Jesus in West Virginia
By Anthony | August 21st, 2006 | 12:41 amAt first, I was ambivalent. But the more I thought about it, the more it seemed to me that the portrait of Jesus hanging in a West Virginia high school hallway should probably be taken down. The problem is not religion, or Jesus, or pictures of Jesus. The problem is government endorsement of a specific religion. A recent letter to the editor and a news article only strengthened this feeling.
The letter appeared in the News and Record this weekend. The writer says:
The American Civil Liberties Union wants Bridgeport High School in Bridgeport, W. Va., to take down the painting of Jesus which hangs in the main hallway. Are they afraid that some student might see the picture and wonder who this Jesus is?
Or even worse, maybe some student might even start to believe in Jesus and His gift of forgiveness and eternal life in paradise.
As I said in the comments, the letter highlights the exact reason why the picture shouldn’t be in the school hallway – a government entity should not be promoting a specific religion. A child may very well be influenced by the picture (doubtful, in my opinion, but the letter writer seems to think it’s possible), and while that in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, it is certainly not a public school’s job to try to direct the religion of its students. I wonder if the author of the letter would feel the same way if rather than portraying Jesus, it was a picture of Mohammed, or Buddha, or L. Ron Hubbard? If that were the case, I would guess that he might be a little more concerned about any possible influence the picture might have.
There was also an article today about the situation in The Times West Virginian. A good chunk of the article is spent profiling the Alliance Defense Fund, the group that is defending the school in this case. Unfortunately, the article’s author uncritically parrots a bunch of anti-ACLU rhetoric straight from the ADF website without giving space for a response from the ACLU. But the more interesting and relevant parts are some of the comments from Mike Queen, one of the school board members.
The painting is a print of artist Warner Sallman’s “Head of Christ.” It has been hanging outside the principal’s office for about 37 years. Various stories about how the painting came to be exhibited in the hallway leading to the principal’s office are circulating. One of the tasks for lawyers on both sides will be to research its history at the school.
Queen said he’s heard that school officials at the time took the picture out of a counselor’s office to hide some graffiti that had been scrawled on the wall. The students back then had defaced a portrait of the high school principal, according to this tale, Queen said.
In any event, “The picture wasn’t put up for a religious reason,” he said.
So the picture’s presence is allegedly not religiously motivated. However, Queen then says this:
The complaining parents “have a right to bring this lawsuit.”
“But we Christians have a right to defend ourselves, too.”
“I’m a Christian. I respect all religions, and I want others to respect me as much as I respect them and their religion,” he said.
“I’m getting tired of feeling like I have to apologize for being a Christian. I really do. Why can’t other people respect my religion?”
This seems contradictory, to put it mildly. If the picture’s purpose for hanging in the hallway has nothing to do with religion, how is it disrespectful of Queen’s religion to request that it be taken down?
Some of the backstory is interesting too:
Other parents and students have also complained over the years about the display of the portrait, supporters of its removal state.
School officials even took to hiding the portrait when the school was inspected by outside Blue Ribbon Schools panels.
[School Superintendent] Dr. [Carl] Friebel himself took the portrait down about five years ago in response to complaints about it, the suit claims.
“Within days, however, the school board insisted that Friebel restore it to the school,” the suit states.
“Obeying the board’s directive, Friebel had the portrait returned to the wall outside the principal’s office,” the complaint says.
So the school superintendent actually did take the portrait down at one point, but the school board – officials who presumably don’t even work directly in the location where the picture was hung – insisted that it be replaced. The school board was in essence requiring that this picture be hung in the school hallway. Yet Queen, one of those board members, would have us believe that it’s his liberty that is being infringed upon.
