High court won't intervene in fight over Jesus poster

[Judi Lynn]

High court won't intervene in fight over Jesus poster

By The Associated Press
04.24.06
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused today to get involved in a fight over a Jesus poster that a New York kindergarten student submitted for a class assignment on ways to save the environment.

The Baldwinsville Central School District in suburban Syracuse wanted justices to stop a lawsuit filed by Antonio Peck and his parents, who claim his free-speech rights were violated when school officials censored his poster.

The justices' action in Baldwinsville Central School District v. Peck leaves in place an appeals court ruling that requires a trial to determine whether Antonio's rights were violated when school officials obscured a robed figure in the boy's poster in displaying it at a school assembly in 1999.

The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had agreed with the school district that there was no evidence to suggest teachers or administrators had acted with hostility toward religion when they folded Antonio's poster in half.

And the appeals court found that Antonio's poster was not responsive to his teacher's assignment to "save the environment" by depicting trash collection and conservation efforts.
(snip/...)

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16810

[jbnow]

1. I am a little puzzled

Besides being puzzled that the whole issue is worth court time, what was Jesus doing in the poster to "save the environment". I read in your link that one was rejected because it didn't relate to the environment, how did the next one. Do you know? Was he picking up trash or recycling? Performing a miracle and cleaning the air and water?

[VegasWolf]

3. My guess is that the fundies think Jesus will wave his wand, say Hocus

Pocus, and then the environment will be magically cleaned up. I am using satire of course, Jesus really didn't have a magic wand, it was more of a twig with a little crystal stuck on the end of it.

[Lerkfish]

4. follow the link to the original story at the bottom...

apparently, the second version had people cleaning up trash, with Jesus kneeling and praying at the side.

I really don't see what's wrong with that, myself. I might not agree with the kid, but It seems they DID follow the directive the second time. If the kid wants a Jesus in it, I have no problem with that, or if he wanted the flying spaghetti monster thingy, I'd have no problem with that, either, because it was the kids' point of view, not the school pushing a point of view.

[democracyindanger]

7. I wouldn't have a problem if Jesus was actually doing something

But he does nothing while everybody else has to pick up trash? Must be the new Slacker Jesus.

[RaRa]

9. "Must be the new Slacker Jesus."

thanks for a hearty laugh! I needed it!

[Ian David]

18. Jesus can't help pick-up the trash...

it keeps falling through the holes in his hands.

[jahyarain]

25. damn

that was good :spray:

[jbnow]

21. I must have read it too fast

I thought that was the one they didn't use because Jesus had nothing to do with taking care of the environment. So I assumed in the next one he was working on clearing trash too.
Thanks

[OldLeftieLawyer]

30. It's got to be the parents,

who are probably fundies in thrall to some well-financed rigtwingnut fundie group, and they simply set up this poor kid so as to get this case before a court.

The Supremes did the right thing.

My prediction: the whole thing will be dismissed.

"Suffer little children to come to me so that I can exploit them for my own craven, misguided, deeply sexually troubled goals."

[DaDeacon]

66. Dude , it don't matter WHO ....

That's a violation of the 1st PERIOD! The SC not taking the case is SLACK!

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KansDem]

35. Jesus recycles

Or rather, every two years come election time, the GOP recycles Jesus. Brings him out for the fundie vote: anti-gay marriage, anti-choice, anti-gay marriage choice, and on and on, all the while voting for GOP candidates who support these positions.

[Lerkfish]

2. I guess I'd have to see the poster...

even if I disagree with the imagery, I think its weird to obscure an image unless it was obscene.
It's the kid's point of view, so a figure of Jesus should be allowed, as well as anyone who wants to put a buddha, mohammed, etc.

but I'd really want to see the poster myself. I wonder if there isn't something not mentioned about it. I followed the link to the original story and, from what I can tell, it seems the kid changed his poster once to suit the teachers, so I really don't think it makes sense to censor the poster again.

Now, admittedly, I don't agree that counting on Jesus to save the environment is going to work, but I doubt every kindergartener's poster was 100% right on, either.

so.... :shrug:

not sure it needs to SCOTUS, though.

[Phx_Dem]

5. maybe the teacher

was trying to elicit rational thoughts not magical thinking from the students.

