could public schools showcase student artwork with religious themes?

[gnosis92]

could public schools showcase student artwork with religious themes, when they showcase student artwork in general?

i've seen public exhibitions of student arwork, while i do not recall religious themes such as jesus being featured i do believe that it should be allowed, if other students could showcase non-religious topics, including paintings of people, i would think a painting of jesus should be permissible.

[Styrofoam]

Certainly. In that context, the religious theme is clearly the opinion of the student, and is not coercion by the school system.

[GaryP]

I think that there would be no problem with such a scenario, if the assignment gave the student the flexibility to paint, sculpt, etc. what he/she wished.

Your question reminds me of an incident that involved my son when he was in 8th grade. The local mall had arranged to display the students' history projects that the jr. hi teacher had assigned.

Justin and his two friends worked for many hours on an 8ftx4ft European map depicting the major battles of WWII. It was nicely painted and I thought very well done.

The upshot of the story is that his project finished in 6th place out of quite a few entries. The thing that really bothered me was that a child's depiction of Jesus' miracles finished in 2nd place! Jesus IMO does not equal history.

And the Jesus project did not appear to have been worked upon for many hours either. So yes art projects in my mind would be acceptable as long as the teacher did not specify that it HAD to be religious. But history!? I don;t think so.

[IgnorantBliss]

Legally speaking, what would be wrong with an art teacher assigning students to paint jesus? Assuming hes not pushing christianity, there is more than enough strictly art-related reasons why a teacher might choose to do that...

[gnosis92]

Legally speaking, what would be wrong with an art teacher assigning students to paint jesus? Assuming hes not pushing christianity, there is more than enough strictly art-related reasons why a teacher might choose to do that...

big assumption.

[IgnorantBliss]

big assumption.

That he's not pushing christianity or that there aren't enough art-related reasons to justify it?

[Pavlov's Dog]

I think the kids should be able express whatever viewpoints they wish in their paintings. As for the teacher asking them to paint Jesus, there may be secular reasons, but if that is the case just have them paint a picture of some other dude.

[IgnorantBliss]

but if that is the case just have them paint a picture of some other dude.

why? why defer to a non-religious figure in what we've already established as an assignment given for strictly secular reasons?

[Pavlov's Dog]

why? why defer to a non-religious figure in what we've already established as an assignment given for strictly secular reasons?

Because there is no chance you can be seen as promoting religion by having the kids paint a non-religious figure. It would not be practical to let a teacher promote religious themes if they could prove they were for secular reasons. Then you will end up with court cases, school board votes, etc. after every assignment was handed out. We should err on the side of not violating the Constitution.

[IgnorantBliss]

HOLY CENSORSHIP, BATMAN!

The idea that you can't discuss or examine religious material for secular reasons for fear of it being misconstrued as a promotion is... well... awful.

[Professor]

Legally speaking, what would be wrong with an art teacher assigning students to paint jesus? Assuming hes not pushing christianity, there is more than enough strictly art-related reasons why a teacher might choose to do that...

I don't see anything wrong with this so long as the students were not required to depict Jesus in a favorable light. :devil3:

I have in mind a scene of wild-eyed Jesus, spraying sweat and spittle while kicking over a table with his foot and raises his bloody whip above a defenseless, bleeding merchant who kneels on the temple floor begging for mercy. I'm not sure whether I should title it "Prince of Peace," "Turn the Other Cheek," or "Do Unto Others." ;)

[Pavlov's Dog]

HOLY CENSORSHIP, BATMAN!

The idea that you can't discuss or examine religious material for secular reasons for fear of it being misconstrued as a promotion is... well... awful.

You can discuss religion all you want, but there is a fine line between discussing and promoting and somebody has to watch that line. If a kid wants to paint a picture of Jesus on his own and turn it into his art teacher or put it in his locker, or whatever that is fine. When the teachers at a public school are requiring you to paint Jesus that is something else. There is a separation of church and state and when you become a teacher at a public school, you are the state. If there is a secular reason they can give for painting Jesus, then that secular reason could be served just as well by telling them to paint some other guy.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

My understanding of the issue is this: Kids can choose to paint a picture of Jesus. Teachers can't give an assignment of painting Jesus, because not every student knows what a Jesus is.

