Friday, June 30, 2006
School Sued Over Jesus Portrait
-By Warner Todd Huston
This is a perfect example of several current psychoses running through the seedy underbelly of our culture today. This one story reveals the selfishness, stupidity, and hypocrisy of the anti-religious as well as utter lack of knowledge about our nation's history and form of government.
A school board in West Virginia is being sued by two "civil liberties" groups -- read that to mean groups promoting just THEIR point of view, the rest of you be damned -- because the school happened to have a portrait of Jesus displayed in the hallway.
Did I mention it has been there for thirty years? So it isn't just something someone threw up recently.
So, the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have decided that, thirty years after the fact, this whole Jesus thing is all evil and stuff! Imagine the "harm" that has been done lo these many years to children for three decades??
Oh, the humanities!
Now here is the selfishness of the report. This suit was filed by the two "civil liberties" groups on behalf of Harold Sklar and Jacqueline McKenzie, "whose children attended or will attend the school", as the report makes clear. To recap, one parent has kids gone from the school and no longer under the evil glare of that Jesus picture and the other doesn't even have kids IN the school at all!
So, what is preventing the parent whose children WILL attend the school from sending them to a private school that holds better to her atheist line of thinking? Who says she can't move to another school district, one that doesn't have that bad guy pictured on its walls? Maybe this parent might find a school that has a picture of Marx or someone that might hew closer to their anti-religious views?
Still, how is it a support of "civil liberties" to take away a portrait of Jesus to satisfy two people when that portrait obviously didn't offend hundreds if not thousands of others? Are these two people's sensibilities, sensibilities that can be assuaged in a myriad of other ways, more important than that of perhaps thousands of others?
Apparently the Communist founded ACLU and the illogically founded AUSC&S think it perfectly sensible to promote the "feelings" of two people over that of thousands of others.
This is a perfect example of several current psychoses running through the seedy underbelly of our culture today. This one story reveals the selfishness, stupidity, and hypocrisy of the anti-religious as well as utter lack of knowledge about our nation's history and form of government.
A school board in West Virginia is being sued by two "civil liberties" groups -- read that to mean groups promoting just THEIR point of view, the rest of you be damned -- because the school happened to have a portrait of Jesus displayed in the hallway.
Did I mention it has been there for thirty years? So it isn't just something someone threw up recently.
So, the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have decided that, thirty years after the fact, this whole Jesus thing is all evil and stuff! Imagine the "harm" that has been done lo these many years to children for three decades??
Oh, the humanities!
Now here is the selfishness of the report. This suit was filed by the two "civil liberties" groups on behalf of Harold Sklar and Jacqueline McKenzie, "whose children attended or will attend the school", as the report makes clear. To recap, one parent has kids gone from the school and no longer under the evil glare of that Jesus picture and the other doesn't even have kids IN the school at all!
So, what is preventing the parent whose children WILL attend the school from sending them to a private school that holds better to her atheist line of thinking? Who says she can't move to another school district, one that doesn't have that bad guy pictured on its walls? Maybe this parent might find a school that has a picture of Marx or someone that might hew closer to their anti-religious views?
Still, how is it a support of "civil liberties" to take away a portrait of Jesus to satisfy two people when that portrait obviously didn't offend hundreds if not thousands of others? Are these two people's sensibilities, sensibilities that can be assuaged in a myriad of other ways, more important than that of perhaps thousands of others?
Apparently the Communist founded ACLU and the illogically founded AUSC&S think it perfectly sensible to promote the "feelings" of two people over that of thousands of others.
# posted by Publius @ 6/30/2006 01:04:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I saw this story on t.v. and was flabergasted! I just can't get what drives Americans to do such assinine things. I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think if this were to happen in schools back then. I think these folks would have been hung or shot be a neighbor!
Hi, Rick from http://www.worldwierdweb.blogspot.com/ here. Like your blog, it's on my list of 10 favourites, put it that way!
Re the portrait of Jesus objected to by those oh-so-righteous civil libertarians we hear so much from, I'd like to be pedantic here for a moment and point out that there are NO portraits of Jesus in existence anyway, since no paintings or drawings from his time are extant, and that almost every depiction of him (the 'accepted' view of him as a tallish man with long, flowing, curly locks and a beatific visage) is almost certainly wrong. There is only one reference to his physical appearance in the Bibles, and he is described in this way: "His face and His whole appearance were marred more than any man's" and had "No form or comliness that he should be esteemed" (ie he was uglier than most normal people, possibly even scarred.)
Post a Comment
Re the portrait of Jesus objected to by those oh-so-righteous civil libertarians we hear so much from, I'd like to be pedantic here for a moment and point out that there are NO portraits of Jesus in existence anyway, since no paintings or drawings from his time are extant, and that almost every depiction of him (the 'accepted' view of him as a tallish man with long, flowing, curly locks and a beatific visage) is almost certainly wrong. There is only one reference to his physical appearance in the Bibles, and he is described in this way: "His face and His whole appearance were marred more than any man's" and had "No form or comliness that he should be esteemed" (ie he was uglier than most normal people, possibly even scarred.)
# posted by 
: 12/09/2006 07:33:00 PM
: 12/09/2006 07:33:00 PM << Home
|
