News-Record.com

"To know peace, obey these laws."

Which laws do you think that caption is referring to?

"To know peace, obey these laws."

Which laws do you think that caption is referring to?

I can't tell. If it isn't clear which laws it's referring to, it's hard to argue there's an endorsement of religious edicts.

A picture of Jesus is just a picture of Jesus. It's not a means of spirtual coercion.* Doug

How do you know it is the " real" pic of Jesus from 2000 years ago? Give us the source of this amazing discription of Jesus, since no reference is found in the holy bible nor in any historial references. Don't you think the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in the court room would make a better point why one should not mixed a Jesus myth pictures with ancient Pagan symbols in the public sector to maintain your religious freedom from other bigot state religions.

That's the thing... in the picture, Jesus is holding open a book that looks a lot like it's meant to represent scripture. It seems very reasonable to take that as meaning it refers to biblical law. While you may be unclear on which law is being referred to, I don't think there's any way you could fault someone for understanding it to mean biblical law.

(sorry about the double post, by the way)

To both your points: We can assume it's Jesus and assume he's holding scripture. But I don't think that leads to a legal conclusion that it amounts to an establishment of religion.

What if the courthouse displayed a portrait of a judge who happened to be holding a Bible? A violation of the establishment clause?

There's a difference between a judge and Jesus, obviously. Even disregarding that, if the picture was a judge with a bible, and the caption still indicated that one should follow scriptural laws, then even that probably would be a violation.

The current picture may cross the line by itself (though just barely). However, it's the caption and its implication that really push this over the line.

A piece of government property is being used to exclusively display sectarian imagery, and to convey the idea that Christian laws should be followed. That seems like a pretty clear endorsement of a specific religion to me.

That last analysis seems clear to me, Anthony. It only works, though, because we share an unspoken recognition of the signs that indicate when an image is meant to represent "Jesus". While that does not presuppose everyone who might recognize the image is also Christian, it does seem to indicate they "ought to be": else why not also post iamges of other peaceful purveyors of laws? Buddha, for instance.However, once the floodgates open and all images purporting to be of sacred lawgivers are both allowed or possibly mandated, I doubt most Christians would be very happy. We know, as Doug alluded, many Muslims would, according to their faith, rightfully be offended to see any image representing their prophet.

Is your contention, Doug, that images, with or without captions, have no significance constitutionally?That they cannot be a form of "speech", political or otherwise?

Jim and Anthony, I don't think we should have to apply our imagination to determine that a certain display amounts to an establishment of religion.

If members of a city council are opening an official meeting with Christian prayers, that might meet the standard. It's close enough for me, anyway, that I don't endorse the practice. A picture of Jesus out in the hallway with an innocuous statement that may or may not refer to Christian scripture doesn't make it. It contains and conveys no religion-specific message. Each person who looks at it is free to assume any message her or she wants, based on his or her concept of Jesus and understanding of scripture. Or a viewer may assign to it no meaning at all. In this case, neither the state nor any agent of the state is dictating any certain interpretation upon any person.

"May or may not refer to Christian scripture"? There's a picture of Christian scripture right there in Jesus' hand, as you agreed. I think it takes quite a bit of imagination to think that the caption is *not* referring to Christian scripture. It's a very post-modern sort of attitude to say that such a message is innocuous because people can interpret it however they want, but if that was the standard, you could excuse just about any religious display.

There are many ways to communicate. Words, like a prayer at a city council meeting, are just one way. Images can also be used to communicate, and in some ways they can be more powerful than words since they often transcend cultural and language barriers. I disagree that something like this can be brushed aside simply because it's a picture.

Is there any sort of imagery or caption that in your opinion would be a violation of the Constitution?

Of course: A picture of Jesus on the cross with the caption, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." I'd leave that in church or at home.

The only scriptures Jesus himself ever quoted, by the way, were Jewish, so it's risky to assume he's holding Christian scriptures. But I still can't tell exactly how the artist depicted him.

Without doing the research, remember when a Greensboro judge said (about using the Koran to swear in-court oaths) something like, "We all know what the bible is..."