[crazyfingers]

These two documents are worth memorizing when it comes to religion in public schools. It's pretty clear that so long as the school allowed students to pick their own subjects, did not specifically suggest religious topics over others and the school is not giving preference to the religious art over other creations, there is nothing legally wrong with posting them.

And I would agree that it's the correct policy.

ACLU Religion In The Public Schools: A Joint Statement Of Current Law (http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16146leg19950412.html)

US Department of Education (http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html)

[Malintent]

assigning an art project that requires painting Jesus Christ in a public school is a CSS violation no matter how you want to spin it.

If you wish to spin it off as a "historical depiction" then requiring students to paint a picture of "a cross" would just be an assignment focused on "intersecting lines". Yea, right.

What about requiring students to paint Hitler.. you know, as a historical figure. Would that be less offensive? why not?

[Viti]

could public schools showcase student artwork with religious themes, when they showcase student artwork in general?

Of course.

[rickP]

When I was in high school, we made little madonna's in art class using cloth, startch and styrofoam. I liked the way the wet cloth folded and draped and then hardened that way. Didn't really think about the religious aspect much at the time.

Later, another assignment was to make one of those geometric things where you wrap string around nails outlining a square, star, triangle, etc.. Makes a nice effect. Well, one kid decided to do that with a swastika. He asked me if I thought that would be ok. I told him to reverse it and then it would'nt be the nazi symbol. The fundy teacher had a cow. She absolutely refused to let him use that, even when we explained the difference.

I was still a christian at the time, but I still thought he should be able to express himself artistically any way he wanted. The seeds of freethought.

[IgnorantBliss]

My understanding of the issue is this: Kids can choose to paint a picture of Jesus. Teachers can't give an assignment of painting Jesus, because not every student knows what a Jesus is.

As I said, there are a million secular reasons for students to pain jesus. Say, for instance, the teacher brought in a copy of The Last Supper and asked students to emulate it.

What is wrong with this?

[EverLastingGodStopper]

As I said, there are a million secular reasons for students to pain jesus. Say, for instance, the teacher brought in a copy of The Last Supper and asked students to emulate it.

What is wrong with this?
According to the ACLU link posted above (http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16146leg19950412.html):
Official Participation or Encouragement
of Religious Activity

4. 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. Similarly, when acting in their official capacities, teachers may not engage in religious activities with their students. However, teachers may engage in private religious activity in faculty lounges.
Teaching About Religion

5. Students may be taught about religion, but public schools may not teach religion. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "[i]t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization." It would be difficult to teach art, music, literature and most social studies without considering religious influences.

...

Student Assignments and Religion

7. Students may express their religious beliefs in the form of reports, homework and artwork, and such expressions are constitutionally protected. Teachers may not reject or correct such submissions simply because they include a religious symbol or address religious themes. Likewise, teachers may not require students to modify, include or excise religious views in their assignments, if germane. These assignments should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance, relevance, appearance and grammar.
Why would a teacher risk a church-state conflict by insisting that students interpret religious art instead of any other art?

[IgnorantBliss]

ELGS - Regarding your bold hilights: the scenario I posted is not a religious activity. Praying. THATS a religious activity.

And "teachers may not require students to modify, include or excise religious views in their assignments" doesn't change a thing. The assignment is to emulate a piece of art that just so happens to be The Last Supper. There are no religious views involved.

But, I think you know all this based on your last sentence.


Why would a teacher risk a church-state conflict by insisting that students interpret religious art instead of any other art?

And the answer is because it shouldn't be a "risk" in the first place. A LOT of art is religious in nature, much like how a LOT of literature is religious in nature. That teachers should be "scared" to bother studying such topics for fear of being misinterpreted is just nuts. You're talking about shutting out a huge portion of culture and history from school.

