I say keep the Jesus there, as long as nobody throws a hissy fit when other religions add pictures of Moses, the Buddha, any one of hundreds of Hindu deities, the Chinese God of Fortune, a blank piece of paper that most definitely isn't a representation of Muhammed, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Which I would have no problem with.

Seconded.

I'm all for tolerance and equality, but don't condemn all other religions in favor of your own or lack thereof. However, the educational system is in itself biased against religion aside from history. There is no religious education in public schools, i.e. high school theology, and there is no mention of creationism as an alternative. Even at the Catholic school I attended, creationism was strictly a subject taught in religious education classes and was kept out of all scientific theories. The same with intelligent design. All religions have their own theory of the creation of the universe. Why not at least discuss them? We might actually get along if we could just talk about it with some acceptance and understanding.

Now, the statues of the Ten Commandments was an iffy argument. They started as a publicity stunt for a movie. They weren't intended to influence judicial processes and, if you think about it, they're some pretty basic laws that just remind you to be a decent human being. Take away the religious connotation (which includes the first four commandments) and they become socially acceptable. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't cheat. Don't lie. Be happy with what you have. Be respectful. Remind you of any other religious teachings? Many symbols used in modern society are derived from something that was originally or at one time used for religious purposes. How many people wear a rosary around their necks even though the act is sacrilegious? How many people use eastern religious symbols with no real knowledge of their meaning because they "look cool?"

Creationism doesn't belong in science classes because it isn't science. It belongs in religious studies.

Incidentally, Catholic schools don't teach Creationism as "an alternative to evolution" because the official position of the Catholic church is that evolution is A-OK as a scientific theory and does not conflict with its religious teachings. They're not bowing to some PC pressure or doing it to avoid controversy. That's their actual belief.

I believe that public schools have no place teaching any single religion in-depth. Public schools are a branch of our government of the people, and the people are not any particular religion - even the Christians aren't a particular form of Christian. The Christians who get up in arms about Jesus or the 10 Commandmants or prayer not being allowed in schools* would probably do a bit of back-tracking if suddenly they were allowed, but only under one particular Christian sect's understanding of what is "true."

I see the value of comparative religion courses (which my public high school offered), because the majority of the world follows SOME religion, and it's beneficial to understand just what people believe - also, for kids who've been taught that their religion is supreme, it could give them an understanding as to why not everyone cottons to their faith (i.e., show them that every religious person believes that their religion is supreme). And of course, the effects of religion on history should be, and is, taught as a way of showing how religion shaped society.

Any whisper of religious creation as truth or alternative, whether seven days and a garden, Odin killing Ymir, Eurynome getting it on with a snake, pyramids rising out of chaos, Brahma waking up from a nice, long nap, Bumba vomiting up the whole mess or the whole shebang popping into existence from a bunch of particles (eerie how close the Japanese were to the truth...), needs to stay out of science class.

As for Jesus in this particular school - if it's on a wall, and a teacher or school official hung it up, it needs to go. Jesus is not the symbol of teachers or teaching in the US - he has a purely religious affiliation. If it's on a student's shirt or notebook, it can stay.

And finally, re: the argument of getting rid of justice or whatever from our government buildings: this is a false equivalency. Jesus is considered an actual deity by many in the United States. He is strictly a religious figure. Liberty and Justice have not been seen as actual dieties for multiple thousands of years - and even in their hayday, they were probably seen more as we see them now; personifications of ideas rather than worshipable beings. They have been strictly used as personifications, NOT deities, since the Renaissance. During the big humanist push between 1300 - 1600, artists who read the Roman and Greek myths saw them as an easy symbology to add to their paintings and statues. This practice has carried on to the current day, though obviously has fallen out of style as of late, probably because students no longer receive a classical education. Then again, that lack of a classical education further demotes Liberty and Justice from deities to personifications, as many people don't even realize their origin in Roman myth.

In other words, when Jesus becomes merely a symbol of good works and teaching, and almost no one considers him a deity, or the son of a deity, and in fact many people don't even know his origin as a deity, THEN it will be perfectly acceptable for his face to be placed on the walls of a government institution.

*all untrue. They are certainly allowed, the school simply cannot be the one endorsing these religious trappings. Individual students and student groups, however, are allowed all the praying and Jesuses they desire.

EDIT TO ADD: ditto what Kea said. As a lapse Catholic who attended a Catholic school for 3 years, we were specifically taught that the Catholic church is perfectly fine with whatever science discovers. My Bio teacher, a NUN, taught us this. I was in seventh grade when Kansas banned evolution from the schools, and she had us pray for the students who were being denied the truth.

