A picture of Jeebus in a courthouse is just for decoration. Sure.
---
ABC News on Slidell Jesus Picture Case
By Ed Brayton Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 12:47:13 AM EST
ABC News has a story on the Slidell case that doesn't have much in the
way of new information but does have some interesting quotes. Like this
one:
The town is represented in the suit by the Christian-inspired
Alliance Defense Fund, which might be called the right-wing version of
the ACLU.
"[The ACLU is] one of the worst attackers of religious speech in
America," Gary McCaleb, senior legal counsel for the ADF, told ABC News.
McCaleb is engaging in one of the central lies of the religious right,
the deliberate conflating of government speech and individual speech.
The free exercise clause protects an individual's right to religious
expression, but the establishment clause clearly limits what the
government can say or do regarding religion. And this case involves
solely government expression, not individual expression. And you're
gonna love the ADF's argument:
The circumstances surrounding the Jesus painting make the Slidell
case intriguing. Because the painting is the only display in the
courthouse lobby aside from a picture of the courthouse's founding
judge, the ACLU believes it's a religious symbol.
But the judge and his supporters flatly dispute this. Mike Johnson,
an ADF senior legal counsel based in Louisiana, told ABC News the
display is legal because there's no intent to advance a religion.
"The clear secular purpose for this thing was to decorate the
walls," Johnson said. "This is not some sort of ulterior motive to
advance Christianity."
That literally made me laugh out loud when I read it. The interior
decorating excuse; why didn't I think of that? It's purely coincidental
that it just happens to be a picture of Jesus holding a Bible. And they
put those big letters under it spelling out a message not because they
believed the message and want others too as well, but just because the
gold lettering matched the edging on the wallpaper perfectly. "That
painting really tied the room together, did it not dude?"
They seem blissfully unaware of the contradiction at the center of their
position. On the one hand they claim that the picture has nothing to do
with religion at all, that it's just a bit of decorative flair that
should not be viewed as any kind of religious message at all. On the
other hand, demanding that it be taken down is an attack on religion.
Pick a horse and ride it guys, one at a time.
---
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/8/1/04713/94575
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
