Post-Gazette Editorial – 9/7/06

This page was last updated on September 10, 2006.

Church and state / A public school overlooks an American principle; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; September 7, 2006.

The primary point of this critique is to address a factual error in the editorial, not to take sides in the issue.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The question for the Harrison County School Board in West Virginia is: What would Jesus do?

“Frankly, it’s not likely that the champion of the poor, sick and downtrodden would spend $150,000 on a vain attempt to keep his portrait posted in a public school rather than, say, on helping victims of Hurricane Katrina or the Pakistani earthquake.

“This question is raised by a portrait of Christ that hung for more than 30 years next to the principal’s office in Bridgeport High School, as reported Monday by Post-Gazette staff writer Cindi Lash. Based on complaints from two residents, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia asked a federal court in June to order removal of the portrait because its presence was an unconstitutional endorsement of a particular religion by the school district.

“This case is a loser for the school board. The U.S. Constitution forbids the government from establishing, or advocating for, a religion. When a public school posts a picture of Christ or a list of the Ten Commandments, it, in effect, announces government support for one faith over another.”

[RWC] The second sentence in this paragraph is completely false.

In its entirety, here is what the U.S. Constitution (Amendment I) says about religion: “Congress [my emphasis] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

First, the 1^st Amendment specifically says “Congress,” not “the government” or “Congress and the States.” Throughout the Constitution, when it means to restrict state powers vs. those of Congress, the Constitution specifically mentions “the States.” The Constitution only prohibits Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion,” not the states. Therefore, if a state wanted to establish an official state religion, the Constitution permits that action. More realistically, the Constitution doesn’t prevent the states from deciding how they address religion. For example, if Pennsylvania decided to pass a law requiring all courthouses to post the Ten Commandments, the Constitution doesn’t prohibit that action. Likewise, the Constitution wouldn’t stop PA from passing a law prohibiting display of the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

Second, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about “advocating for a religion.”

Third, the “free exercise” portion of the First Amendment doesn’t say “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof except on government/public property.”

We’re all familiar with creative writing. This paragraph represents creative reading of the Constitution.

Don’t get me wrong. In no way, shape, or form do I support official government religions. That said, it appears many people believe that unless government is hostile to religion, that absence of hostility amounts to government support. Maybe it’s just me, but posting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, or “a portrait of Christ” in a public school, isn’t the first step on a slippery slope to the equivalent of the Church of England.

“The school district’s attorney said a legal group predicted the board had about a 1 percent chance of persuading a federal judge to permit the Jesus portrait to stay in the hallway. There was some feeling among board members that it would be better to remove the painting than waste tax dollars defending the district against the lawsuit.

“But then, a group of citizens who wanted to keep the Jesus depiction in the school raised $150,000 to fight for it. The school board agreed to spend their money on legal fees.

“That option seemed to be stolen from them, however, when a burglar broke into the school, unhooked the portrait, slashed it from the frame and fled. Gone was the object of dispute. The case seemed moot.”

[RWC] So much for tolerance. Note the editorial doesn’t condemn the burglar’s actions.

“Some students who had raised money for the legal defense of the Jesus portrait decided not to let it go, though. They bought an engraved mirror to hang in place of the portrait. It says, ‘To know the will of God is the highest of all wisdom. The love of Jesus Christ lives within each of us.’

“The fight may still be on.

“No one knows for sure, but that’s probably not what Jesus would do. The kind and compassionate Jesus of the New Testament would not insist on posting his picture in places where it might intimidate or offend followers of other faiths.

[RWC] Why do some people seem to believe they know “what Jesus would do?”

I have a question for the PG. What constitute “places where it might intimidate or offend followers of other faiths?” What if a person claims a likeness of Christ on a church “intimidates” or “offends” him? Should the church remove that likeness? What if a person claims offense simply because he knows there’s a crucifix hanging in the church next to his house?

Remember, Islamofascists are offended by everything that runs counter to their interpretation of the Koran. To keep them from being offended, would the PG have us all convert to Islam? This last example is admittedly over the top, but where do you stop when you allow offended people to decide how you will live?

“The faithful who raised the money should spend it to advance the works of Christ, not his likeness.”

[RWC] What is it with liberals? Are they genetically predisposed to tell people how to spend their money?