It wasn't at my school, but it's entirely possible that it was a singular case. Still the point is valid. There is no mention of creationism or any religious belief outside of ties to history. Basically, they exist, but nothing further. There is no religious education even just to compare outside of private schools. That's pretty biased. They aren't even allowed to have elective classes of religious nature until college. School sponsored clubs can't be religious in nature either*. How is that fair and equal treatment?

I'm not saying to focus on a single religion or sect. I'm saying educate the children on what is out there. At least cover the basic teachings rather than just, "This religion had a historical impact here at this time." So we know it exists, but what if we want to know more and discuss it with others? Texas doesn't have comparative religion classes or any religious teaching in public schools. College you can take all the religious courses you could want, if it's offered at that campus.

*This is based on the districts in my area. I don't know about others, but we weren't allowed these things. They said that's what your Church is for. Then again what I mentioned may also be the widely practiced rule rather than a minor area of avoidance.

Giggles, religious clubs don't need to be allowed into public schools because they already have entire organizations where they can congregate, i.e., churches. As for the lack of comparitive religion classes, you can blame that on Texas public school education geneally sucking. I am a survivor of it as well and distinctly remember kids who moved here from other states saying how easy it was here compared to where they came from. There is no way the conservative Christians here are going to allow the teaching of facts of any religion other than their own.

I wonder. Let's say I make three paintings: a statue of Justitia getting pulled down by a kraken, Buddha desperately trying to escape from a squid, and Jesus struggling to hold off a malevolent octopus. Are all of those mere pictures, fine art to put up on school walls, or would you think any might be considered mocking someone's religious beliefs? If so, they're still a religious symbol without the cephalopod, and if not, they're not.

No kidding. I'd move back to California if I could find a job and actually afford to live there. Heck, I'd move anywhere that just didn't have the Texas heat. Don't think I could stay in the bible belt, though. Religious zealots give me bad, bad thoughts.

I don't think I've said my thoughts on the original subject, yet. Well, I did partially. As long as it isn't posted by a government official, i.e. a teacher, principal, police officer, go ahead and leave it. It isn't exactly harming anything, but don't disallow other religious icons in favor of a specific religious sect. The only way I can see a government employee being allowed religious symbols is if they were on their person like a necklace or medallion. Many police officers will wear their own religious symbol (cross, star of David, etc.), but they are under the uniform and not readily visible. However, a judge should not. It is part of being involved in the judiciary system that all personal beliefs and morals be left outside the court room in order for the defendant to receive a fair and just ruling. Obviously, this doesn't happen everywhere the way it should, but humanity is flawed and nothing is really perfect.

I would not consider any one of them a religious symbol or promoting a religion. Unless of course the cephalopod in question was merely the head of a larger creature with bat wings. (ok that last bit was a joke for anyone that thinks I was being serious, tongue in cheek doesn't often translate well.)

I do. Why do we need religious images in our schools? Why is there a picture of Jesus there in the first place? Unless this is a comparative religion course, it was put there by someone as an expression of belief. More to the point, it was an assertion of one person's belief over any and all others.

And it cannot be papered over by putting up other religious icons, either. Sure, I could point out some of the less palatable religions, demanding a wiccan star, a satanist inverted cross or the owl of Athene be put up as well and hope for a brouhaha. But it doesn't change things. No list of icons could be all inclusive because there are those for whom no icon is appropriate. And it still doesn't address the root problem.

By placing propaganda promoting my religion in a school, I am doing is enshrining my beliefs in a place of prominence in a public forum. I am exerting my control of the space to enforce my views over yours. That's wrong. It's unconstitutional and it is unamerican.

If you want to express your religious beliefs, do so in your church. If you want to advertise your religious beliefs, do so in those areas of the public forum designated for doing so. If you want to subject MY children to YOUR beliefs against my wishes as the parent and guardian of my child, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

Take it down.

I'm a very religious Christian. However, I've more and more come to believe that the separation of church and state is as much or more for the protection of religion than it is for anything else. Where religion is mixed into the political realm it so often breeds hypocrisy and corruption.

Consider how much more religion flourishes in the United States than in England. Yet England is an officially Christian country, with an official state church. I can't help thinking that likely drives more people away from Christianity than the converse --especially considering the the obvious contradictions inherent in having a hereditary, temporal monarch as the head of your church, a church, furthermore, that was started under extremely questionable circumstances and motives.

In the same way, is a public school --as opposed to a school run by a church --really the place to teach kids about Jesus? After all, it was Jesus Himself who said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's", which very well might be the first recorded formulation of principle of the separation of church and state. I'm not sure why the picture was there in the first place, and I can't see the argument for not repatriating it to some more sacred location.

but that's the thing, they are not teaching religion. It is just a picture.

Not explicit teaching but still an endorsement.

Then I stand by my statement that a statue of a Roman goddess is also endorsement.