Tim, If you were on the school board would you vote to take it down or leave it up?

Also, the rights of individuals are now applied to other governments ( state, local) after the civil war and other court cases. For example, California could not deprieve someone of their freedom of speech.

Brian,

I am going to let the conversation get started before I express my opinion.

Tim

But you will express your opinion or you will owe me a year of steaks!

See Brian, no one wants to talk about Jesus on the school wall. People come to this blog to discuss ACTUAL and IMPORTANT issues related to education. Not the ACLU nonsense like picking on a picture that's been hanging for over 30 years.

Why isn't the picture protected under the desire for tolerance or diversity so often preached about in schools?

Tim

So, I take it Tim is in favor of having the picture remain.

By the way, what other religious figures are in that hallway?

But Brian, the ACLU isn't suing to ask for others to go up, rather they are asking the courts to overall the precendent of an elected school board, that has had the picture up for 30 years.

I would support other religious figures going up in the hallway as well, and I would also support religious studies and such discussions as part of the curriculum.

I believe in diversity of thought and beliefs and don't think it's anything to be afraid of. In other words, I believe in the free excersize thereof.

Tim

If it were a picture of Adolf Hitler in stead of Jesus Christ, wouldn't that say something about the philosophies that that school hopes to promote? Obviously it would. So isn't that school attempting to say something about the philosophies that IT promotes? Of course it does. The only question then is whether or not that school is attempting to promote Jesus's teachings (as they could do for the teachings of Locke, Socrates, Gore any other philosopher, which would be proper) or the principles laid down by , say, the catholic Church (or any other church or denomination, which would be inconsistent with the 1st Ammendment's intent). But then a big question is raised: should a local school have the right to promote any such philosophy today when that same school is so burdened by State & Federal curriculum requirements that it can't vary from teaching to the official academic syllabus?

Tim, would you have the same reaction if the school only had a picture of Muhammed but no other religious figures?

Yes Brian I would. But the ACLU isn't suing for placement of Muhammed, or the Budha, or any other religious figures in the hallway are they? They're simply suing to remove Jesus...

I think I am being consistent here, too bad the ACLU is too...

Tim

From the Inland Empire newspaper, the Press-Enterprise:

District ponders Bible class
EDUCATION: Murrieta officials discussing a course that would focus on its literary merits.
10:00 PM PDT on Sunday, July 9, 2006
By CLAUDIA BUSTAMANTE
The Press-Enterprise

It's been called the Good Book. A literary classic. The most widely read work of all time.
Murrieta school officials are now considering making the Bible the focal point of a new class.
Though rare in the Inland area, some school districts have tinkered with the idea of a similar course. Years ago, an Alvord Unified trustee unsuccessfully pitched a course on the Bible's impact on history and literature. In San Bernardino County, the Colton school board recently approved a World Religions elective.
"We're not teaching religion," said school trustee Paul Diffley, who supports the course. "We're teaching the literature of the Bible."
The class is not set in stone, but Murrieta Valley Unified School District board members could vote on a class as early as March 2007.
Officials then would apply for University of California and California State University elective approval. If that occurs, students could sign up the following year.
College professors said few public high schools offer such classes, though the Bible is part of everyday life. Nothing prevents public schools from teaching about the Bible.
"In fact, how can you teach about history and how can you teach about culture without teaching about religion?" asked Harry Schwartzbart of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a national watchdog organization that challenged the use of federal money to repair California missions.
Schwartzbart, president emeritus of the San Fernando Valley chapter, said a Bible course would become a problem only if a teacher used it to proselytize.

Christianity and the bible are also a signficant part of our cultural history, something that we just can't ignore. I think that eliminating all religious references in public schools is a disservice to students since it effectively eliminates an important part of their cultural heritage. Symbolic figures like the historical Jesus Christ have their place in human history right alongside other important figures such as Julius Caesar, Socrates, Thomas Edison, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Mohammad, and even Adolf Hitler. Each one of these individuals shaped our world in a profound way and should be discussed in classrooms for their impact on history and humanity, both positive and negative.

I will say that I don't think that public schools should be in the business of proselytizing. At the same time, schools shouldn't be banned from showing images of Jesus or preventing students from exercising their own freedom of expression, even if it is religious in nature.

Kim stated that putting up an image of Adolf Hitler or Jesus would constitute an endorsement of a particular belief. I disagree. The problem is not the image but rather the context in how the images are used. I would also submit that most history books have no problem publishing pictures of Adolf Hitler, yet the same history books would likely avoid having a depiction of Jesus or any reference to him at all.

Another example is the California Missions. Regardless of their religious implications, they are an important part of our history and heritage. The ACLU has filed lawsuits to prevent the state from spending money restoring and preserving these historical artifacts on the basis that it promotes religion. But once again this comes off as a selective censorship and attack against anything Christian. If the state is able to spend money preserving other historical buildings then the old California Missions should not be excluded simply because they have a connection to our religious history.

Finally, just because a topic might make some people uncomfortable does not mean that it cannot or should not be discussed. Slavery is a topic that makes some people uncomfortable, but it is also a very important part of our history and something that has shaped the present society in which we live. The same can be said of Christianity, other religions, and God in general.