So what exactly is the argument?
A.
1. The religious right wants prayer in tax payer funded schools.
2. An incredibly small minority teaches hate (not love).
3. Therefore having prayer can be dangerous.
Or perhaps;
B.
1. The religious right wants prayer in tax payer funded schools.
2. The right wants to impose their agenda on 'the rest of us'.
3. Imposing agenda's (especially through prayer) is dangerous.
Whatever #2 is (In Syllogism A or B), it seems the common points are premise 1 and the conclusion. In essence, the religious right makes a request for prayer and that is dangerous.
The same 'logic' can be used to debunk the very position this artwork is depicting:
C.
1. The non-religious left (stereotyping for sake of simplicity only) does not want prayer in taxpayer funded schools.
2. Prayer is a powerful force for helping the majority of people love, relate, learn and operate in humility.
3. Therefore not having prayer can be dangerous.
D.
The non-religious left does not want prayer in schools
The left wants to impose their agenda on the rest of us
Imposing agendas (especially without the direction of learning to love through prayer) can be dangerous.
The photos do not say much of anything except the 'artists' inability to clearly articulate a meaningful position.