Yesterday's Wall Street Journal has a column discussing the recent hullabaloo about a "portrait" of Jesus that hung in a West Virginia high school. Two local residents sued, aided by the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, to have the painting removed. The suit was settled (after the painting was stolen, IIRC - it may have been returned/replaced), with the school agreeing not to display the painting (except as it may appear in textbooks, etc.).
In discussing the case, the columnist makes this point:One fact that made the claim of church-state violation so odd in this case was the time-line:
The disputed portrait had been hanging in the school for a long time. In 1969, a retiring guidance counselor, who had the portrait in his office, gave it as a farewell gift to the school’s principal (now also retired), who decided to hang it outside his office. Thus students, parents, teachers, employees and visitors to Bridgeport High School apparently suffered from this violation of the First Amendment for 37 years.I've seen this argument made before. The implication has been that the fact that the painting hung unobjected for so many years essentially dissipates any First Amendment problem. That simply doesn't make any sense to me. A violation of the law is a violation of the law. The fact that the community has been silent in its face for 37 years can't change that.
5 comments:
Yes, I mean, following that line of reasoning, geez, salvery was accepted for over 100 years, so really, we should've kept it around longer. Yeah, that's a great argument! Ugh!
I read the same article.
What about the two Buddhist items? Why weren't they removed? They can't claim the portrait of Jesus violates the First Amendment but then ignore other religious symbols in the school.
The school was willing to accomodate different faiths as well, so what's the big deal? Can't we learn about each other's religions, if any, in peace?
The First Amendment also protects free speech and the free exercise of religion. So isn't removing the portrait censorship?
I believe the formal name of the logical fallacy here is the ‘appeal to common practice’, or the "appeal to tradition"
.
I don't accept the appeal to tradition argument, either. But in Van Orden v. Perry, Justice Breyer voted to sustain a display of the Ten Commandments in Texas based in part on this exact "logic," and he was the swing vote in that case.
Re: the Buddhist stuff
This article is the first mention I've heard of these things. If they were indeed displayed in a way to convey governmental endorsement they should go, too. On the other hand, if they're in a classroom where Asian social studies are tought, they might appropriate. Or if they're stashed away in the corner behind the teacher's desk. There just aren't enough facts in the article to make a conclusion.
Re: Bryer and Van Orden
Yeah, I'm aware of that. Let's just say I don't think very highly of much of Breyer's work from the last term (Booker, anyone?).
Post a Comment