U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Jesus Statue Could Be Forced Off Montana Mountain
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://ksax.com/article/stories/S2341163.shtml?cat=10230
Published: Oct 23, 2011
Author: Associated Press
Post Date: 2011-10-23 19:36:43 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 72666
Comments: 97
The statue has been a curiosity to skiers at the famed Big Mountain ski hill for decades, mystifying skiers at its appearance in the middle of the woods as they cruise down a popular ski run. "This has been an illegal display. The lease should have never happened," said Gaylor. "Just because a violation is long lasting doesn't make it Rehberg, a Republican, is telling the Forest Service he agrees the historical significance outweighs other concerns. 
A statue of Jesus on U.S. Forest Service land in the mountains over a Montana ski resort faces potential eviction amid an argument over the separation of church and state.
The Forest Service offered a glimmer of hope late last week for the statue's supporters by withdrawing an initial decision to boot the Jesus statue from its hillside perch in the trees. But as it further analyzes the situation before making a final decision, the agency warned rules and court decisions are stacked against allowing a religious icon on the 25-by-25 foot patch of land.
But the Freedom From Religion Foundation isn't amused by the Jesus statue. The group argued that the Forest Service was breaching separation of church and state rules by leasing the small plot of land for the Jesus statue, and is pushing the agency to stand by its original decision to remove the religious icon.
"This has huge meaning for Americans. And if you aren't religious it has huge meaning as well," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, with the Madison, Wis.-based group. "If skiers think that it is cute, then put it up on private property. It is not cute to have a state religious association."
The local Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, have maintained the statue ever since members that included World War II veterans, who were inspired by religious monuments they saw while fighting in the mountains of Europe, erected the monument in the 1950s. But the group thinks the large statue made of a cement-type material is too fragile in its current state to be moved around the rugged mountainside to a different location.
The Forest Service in August initially rejected a renewal of the 10-year lease. It said the religious nature of the statue was obvious and believed it could be placed on private land as close as 2,600 feet away. The Knights have never been charged for use of the public land.
The agency, under fire from Congressman Deny Rehberg and others, announced Friday it would withdraw that decision and open the issue again to public comment. It said a notification that the statue is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places could help - but is far from a guarantee it can stay.
Gaylor, with the group fighting the statue, called it a "ruse and a sham" to consider it an historic marker.
historic. It makes it historically bad. It makes it worse. It makes it all the more reason to get rid of it."
Bill Glidden, Grand Knight of the Kalispell Council, recently submitted the request asking the Forest Service to change its mind. He stressed the historical significance of the statue to the Whitefish, and believes it honors the memory of the veterans who installed it.
"We would like to see it stay there. The community would like to see it say there," Glidden said. "It's more than just a religious icon, it is a memorial to our vets."
"The Forest Service's denial of the lease defies common sense. Using a tiny section of public land for a war memorial with religious themes is not the same as establishing a state religion," Rehberg said in a statement. "That's true whether it's a cross or a Star of David on a headstone in the Arlington National Cemetery, an angel on the Montana Vietnam Memorial in Missoula or a statue of Jesus on Big Mountain."
The Forest Service in its original decision pointed to case law stacked against such a statue, and argues rules prevent the federal government from favoring or promoting religion. The Knights were ordered in that August letter to have a removal plan in place by the end of the year, and must have the statue moved and the site restored in a year.
Phil Sammon, media coordinator for the Forest Service's Northern Region, said the agency is carefully looking at the issue.
"We absolutely understand the local importance and local history of this statue," he said. "That's what makes this a complicated issue."
Whitefish resident Bob Brown, a former state legislator and Montana secretary of state, said the issue dominated talk at his American Legion meeting this week. He said residents, few old enough to remember a time when it wasn't there, don't understand the turmoil.
"We all agreed around the table this is a tempest in a teapot. This is making trouble for us in our little community. Why don't they just leave us alone?" Brown said. "We are accustomed to it. It is part of our tradition here. So we are thinking, `why does anyone want to tear that down."'
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 31.
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
I think the statue should stay. What about you?