I would bet no one would object to students being asked to copy a painting of buddha. But then buddhists aren't big on lobbying for state sponsorship, so I can understand all of your objections.

[Professor]

I would bet no one would object to students being asked to copy a painting of buddha.

I think you are very, very wrong about this. Many Christian parents would be outraged that their children were required to make a "false idol." O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh would base entire shows on this event.

But then buddhists aren't big on lobbying for state sponsorship, so I can understand all of your objections.

Buddhists on the continent might not have such power, but it does happen in Hawaii. Here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46828) is an interesting WorldNetDaily story by a Christian who discovered what it was like to be the minority religion at a school event.

[IgnorantBliss]

I think you are very, very wrong about this. Many Christian parents would be outraged that their children were required to make a "false idol." O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh would base entire shows on this event.


I was referring to the CSS population (myself included), but you're right, Fox News would be all over that.

[Padre Bear]

My understanding of the issue is this: Kids can choose to paint a picture of Jesus. Teachers can't give an assignment of painting Jesus, because not every student knows what a Jesus is.
So then the kid paints a Dominican baseball player.

The excercise might be too controversial for the general public school but it could be a very good exercise. Even among Christians the images of Jesus might be quite diverse and if kids paint negative images there is opportunity to discuss the kids concepts of origins. Don't be surprised if the children of some Christians paint very negative images either.

[Donnmathan]

Okay, let me run one by you guys. My youngest sister had a 12th grade english teacher that made reading sections of Genesis (specifically, Noah) and Psalms part of a unit on ancient literature; after reading the flood story, she then taught them it's probable history and had them read the appropriate parts of Gilgamesh.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that violates CSS in no way that I can see. Heck, I wanted to applaud the teacher; if you're going to introduce that at all, at least get the history in too.

[GaryP]

Did the teacher say that it's "probaoble history" that the Flood story is literally true, ie, two of every kind, the whole world 40 days, etc?

Just because some other ancient literature speaks of the same event does not confirm all the facts. If she simply used the Bible stories as literature I would not have a big problem. But claiming that the Bible is HISTORICAL?

There are degrees of truth and being as there is zip evidence of a world wide flood occuring in the given time frame, I think that passing the Noah story off as historical is not a public school teacher's role.

Now if she went on to show that this might have been conflated from a localized event, maybe OK.

[Padre Bear]

Did the teacher say that it's "probaoble history" that the Flood story is literally true, ie, two of every kind, the whole world 40 days, etc?

Just because some other ancient literature speaks of the same event does not confirm all the facts. If she simply used the Bible stories as literature I would not have a big problem. But claiming that the Bible is HISTORICAL?

There are degrees of truth and being as there is zip evidence of a world wide flood occuring in the given time frame, I think that passing the Noah story off as historical is not a public school teacher's role.

Now if she went on to show that this might have been conflated from a localized event, maybe OK.

Gary read it again; the probable history of the story, including the Gilgamesh Epic. Not the history of the world. I least that is how I read the sentence.

In addition to that, the story nature and editing is reflected in the counting of the animals onto the ark as well as doublets. Nothing indicates the teacher inserted faith issues into the lessons at all. Students will likely inseert their own understandings into how they interprete what they see.

[GaryP]

thanks Padre. I think I understand the meaning of Donnmathan's post now.

I agree that delving into the STORY"S history is going the extra mile to helping kids' understand it.

[Donnmathan]

thanks Padre. I think I understand the meaning of Donnmathan's post now.

I agree that delving into the STORY"S history is going the extra mile to helping kids' understand it.

Padre got it right - she taught the evolution of the story, not that the story itself was historically accurate. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

[general_koffi]

I have in mind a scene of wild-eyed Jesus, spraying sweat and spittle while kicking over a table with his foot and raises his bloody whip above a defenseless, bleeding merchant

Hehe. Did you get that out of the Dorling Kindersley Illustrated Family Bible? :p Because it's in there.


Students should be able to draw or paint whatever the hell they want. Making it illegal for school's to display religiously-themed artwork would be completely fucked.

