A public school art teacher asked his students to paint a picture that would be displayed in the school's hallway. Each student was free to express themselves and there were no religious overtones in the teacher's request. One student painted a picture of Jesus, that was initially displayed with the other paintings, but was later removed when some parents complained. Should this picture have been removed? Why or why not?
2007-05-02 07:02:39 · 17 answers · asked by Wisdom in Faith 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If this was in the United States...
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
What the first part of this means is that the government cannot promote any religion as the official or "established" religion. What the second part of this means is that the government cannot keep individuals from expressing--including promoting-- their own religion as long as they are not doing things like, murdering people.
Public schools are confusing the two. As long as it is the individual student that is expressing their religion, not at the instigation of the school itself, the school cannot prohibit them from doing so. In this case, it appears that the school unconstitutionally ignored the student's right to "free exercise" of his/her religion.
2007-05-02 07:19:57 · answer #1 · answered by fire2ziel 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As a Humanist who cherishes both religious freedom and freedom of expression, I am appalled that the student's painting of Jesus was taken down. Where did this happen? I'd like to send a letter to the principal and the editor of their local paper.
Had the painting been overtly offensive in some other way--such as Jesus being tortured on the rack or Buddha with his belly slit open--then I think there might have been a reason to remove it from public display. (If it were solely up to me, I probably would not have removed it even then. I'm not that easily offended and think art sometimes needs to be offensive to make its point.)
Kimba wrote: "The parents, being taxpayers were acting within their rights. A public space is supported by the taxpayer. A taxpayer should not have to be burdened with something that they may or may not not believe."
There is no "right to not be offended." If there were, the U.S. would come to a complete standstill, as everyone has different tastes. What if a parent doesn't like the color blue? Would that parent, being a taxpayer, have the right to have all the paintings with the color blue removed from the display? What does that do to the rights of all those taxpayers who DO like the color blue?
2007-05-02 07:10:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the kids were free to express themselves then the picture should not have been taken down.
You cannot tell the children they are FREE to express themselves and then go back on your word.
If religious pictures were not appropriate they should have known this UP FRONT
What they have actually done is singled out the child artist and made them feel somehow "wrong" or "rejected" when there was no reason for such a big fuss.
We are becoming RIDICULOUS in this country over political correctness!
2007-05-02 07:11:35 · answer #3 · answered by jessicabjoseph 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How is this restricting the INDIVIDUAL's religion?
The child has the right to paint what they want, within the confines of the teachers direction.
The school has the right to display or not display a picture as to what they believe their legal and ethical requirements are.
Replace that picture of Jesus with a picture of a devil, or a picture of a naked man, or something else that is generally deemed offensive. Does you opinion change?
A picture of Jesus could well be offensive to a significant set of the population, the school has a right to not display it.
2007-05-02 07:14:21 · answer #4 · answered by Simon T 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, it should not have been removed. Students should not have to check their 1st Amendment rights at the door" when they come to school. The parents who complained should have been informed about the 1st Amendment. The student who drew the picture of Jesus had a perfect right to do so. The parents do not have a right "not to be offended". I don't find that anywhere in the Constitution.
2007-05-02 07:14:16 · answer #5 · answered by FUNdie 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well that is just plain silly. I shouldn't say that I am sure they had thier reasons. Art is expression. I appreciate old Christian Art. I doubt you can stand in the Vatican and not! I believe you have the right to express your faith if you choose as long as you don't force it on other people. If another child would have painted Buddah though, I am sure the response of taking it down would have been even quicker and lets not even think about a pentacle. Its sad that people are so quick to judge before looking at the beauty of them all.
2007-05-02 07:08:29 · answer #6 · answered by ~Heathen Princess~ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
absolutely not. no more than if someone painted a picture of a different religious figure. if you give some one a right to have freedom to religion and restrict those freedoms to certain places then really whats the point of the freedom in the first place?
2007-05-02 07:08:09 · answer #7 · answered by The Vet Tech 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No it shouldn't but I would say that the same people that think it should have been would be the ones to say God doesn't give us free will,and that is why we should allow it.I am not you nor you me and if I have to live in a world where everything has to be the same then it wouldn't be genuine.God wants us to be individuals why can't we do the same with each other?
2007-05-02 07:20:18 · answer #8 · answered by jackiedj8952 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is already a "secrets and strategies retaliation" against your daughter. you're able to desire to chat to the instructor and tell her you're completely responsive to your daughters rights and you be responsive to that she has violated them in stifling her buzzing or maybe in her conversations along with her pals. Be stern considering you're interior the the final option in this. in case you're actually not happy with the end results of this convention, then pass till now the theory and if mandatory the board. you have each and every reason to question this instructors judgment. arise on your toddler or no person will. stable success.
2016-10-14 09:01:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The parents, being taxpayers were acting within their rights. A public space is supported by the taxpayer. A taxpayer should not have to be burdened with something that they may or may not not believe. Religion is very personal. Why should any taxpayer have to be confronted with your beliefs. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself.
Thomas Jefferson said, in so many words, that it is best if one stays away from organized religion. I believe he meant that one should think for themselves and not allow others to do their thinking for them. Meaning that religious beliefs are very personal.
2007-05-02 07:33:30 · answer #10 · answered by Kimba 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