Paintings, the public, and prayer

In 1947, which if memory serves was the same year the first "flying saucers" were seen (to give some Twilight Zoney-perspective), the Hi-Y Club, a Christian-affiliated student club in Logan, Ohio, gave a large portrait of the man we know as Christ to the local middle school. Seemed to be rather normal at the time. They hauled that thing in, hung it up on the wall like it was one of the many deer heads on many rural Ohio walls, and probably forgot about it rather quickly.

Sixty-five years later, though the portrait had caused considerably less controversy than the painting's subject did while he lived, it was moved from the entrance of Jackson Middle School because the ACLU said it violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Let's establish a few quick facts. 1) No one knows what Jesus looked like, but almost everyone is of the opinion that the portrait hanging in the entrance to the middle school does not look like him. The portrait looks more like a singer from the 60s with flowing locks than what Jesus probably looked like a couple thousand years ago. The portrait shows a guy with hair like Bee Gees lead singer Barry Gibb, light Caucasian features and such. 2) Other than the ACLU, no one had complained because the portrait had been there longer than the football team had face masks on its helmets. No one noticed it any longer.

ACLU spokespersons said the portrait of a guy in a robe walking with some sheep is "an unconstitutional endorsement of religion on the part of a public school." When confronted, school persons connected to this issue said, "We have a portrait of Jesus? Where?"

So, the school district officials did the smart thing; they moved the painting to the high school, apparently and completely misunderstanding the argument in the first place.

The ACLU and the FRF and the MOUSE-CLUB and all sorts of initial-led institutions of lower learning say they will continue to sue, less, you know, someone notices the portrait and is forever damaged. Of course, one day all these institutions will notice that since there is no caption on the portraits, the portrait doesn't advertise or promote any religion unless walking around sheep is someone's rather quaint idea of religion.

The interesting thing in all this squabble about "establishing" religion and such in public schools is that many don't know what the law actually says about this.

Every time someone says that God has been removed from the public schools I say it's time they look at what the federal law actually says.

Let's take a second and point out a very few portions of the current federal law.

• Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive. Because the Establishment Clause does not apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray before tests, and discuss religion with other willing student listeners.
• School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation, nor may they organize a religious baccalaureate ceremony.
• (Perhaps the most misunderstood section). Teachers and school administrators, when acting in those capacities, are representatives of the state, and, in those capacities, are themselves prohibited from encouraging or soliciting student religious or anti-religious activity. However, teachers may engage in private religious activity in faculty lounges. 
• Students may express their religious beliefs in the form of reports, homework and artwork, and such expressions are constitutionally protected.
• Students have the right to speak to, and attempt to persuade, their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to political topics.

Let me be clear. I don't believe we are capable of removing God from public schools because we simply aren't powerful enough to do so. In this country, it still is possible to pray to the father whose name we have hallowed countless times, even in (maybe especially in) schools.

However, just to make sure, Mississippi officials recently tried to make sure there would be no denying anyone's ability to pray or even talk about Jesus in school.

In Mississippi, the very recently birthed state bill calls for, among other things, students to be able to “express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination” (which was never in doubt) and that students can form religious clubs that meet before or after schools (which was also never in doubt).

In other words, at Mississippi football games, pep rallies, graduations, and morning announcements — anywhere where students speak — they must be allowed to pray. The school would have to offer a disclaimer that they’re not endorsing these views, but rather offering a “limited public forum.” As a long-time sportswriter who retired a few years ago from the profession, I must confess they never stopped praying before the games in the first place.

I have no problem with any of the above, though I don't see why it was necessary to go to so much trouble to make sure that was possible because as near as I can read, it was never in doubt. I understand the ACLU's position that Christians can't force anyone to believe the way they do. I have no problem with that. Heck, God himself doesn't do that, so why should I, my churches, whomever do it either?

Here's the point: As Christians, I again ask we pick our fights properly. Spending time and money over a battle to keep a portrait that has nothing to do with rebirth, repenting or repelling the evil one in schools is, I think, perhaps wasteful fussing. Making sure our children know when and how and to whom we should pray is worth the battle, and I certainly have no issue with someone who believes in Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life saying so in any circumstances or in any place. In fact, it is a battle parents have stopped fighting for all the wrong reasons.

Here's an idea: Why not instead of fighting about inaccurate paintings hanging limply and ineffectively on old walls, why don't we fight to stop soccer and Little League baseball and peewee football games from taking place on Sunday mornings so that parents can't take their kids to church? For that matter, why don't we fight to make sure our kids are in church every Sunday whether the NFL starts at noon or not? (Uh, oh, blasphemy)

Why not instead of squabbling about when we can pray privately (as Jesus told us to do instead of starting school mornings with public prayer that he warned us about), why don't we talk about how to fit Jesus into the culture that exists today? Why don't we spend some time actually discussing abortion and homosexuality and the death penalty and such using what scripture actually says instead of saying what we say it says, and why don't we quit using very serious subjects as fodder for gaining political votes?

And why not find a way to discuss why we live in a world where kids can't wear tee-shirts that read WWJD in schools but can wear tee-shirts with obscene language on them in the malls and have access to guns that can somehow make it into schools?

We can fix that. We can. We should. Darn it, we must. If everyone who checks the Christian box on the next religious survey they take actually began to believe and act what they believe, then we could fix the problems we have with hunger, with hate, with homelessness, with dishonest living. But only if we begin to figure out what it means to be a Christian can we do so. When Protestants make very public and less than intelligent remarks about the leader of the Christian Catholic church, we're failing our children and ourselves.

The battle begins, I'm afraid, by praying ourselves. Till we do, till we surrender ourselves, till we stop letting "issues" lead us instead of the One who saves us, I'm afraid we're just playing three-card monte with portraits of some blonde guy we've never known and perhaps never will.