False Title Raises Interesting Discussion on Jesus’ Historicity vs Religiosity on World Net Daily

Posted: October 14, 2013 in legal / law, religion
Tags: , , , , , , ,

World Net Daily posted the headline, “ACLU: Jesus Is Not an Historical Figure.” The story itself is unimportant, the jist being that the a school district that had a portrait of Jesus was sued by the ACLU to take it down, they did, ACLU went to settle, in the process they found out the school simply had the portrait placed somewhere else, they sued again, the school on the advice of lawyers finally removed it for realz, and here you have the aftermath.

The reason for the title of this particular blog post can really be summarized by that commenter “Arch” whom I seem to agree with more and more:

The headline here is misleading, which violates the Commandment against bearing false witness. The ACLU did not say that Jesus was not a “historical figure,” but rather that He is much more a religious figure and His nature as a historical figure cannot be separated from His religious implications. Therefore, they argued that it violates the separation of church and state. It’d be the same as if the school wanted to put up a portrait of Buddha or Mohammed. Both are historical figures, but neither can be separated from the religions they founded and therefore it can give the appearance of endorsing one religion over another.

That’s what they argued, and this snippet and the headline do not make that clear. I’m sure I’ll get down-voted for pointing that out, but, there ya go.

Arch got 8 up-votes and 7 down-votes for his trouble, and the four-day-old story on WND now has 8 ratings (4.38/5.0) and 445 comments. The top-rated comment is by “Julian McGrath” with 22 up-votes and 0 down-votes:

It’s amazing how worked up people get over a carpenter who was put to death 2,000 years ago. And what did this carpenter say that was so awful? Well he summed up all scripture into 2 basic commandments. Love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourself. The ACLU stated that “students and visitors to the school would continue to suffer permanent, irreparable harm and injury”. The message to love God and love other people like yourself will do all that? Wow.

“Wow” is right. Apparently Julian simply doesn’t get it that a portrait of Jesus is a religious symbol. The concept of “God” is religious. The government can’t endorse one religion over another. What part of that is hard to understand?

I like “fredw”‘s response, which got 3 up-votes and 9 down-votes:

Well, several thousand years of religious violence *between* groups of Christians suggests that people can get very worked up indeed.

If it’s no big deal, then why the need to go to court to keep the picture there?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s