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Anthony, the last time I looked this was still a democracy where the majority rules. However in cases such as this one a minority of one can make the vast majority accede to their demands. I was, and am, still opposed to religion classes in the schools which was common in some areas of the country back before the 1960‘s. Religion classes belong in the churches and Sunday schools. So, many years ago I was on one side of this question. Now as I have watched morning prayers leave the schools, and the Pledge of Allegiance to our Flag because of the words “under God�, and nativity sets leave the parks, and a lovely lighted cross in a park removed in a California town and pictures or stones bearing the words of the ten commandments be forced from public places ( our laws are based on the ten commandments and they are taught in ALL religions by the way) I now find myself rebelling against the people who have complained and sued. The vast majority of these people if you research them you will find are atheists. Did you know that? These sad people have no beliefs at all and their only motive is that they don’t want the rest of us to have a belief system either. Now I haven’t seen the inside of a church is 35 years, tho I choose to live my life as I believe the Creator would have me live it. So I am not motivated by anything in this issue but my belief that the majority of people who wish to live a certain way in a certain town or country and as long as no people being harmed then they should have that right. That is democracy. That is freedom of choice given to all people in our country and we certainly should up hold the right of the majority to have a picture of Jesus in the hallway of their school as quickly and firmly as we would defend the one who wishes it otherwise to his right to disagree. We aren’t as a nation doing that where religion is the issue however. I sometimes wonder if we would have as many dysfuntional people if they had more of God in their lives. BB
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Thanks for the reply Brenda.
“the last time I looked this was still a democracy where the majority rules.”
Technically, we are a constitutional republic. It may sound like quibbling over terms, but it makes a difference. The majority does not have unfettered rights to make the rules – the rights of the minority are protected by our constitution and by the checks and balances of our government. So even if the majority decides it wants to do something, if it’s determined that their desires violate the constitution, they can’t do it. This may be one of those cases, and that’s what the lawsuit should decide.
“our laws are based on the ten commandments”
I kind of doubt this, since most of the ten commandments would be unconstitutional as laws.
“The vast majority of these people if you research them you will find are atheists.”
How do you know that? In this case at least, one of the parents who brought the suit is Jewish, and the other is Catholic. Even if you were correct, it’s irrelevant – each case should be decided on its Constitutional merits, not on whether the person bringing the suit meets some religious requirement.
“I sometimes wonder if we would have as many dysfuntional people if they had more of God in their lives”
You may be right about that, but the whole point is that it’s not the government’s job to put God into people’s lives. That’s up to the individual and his or her family, friends, and church. Not the local school board.
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:09 am
I hear you Anthony, and I hear in your arguments the same ones I made 30 years ago. As for the majority being atheist I did the research just for the Hey of it several years ago. And on this one issue I do feel strongly that it makes a difference. And for this case, the picture has been there for 37 years and can anyone prove it has done any hrm to any child who saw it? Being “legal” is not always right. And as far as the Constitution is concerned our forefathers kept God very much in their lives and only made the edict against STATE enforced religion. Remember many of our early settlers came here to practice their beliefs when they went against the state endorsed religion. This is not a case of a state enforced religion. I really don’t worry about the schools I worry about the parks and cemeterie being denuded of anything that might offend. I worry about the politcally correct ( which means “what I think is right”) going entirely too far and I believe they are reaaching that line. BB
August 24th, 2006 at 12:29 am
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one Brenda, but I’ll ask you what I asked in the original post – would you feel the same way if it was a picture of Mohammed?
August 24th, 2006 at 10:21 am
So let me understand this:
Since the School Board took this action, it violates someone’s Constitutional rights. Specifically, what’s the Constitutional rational behind your opinion?
If someone who was not a part of government placed it, then may we assume you would agree that the picture would then be OK?
August 24th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Anthony, I don’t mind us disagreeing becuse that’s okay between those who respect each other. But to answer your question: Anthony, I would have no problem with Mohammed or Buddha. When teaching junior high (one year only!) I had to teach a history class on the various religions and I taught them as all being valid in the eyes of God. I also broke down the various Protestant religious sects to use as an example that people could vary in their beliefs and still adhere to the same core.
Bubba: The Constitutional rationale of my beliefs is a knowledge of history and the of the personal beliefs of the founding fathers who wrote the constitution. They came from countries whose government imposed certain religions on the people and punished all others. This is what they meant not to happen here in the United States. They did not wish to remove all signs of belief in God no matter what form it takes from the public view. I see no harm at all in seeing a menorah displayed in the park along side a nativity scene. I see a great deal wrong in one person or even a group of persons who are greatly in the minority telling the rest of the town that they can not display that menorah or nativity scene in their own city park. In that case the Constitutional rights of the majority are being violated. We have just gone too far in our efforts to be sensitive to all and the insensitive have taken advantage. It is time to say halt. This goes for music, videos, MTV, movies and any other forms of extreme bad behavior that at one time was consigned to adult book stores in back alleys or movie houses with blacken windows. Somehow I believe that world was better. I know that I am certainly happy that I had a childhood before I was exposed to the seamier aspects of life. And as I mentioned, I have done some research and the people who sue over a picture of Jesus in the school are also those who demand their right to use any words they wish in public and adult toys be advertised in “family� magazines. Funny, they can’t advertise cigarettes or beer but they can advertise sex with all of its attendant problems and perils.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Hi Bubba,
“Since the School Board took this action, it violates someone’s Constitutional rights. Specifically, what’s the Constitutional rational behind your opinion?”
