Over the weekend, Slidell officials held a news conference and decided to fight back against the ACLU. They will not be removing the portrait of Jesus from the lobby of the court even though the ACLU threatened to take the issue to federal court.
The Slidell officials are right to stand their ground and allow the federal courts to make the proper decision about this controversial issue. In the past, some courts have ruled that religious symbols must be removed from public places; however, other courts have ruled just the opposite. Since constitutional scholars disagree, the portrait of Jesus should remain in place at least for the time being.
What is sad is that the ACLU is pursuing a matter that was never a controversy in the past. In fact, in the ten years that court has been in existence, no one has ever complained and no one has ever been able to point to an incident of discrimination based on religion. It was a manufactured crisis to get headlines for the ACLU.
Typically, the ACLU is acting like a bully and trying to force the court to make an action that is counter to the wishes of the vast majority of citizens in the community. To gain a sense of the feelings of the public, just look at the massive rally held the other night on the courthouse steps, when hundreds of people gathered to support the portrait and condemn the ACLU.
This is a case of wrong priorities and focusing on sensationalism as opposed to real problems. The ACLU is worried about a portrait of Jesus instead of dealing with the poor performance of judges or the district attorney’s office in New Orleans and the revolving door criminal justice system. The crime rate is out of control in New Orleans and that should be a focus of the ACLU, not religious portraits. When someone is murdered or a victim of a crime, their civil liberties are impacted or eliminated altogether.
Real violations of civil liberties are not a focus of the ACLU; instead headline grabbing controversies are their forte. Thankfully, in this case, the elected officials in Slidell are not going to take orders from the ACLU; they are going to follow the strong wishes of the people in their community.
Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA and he is the host of a Louisiana based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 8:30 p.m. Fri. and 10:00 p.m. Sun. on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 5 till 9 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. For more information, visit his web site at www.ringsidepolitics.com. E-mail him at jeff@ringsidepolitics.com.
Chet - if you're correct about it, the written sentiment on the painting is a moving and important one - one of the most important lessons Christ taught. As one opposed to this portrait as displayed in Slidell courthouse, I aver to you that I have absolutely nothing against Christ; I wish more of his followers would try to emulate him, especially his pacifist views, which many conservative Christians ignore. They reduce Christianity to a cardboard cutout of itself, focusing solely on opposition to abortion and gay marriage. But as usual, I digress. The point here is not whether the message of Christ is a good message - the point is that it is a Christian message, and therefore is seen by non-Christians (a minority in this country) as non-inclusive. The courthouse must be a place where people of all faiths (or people with no faith at all) feel welcome, and feel assured of equal protection under the law. As apparent from multiple posts here, they do not feel this way with the portrait of Christ as it is currently displayed in the Slidell courthouse. Dan, as a Jewish person, was particularly good at expressing his feelings about the portrait. Here's the rub - Christians need to realize that they may not always be in the majority in this country. Christians' actions now, while in the majority, may well set the stage for how Christians are treated in the event Christianity is no longer the nation's majority religion. All Christians need to be cognizant of this possibility. And finally, Ole Jarhead, I hope you read this, because I certainly do not think you're stupid, but there are so many of your stripe here who drive me - well, that's irrelevant - I should learn to be more tolerant and patient. I am so far from Christ-like it's scary.
Written by Tee Dub
on 7/3/2007
Tee Dub--
You write
"taking the portrait down does not prevent anyone from practicing his or her religion. Nor is it interfering with anyone's religion."
Nor does leaving it up interfere with your rights. What;s your point?
FYI:
The passages on the painting, translated from Russian are: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge with righteous judgment" and “For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged.”
Sounds to me like a message of equal justice under the law. This is the very basis of our system of law. Therefore the painting seems appropriately placed. Only the ACLU and its radical secular minions could possibly oppose such an inclusive message because it hates the messenger.
Written by Chet Lemon
on 7/3/2007
Well now that I know you think I am stupid, here it is again folks LIBERALS calling CONSERVATIVES STUPID FOR NOT AGREEING WITH THEM! GEEEZZZ!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/3/2007
Spoken like a true conservative. Patriot Warrior writes: "ANTHONY - IF YOU DON'T LIKE LIVING IN THE USA, WHY DON'T YOU MAKE NIGERIA YOUR PERMANENT HOME?" This is what conservatives always say. "Go live somewhere else if you don't like it here". F that. This country belongs to me, Anthony, and everyone else trying to keep it from becoming a theocracy. Why don't YOU leave and move to a place where they freely mix religion and politics like, say, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and soon, thanks to your president, Iraq. There are lots of things I don't like about America right now. But I ain't leaving. I'm taking my country back. The revolution has begun.