[DBoon]

6. kindergarten? good luck!

kid's parents are probably very religious, and told him/her Jesus is behind everything good.

[Phx_Dem]

10. yea no doubt! nt

[AuntiBush]

48. I think its due to the Turbulent Times * has all of us under

We're so divided where does one begin to figure this one out.

Church fundies pushing for church & state, to Jesus on a trailer-hitch. Maybe there is more to this, maybe not then again, maybe its what the great decider has done to our culture and society as the great divider and creator of a turbulent society in general.

Other then that, beat's the heckles out of me.

[onehandle]

8. He didn't follow the assignment. He gets an F.

Send the poster home with a description of what the goal of the assignment was for the parents.

If this was an art class, I might side with the kid for creative reasons.

He didn't follow the assignment.

[Phx_Dem]

11. exactly nt

[DaveColorado]

12. I am pretty secular

But I don't have a problem with what this kid did.

I am puzzled by the fact that the 4 fascists on the SCOTUS did not decide to take the case.

[onehandle]

14. It's a marginal case with no chance of setting precedent.

They pass on things like this all of the time.

[jbnow]

22. The case went to SCOTUS to

get them to stop the school from being sued, not to allow it. (Unless I read wrong)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

32. Naw, it's a routine thing

They take it to the Supreme Court, which turns it down.

Thousands of these nonsense cases are turned down every week by the Supreme Court.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

31. Did you read the briefs?

Before you condemn what the Supreme Court did or didn't do in not taking this case - they turn down THOUSANDS every week, by the way - you might want to educate yourself before issuing such a damning pronouncement.

And familiarize yourself with the facts of the case before you call anyone - even the Supremes - names.

You should have a problem with a kid who can't understand an assignment at that tender age.

[DBoon]

16. Come on it's kindergarten!

Some kid might have done a similar picture with Santa Claus instead of Jesus.!

[onehandle]

20. The mother helped. The school knew that.

The mother did not guide the kid to follow the assignment.


(Your tag line about Libertarians is really funny)

[mongo]

28. If it was a poster

with "mother earth" looking down from a cloud and crying at fire belching smokestacks - would that have been appropriate?

If I were that kid's teacher, I might have asked him to explain the poster, and why he chose to put Jesus on there, but I don't think it is unreasonable for a kindergardner to make a link between his religious beliefs and care for the environment.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

34. Like the kid knows

Come on, honey. He's six years old and he does what he's told.

He's not even sure what "environment" means, but he sure as hell knows what to do when Mommy and Daddy and their fundie rightwingnut backups tell him what to do.

Mother Earth ain't a church getting tax breaks, by the way, and, last I heard, she enjoyed no particular Constitutional protection.

Doesn't THAT suck?

<smoooooooooooooch>

[mongo]

36. I don't care if the parents had input into the poster

I don't think it should have been censored.

If the kid asked his mom - "why should we care about the environment" and the answer was "because God gave us dominion over the earth, and we should take care of that gift", then the poster was appropriate.

Mother Earth ain't getting ANY breaks these days, but all sorts of Wiccan and Pagan churches do enjoy tax breaks (rightfully so), and even Constitutional protections (well sometimes anyway).

As much as I am against any kind of coercion or indoctination into religion in schools, this poster was the artistic self-expression of a student, and his inclusion of religious imagery in the poster not outside the realm of the assignment.

The kid was punished for his parents religious beliefs.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

38. No, he was not

He was punished for not doing his assignment properly, and, last I heard, that was the teacher's call.

Why must all this nonsense end up in court? Because fundies need to rule the world, so they'll use the youngest and most innocent in order to do it?

The kid fucked up his homework assignment, and now it's time for him to learn about the environment. Let his parents and church teach him about religion.

[Charlie Brown]

39. It sounds to me like it was the parents teaching religion

They or the kid just decided to incorporate their religious beliefs into the artwork assignment. This is perfectly legal for students.

The faculty decided they didn't care for the way the kid (or his parents) expressed themselves in the assignment and censored the drawing. That, if it is what happened, is not legal.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

40. No, it's not about "legal,"

and that's when adults get all screwed up and start thinking that they understand what a kindergarden assignment is about when they can't even understand what the Establishment Clause of the Constitution is about.