In my opinion, it’s an endorsement of a specific religion, violating the first amendment. On the spectrum of possible ways to violate the first amendment, I’ll concede that it’s not a particularly draconian way to violate it, but I do think that it violates it nonetheless.
“If someone who was not a part of government placed it, then may we assume you would agree that the picture would then be OK?”
Under certain circumstances perhaps. It all depends on the situation. Some examples:
If a student hung the picture, I would still think it needed to come down, unless it was school policy to allow students to hang whatever they wanted, wherever they wanted, regardless of content. Then I don’t think it would be an endorsement.
If school employees are allowed to have personal items on their desks or in their personal work area, then I wouldn’t see any problem with an employee having a religious picture, statue, or some other decoration displayed.
Brenda,
Thanks for answering the question. The only other thing I’ll note is a point about your examples of the menorah and the nativity scene in the park: In most cases where public religious displays become an issue, the problems occur when a city allows only a nativity, for instance. If the public space is open to any and all religious displays, there usually isn’t a problem (the problems there often come from residents or officials who don’t want to see a “winter solstice” display, or something like that).
For instance, if I remember correctly, the ACLU recently brought a suit against a town who only allowed Christian displays at their town hall. They didn’t want the city to disallow those displays, they simply wanted them to allow displays from other religions. Rather than open the space up to all religions, however, the city opted to stop allowing any displays there.
As a final example of where things like this can lead, keep in mind the recent events in southern Delaware, where a Jewish family was basically run out of town due to their school district’s heavy-handed and aggressive endorsement of Christianity in the school. The Jesus picture case isn’t as bad, obviously, but sectarian religion in public schools has its dangers.
August 26th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
“In my opinion, it’s an endorsement of a specific religion, violating the first amendment.”
And how is that the case?
August 26th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Because it’s showing public support and/or approval for a specific religion. If you went into someone’s home, and they had a picture of Jesus above their fireplace, would you think it unreasonable to say that the person is probably showing support or approval of Christianity?
And if you think the mere existence of the picture is still ambiguous: The very fact that Mike Queen, the board member mentioned above, feels that the removal of the picture would be disrespectful of his religion shows that the picture has religious meaning to the school board.
August 26th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
“Because it’s showing public support and/or approval for a specific religion.”
No it doesn’t.
The only way that statement would be true is if there was a sign underneath that said “Jesus, Son of God, Messiah, King of the Jews, Saviour and Redeemer of Souls, and Your Only Ticket to Heaven.”
The way it stands, the picture is no different than any other picture of an historical figures.
If you object to the fact that the picture is the image of “Jesus”, then you would also have to object to the posting of a picture of some Hispanic kid who is also named Jesus.
August 26th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
I forgot to comment on this part:
“The very fact that Mike Queen, the board member mentioned above, feels that the removal of the picture would be disrespectful of his religion shows that the picture has religious meaning to the school board.”
Of course it doesn’t.
It only shows Mike Queen’s personal belief system. Saying that the Queen statement shows that the picture has religious meaning to the school board is patently absurd.
August 27th, 2006 at 2:31 am
Sorry Bubba, your denials fly in the face of the behavior of the school board itself. If it’s no different than a picture of any other historical figure, then why doesn’t the school board swap it out for a portrait of George Washington, or Martin Luther King Jr? Simple – because the picture has religious significance, as expressed by Queen, and that’s why they want to keep it there.
Your bit about there needing to be a sign under it is weak. Words are not the only way to communicate. The bit about a Hispanic kid makes no sense either, unless the Hispanic kid is also a major religious figure.