Written by Darrel
on 7/3/2007
Ole Jarhead, we all know that the exact words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution. Neither are the words "electoral college" but we acknowledge that we have one nonetheless, and we use it every four years. That is a non-argument! We have all read the Establishment Clause. There is NO state religion in the United States and that INCLUDES Christianity. Christianity is not the sole religion of, or in, the United States, and the fact that it is the majority religion is not relevant. As I have said about four billion times now, the Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority, i.e., people like Walker867-5309, who think that the Constitution means "Majority Rules, Dude!". As I told you in a previous post, taking the portrait down does not prevent anyone from practicing his or her religion. Nor is it interfering with anyone's religion. A courthouse is not a place of worship. It is a place where people of all faiths (or none at all, like Karl Rove) should be equal in the eyes of the law. We in the USA cannot show favoritism to one religion by putting a portrait of its Messiah on the wall of a courthouse; it's really that simple. I mean, if I were a conservative, I would be embarrassed by some of the arguments offered in favor of keeping the portrait there. They are incoherent, poorly worded, poorly thought out, use inaccurate analogies and irrelevant historical context and/or inaccurate historical information, and are ultimately pig-headed and wrong. I've noted before that there are a few liberals here who are a bit of an embarrassment (and maybe a lot of liberals here think I'm one), but the vast majority of liberals who post here are quite erudite; I cannot say the same for most of the conservatives who post here. And most of the smart conservatives weighed in early on the first thread and called Jeff to task for his pathetic excuse for a first essay. I can't believe this debate has gone on for as long as it has.
Written by Tee Dub
on 7/3/2007
ANTHONY - IF YOU DON'T LIKE LIVING IN THE USA, WHY DON'T YOU MAKE NIGERIA YOUR PERMANENT HOME? IT IS A VERY LOVELY PLACE, IE: FAIR AND BALANCED GOVERNMENT, NO CORRUPTION, NO BIAS, NO RACISM, LAW AND ORDER PREVAILS, GREAT INFRASTRUCTURE, EVERYTHING WORKS, WONDERFUL SCHOOLS, SAFE TO WALK THE STREETS AT NIGHT, NO DISEASES, HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS FOR EVERYONE, EXTREMELY HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE - A VIRTUAL GARDEN PARADISE!! NOW, WHEN DOES THE BOAT SAIL?? PATRIOT WARRIOR.
Written by PATRIOT WARRIOR
on 7/3/2007
Has there been any credible assertion made by ANY accused or other Non-Christian person that they were in any way discriminated against by reason of their religion (or irreligion)in any judicial matter coming before, or arising out of the court in Slidell? Unless and until there is, the fabrication of this issue by the ACLU is premature and hardly ripe for litigation. How can the ACLU have standing to make such demands.
As to the statement of an earlier commentator to the effect that by analogy the Slidell judges are making laws (presumably respecting religion), this is bogus: the courts interpret the law and don't make it--if they correctly understand and carry out their assigned mission. It is for this reason that the Constitution only includes the Congress when proscribing the making of laws respecting religion.
Finally, as to the separation of church and state, "where is it written'? Where it is written it is merely anecdotal. Indeed, an America without religion, as Mr. Foster and his ACLU would like to have it, would not be America at all. It is no accident that both our organic documents, the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, were signed by all signers following the words "In the year of our Lord..." with a capital "L" as in Jesus Christ and not some nebulous "Diety".
I think Mr. Alexis de Tocqueville, an early, detatched observer, writing in 1832 in "Democracy in America" got it quite right when he said:
"It must never be forgotten that religion gave birth to Anglo-American society. In the United States, religion is therefore mingled with all the habits of the nation and all the feelings of patriotism, whence it derives a peculiar force. To this reason another of no less power may be added: in America, religion has, as it were, laid down its own limits. Religious institutions have remained wholly distinct from political institutions, so that former laws have been changed whilst former belief has remainded unshaken. Christianity has therefore retained a strong hold on the public mind in America, and I would particularly remark, that its sway is not only that of a philosophical doctrine which has been adopted upon inquiry, but of a religion which is believed without discussion. In the United States, Christian sects are infinitely diversified and perpetually modified; but Christianity itself is an established and irresistible fact, which no one undertakes either to attack or to defend."