It's about homework.

That's all. The kid didn't do his homework assignment, and instead of allowing the teacher to explain to the child why he hadn't complied with the instructions - it's called "a teachable moment" - fundies needed to try to exploit this pathetic little incident - which happens every day when kids don't do their homework correctly - into some kind of statement.

When you start saying words like "legal," you play right into their manipulations, and you are incorrect, just like they are.

[Charlie Brown]

42. What if the kid is serious about the environmentalism in his religion

If he or his family are sincere, it would seem he completed the homework assignment appropriately.

When you start saying words like "legal," you play right into their manipulations, and you are incorrect, just like they are.

So this kid did not have the right to use religious images, even if it helped him complete the assignment?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

43. He's five years old

Maybe by now he's six.

He has no "legal" standing, and his intentions are not relevant to the issues advanced in this matter by the adults.

He's a child, for heaven's sake. Five years old. He's there to be taught, to do what the teacher tells him to do.

That's why she's called a "teacher," and why parents should tend to their religious matters at home. That's why they're called "parents."

Mixing it up is completely un-American, and a good reading of the history of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights will clear this up for you post-haste.

[Charlie Brown]

44. I just don't see why censorship was called for

The Establishment Clause aside, why did the school see the need to blot out the "robed person" who may or may not be Jesus. There was nothing profane or obscene about it, and I dislike seeing authority figures single out children just because of a silly drawing.

It was a harmless picture by a five-year-old, and censuring it seems just as silly and hostile as the parent's possible intent.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Charlie Brown]

52. wow, that's a lot of rage

and you waste no time comparing the kid's picture to Hitler and Mussolini. I'm not sure how to respond to that, except to say that I hope your kid is never censured or disciplined for expressing his beliefs or criticizing the Administration (as those standards could easily be applied to Dems and progressives). If he or she is, I will stand up for their rights as vehemently and consistently as I am standing up for the rights of this kid.

[mongo]

63. LOL!

What if the kid had come to school with a poster of Benito Mussolini praising him for having had the trains run on time?

Hey, if the assignment had been on time management and being efficient, Mussolini would have been a great example!

How about a poster with Hitler, espousing non-smoking, clean living, and vegetarianism, as well as a grand respect for Mother Earth?

Well, Hitler's not MUCH more personally repugnant than Jesus to me, so if that's what the kid sincerly believes (or his parents anyway), then if the shoe fits...

How about a poster with Jim Jones, who took his followers away so that they could live ecologically clean lives in Guyana?

Not to mention a well known advocate for population control. The best example of the three for an environmental icon...

[Ms. Toad]

70. Actually, he does have legal standing

Tinker v. Des Moines School District. "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years." That case involved 13 and 15 year old children expressing their belief that the war in Vietnam was wrong by wearing black armbands at school, a belief primarily grounded in their Quaker faith. Their classmates were permitted to wear political campaign buttons and iron crosses (a traditional symbol of Nazism) expressing beliefs on the same or similar topics but expressing different or opposing viewpoints.

In Antonio's case an assignment was given which the teacher and principal freely admit was censored because although it met the requirements of the assignment it also expressed a religious viewpoint which would have been censored (because it was not taught in class) even if Antonio could explain how that viewpoint related to the material taught in class. They also admitted that illustrations of other things which were not taught in class would NOT have been censored so long as the student could explain how they related to the material taught in class. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=15987 If the report of the above assertions by the school teacher and administration is accurate, what occurred was censorship based on the viewpoint of the extra untaught material which was included in the poster. That is unconstitutional; while they may be able to refuse to post any posters which include untaught material, they cannot censor materials based on the viewpoint they express - particularly when the censorship is based on the expression of a religious or political viewpoint. (The teacher's and principal's answer to a hypothetical question about whether a Sierra Club logo (also untaught) would have similarly been censored appears to be the reason this case is headed back to the lower court for a trial on the merits.)