I wrote then that he'd regret the word "the" in that sentence: we know what THE bible is. Later rulings confirmed what "we know" and that's there are different bibles because we have multiple religions in this 'burg.

I believe Anthony is dead-on right: we do know what "these laws" are that the photo of Jesus is referring to and they are Christian laws (most of which are excellent laws, btw). I'd love it if all Christians obeyed them, but that's another story.

Jesus and "these laws" are a statement that the way to peace is through Christian bible laws and that really doesn't belong in a government building in which laws are interpreted and decided. No one should wonder if a judge's religion influenced his decision when the law of the land is dutifully enacted. What's also of concern to me is that a judge who acted in an "in your face" manner to post such a picture seems to be acting in an un-Bill of Rights manner.

I was pretty upset with the ACLU after Skokie, but had to remember that unless I support everyone's rights then I support no one's rights. In this judge's case, it seems like a case of really poor judgment (at best) and a gauntlet (at worst) and I commend the ACLU for once again taking an unpopular case in order to support everyone's rights under the law.

Religious photos do not belong in courtrooms.

To both your points: We can assume it's Jesus and assume he's holding scripture. But I don't think that leads to a legal conclusion that it amounts to an establishment of religion.* Doug

Once again! How do you know that is what Jesus look like two thousand years ago? Suppose you are a confirmed devil worshiper and you walk into the court house and see the pic and words on the wall. Do you really believe or expect that devil worshiper will get a fair trial in his state of mind?

What if the courthouse displayed a portrait of a judge who happened to be holding a Bible? A violation of the establishment clause?* Doug

Happens all the time Doug! Judges have pictures of themselves all over the courthouse wearing long black robes thinking they are God. Why don't they wear white instead of looking like men or women in evil black?

The good guys always wear white! When was the last time you saw a western movie?

How about a picture of a teacher who said love your neighbor as yourself and treat others the way you'd like them to treat you? Those statements come from scripture. Are they offensive and unsuitable for any public forum? Does it force one to embrace Christianity to quote these sentiments?

Or must we project into this picture particular parts of scripture that, if dictated to the public, would amount to an improper establishment of religion?

How about a picture of a teacher who said love your neighbor as yourself and treat others the way you'd like them to treat you? Those statements come from scripture. Are they offensive and unsuitable for any public forum? Does it force one to embrace Christianity to quote these sentiments?* Doug

How about a picture of Yoda from Starwars, who said love your nearest Jedi Knight and treat Darth Vader like a piece of Puto dust? His statements come from the Force! Are they offensive and unsuitable for a young Luke Skywalker in a Luna Saloon? Does it force a local Storm Trooper to embrace the Empire or does it mean he is screw in a Laser battle with Princess Diana?

Or must we project into this picture particular parts of scripture that, if dictated to the public, would amount to an improper establishment of religion?*Doug

Who cares? As a Supreme Justice once said, he knows porn when he sees it! As a secret member of "The Reverse Venus Cult Church of Younger Days" I know a State Religion when I see it's Priests making laws against my individual liberty and stealing my property with me burning at their stake of justice.

If the image of Jesus were merely shown in an established context of other teachers, including even non-religious ones like Confucius or Socrates, I could grant you there'd be less concern. But the inclusion of a book described as containing laws, which are not the same as teachings only, pops this into a different context, that of commonly-assumed doctrines.

Those certainly include "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek", as well as the entire Beatitudes (less like laws than gentle ethical coercions). They also are well-known to include "I am the way, the truth and the life; whosoever believes in me shall have eternal life". The Hebrew scripture Jesus paid due to included the Ten Commandments and its "I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no gods before me".

If the image of Jesus were merely shown in an established context of other teachers, including even non-religious ones like Confucius or Socrates, I could grant you there'd be less concern. But the inclusion of a book described as containing laws, which are not the same as teachings only, pops this into a different context, that of commonly-assumed doctrines.* Jim

Okay! How about a picture of Thomas Paine holding his revolutionary book " Common Sense" pointing to this quote " Only fools worship Kings and religious fiqures as their leaders of the State"

Doug:

With all due respect, the ACLU is following the guidance provided by the Supreme Court in its recent decisions. If the picture were accompanied by other religious symbols, it would be another matter. But a single religious symbol by itself falls on the wrong side of the establishment clause.