Happy Independence Day.
Written by Ed Dwyer
on 7/3/2007
You do have one point jeff where were the aclu when the sheriff of st tammny was talking about stopping every black with dredlocks and chee wee hairstyles because they look supicious cleary in violation of the 14th amendment where were these bible toting mayor and judge and all these so called jesus picture lovers. the constitution states that congress shall make no law respecting religion so if a judge make a ruling one way or another then isn't that a defacto action respecting a so called religious icon or image and symbol supporting a religious belief. only in ignorant louisiana this idiot idealogy will fly. what a pitiful state we live in the belief in god is as personally as it can get and a court house is not the place. what an embarassment you jeff and the ignorant mayor and judge and the citizens of slidell are to this state.
Written by anthony
on 7/2/2007
Though I will say this. When LIBERALS like you are faced with truth and logic you either 1. Call people names 2. Lie, or
3. DO BOTH I think I have shown how you have left out certain facts (such as there is no where in the constitution where it states that there is a seperation of church and state, that you stop reading at the comma and don't say anything about the government not prohibiting the free pactice thereof when it comes to religion etc)on this issue you LIBS have been at best DISENGENOUS or at worst lying.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/2/2007
And I showed you by using the Amendment its self how wrong you are. Like you there is nothing more to say.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/2/2007
In an 1866 letter to a Conservative Party Member of Parliament, John Stuart Mill wrote the following: "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." Boy, is this principle ever evident today. Patriot Warrior, you can read all of my posts on three different threads to see what my response to your question is... I think by now I've outlined in excruciatingly painful detail exactly what is wrong with the picture of Christ in the Slidell courthouse, why it is wrong, and what the First Amendment's Establishment Clause means. I really have nothing new to add here.
Written by Tee Dub
on 7/2/2007
Rather than say the ACLU has been encouraged, we should say it's been during the last 20-30 years that the ACLU has had to file such suits. The Supreme Court that P. Bush has packed will give us the return of Jim Crow and an atmosphere of religious oppression, in which one dare not let a sneeze go by without a loud and hearty, "God Bless You!" lest he be hauled off as a non-believer and enemy of the State.
Written by David
on 7/2/2007
Jeff, couldn't agree with you more! Hope you and yours have a happy Fourth of July, and let's all be thankful that we live in a country that promotes freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion! Deon
Written by Deon
on 7/2/2007
It is only in the last 20 to 30 years (out of 230 years of American history) that we have had problems like this. The ACLU has been encouraged to file these kinds of lawsuits since they have had the support of left wing judges that were appointed in the 70's and 80's. The new Supreme Court, that Presidnt Bush has given us, will correct these extremist rulings and give the power back to the American people.
Written by Nola Boy
on 7/2/2007
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." See this is the Problem, LIBERALS only read what they want they can's seem to read past commas. after the eatablishment clause it says "...OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" Ok and the Constitution does NOT say ANYTHING about the "separation of Church and state it was a letter in the Federalist papers" so stop saying the CONSTITUTION says there is a 'seperation between Church/State because that is a BLANTANT LIE!!!!!!!!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/2/2007
Hey Walkero! "I have some news for you concerning basic constitutional law- we are a government OF the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE and FOR the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE of Slidell want the image to remain in the court house. THEIR WILL (not the courts)BE DONE!!!!!!!" WRONG Walkero. Now apply that to slavery in the 1800s. Apply that to attitudes before women were allowed to vote. MAJORITY DOES NOT RULE IN OUR REPUBLIC. IT GOVERNS. READ THAT AGAIN, WALKERO. Thank God for the ACLU...so pure in its mission to keep the United States a true democracy that they would defend nazi groups or the KKK in court - groups they abhor - to allow them free speech. The ACLU are Christians' biggest defenders, only most Christians are oblivious to that fact.
Written by Darrel
on 7/2/2007
TEE DUB - What a hypocrite! Now, you're so "super-intelligent", why don't you define "EXACTLY" what is meant by the meaning of - "The separation of Church and State"? Where does it begin, the middle, and end? The ACLU says that you cannot say the word - GOD in schools, but it's OK for the President (State), to say it, officially? How does a photograph of Jesus in a public building threaten anyone? Put up a picture of Buddha - who cares, a tiny minority? I will leave you with something - "THE TAIL SHALL NOT WAG THE DOG"...........Old Chinese Proverb"! PATRIOT WARRIOR.
