Eat me, people--no matter what side you're on, too far is too far.

[silverthorne]

Link

People, people, people. The painting has been there for 30 years and not every kid coming out of that school during that time became a Zombie for Jesus. Chill the fuck out, okay?

And just because Verizon tends to erase their news within a day, here's the text:

CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Two civil liberties groups sued in federal court Wednesday to remove a picture of Jesus that has hung in a high school for more than 30 years.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the West Virginia American Civil Liberties Union say the painting, "Head of Christ," sends the message that Bridgeport High School endorses Christianity as its official religion.

"I frankly cannot understand why this school insists that it is doing nothing wrong," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "This is pretty clear constitutional law. Public schools cannot promote specific religious ideas."

A vote by the Harrison County school board on removing the painting ended in a tie this month.

"At this point, it's a matter that's pretty much going to be up to the board," Superintendent Carl Friebel Jr. said. "It's just going to be very interesting for me to see what the board wants us to do with it."

The suit was filed on behalf of Harold Sklar and Jacqueline McKenzie, whose children attended or will attend the school.

Comments

[molotovcoqtiz.livejournal.com]

The thing is? Children look for weakness. I don't give a damn how long it's been hanging because what matters the most to me in the world? Not seeing my little girl, or the next child, hurt because children lack nuances.

I don't mean that as an insult but by putting up a picture of Jesus and not talking about religion they are creating a subtle hint that this is okay but since nothing else is presented as an opposing view, they get the hint that that is ALL that's okay.

One pointing DOES equal religion when that might be all they see and therefor, it's the ONLY religion they accept. It's up to parents to teach religion, not the schools to create hostility through subtle enforcement of one practice. And that is what it is. If it wasn't? They wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep it up in that location.

Put it in a church, hang it in a museum if it has significant historical value. But don't use it to subtlely manipulate things. If my child can't read a wiccan book in school - and most states do not allow bibles are such books even recreationally - then she shouldn't have to have any religious influence in that environment.

I don't teach my child ANY religion is bad. Nor would I teach her any race is bad. In fact she learns about all religions and has the freedom of choice, and if she choose right this moment to be christian? I would still have this stance. Because it is creating a message, whether intentional or not.

If you don't take to your child about sex but let them watch, say, Desperate Housewives, they are going to get a very definite picture of what sex is. It may not be a positive one. It may very well not be the one you want them to have but you have enforced that this is acceptable by offering no other options than this one answer. Same goes for religion. If the school is allowing for a religious icon on school grounds and yet no other religion can be taught/spoken about, then they are giving the illusion that this one thing is okay but nothing else. Children pick up on his. The absorb it and it becomes part of who they are.

Most, not all but most, parents don't raise their children to be racist either, even if they themselves are. But kids pick this up by the cues and signals we giev them.

This is one massive signal that children aren't likely to ignore and it's hard enough being a child who knows they are different, who accepts and embraces a rather outre way of life. But to see this enforcement that something else is okay, obvious and out in the open, and they have to hide who/what they are? Is devastating on a child. Just like a skin colour, and accent, or a hair colour or a dozen other things that children live with, love and enjoy and yet know that because it sets them apart, it has to be downplayed. Not because parents tell them so but because the signals are there from society, from the schools, from other students, that to not be harassed, not be assualted physically and verbally, to not be ostracized, they have to hide it.

Parents can't preach all they want about pride, and freedom and teach them well and proper. But they learn from everything. Takes a whole village to raise a child but you have the right to choose and shape that village as best you can.

[derek-bliss.livejournal.com]

Going by your logic, then, what does the sudden removal of a religious artifact in a school teach the kids that actually believe in that religion?

That they are no longer accepted.

Parental education is the answer. Not this.

[molotovcoqtiz.livejournal.com]

But I am not allowed to educate other people's children. And just as we have shown in the past with sex education, parents suck.

They are letting television and the school and their friends raise their children.

As for removing it? So it's better to leave it and oppress several groups rather than present a plausible, and yet make it truthful, explanation of moving it to where it better belongs, such as a church, or museum. It's not lying, not in the least. It's presenting a truthful answer to solve a problem.

[derek-bliss.livejournal.com]

No, it isn't, but just as parents are lousy at teaching their kids the differences, they're likewise lousy at doing things like taking their kids to museums, where they can see these things side by side and compare.

The answer is still education. The answer is still parents. The answer is likely also actually using some of those home ec classes everyone ends up taking to teach kids about effective child raising beyond having them carry an egg around for a week(if they still even do that).

And again, I don't see it as oppression. Then again, I don't attach that much religious importance to a picture, whether it's my religion or not. It's art. It's about a subject that, like so many (most) things in this world, is controversial thanks to a wider world view. I can't change that that picture exists, that until twenty years ago, it was all right to litter Christian symbols and the like all over the place, or that, whether or not that painting stays or goes, my child will still run into people and things that will challenge what I taught her and what she herself believes in.

But I can certainly teach her respect--both for herself and others--even if the rest of the world is incapable of it.

As for 'educating' other peoples' children--no one really has that right, other than actual teachers, and what they should be teaching and expected to be teaching should be limited to raw facts, regardless of subject. Most religious teaching is subjective and very much 'us verses them'. Which is also how things like this article come across, at elast once we get into everyone's rational for why or why not something should happen.

If people would spend more time on their own offspring rather than other peoples' kids and what the government should be doing for them...a lot of problems would be lesser at the least.