I studied Constitutional law in law school, and I understand First Amendment jurisprudence— I have come to disagree with most of it. I respect the law and the courts, but the chain of opinions on religious freedom have eviscerated the plain meaning of the provisions, which read:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...”
This is the very first right protected in the Bill of Rights. To me that suggests its importance to our founding fathers.
We have now devolved into squabbles about posting a painting of Jesus Christ. No action by Congress; No law; No establishment of religion— no consideration of the second clause about freedom of religion “...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...”
It is time to go back and read the First Amendment, then analyze the case law that purports to interpret it, and RESCIND all cases that veer away from the simple words used in BOTH the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.
The ACLU and the WFFRF don’t even know what Jesus looks like.
No one knows what Jesus looked like.
To be fair if we remove the picture of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Praise Him forever!) then any public building that has a portrait of Trojan horse Hussein, the ACLU’s lord and savior (Let his works be promptly and soundly halted!) remove it, as he is the head of their religion. Keeping his portrait in a building promotes the worship of his religion: Marxist Nazi Communism where government if god.