(April 5, 2013 at 12:44 am)Stimbo Wrote: Church and State separation aside, I don't see much inherently wrong with a portrait in and of itself. I mean, it's not like anyone knows what the bastard 'actually' looked like; they could have said it was a picture of anyone.
Eh, maybe. I see that as a bit like claiming a two foot long cross on a classroom wall is fine because it may be representing the cross of someone other than Jesus, or because it doesn't look like that cross would have it isn't a religious symbol and endorsement of religion. The portrait is strongly associated with Jesus and most people would identify the face as being his whatever they captioned it as. I don't think anything can be inherantly wrong with a number of colours arranged in a particular fashion, of course, and other portraits could be fine.
And please do tell me if I completely missed the point of your post.
Ponders too much; thinks too little.