Written by PATRIOT WARRIOR
on 7/2/2007
Patriot Warrior, should I take any meaning from the fact that you called New Orleans "New Nigeria" and not, oh, "New Baghdad"? Anyway, if Jesus were to appear in New Orleans, he might want to remove some of the hypocricy of having his name associated with a courthouse. Wasn't it Jesus who said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...."?
Written by David
on 7/2/2007
Lots of people to pray for. I'll start on most of the ones below. Sounds like we need Jesus in a few more places.
Written by Pleased
on 7/2/2007
David - can you imagine if JESUS were standing on Canal Street, New Orleans, aka - "New Nigeria", at this very moment? He would probably say - "GOD, where do we start"? I'm certain that he would also say - that it is going to take more than a miracle to straighten out this horrible mess!! PATRIOT WARRIOR.
Written by PATRIOT WARRIOR
on 7/2/2007
Oh, and for those who say we are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian tradition, take a look at the Founding Fathers and you'll find there was as much Deism as Christianity there. But whatever. How about we put a Star of David up in the Courthouse as well. How about the Court stays open for Christmas, but closes for Chanukkah? How about the Court starts handing out sentences of stoning? How about we start convicting people of eating shellfish? To say we were founded on Judeo-Christian tradition, even if true, does not require us to follow that tradition blindly. As Thomas Jefferson said, "I have examined all of the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our superstitions of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all founded on fables and mythology. Christianity has made one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites."
Written by David
on 7/2/2007
Walker90210, you clearly do not understand the principle that the US Constitution protects the rights of minorities against the "tyranny" of the majority. That is one of its primary functions. This has nothing to do with what the majority wants or does not want. The majority may one day want Scientology or LDS to be the State Religion, but the Constitution will bar that from taking place! As I said in my last post, at one point not so long ago the majority of people thought that segregation and separate water fountains, etc., were okay. The majority can be wrong, and that is why the Constitutional protections are there! And Patriot Warrior, Bush invokes the name of God constantly in his official capacity as President, and no one can tell him that he can't - that's his Constitutional right! No one is trying to take that away. I don't know where you get your delusional ideas.
Written by Tee Dub
on 7/2/2007
Jeff, of course I don't agree that the portrait of Jesus belongs in the courthouse, and I suspect you don't either. But as a good Conservative, you have no choice but to support the religious right and the erosion of the separation of church and state. And of course you have no choice but to attack the ACLU. Jesus had a saying, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." The law is a covenant among people, the bible a covenant between people and their God. If Jesus hangs in the courthouse, does that mean He supports and endorses what goes on there? Does he thereby give his blessing to legal abortion and the continuation of cockfighting for another year? Does he sanction every wrongful conviction that gets handed out there? And if not, isn't the ACLU fighting for Jesus in having his portrait removed, just as a consumer advocate would fight against FDA approval of a cough medicine that causes brain damage in kids?
Written by David
on 7/2/2007
Hey Tee Dub and Mr Malec, I have some news for you concerning basic constitutional law- we are a government OF the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE and FOR the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE of Slidell want the image to remain in the court house. THEIR WILL (not the courts)BE DONE!!!!!!!
The clause, that time and time again judges have re-interpreted to fulfill THEIR AGENDAS, prevents the government from creating a STATE CHURCH. Nowhere does it proclaim the elimination of religious symbols. Please tell me what STATE CHURCH is established by the display of this image? Is it the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Mormon Church?
We are a country established on Judeo-Christian principles. While we are also established as a tolerant nation (freedom of religion), that does not mean we must succumb to atheist agendas in the name of tolerance!!!!
Written by Walker0416
on 7/2/2007
TEE DUB - President Bush does not, and I repeat, does not use "GOD" in his official capacity, as JFK did frequently, while President. Irrelevant? It has everything to do with - "FREEDOM"! Why can't you intelligently explain JFK's official usage of God, his use of the Bible, officially, and on, and on...... Aren't we debating Church & State?? Elementary, my dear Mr. Watson!! Do you get it now? Duhhh. PATRIOT WARRIOR.
