even in the Constitution but in an ammendment. What it really means is that the government WILL NOT regulate religion like England and Spain were doing, and it looks as though that exactly what its doing.

 

There is no such thing as the "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution, as is widely reported. Read it. The constitution basically says that the government cannot choose any one religion and support it, as was the case in England. But I suspect that is what the view from the Federal judge is based upon.

The country was based upon the premise of freedom of religion, but some judges have distorted that to mean freedom from religion.

 

From wikipedia

 

This was the right decision.

It is not against Christ, Christianity nor indeed any religion to say religion has no constitutional basis to be included in public (state) life. And in a fantastically constructed inversion of facts, it is egregiously ridiculous to say anyone holding this view is "on the attack" with respect to what people do in their homes, how they raise their children, or any other pandering attempt to skew the real issue at play:

In fact, there are those, to include Thomas Jefferson, John Madison, John Adams, my (not-so humble, but working on it) self and many others, who believe it is a danger to the free practice of faith to establish it in public life.

This issue was previously raised in another thread, with Guerilla, for one, making claims similar to some being expressed here, namely, that it's just all atheist or otherwise anti-Christian propagandists at play and that America was at its founding a "Christian nation;" directing us all to view the Founders' words for what they felt.

As I pointed out then, here's a few of those Founders' words that should prove instructive:

(This latter, a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" concluded between the United States and Tripoli. See Article 11).

(emphases mine, for easier reading among the fairly lengthy presidential essays).

Please also see an article I wrote, which included a cursory discussion of the constitutional jurisprudence over the last century with respect to this issue.

One can make flatly unsupportable claims, resort to any manner of weak sophistry, hurl childish insults my or another's way, and otherwise attempt to twist the constitution and the Framers' intent to meaninglessness, or one can accept that the Framers felt the best protection afforded one's right to one's faith is to say faith, and the state, have nothing to do with one another.

 

An update on precisely this issue, as late as 2005:

(Supreme Court decision, http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1693.pdf. WARNING: PDF DOCUMENT).

It is very important to note the Court doesn't seem to care, and neither should anyone, about historical artifacts being displayed in public life, in state buildings and institutions, for entirely secular purposes, that serve an educational or cultural experience - an example would be, I should think, a display including legal codes throughout history, anywhere from the Code of Hamurabbi through the 10 Commandments to civil codes included in the Koran and the Napoleonic Code. These are part of humanity's record with respect to civil governance.

No, what matters is whether the artifacts are there as part of the historical record, or as an openly religious "establishment" by the state entity in question. A picture of Christ in the foyer of a Louisiana courthouse clearly falls into an establishment of religion by the state, and it fails the constitutional test.

It was the right call to make.

 

No it doesn't Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with having a picture of a holy figure in a government building and we all know that. All it means is that the church will not control the government.

 

Great post, I agree.

 

You can agree but you are both still wrong.

 

Forum, respectfully, simply saying "no it doesn't" and "you're wrong" doesn't amount to much, at least not to me. We have the words of the Framers themselves saying exactly this, and the Supreme Court dealing with the issue across a true leviathan of cases.

I respect your right to your faith, and wouldn't dream of impinging on it in your personal life. I also don't believe it is anyone's right to impose their faith in public life, under the weal of the state; I agree with the Framers on this one. It is simply not what America was founded on.

As I said, you can ignore material that is there, but the words and decisions are there, in spades - look above a few posts, for example.

The above aside - even accepting a "no preference doctrine", which for reasons I've shown, isn't truly what the Framers intended - there are thousands of world religions. Is the courthouse to now simply hang images of every religious figure known to humanity?

In that town in Louisiana, say there is a Maori whose religion believes The Law was handed down by Paikea, the Whale Rider deity (Yes, loved Whale Rider). Is this image, along with the 10's of 1000's of other deities and religious figures, to be placed in a courthouse?

If no, why not? He or she is just one person, not the majority? I refer again to what one Founder had to say, in part:

 

Cheers, Rebecca.

 

It is the courthouse's right to put whatever pictures they want up in their building. They are allowed to have a pic of any religious figure they so choose as long as they are not coming out and trying to make everybody believe in that religion. Separation of Church and state has nothing whatsoever to do with this case and you and I both know that.

 

I do not know that at all, Forum. In fact, I quite disagree. As does Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and a host of other pretty key people when it comes to commenting on what they themselves intended.

Respectully, why are you not dealing with the fact their literal words on the subject are a mere few inches above, in this very thread?

Please note: This isn't a "psychotic Class A nutjob hounding and harassing another member for his emotional palliative." It's an exchange of opinions. These issues do matter, and airing them is a good thing, at least in a society that values free exchange, it seems to me.

 

No it isn't.

 

IMO, a judge can put whatever he wants at his/her home. Religious precepts displayed on a government space (even worse, a judiciary one) is theocracy



edited: wow, my 1K post!

 

Hah - milestones. Congrats, cientifico.

 

US is not only Christians country, then displaying only portrait, pictures representing only Christianity is unconstitutional I think . There must be symbols of other religions too


Then you know nothing about the constitution.

I will quote the 1st amendment. It says the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It does not say a school, or a government building or official can not endorse a religion, discuss religion, hand religious items and so on. It does not say if one is endorsed that others would have to as well.

It says "
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Any judge that rules it is illegal to have such religious items displayed is one breaking the law by legislating from the court instead of judging. Any legislative body that makes a law that prohibits the hanging of such items is breaking the law as well.

Sorry, you are wrong. It is. See above.

If you believe it is not their right, you could at least have some common sense enough to show us why it is not. The fact is, the constitution gives them that right, and to make a law against that is unconstitutional.



Also for all the ignorant people here.
"separation of church and state" is not a law or in the constitution. It was a statement by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson's words are not law.

 

I can answer that on this issue, I went to the Founders' words, as this is what was requested by at least one member. To know what the Founders intended isn't a meaningless thing, it seems to me, respecting the document and country they established. It also isn't Jefferson alone, but a good many Founders who spoke very clearly on the subject, as shown, in part, here.

You may resort to insults, or you may consider another tactic to support your view. The bottom line is the constitution forbids an establishment of religion by the state. Religious icons or documents in state institutions that do not clearly provide a secular interest - such as my example above, a display of important legal codes throughout humanity's history - have been rightfully deemed as failing the establishment test of the constitution.

That has been amply provided. The constitution, dispositive cases, and Founders' words have been provided. Not much else left, it seems to me, beyond personal opinion.

 

If the constitution forbids it, please show us where at. I have already shown the only part of the constitution that deals with such issues, and no where did it say establishment of religion by the state is forbidden. If it did state this (which it does not), why did not you quote it for us?

So you are wrong. Still.

Stop lying to us please, again the constitution does not forbid it. That is a lie. Court cases can not legally legislate, and just because you find a judge that says something- that does not make it true. If I recall correctly (which I do), the judges have also ruled in the past that a black man is not a human, separate but equal is legal, and murder is a matter of "privacy" (privacy is not even mentioned in the constitution).

The Founder's words is irrelevant. So now I want you tp please name the specific law that is on the books that states that the "Founder's Words" is law. You will not find it anywhere. The constitution and what it says is the law. Not what the founder's personally believed.

So yes, it is beyond personal opinion, you are wrong.