Report Inappropriate Comments

joebannister:

The "historic artwork" defence was put forward to the judge and rejected by him, read the full judgement for the reasons why. Similarly, the length of time it as been on the wall was dismissed as being unable to cure a constitutional infraction. Whether it was offensive or not was also deemed as irrelevant, for the reasons why, again, read the judge's ruling. The fact that it has a good message ...again irrelevant. What was relevant was that it was found to be a religious prayer and a specifically Christian one at that, and that the government acted outside the constitution by promoting one religion over another. For reference, placing something on the wall of a school is considered "teaching", whether students choose to absorb the lesson or not.