It seems as though rent is being paid for the piece of ground the statue is on so I'm fine with it. Of course other religions should be afforded the same right on adjacent ground to rent and place their religious icons should they desire to do so.
OK, now say islamic people want to rent another piece of public land for a statue to honor Allah and his prophet Mohammed. They would have to allow this to be fair. You can't favor one religion this way and not have others want to compete in this way.
You can't favor one religion this way and not have others want to compete in this way. Of course other religions should be afforded the same right on adjacent ground to rent and place their religious icons should they desire to do so. Indeed. That is what I'm saying...
I am even against a Wicca shrine or icon on public land. The First Amendment calls for what is government to not favor one religion over another. And I don't think my religion deserves more consideration in this than any other. If this case is resolved with this statue standing, then other religions will use the courts if they have to because of the precedent this sets.
No it doesn't. Again quote me from the constitution what makes you think this wacky stuff.
The City of Eugene ("City") maintains a public park on and around Skinner's Butte [sic], a hill cresting immediately north of the City's downtown business district. The land was donated to the City and has been maintained as a public park for many years. From the late 1930s to 1964, private individuals erected a succession of wooden crosses in the park, one replacing another as they deteriorated. In 1964, private individuals erected the cross at issue in this litigation. It is a fifty-one foot concrete Latin cross with neon inset tubing, and it is located at the crest of Skinner's Butte. The parties who erected the cross did not seek the City's permission to do so beforehand; however, they subsequently applied for and received from the City a building permit and an electrical permit. Since 1970, the City has illuminated the cross for seven days during the Christmas season, five days during the Thanksgiving season, and on Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veteran's Day. The cross has been the subject of litigation since the time it was erected. In 1969, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the cross violated both the federal and the Oregon Constitutions because it was erected with a religious purpose and created the inference of official endorsement of Christianity. Lowe v. City of Eugene, 463 P.2d 360, 362-63 (Or. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1042 , reh'g denied, 398 U.S. 944 (1970). Soon after, the City held a charter amendment election, and on May 26, 1970, the voters, by a wide margin, approved an amendment to the City Charter designating the cross a war memorial. Pursuant to that amendment, the cross was deeded to the City as a gift, and a bronze plaque was placed at the foot of the cross dedicating it as a memorial to war veterans. The Eugene City Charter provides that the "concrete cross on the south slope of the butte shall remain at that location and in that form as property of the city and is hereby dedicated as a memorial to the veterans of all wars in which the United States has participated." On June 14, 1997 and as a result of the 9th Federal Circuit's ruling, the cross was subsequently removed and reinstalled at Eugene Bible College near Churchill High School and a flagpole flying an American flag was erected in its place. U.S. Representative from Oregon Charles O. Porter was one of the people who had advocated for the removal of the cross.[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_Butte Qyite simply, by allowing an icon of one religion to have such a prominate position, it creates an implied preference by the government of one religion over another. This statue has a religious message much as a bill board is used to sell space to shill for products, services or destinations. Thus it is a message - speech that violates the First Amendment separation between church and state. The First Amendment gives the government the responsibility to treat religions fair and equally. And futher, Iam sure that when this statue's case advances far enough along to the SCOTUS, the precedents created before -- one of which in fact is the Eugene Oregon case, this statue will either have to go, or the land become private. And if the second option is taken, the fight over other religion's icons going up will make this a complex and very long situation to be dealt with.
blah blah blah. You're already trumped by the first amendment.
There are no replies to Comment # 31. End Trace Mode for Comment # 31.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
by leasing the small plot of land for the Jesus statue
#6. To: Brian S (#2)
"It seems as though rent is being paid for the piece of ground the statue is on so I'm fine with it."
#11. To: Ferret Mike (#6)
OK, now say islamic people want to rent another piece of public land for a statue to honor Allah and his prophet Mohammed. They would have to allow this to be fair.
#16. To: Brian S (#11)
#18. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
The First Amendment calls for what is government to not favor one religion over another.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#18)
From the opinion of the 9th Federal Circuit Court,[8] the official history of this controversy is as follows:
#31. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
Replies to Comment # 31.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]