Subject:
|
Re: Separation of Church and State
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 19:58:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
261 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
<snip>
> Like I said, my argument on this point isn't that great. Still, I have to
> disagree with your example on several grounds. An easy way to consider the
> matter is to ask "what if 8-year-old Julie paints Satan standing victorious over
> the smoldering corpse of Jesus?" Do you agree that such a representation might
> cause a stir? Should her work therefore be omitted from the hallway display
> because it might offend certain religious sensibilities?
> One could also explain to Julie that the school is a public institution, and
> therefore the school can only display (ie, endorse) artwork that conforms to the
> requirements of law. The school (and local citizens) probably wouldn't hesitate
> to censor her artwork if it were shockingly violent, or if it were a fictional
> representation of the Principal committing bestiality. A school is widely
> considered to have discretionary power over certain kinds of expression, even
> when nebulously defined. Isn't it therefore reasonable to allow the school to
> exercise similar discretion in a case that's very clearly defined, such as in an
> expression of religion? Obviously, someone could still try to sneak a religious
> message into a work, but that's not really the point. The problem occurs when
> the school knowingly endorses such a work.
>
> Some might reasonably disagree with my handling of that last paragraph, and
> I'm eager to hear other viewpoints. I'd maintain, however, that legal precedent
> supports schools' rights to enforce certain standards of behavior, expression,
> and display. It's not perfect, but at the moment it allows schools to exercise
> control over what sorts of artwork are displayed on school grounds.
>
>
> Dave!
I was trying to address this very issue, but I snipped it 'cause it wasn't
sounding good at all.
I was going to say that little Timmy drawing Rambo with a severed head in his
hand as his hero drawing probably should be censored due to graphic
violence--I'd imagine that the school board should adhere to a 'G' rating on art
from kids from grade 2, but that's at the discretion of the school and 'good
taste'
Censoring a child who followed the teachers instructions to the letter by
drawing her hero, Noah (or anyone) because we think it violates something as
nebulous (at least to an 8 year old) as C & S is another issue altogether.
"Hi Jenny, we can't show your artwork of the animals in the ark, that you spent
the last 4 artclasses working on, becaouse your federal gov't has an issue with
it."
Further, the school didn't make the art, Jenny did, so I don't think that Church
and State applies--Jenny is not the state. But then again, I'd also say that if
the teacher decided to partake in this artistic endeavour, that he or she could
paint whatever scene they'd see fit to, as long as, again, it complies to
subject matter appropriate to a Grade 2 level, even if the drawing has
connotations to the Bible, Buddha, or whomever.
But like your points, that one's a litle fuzzy.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Separation of Church and State
|
| (...) Absolutely! And if someone tries to prevent those people from praying, I'll be first in line to defend their right to pray as they choose. The right to worship is Constitutionally protected, even on school property (provided that it's not done (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
