Since the painting was done by an individual with no ties to the government - not an employee thereof, and the painter received no state or federal grants for his work, I don't see how it could violate the first amendment. It seems to me that he's actually expressing his first amendment rights to free speech (speaking through his painting, as it were). Although the idea of Jesus Christ holding the Constitution might be repugnant to some, it is still the painter's right (some might say God given right, but I'm not going there) to express himself. Had he created a painting showing slavery in the United States in modern times, which would (or should) be at least equally repugnant, he would still have been within his rights to do so. What if he had depicted Jesus as a black man (or as a woman, or of Asian descent)? Would that change anyone's opinion? And where did the LDS (Mormon) reference come from, and what's it got to do with the discussion? He lives in Utah, has 8 children, and graduated from B.Y.U., but I could not find any 'official' reference to his religion. He probably is, but so what? My personal opinion - it's an OK piece of art. I would not buy it, not because of the subject, but because of the execution, the painter's style. A lot of people like that "painter of light" guy, Thomas Kinkade, but not me. Do both of them have some talent? Yes. Would I be surprised to see their works at a Holiday Inn Starving Artist sale? No. Again, just my opinion, and everyone knows what opinions are like, right?