Secular progressives only seem to be aware of the Establishment Clause.

Imagine the nerve of that teacher, actually demanding that his students sign away their right to the free exercise of religious expression!

But boy oh boy if it were paganism or Islam, they’d be out here a hootin’ and a hollerin!

Yet another example of Liberal Fascism.

You know, something like let’s say the US Constitution..and that right was considered so important that it was put in the very First Amendment to that Constitution.

Evidently I dreamed that existed, and I must have been mistaken.

The thing is, in terms of content it’s not really fair to judge these pieces together. The first image is surrealist and stylised. It’s not a classical composition, it’s designed to provoke reactions rather than be “pleasing” to look at. In that sense it’s very much a post-modern artwork rather than traditionalist fine art, far moreso than the other two, which lack that creative flair.

If it hadn’t been for the cross I can bet you the art teacher would have given it a higher grade than either of the other two pieces, simply for the “adventurous” composition. Replace the cross with a pentacle or a crescent and star and it would have been in danger of becoming a new Pollock from all the drool…

On April 1st, 2008 at 5:25 pm, JHSII said:

…

I’m still trying to find Freedom From Religion in my copy of the Constitution.

You beat me to it. But I’m sure you’ll find the provision you seek right next to the one establishing the (liberals’) right not to be “offended”.

A Tomah High School student has filed a federal lawsuit alleging his art teacher censored his drawing because it featured a cross and a biblical reference. His teacher, Julie Millin, asked him to remove the reference to the Bible, saying students were …

That, I can agree with. I just take issue with the ’similar quality’ comment . .because they’re not.

Without God, all things are permissible.

This is true. Here’s what the Apostle Paul had to say about it:

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.(1st Corinthians 6:12 NKJV)

The NIV says this, which I really like:

“Everything is permissible for me”–but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”–but I will not be mastered by anything.

The kid didn’t fail for what he drew, but because he refused to put a border around the Christian (religous aspect) of his drawing. For you trolls, we call this viewpoint discrimination since the church of satan has simuliar images in their literature (drawings b and c).

GSP
PS I used to be a member of the new age, and tm and those satanic images looked very simuliar to what I was reading and studying in the late ’80’s/early 90’s.

Here’s the sort of thing they’d say, were the cross not there:

It’s a very interesting surreal landscape with numerous “barriers” across the page. The clouds, the mountains, the boundaries of the sea rolling against the beach speak of a deep understanding of the boundaries of change and discrimination found throughout life.

The clouds and the sea might represent birth, as life sprang from the depths. Moving across the page we experience various stages of life, with barriers to be surmounted; the transition from the clouds to the sea, from the sea to the land and from there to the mountains, with the stark boundary cut across our path that marks a turning point in life. Do we follow the boundary, the road over the horizon, or do we continue across the page? The mountains, the final visible barrier, are all that awaits us to the right, but the path leads off into the black infinity. Is it oblivion or something to be explored? The path is that of the rebel, the one who doesn’t accept life as society sees it and chooses to cut across that life, to strike out into new territory. It is the freedom fighter, the humanist, the progressive, the contrary life.

That’s the sort of thing they’d say… if the cross wasn’t there, if they weren’t prevented from assessing the content through their own world view by the presence of a christian symbol completely altering the contextual meaning of the content. But with the cross there it’s “ooo yuck christian get it away!”