[Malintent]

We are talking about public school here... K - 6.. thats 5 years old to 12 years old. little children. There is no reason for a teacher to present any religious art to a little child so little johnny and jenny can practice their snip / paste / color-in-the-lines skills.

We are not talking about a critical art / interpretation college-level class. That would be different.

[Padre Bear]

We are talking about public school here... K - 6.. thats 5 years old to 12 years old. little children. There is no reason for a teacher to present any religious art to a little child so little johnny and jenny can practice their snip / paste / color-in-the-lines skills.

We are not talking about a critical art / interpretation college-level class. That would be different.


No age group was identified. Nothing was said of K-6.

[Malintent]

No age group was identified. Nothing was said of K-6.
It is a fair assumption, based on the post for which that was a response. By the time (American) public school students reach Jr. High School (7th grade, age 13), there would not be an art class that required copying another work, religious or otherwise. Unless we are talking about a "special" school that the short busses go to.

Regarding the OP, I agree with the consensus here that student art should not be censored, but teacher-directed art does fall under the limits placed by the Constitution, in publicly funded schools.

[Padre Bear]

It is a fair assumption, based on the post for which that was a response. By the time (American) public school students reach Jr. High School (7th grade, age 13), there would not be an art class that required copying another work, religious or otherwise. Unless we are talking about a "special" school that the short busses go to.

Regarding the OP, I agree with the consensus here that student art should not be censored, but teacher-directed art does fall under the limits placed by the Constitution, in publicly funded schools.

There was no quote and therefore the post being responsed to wasn't clear. Furthermore, reinterpreting standard art themes in the process of copying them is a well-known artistic act including parody which is not normally a task for K-6. Warhol copied many things in his art.

[dmarker]

I don't see anything wrong with this so long as the students were not required to depict Jesus in a favorable light. :devil3:

I have in mind a scene of wild-eyed Jesus, spraying sweat and spittle while kicking over a table with his foot and raises his bloody whip above a defenseless, bleeding merchant who kneels on the temple floor begging for mercy. I'm not sure whether I should title it "Prince of Peace," "Turn the Other Cheek," or "Do Unto Others." ;)

How about panels depicting Jesus killing the fig tree because it didn't have fruit out of season?

You have the tree, all healthy and green, then you have Jesus angry at it. Then the tree withers and dies. The last panel can show children staring at the dead fig tree that they had planted together or a farmer shaking his head because he lost part of his crop. The last was not in the bible, but I bet you someone had planted the fig tree.

[Castorama]

Pavlov's Dog:I think the kids should be able express whatever viewpoints they wish in their paintings. As for the teacher asking them to paint Jesus, there may be secular reasons, but if that is the case just have them paint a picture of some other dude.So the Christian schoolchild would be allowed 'religious reasons' for not choosing to paint a secular figure? I would rather just ignore the whole 'sensitivity' thing from all sides, and make sure that the sum of all assignments does not over - focus on one group.

ELGS:My understanding of the issue is this: Kids can choose to paint a picture of Jesus. Teachers can't give an assignment of painting Jesus, because not every student knows what a Jesus is.In that case, a study portrait would do just fine, as it would if you asked African Schoolchildren to draw Elton John.

Malintent:What about requiring students to paint Hitler.. you know, as a historical figure. Would that be less offensive? why not?I would have no ethical problem asking a class to do this.

We are talking about public school here... K - 6.. thats 5 years old to 12 years old. little children. There is no reason for a teacher to present any religious art to a little child so little johnny and jenny can practice their snip / paste / color-in-the-lines skills.There is a good reason not to exclude religious objects, beyond their normal frequency.

[Zovingas]

This is just stupid. If an art teacher wants to assign a drawing of Jesus and can justify that choice of topic from a academic standpoint, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?
OH NO! The children might see something we don't want them to see! They might get ideas we don't like! OH NO!
Assuming there is no preaching going on, who cares what the kids are told to draw?