I think it's sad that both the Tinker children and this child had to go through a court battle to make essentially the same point. If my daughter ever takes me up on my offer to help her challenge any of the stupid things her school district (or state) does that censor (or require her to censor) her religious or political beliefs, while others are free to express theirs, I certainly hope little fundie Antonio Peck has already won his battle, because it will make our less politically acceptable battles (at least in today's political climate in Ohio) much easier.

None of the above is to say that I don't seriously question the motives of Antonio's parents, the independence of Antonio's thoughts in creating the poster, the ability of a five year old to decide whether he wants to fight this battle, and the parents' sanity in putting him at the center of this. Legally, however, I believe the suit has merit, and based on what I have seen I hope the school loses.

[onehandle]

45. The instructions were:

to depict a "trash collection and conservation effort".

A drawing of Jesus, Buddha, or Jack Benny ain't that.

He can draw as many pictures of Jesus as he wants as long as he does his assignment.

[Hobarticus]

29. Yep. Here's your first life lesson, kid: follow instructions. n/t

[DanCa]

13. Free speech but I would like to see it also out of curosity. (nt)

[melm00se]

15. based upon the

comments, it appears that the school district assumed that the robed figure was Jesus (as "There were no words identifying the figure as Jesus. from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/%5Cnews.aspx?id=15949).

[Charlie Brown]

17. I think I'm with the kid

I'd have to see what exactly the school did to "obscure" the image, but he has the right to express his beliefs. A Kindergartener could easily associate Jesus or religious messages with helping the environment.

[DearAbby]

19. kindergarten student submitted the poster.

I am an atheist and I see no problem worth court litigation for this incident. Maybe the student did or did not understand the assignement as the teacher tried to convey to the class. :shrug:

I don't see this as a reason to take it to court much less the supreme court.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

33. Bingo n/t

[wtmusic]

60. exactly

Give the kid a bad grade for not following directions. Post the damn poster. Let's get on with it.

[depakid]

23. Sounds like the Mom had an agenda

and my guess is that the school discussed this with her- and she went ahead pushed Jesus on them in the second poster anyway.

[Charlie Brown]

24. even if that's true, does it justify censorship?nt

[depakid]

27. dunno- guess you'd have to ask the courts

AND the person who filed the case....

Seems to me that it's a matter of motives here.

[jahyarain]

26. this was the mother's doing

it's really as simple as that. unless The Lord and Saviour was hold a garbage bag He shouldn't have shone up. but, who cares. religious freedom is fine with me as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedoms of thinking people.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

37. Censorship was unneccessary...a simple "F" would have sufficed.

Freakin' molehill mountain.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

41. I love you

If you ditch the anteater, will you marry me?

I'm a sucker for terse.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

53. Do you eat ants?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

55. Well,

only Aunt Betty, but it was at the barbeque, and she was dead. Plus, with slaw, she was so tender an ......

Oh, wait.

Uh.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

65. Apple Brown Betty, eh?

:rofl:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

67. How did you know

about that apple we put in her mouth?

heh heh heh

Well done, pal.

:toast:

[onehandle]

46. Yep. nt

[warrens]

47. Poor discriminated-against Xtians

They have a perfect right to send in a Jesus poster for every homework assignment the kid does for the rest of his life....or THEY'RE BEING BY-DAMN PERSECUTED!!!! Chemistry homework? Jesus knows more about chemistry than anybody. English essay on Moby Dick? Hey, Jesus INVENTED fucking whales, you atheists! Algebra 2 homework? You don't need algebra, you need JESUS.

Whiny little victim suckers.

[bee]

68. my thoughts exactly. n/t

[HuffleClaw]

50. what is disgusting about this is these parents who are using their

child as a pawn in an attempt to force their religion into the school. i wonder who is fronting the money for this crap.

[Karmakaze]

51. Sounds to me like the school....

went out of its way to be accomodating and not "punish" the child.

From my reading of the article, it seems that the first poster the mother "helped" the child to make did not depict anything but Jesus. At that point the school could just have said "Im sorry but little Antonio's poster will not be displayed." But they didn't. They gave him another chance to create a poster that actually met requirements.

Even then, mother "helped" Antonio put Jesus into the poster again. At that point once again the school could have chosen not to display the poster at all. Instead, to save the childs feelings, they simply folded the image and displayed the part that did not contain Jesus. No problem. Except obviously all that mattered to the mother.. er I mean Antonio was having the picture of Jesus displayed, and thus the lawsuit.