Written by PATRIOT WARRIOR
on 7/2/2007
The editorial by Jeff Crouere on this subject is 100 percent correct. The fact that New Orleans has the highest per capita murder rate in the nation--no other city is even a close second--the fact that there were eight murders this past weekend--that is not the least little bit bothersome to the ACLU. They are ideologically hellbent on removing every vestige of traditional Judeo-Christian culture from every public place. All American jurisprudence and laws are based on Judeo-Christian traditions. No one is being intimidated, coerced or proselyted by a statue, nor has anyone of any faith ever been discriminated against in that particular court.
"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The ACLU deliberately ignores the latter half of that statement, as they wish to silence all people of faith in the public sector, and proscribe any public expression of faith. Their incessant drumbeat about the separation of church of state: a)does not mean separation of God and state and b)that phrase is neither explicitly nor implicitly in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written to keep the state out of the church--they were not written to keep the church out of all public or state matters and issues.
The ACLU has gone from community to community all across the country and threatened to imtimidate and bankrupt communities financially if they do not capitulate and acquiese to their initimidation and threats. Kudos and congratulations to the City of Slidell for taking a stand against this hate-religion organization!!!!!
Written by Randy Rumbelow
on 7/2/2007
The argument that "this has never been an issue before" is never valid in a case like this. If you were Jewish or Muslim or Athiest of Hindu, don't you think you'd be a little hesitant to make issue with the portrait given the fact that its presence is a signal of the court's predisposed Christian leanings? The fact that no one has come forward does not mean it's a problem.
Courts and precedent have established that universal references to God are ok (i.e. in God We Trust), but using a portrait of Jesus on the cross takes it too far. By invoking just God, it is implied that it is the deist view of God, which is more spiritual and has less religious connotations. Very few people take issue with that reference to God because it means different things to different people. By using Jesus in the courtroom, Slidell has rejected the generally accepted use of God for one single view... the Christian view. That's a problem. We are a majority nation that protects minority rights. We're not doing our job if we allow this to continue.
Written by BlueDog
on 7/2/2007
Wait, Patriot Warrior, our current President makes no reference to God? In what universe does this happen? Your post is irrational and irrelevant. You clearly don't have a grasp on the issues here.
Written by Tee Dub
on 7/2/2007
Jeff, you're wrong again, for the same reasons as last time.
As for getting headlines, that seems to be for AG Crowe[running for state senate] and Ben Morris[running for Jindal's seat]. They are milking this for all it's worth, defending Jesus from attack by the mean ACLU bully. As a former Republican chairman, surely you see why this is excellent press.
Oh yeah, Michael Johnson is milking it too for the Alliance Defense Fund. I'll bet lot's of folks at that rally opened their checkbooks for the ADF.
And when they lose, as legally they must, they'll chalk it up to "activist judges" [that is, any judge that doesn't rule your way], and they will have another issue.
It's "War on Christmas" in June-July! They must be in heaven!
Written by J. Michael Malec
on 7/2/2007
I watched the "History Channel" last evening..... a two-hour special about the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. During the program, John F. Kennedy was featured in numerous situations - 1). JFK was referring to how that the US would be involved up against the Russians & Cubans if a war should develop. He said - "God help us if that should occur"; 2). JFK also used the reference of God in several other situations (can you imagine how the hate-mongers, and GWB hate squad gestapo would come down on Our President, if he should make those kinds of statements today?); 3). JFK swore in several US Army Generals during this program, using the Holy Bible, and also used the word God, as well. And guess what ACLU (American Taliban)?, that President was a liberal Democrat! It just proves how much that the USA, and its' people have had their freedoms taken away from them over the past 40-50 years!! Damn the ACLU (American Taliban). PATRIOT WARRIOR.
Written by PATRIOT WARRIOR
on 7/2/2007
Why not fight the Civil War again as well? This is rediculous with all the serious problems the Gulf area has to deal with to fight a battle of separation of church and state again after it has long been settled. How would you feel if you were a Budhist or a Moslem or an atheist to be tried in such a clearly biased setting. Simply absurd that you even bother giving this ink.
Written by Wally
on 7/2/2007
You know, in the 1950s and 1960s, you had massive displays of public support for segregation in public schools. That didn't make it any more right. One of the most beautiful things about the United States Constitution is that it protects minorities from the "Tyranny of the Majority" - this is very basic Constitutional Law. Jeff, I just can't believe that you don't see the blatantly obvious problem with this display. It's not even a close shave; it's clearly wrong, whether local sentiment is for it or not. I also think this displays the folly of an elected judiciary, but that's a subject for another post.
Over the weekend, 
To
Buzz Right Back on this article