The superintendent of the Jackson City School District in Ohio is refusing to take down a picture of Jesus from one of their schools, offering the usual litany of absurd and contradictory excuses, after the FFRF sent him a letter challenging the legality of the picture.
Jackson City School District Superintendent Phil Howard told WCMH-TV that the atheist group Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) had sent him a letter claiming that it was illegal and an “egregious violation of the the First Amendment” to hang the portrait in a public school.
The large portrait, which was given a prominent position above a staircase in the school’s Hall of Honors, was reportedly donated by a Christian-affiliated student group and has been on display since 1947…
Howard, however, insisted to WSAZ that it was “really a reach” for anyone to assert that the photo excludes non-Christians.
“I have done some research, and because it was a student led presentation, it is permissible as far as I am concerned,” the superintendent said.
But others who support the picture, like Jon Hensler of the newly formed Citizens of Jackson County for Jesus, know what the real purpose is:
Hensler wept openly when the TV station asked him why the Facebook page had become so popular.
“You wonder in today’s world what our children and our grandchildren are going to have,” he said, choking up. “And it’s good to see that there’s still people in our community that are willing to stand up and speak out for Christ.”
Hensler insisted that the spirit of Jesus would remain even if the portrait was removed because “Christ lives within us, we know that.”
At the first school board meeting, 300 people showed up to support keeping the picture up, as always happens in such situations. And the superintendent again claimed that the picture was merely “historical.”
Superintendent Phil Howard told the crowd at Jackson High School that “we’re not violating the law and the picture is legal because it has historical significance. It hasn’t hurt anyone.”
So it’s not religious at all because it was donated by a student group and it’s merely historical, but other supporters know that it’s really about having to “stand up and speak out for Christ.” And taking it down would be horrible, but everything would be fine because “Christ lives within us.” As is almost always the case in such situations, you can always count on them to give away the truth he’s trying to hide. The lawyers may tell him to claim that the picture is purely cultural or historical, but he still blurts out the truth that he’s really just standing up for Jesus.
30 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Cuttlefish
January 14, 2013 at 12:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Video of the meeting here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2013/01/14/jesus-vs-constitution-in-jackson-now-with-video/
Jasper of Maine
January 14, 2013 at 12:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The thing I hate is how these lawsuits go so slowly. It’s like watching an episode of Lost.
busterggi
January 14, 2013 at 12:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There is a commendment which says not to have any images to worship – Christians keep ignoring that one openly.
Besides, what makes these people think Jesus looked like that picture?
Big Boppa
January 14, 2013 at 12:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why a portrait? Seems to me that if Jeebus was so desperate to have his picture in every school he’d arrange for a water spot or burned toast or some other method he apparently prefers to make his presence known.
richardelguru
January 14, 2013 at 12:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Besides, what makes these people think Jesus looked like that picture?”
Maybe that’s their get-out!?
slc1
January 14, 2013 at 12:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re busterggi @ #3
In fact, it is very doubtful that Yeshua of Nazareth looked anything like he is usually portrayed. Jews native to the Middle East tend to have swarthy complexions and curly hair.
Michael Heath
January 14, 2013 at 12:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Superintendent Phil Howard:
I read all the text in the three linked articles (one is video only); nowhere does Mr. Howard refer to his responses coming from legal counsel. His Board of Education took no vote. I would argue such egregious unprofessional behavior should void any immunities Mr. Howard enjoys when it comes subsequent costs the school pays if they continue to defend this picture and lose in court.
dugglebogey
January 14, 2013 at 12:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If Christ “Lives within you” why do you need to put his fucking picture up?
MikeMa
January 14, 2013 at 12:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Michael Heath,
I hope you are correct that the nutty superintendent has voided his immunity in this case. He has certainly voided any reality. Cranston West’s (RI) $170k+ bill for violating the first amendment should be an object lesson. They used the same bullshit in Cranston too. Student led, historical, and a loser for the school and the students.
You would think jesus would have more love and respect for education funding.
Michael Heath
January 14, 2013 at 12:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
MikeMa writes to me:
I never claimed Mr. Howard voided his immunities; I doubt he has. I instead advocated such immunities shouldn’t extend to this sort of negligent behavior.
