Federal judge rules lone Jesus painting in Louisiana courthouse was unconstitutional

hmmmm its in a courthouse. I wonder why it could say to follow laws...whatis the purpose of a courthouse....i wonder if there is any connection to that and the words. honestly you guys make me wonder.

 

you are still missing the point of the picture but you will just keep on ignoring that

 

It is a court house, NOT A CHURCH.
Honestly how you can not see that is truly puzzling.

Ahh and what is the point of the picture?

 

There isn't a problem with the words, The problem is with the obvious and deliberate association between the words and a picture of a religious idol.

Are you saying there was no intention to associate the words with the image? Considering that the image is positioned directly above the words?

I asked you before and i will ask you again. Do you think the positioning of the picture was a coincidence?

 

Since I already answered that question I will let you go back and find it.

 

Or you could just be a coward and refuse to clarify where you stand.

 

Or you can just be stupid and ignore everything I say and keep asking the same thing again and again even though it is really irrelevant to the main point.

 

I asked you a specific question. Answer it.

Considering that you previously said "the words are just there" suggests that you think it's a coincidence. So again, Is the positioning of the picture directly above the words a coincidence?

 

Since I already know how yo will choose to be I will just repost what I had said

You again ignore the main part. It does not matter if Jesus is associated with the words because it is not telling you or endorsing any religion.

THE POINT OF THE PICTURE IS TO TELL YOU TO FOLLOW LAWS AND TO LIVE A GOOD LIFE

Is that really so hard to understand? That is all there is to it. Nothing else. Jesus is a common image in America known for being a good person. It is telling us to be good and to follow laws. ffs take it for what it is. Stop twisting things.






So no its not a coincedence but it also does not matter if the image is a religious man. The majority of religions teach people to be good and to treat men with respect and good will. Saying that in a court house is not a bad thing. Telling you to treat men with good will is not a bad thing no matter where you say it.

 

Actually it does matter that he is a 'religious' figure. To many Americans he was a good man, not every American recognizes him unlike what you claimed previously.

It also directly states if you wish to admit it or not that through religion you can be a good person, follow laws and live a good life.

How you can not see this is truly beyond me.

Jesus is not simply a 'religious man' he is an idol, a god, a bit different than 'religious man'

 

It matters to people who don't believe in jesus. his picture has no place in a government building paid for by tax payers. Why should non-christian tax payers pay for pictures of christian idols?

 

Almost every American will recognize who Jesus is. You would have to live in a cave not to. Do not try to question that claim of mine.

It says live a good life. Take it for what it is. It is not saying you have to be religious to live a good life.

And it is irrelevant if he was a religious man. Some people believe he was gods son. Some believe he never existed. Some believe he was just a good person.

Guess which one I am.

 

If you use that argument you have to ask why religious people should have to pay taxes for things like evolution to be taught and other ideas that goes against their beliefs. Your argument does not hold up.

 

Ahh since you added this.

Not it's not a 'bad thing' however using religion to convey this point changes it entirely. The court could and should do this WITHOUT the use of a religion, not that hard to comprehend.

 

not everyone recognizes or believes in jesus

maybe a picture of paris hilton would be more effective

 

They know who he is, But a lot don't recognise him as a good person, A lot don't recognise him as an authority and a lot don't want their tax money going towards pictures of him.

 

what about people who see a picture of jesus as another attempt of some right wing asshole to push his religion on them?

 

Everybody recognizes him and it is irrelevant if they believe in him or not.

And Paris Hilton would not be good because she has broken laws and is a bad example and the court is wanting to use an image that people associate with being good not a tramp. So that argument of yours just helped mine.

 

Recognize that some think he is a god, I guess the same can be said most recognize who Zeus is........

Ahh yet they post a picture of a 'god' above it, a god of a religion.

Ahh but you'd have to 'live in a cave' not to recognize him, yet now you say some say he never existed. Which one is it?

It is totally relevant that he is the key figure of a religion.

 

I thought jesus broke laws and crucified because of it?