[Pavlov's Dog]

Pavlov's Dog:So the Christian schoolchild would be allowed 'religious reasons' for not choosing to paint a secular figure? I would rather just ignore the whole 'sensitivity' thing from all sides, and make sure that the sum of all assignments does not over - focus on one group.

What the fuck does this mean?

[Helo]

I work in a K-5 after-school program. Several days ago I was told to remove a student's painting because it depicted a cross.

Most schools tread a thin line between displaying artwork and having someone accuse them of preaching. So most schools simply avoid the whole issue by banning religious artwork.

[Castorama]

Pavlov's:As for the teacher asking them to paint Jesus, there may be secular reasonsMy mistake, I thought you meant 'secular reasons against'.

Anyway, Jesus is just as much a part of culture as any other 'secular' figure, who may hold just as much, or even more ideological thrust, so IMO, he should not be excluded.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I work in a K-5 after-school program. Several days ago I was told to remove a student's painting because it depicted a cross.

Most schools tread a thin line between displaying artwork and having someone accuse them of preaching. So most schools simply avoid the whole issue by banning religious artwork.

They are not avoiding the issue. In fact they are infringing on that student's constitutional rights. Probably two of them.

[Helo]

They are not avoiding the issue. In fact they are infringing on that student's constitutional rights. Probably two of them.

Students, unfortuneately, dont have Constitutional rights. Allthough Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, ruled that, "Students do not shed their constitutional rights... at the schoolhouse gate." schools frequently ignore Tinker and in some cases require a student's guardians to sign away the student's Constitutional rights when they are at school in order for that student to attend the school.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Students, unfortuneately, dont have Constitutional rights. Allthough Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, ruled that, "Students do not shed their constitutional rights... at the schoolhouse gate." schools frequently ignore Tinker and in some cases require a student's guardians to sign away the student's Constitutional rights when they are at school in order for that student to attend the school.

Yes they do have constitutional rights in the U.S. If they are ignoring Tinker then they are breaking the law and a parent cannot sign away a students constiutional rights.

[connick]

How about an assignment on world religions in general? Certainly, even atheists want their children to be educated about the religious beliefs of the world. The students study many religions and are told to pick one (or perhaps randomly draw one) and draw/copy some symbols from the religion. So the student who picks or draws Christianity from a hat draws Jesus and a cross. The kid who gets the Raelians draws a comet and Mr. Koolaid.

It doesn't make sense to me that we should censor things, especially religion. If we really want our kids to have any semblance of an education they need the facts. For example, it is disputed that Jesus died and rose from the grave, but it is manifestly fact that some people believe he did. Just because the science we want our kids to learn conflicts with an idea, it doesn't mean the idea should never come up. Pericles' epicycles are an outstanding example for this situation. It's widely known today, that Pericles' epicycles were superfluous, but his idea is still discussed in schools. It's not that we want to teach kids the wrong ideas; it's that it is a part of our history and our daily lives. Wrong ideas aren't inherently bad, especially when familiarity with a particular errancy allows us to discern things more effectively in the future.

Personally, I would prefer if children didn't subscribe to a religion, but I don't want them going out and facing theists without an inkling of what they are up against and where the other side is coming from. Likewise, I would suspect a sensible creationist* wouldn't send his kids out to spread the idea of creationism without teaching them what evolution is all about. It makes sense that rather than disarming students when it comes to theology, we should equip them in the best way possible. By teaching about religion in history and religion today. I feel that your average K-6 student should know as much about Buddha and L. Ron Hubbard as they do about Jesus and atheism. It is to their advantage to know the facts about religion whether they choose to enlist in the ranks of a religious sect or not.

*Tee-hee!

[Pavlov's Dog]

I don't trust public school teachers in a majority Christian country to give the "facts" about religion without proselytizing.

[connick]

Do you trust that they won't do it anyways, even if religion is not part of the curriculum?

[Pavlov's Dog]

Do you trust that they won't do it anyways, even if religion is not part of the curriculum?

I trust that if they get caught there will be repercussions. But if you legitimize it, then it will be practically impossible to enforce.