You have got to be kidding me...'groups with constitutional law expertise' are supporting this nonsense..everyone needs to read and understand the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. This is a publicly funded school, and the picture of Jesus, absent pictures of, at the mininum, all the other deities/prophets of all the major world religions, clearly constitutes local, state, and national endorsement of Christianity as the one true, state-sanctioned religion. To blazes with Buddists, Jews, animists, and people who have no religious beliefs. Note that removing religious symbols/texts/etc. from public institutuions in no way prevents people from worshiping/beleiveing however they please...they can have wall-to-wall bibles at home, illustrations from the bible on every wall in their house, and go to church twice every day for the rest of their lives, and no one would care...just do not force your beliefs on others using public money to brain-wash captive audiences who conduct business in public buildings, particularly children.

Grow up, people, and stop trying to rule the world.

The same people want to Kill Em All?

And, the same people that give the kick-ass daddy fascists a 30% head-start in any election you guilt-ridden mommy people are trying to win too. You’d better figure out some story to tell these morons or the socialists will be the minority party forever. And the story’s got to be a REALLY good one, because we all know that Osama is hiding with the invisible golden tables and the WMD’s; Faux News said so!

Just to play devil's advocate here.

Doesn't the display of artwork of any kind provide a forum for discussion? The actions of the school regarding the painting are more important than the existence of the painting on the school walls.

What if the painting were to have a plaque with questions about the establishment clause hanging next to it, including the historical context of how and why the painting is there? Wouldn't that be an appropriate educational tool for students?

Tolerance for a wide range of beliefs is the primary reason for the establishment clause. Displays of belief do not require that all possible beliefs be depicted (equal time is not part of the 1st)...but a state entity would need to distance itself from the individual beliefs of its members to be in compliance. There are many ways to do this that do not require the painting to come down. The meaning does not reside in the art work, but in those that view it.

Art is representational. You, MainstreamMan, may see it as a stimulus for lively debate about establishment clauses, but the school board, the children who go to school there and the Christians who are throwing their money at this issue, see it as a loud and proud endorsement of Christianity. Obviously, the painting needs to come off the wall; this issue is not a muddy one, but rather crystal clear.