August 27th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Umm, IT’S NOT ABOUT THE SCHOOL BOARD, Stew. Nice try at deflection, though.
Have I made myself clear enough?
Nice try at deflection, though.
“The bit about a Hispanic kid makes no sense either, unless the Hispanic kid is also a major religious figure.”
And how do we know the original offending picture was of the “religious” Jesus?
August 27th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Which one of us is deflecting Bubba? It’s totally about the school board, as they are the ones requiring the presence of that picture in the hallway, and they are the ones who required the superintendent to re-hang it after he had removed it earlier. As much as you may like to, it makes no sense to try to consider the issue without the context of the school board’s actions and motivations. The courts will certainly consider them.
“And how do we know the original offending picture was of the “religiousâ€? Jesus?”
Are we going back to our original conversation about this, where you tried to imply that there was no reason to think it was a portrait of Jesus, and then when it was pointed out how little sense that made you tried to pass it off as nothing more than sarcasm? Are you making it your actual argument now, or are you just kidding around again?
August 28th, 2006 at 8:52 am
No, I’m just pointing out the gaping holes your argument leaves all over the place. and, as far as sarcasm goes, I’ve learned that it’s an effective tool to counter things that people like you do to blow things way out of porportion to the reality of certain situations.
But let’s move on……
How do you know what Jesus actually looked like?
The picture in question represented European Renaisance artists’ idea of what “Jesus” looked like. Almost to an artist, the rendition was that of a Euro-centric white male with fair skin, and long, straight light brown hair.
That’s NOT very likely.
Of course if you like, we can always debate what the Constitution itself says about the issue.
By now, it’s pretty obvious that the Constitution does NOT say what you and some activist judges say.
What law of Congress compelled the School Board to put the picture up on the wall?
August 28th, 2006 at 9:13 am
“No, I’m just pointing out the gaping holes your argument leaves all over the place.”
No, really you’re just wasting my time at this point, but I’ll keep playing along for now.
“How do you know what Jesus actually looked like?”
As I tried to point out in your thread that I linked to earlier, this is one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve ever heard. Whether it’s what Jesus actually looked like (and I agree he almost certainly did not look like that), it is most certainly a picture that nearly everyone will recognize as being Jesus, seeing as it’s one of the most popular modern representations of Jesus, and has been reproduced over 500 million times in Bibles, on posters, in church bulletins and many other places. Whether it actually looks like him does not matter, because that picture is understood by the vast majority of people to represent him. That’s like saying that a metal cross cannot represent Christianity because Jesus probably wasn’t crucified on a metal cross.
“What law of Congress compelled the School Board to put the picture up on the wall?”
As the courts decided a long time ago, it doesn’t need to be an actual law of congress to violate the First Amendment. If that were the case, then state and local governments could endorse and enforce religious practices all they want, and that’s obviously not the case. And in this case, as I pointed out, the school board – a local government body – is effectively requiring that the picture be hung in the hallway.
August 29th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
(Sigh)
Why do I even bother?
Leaving aside everything else,your argument that an image, in and of itself, violates a first amendment right, is patently absurd.
However, I am sure that if you judge-shop enough, you will get someone on the Bench to agree with you on that point, just as the ACLU found Judge What’shername to give them the NSA verdict they were looking for.
August 29th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
“Leaving aside everything else,your argument that an image, in and of itself, violates a first amendment right, is patently absurd.”
There are many ways to communicate ideas – words are just one way. Images by themselves can also be a powerful way to communicate – sometimes more powerful, since they often transcend any language barriers, and are more noticeable and eyecatching than mere text. You can say that it’s absurd all you want, and try to deny that an image could have that kind of impact, but you’ll be ignoring quite a bit of history.
As for the remainder of your comment – you don’t actually think that the ACLU gets to pick which judge hears the case, do you? The assigning of judges is outside of the ACLU’s control, so there’s no “judge shopping”. However, I love that you feel you have to provide yourself with an out in case any decision goes against your beliefs. It couldn’t be that there may have been some merit to the case – oh no. It’s because the ACLU hand-picked a liberal, terrorist-loving judge to hear the case. Too funny.
August 30th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Whatever.