[blogslut]

54. Link to the poster

I would link the actual image in here but the jpeg is huge and would mess up this thread. Read the article about it here:

http://www.lc.org/libertyalert/2005/la101905.htm

That article contains a link to the poster image

[noonwitch]

56. What did the poster say?

If it says "Jesus says don't pollute", then I would say he's sticking with the theme of the assignment, and should be graded on it. If it's just a picture of Jesus, then he didn't.

This is an example of teachers and parents looking for conflicts, I'll bet. A soft answer from either would have prevented the conflict.

[saigon68]

57. Hitler said don't pollute

[Coventina]

58. It doesn't sound like the student followed the assignment...but

I would say a few words on the student's behalf

1) This was clearly a parental agenda, and I feel sorry for the kid

2) Folding the poster in half was wrong, it should have been rolled. Folding harms the poster and may have caused the student distress to see "his" work treated like that.

3) Damn! They sure are giving kids complicated "take-home" assignments now. We didn't have to do anything like that when I was in kindergarden! I don't think he should be given an "F", that seems too harsh for a kindergarden assignment. I think he needs to re-do the assignment properly.

[DrGonzoLives]

59. Out of curiosity...

Many people on this thread seem to have exact knowledge of what the poster looked like...where are they getting the information? This article sure doesn't expand on things.

All I'm seeing is a "Ha, ha, stupid idiotic Christians got smacked down" attitude amongst some here which does not contribute to any kind of rational discussion.

If the theme of the kid's poster was that keeping the earth clean is every good Christian's responsibility, then what is the problem?

[DrGonzoLives]

61. In fact...

From the National School Boards Association:

Antonio Peck's poster contained unmistakable religious content, i.e., a depiction of a robed figure that appeared to be Jesus along with several religious phrases. Ms. Weichert took the poster to Principal Robert Creme who told her to instruct Antonio to create another poster. Ms. Weichert informed Antonio's mother that the poster could not be displayed and he would have to create a second one. Ms. Weichert gave two reasons: (1) the poster contained religious content; and (2) it did not reflect what Antonio had learned during the section on the environment. Antonio's second poster still contained the robed figure, but it also contained a depiction of people picking up trash and recycling next to a church. Principal Creme instructed Ms. Weichert to hang the second poster at the assembly but to fold under the portion depicting the robed figure. However, Antonio was allowed to present the poster to class without any alterations. During the presentation he made no references to religion or God.

(emphasis mine)

Source

OK, so looks his first poster was unacceptable, and the teacher made him redo it. No problem.

What is the problem with the second poster, the one that prompted the lawsuit when it was "folded over"?

[The Straight Story]

64. poster picture is here:

[wtmusic]

62. Ridiculous misstep which hands a huge point to fundies

Come off it. If the kid believes Jesus will save the environment who gives a crap.

:eyes:

[Dragonbreathp9d]

71. Why would they censor that? dumb.

[Haole Girl]

72. Here is a little more of the story

I didn't really understand what took place, so I did some more digging and here is a little of what I found:

Why all the fuss over a little poster by a 5-year-old child? Because Antonio’s case is about far more than a censored kindergarten assignment; it’s about the long-running fight over student religious views in public-school classrooms. Where should the line be drawn between the school’s right to control the curriculum and the student’s right to freedom of speech and religion?

Antonio’s saga began with a homework assignment to create a poster that showed some of the things the class had learned about saving the environment. The plan was to display all of the children’s posters during the environmental program at the school.

According to his mother, Antonio decided to make a poster about how only Jesus could save the world. The teacher, supported by the principal and superintendent, rejected the religious poster because it had nothing to do with what was discussed in class. That was an appropriate line to draw since Antonio had clearly not fulfilled the assignment.

Antonio agreed to do another poster. The second time around, Antonio (and his mother) got the picture. Poster No. 2 had pictures of people picking up trash and placing it in a recycling can. But not content to leave it there, Antonio included a church with a cross and a kneeling figure of Jesus, a carryover from poster No. 1.

School officials were not amused...

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=15987