Doug:

Please see the Supreme Court's decision in McCreary County vs. the ACLU of KY. The ACLU got it right once, and has it right this time.

The ONLY hope for a reversal in this case is that the current SCOTUS decides to overall its own precedent--a distinct possibility given the new activist, make-up of the court.

Thanks, Dave. I read both SC decisions when they were issued. Breyer was the swing vote in both, going one way then the other. The two cases showed how fine the line can be between what's considered OK and what's not. The difference this time, in my opinion, is that the portrait of Jesus is not as overtly a symbol of specific religious edicts as are the Ten Commandments.

We're not going to agree on all these questions, as various judges in courts across the country do not agree. Thanks, all, for the discussion.

Although I can take a hint that you are closing off this discussion, Doug, I thought I'd note that the image is not a "painting", as erroneously described throughout the news article. It is a print, probably photographic, of a Russian (or at least Eastern) Orthodox ikon. These were (and by some still are) considered to possess actual divine essence, imbued by Jesus himself. The image is not Jesus, but it is inspired directly by god and to pray in its vicinity (not "to"it), using it as a mental aid to focus on submission to god's will, etc., is to be closer, for Orthodox believers, to a heavenly presence.

Or something like that.

The words on the scripture he holds are not clear in the image online, but most often they were in either Hebrew or Cyrillic. Not usually Latin, since that was associated with the rival Roman sect after the Great Schism. Ironically, the division of the one Christian Church at the time was over exactly this sort of thing: whether images should be allowed as aids to prayer (or ethical behaviour, I guess?). Those who were against the use of images like this (as Muslims generally are) are still to this day called "iconoclasts".

Particularly disingenuous is the reason given by a local official for the display: "to decorate" the lobby. Right. Declarative commands accompanied by an image of one very specific, recognizable religious symbol ain't just like putting up your grandma's "Home, Sweet Home" cross-stitch. It's even further from using some nice Martha Stewart-esque coordinated paint.

Although I can take a hint that you are closing off this discussion, Doug, I thought I'd note that the image is not a "painting", as erroneously described throughout the news article. It is a print, probably photographic, of a Russian (or at least Eastern) Orthodox ikon. These were (and by some still are) considered to possess actual divine essence, imbued by Jesus himself. The image is not Jesus, but it is inspired directly by god and to pray in its vicinity (not "to"it), using it as a mental aid to focus on submission to god's will, etc., is to be closer, for Orthodox believers, to a heavenly presence.

Or something like that.

The words on the scripture he holds are not clear in the image online, but most often they were in either Hebrew , Greek or Cyrillic. Not usually Latin, since that was associated with the rival Roman sect after the Great Schism. Ironically, the division of the one Christian Church at the time was over exactly this sort of thing: whether images should be allowed as aids to prayer (or ethical behaviour, I guess?). Those who were against the use of images like this (as Muslims generally are) are still to this day called "iconoclasts".

Particularly disingenuous is the reason given by a local official for the display: "to decorate" the lobby. Right. Declarative commands accompanied by an image of one very specific, recognizable religious symbol ain't just like putting up your grandma's "Home, Sweet Home" cross-stitch. It's even further from using some nice Martha Stewart-esque coordinated paint.

So you have to be Eastern Orthodox to really get the meaning here? Pretty odd for Louisiana.

Haha! Touché!

Obviously, the meaning is clear to anyone familiar with the Jesus story and it probably even still "works" in a divine/magic way for some locals of whatever faith (possibly the arch-enemy Romanists!). The issue, though, is whether this judge himself thought it was really just "decoration", or was intending to say biblical laws supersede civil jurisdiction. In our constitutional government, no judge should be saying that while working in their official capacity.

And I hear they can be pretty odd in LA.