Randomfactor
January 14, 2013 at 12:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
After they lose the court fight, I hope the school district removes the portrait and the superintendent on the same day.
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne
January 14, 2013 at 1:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
They tried putting up pictures of other things that “live within you”, like tapeworms and eyelash mites, but that was just too gross.
abb3w
January 14, 2013 at 1:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Washegesic v. Bloomingdale Public Schools gives binding precedent in that circuit, with a case involving another copy of same picture.
Odd how his research missed that… unless, of course, the search was merely an attitude-bolstering effort that avoiding looking for disconfirmatory evidence.
anubisprime
January 14, 2013 at 1:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
abb3w @ 13
That is what jeebus droolers do…no?
Ray Ingles
January 14, 2013 at 1:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I seem to be missing something. I see superintendent Phil Howard saying it’s cultural or historical, and Jon Hensler saying it’s ‘standing up for Jesus’. Yes, these are contradictory rationales, but I don’t see anyone quoted as being self-contradictory.
John Hinkle
January 14, 2013 at 1:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Imagine how much trouble Phil will be in if Jesus actually wants the portrait taken down. He probably won’t get his allowance for 5 million years.
Besides, who appointed Superintendent Phil to be Jesus’ press secretary? If it wasn’t Jesus, screw the allowance. I’d be worried about a good old fashioned Biblical spanking.
I just don’t know why these people don’t think of these things.
shouldbeworking
January 14, 2013 at 1:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jesus was a philosopher according to Faux News and Bill Oh-Really. So JC’s picture will be with other philosphers such as Socrates, Descartes and so on. right?
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne
January 14, 2013 at 1:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ayn Rand.
W. Kevin Vicklund
January 14, 2013 at 1:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That means that this would be considered settled law. Qualified immunity (the kind protecting quasi-legislative bodies like school boards) is not available when settled law is violated. So he could be sued in his personal capacity.
MikeMa
January 14, 2013 at 3:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
They should replace the picture of jesus with one of the superintendent that should be captioned “This is Phil Howard. He is the reason you have no sports, music, art or advanced learning classes. He spent the money earmarked for those programs defending jesus.”
d.c.wilson
January 14, 2013 at 3:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The Jesus portrait used to hang with a bunch of portraits of other philosophers, but it became upset when the portrait of Nietzsche told him his father was dead.
Johnny Vector
January 14, 2013 at 3:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
My favorite line from Washegesic v. Bloomingdale Public Schools:
Well said.
caseloweraz
January 14, 2013 at 3:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Superintendent Phil Howard told the crowd at Jackson High School that “we’re not violating the law and the picture is legal because it has historical significance.”
Since it’s not an actual image of Jesus of Nazareth (assuming there was such a person in history), the only possible historical significance this portrait can have would be due to the artist or some noteworthy person who previously owned the portrait.
TheBlackCat
January 14, 2013 at 6:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The artist is noteworthy for doing lots of famous portraits of Jesus.
No One
January 14, 2013 at 8:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
One of the jesus portraits:
http://sacredartpilgrim.com/cache/9ba840eb938b620c1f120fec9f1b3245_w600.jpg
..and it’s author:
http://www.anderson.edu/sites/default/files/migrate/signatures/summer11/sallman.jpg
Is there some kind of resemblance here?
No One
January 14, 2013 at 8:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And of course the dead carpenter has blue eyes (in the portrait).
jnorris
January 14, 2013 at 9:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As a public service, the FFRF should include an estimate of what the federal trial will cost the school board in legal fees for board’s defense and the fees they will have to pay for the FFRF’s lawyers.
abb3w
January 15, 2013 at 12:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@14, anubisprime:
The tendency appears higher, but non-universal; and atheists aren’t immune.
@19, W. Kevin Vicklund:
There’s been some new guiding case law from the SCOTUS since, which is likely why they’re playing up the “historical” angle. It’s not going to fly, but might help enough to play dumb on being settled.
Rip Steakface
January 15, 2013 at 2:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, her philosophy was just plagiarized from other, better philosophers, except she added in that touch of idiocy that make Objectivism really special – namely, the elevation of greed to being the greatest thing in the world.
stevils
January 15, 2013 at 12:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Saddening, but not surprising that the people in my hometown would choose to throw away this money rather than spend it on education.