Without a doubt, but they will tend to possess 3 dimensions, particularly when they are the focal point of the landscape.

In this case the pyramids, excuse me, mountains, were drawn with more care than the cross.

Based on the policy, a 0. However, the policy is carp and hopefully this lawsuit will get rid of it. My issue is not with the grade, but with a policy that won't allow someone to express their own beliefs in a personal way in an art class. It's one thing if it is something designed to upset people, and another when it just expresses love.

Some came along a week later.

Yet, the teacher and principle claim that his drawing of the Cross infringed upon other's constitutional rights, ya know the ones he signed away when opting to attend the class:

A Buddha and Hindu figurines are on display in a social studies classroom, the lawsuit claims, adding the teacher passionately teaches Hindu principles to students.

In addition, a replica of Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Man" is displayed at the school's entrance, a picture of a six-limbed Hindu deity is in the school's hallway and a drawing of a robed sorcerer hangs on a hallway bulletin board.

Drawings of Medusa, the Grim Reaper with a scythe and a being with a horned head and protruding tongue hang in the art room and demonic masks are displayed in the metals room, the lawsuit alleges.

I disagree. The student should have been expelled, but not before corporal punishment laws were reinstituted and carried out on this scofflaw. In order to completely wipe any evidence of faith from the public arena, we must make an example of a few.

What about that little provison about the separation of church and state?

The student is certainly free to create any art he wishes on his own time to his own terms, but in the public school setting in which he is enrolled, follows the rules kiddo. If you do not like it, choose home schooling or private school. Otherwise kiddo, deal.

I actually dont beleive that they were that common... reserved for only cruel punishments...

It's really a question of both the policy, and the student's behavior. Tearing up the policy is a very different act than respectfully declining to change the picture out of a strong religious feeling.

As far as drawings with sexual connotations go, the policy is not 'carp', but actually guards the students against being charged with the creation of child pornography (if they draw sexual pictures of people their own age, it's child pornography), the art teacher with possession, etc.

Yet images of Hindu deities and of the Buddah are perfectly acceptable
In common nomenclature, it is called a double standard.

This student was not engaging the state in the practice of any religion. If the school felt that strongly about religion then the school needs to remove EVERYTHING it currently has on display that relates to a religious topic. From the article - it doesn't appear that the school has anything against religions of all kinds - they just didn't want this kid to express his faith in his art. That's pretty bogus.

The state shall make no law prohibiting the free expression of religion. This is quite clearly a rule prohibiting such. This is not about a public school forcing any religion upon the child. Wait, I take that back, it is indeed a public school forcing him to abandon his religious beliefs. It is about a public school condoning one religion (Buddhism) while refusing to allow this individual to express his own faith individually. The state here is requiring the student to be exposed to other faiths, while refusing to allow him to express his own.

Where is this provision located?

stir, stir, stir

or



for those who are literacy challenged, or have comprehension issues, I've snipped the following from the article

According to the lawsuit, the student's art teacher asked his class in February to draw landscapes

supreme court transcripts

I do not disagree... the district also appears to be in violation of its own policy.

So legislating from the bench is cool when we agree with the decision of at least five people but not when we disagree? Got it.

Hey I'm not saying if it's right or wrong - he just asked a place where the provision could be found.

But not in the constitution, only in some liberal interpretations.

????

This is the same place "Freedom of speech" became "Freedom to say what you want if I agree with it."

Not coincidentally, if this case involved a Muslim student who drew Islamic images, the word "Xenophobe" would have been uttered countless times and then a person's right to express his beliefs would get some attention.

The issue with the lawsuit has been totally missed by pretty much everyone in the posts. The teacher would not have given a score of a 0, and the student did not remove the religous references because other students artwork contained religous references.

Well, it wasn't missed by me, as I led with that in the original post. Everyone else may have missed it, as they were too busy showing they were right...

Yeah and appearently reading the material but missing what was stated in the material. That is wierd.

Didn't you argue to defend a school policy regarding hair cuts and saying that if the parents didn't like the policy, they should go to public school?

I guess if you personally agree with a policy, then it should be enforced to the letter, but if you disagree with it, they should ignore it and sue in court, rather than fight with the scool board, to change it.

this form of punishment was in general use from the 7th century before the common era --

Alexander the Great is reported to have had this done to 2,000 survivors of the siege of Tyre

It was the established mode of execution, even for wealthy and army generals in Carthage

It is mentioned in the Quran, even in Japan in antiquity