Posted on 09/18/2007 10:53:01 PM PDT by Sadecki
A disputed portrait of Jesus Christ will remain at the Slidell city courthouse in Louisiana after a federal judge refused to grant a demand by the American Civil Liberties Union to have the painting removed.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
OK, good. But what about the Elvis on black velvet and the dogs playing poker paintings/tapestries and wall hangings?
I have taste and feelings too you know.
YAY! ACLU pwned! Just one question, though - when did He have time to sit for a portrait?
Hey, I have a VElvis hanging on the wall! I always joked with my ex about wanting one, so when she saw a VElvis (older E, with MAJOR sideburns) at a flea market, she brought it home as a present. :-)
Excellent...
I wish (& hope) more judges will follow in this direction.
Until the law is changed to force the ACLU to pay damages and legal fees for the cases it loses, we’re fighting a losing battle.
Great, now if the judge would only make the ACLU pay quadruple reimbursement of the plantiff’s costs.
There aren’t many things that would please me more than seeing the ACLU destroyed.
Me too.
This would be an excellent subject for a think tank to focus on. I don’t know the legal ramifications of that, but in a legal way I’d like to see this effort mounted.
To call anything a painting of Jesus when no one has any idea what he looked like is absurd.
It’s too bad that the Slidell Court officials had to expand the display to include other historical figures to avoid losing the court case, I would have liked to see them fight for the right to display the picture alone. But I guess constitutional law in this area is just not there yet. But it sure is moving in the right direction.
Only someone who is nuts could believe that the mere presence of a picture of a religious figure in a public building constitutes the governemnt establishment of a “state’ religion comparable to the “Church of England” which is what the “establishment” clause was meant to protect against.
And yet, for many years, that is exactly how the courts have been ruling in their decisions about religious symbols, photos, slogans, art, etc in the public square.
But the times have changed and sanity and reason has returned.
And this is truly an amazing and remarkable victory for those of us who believe in the 1st amendment, in free expression, in the freedom of religion — Think about it, a federal judge has ruled that pictures of religious figures such as Jesus, Moses or even Mohammad can be hung on the courthouse wall without fear that their presence has established a state religion. Hallelujah!!!!
good point.
doesn’t the ACLU have to pay some of the legal bills of the cases they lose?
I’m sorry, but the ACLU is funded by the US taxpayer.
I thought it operated from private donations. It wouldn’t surprise me if it did receive government funds thought. If it got all it’s funding from the government it would surprise me.
Is that true?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.