It’s your blog. You get the last word.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:35 am
[…] In the recent conversations I’ve had about the West Virginia lawsuit involving the portrait of Jesus, as well as other discussions revolving around schools and religion, the opinion is often expressed that school prayer should be ok, and that school-sanctioned religious displays don’t harm anyone. […]
September 16th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Came here from Ed’s thread, NICE job Stew. A consistent and logical argument that carries the weight of precedent to illustrate your points. Of course Bubba’s arguments about what Jesus looked like and the school board’s intentions are ludicrous to say the least. Is this a public school funded by my tax dollars? If so and it is subsidized by the government for the purpose of educating my children, then establishing one religious figure over all others by displaying his portrait on school grounds breaks the Establishment Clause of the Constitution and has no business being there. End of story.
Again, well done.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Late on the scene, but as an Agnostic I must say that the display of a religious figure, for any reason other than teaching world religions (something I think should be done so people see that there is more than one religion – not just the one they were lucky enough to be born into and thus must be the right one) in or on any government property – something that my hard earned money – aka my tax contributions – goes into – is just wrong. Separation of Church & State. What is there to argue about? Another thought is to either put up every religious figure in the world, or don’t put up any at all. Either educate about all religions, without bias, or don’t try to educate children about religion at all. On another skew – think of this as an oppressed person – I know what you might be thinking – oh give me a break – but when was the last time you were afraid to admit what religion you are or aren’t – yeah I thought not – so as an oppressed person of a minority group lets put this back to a basic good ‘ol boy stance – lets put a picture of the KKK up there….lets pretend that is someone’s picture of goodness. How do you think the black people in that school would feel? Not so good huh? It might make them think that perhaps they would be treated different because they aren’t supporters (with good reason obviously) of the KKK. I know the KKK isn’t generally considered a religion, I am just trying to use it as an example. It’s just food for thought. More food for thought: I think perhaps the Christians are feeling oppressed or singled out because they are the ones constantly getting into people’s faces, trying to push their religion and religious displays into people’s faces and frankly they have no place in my face, or my child’s face, etc – but my point is that people are pushing back and starting to say, hey don’t do that – and maybe this is a little new to them? I don’t know, that is just a thought I wanted to add. I don’t go out and stand on street corners and waive to the passing cars while holding a book on evolution and preeching about what evolution is. I don’t think many atheists do. That is a funny thought! I personally am tired of being blessed, invited to churches, and very very tired of hearing people tell me about how their religion is correct over all others – well gee have you tried them all – then how do you know? Oh you just know. I see. I guess I just don’t understand why people are so adament that they must talk about it incessently, display symbols & pictures, and push push push to get something religious displayed or talked about in a school or other government building. It seems to me that their faith is weak, that they don’t seem to think they can teach their child about religion at home (what are they just too busy that they have to pawn that responsibility off to the schools?) or on Sunday when they go to church (assuming they do) and when they have to tell people what they are and they have to display symbols and pictures all over the place (their car, their desk, their wall, their body, etc) it is like they have to remind themselves what they are, so they don’t lose faith, like they have to see that they aren’t the only one, so they don’t lose faith, or maybe they like to be in the club?? Wow, how did this turn into a rant? Sorry about that! Separation of Church & State – That is the clearest and simplest argument. This country was not founded on religious beliefs, no matter how badly some people want to believe it, and a lot of the religious things you see and hear – like the pledge of allegence & money – those things were ADDED later on in the McCarthy era – you know the 50’s? Check it out, read up on it, you might be surprised at the things you will find (the dirty little secrets – jk). Well hope someone reads this. I must admit my eyes started to cross after reading some of the things in this blog, so if I won’t feel left out if someone can’t read this comment – I probably didn’t read yours. To everyone out there – have a nice life, nice day, nice year, whatever you can get out of it – because you only have one shot. Good luck at it!
March 26th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
you made a good agrument stew about the painting needing to be taken down, i know it probably doesn’t matter but who actually put the picture in the school in the first place and what do they have to say about the issue? i agree that the picture may influence the Christian religion on the students, but an image of Jesus Christ can be seen anywhere, not just in schools, so do those images need to come down as well and one last thing, if the actual image of Jesus needs to be removed from the school beause it influences students, what about the Jehovah Witness that come around on a day to day basis trying to get people to convert to their religion are they doing the same thing that the image in the school could be doing?(not to offend anyone but just curious)