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: 70490
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
Comments (1-28) not displayed.
.
.
.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#18)
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.
I understand what you are saying. Jesus did also say something about praying in private. That way you are not kind of boasting that are good because you are praying. The same with giving. Didn't he say to give secretly. That way you wouldn't be boasting, look at me I'm good I gave to help the poor or whatever.
blah blah blah. You're already trumped by the first amendment.
Mike I'm going to have to call you a liar. I've already proven there is no such phrase in the constitution as "separation of church and state". You refuse to acknowledge this shows you are dishonest. You know I am right. That is why you refuse to quote the actual words of the constitution. Instead you repeat your mantra of separation of church and state. Which is a lie.
We made a mistake when we let non Christians immigrate here. We should have stuck with people with cultures like ours. Now some future generation is gong to have to wipe them out.
this statue impedes 'the free exercise of religion' by implying a preference of one religion over another by giving Christianity a spot to advertise and imply their faith is better then all others. This clearly flies in confluct with the intent of the First Amendment.
So you favor a theocracy like we have in Iran, and do not support, want to preserve, or defend the U.S. Constitution and it's Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment. I'm sure many native Americans would agree with you about banning immigration and expelling religions not their own. But if they had done that from the start, where would it have left you Christians?
Post #34 uses verbiage from the First Amendment to expound on my argument, and my opinion is no lie, it is an opinion. One the court has backed. By calling me a 'liar,' you are in fact saying any point of disagreement with you is a lie. thus if people don't robotically believe as you do, they are a liar living in a lie. This is insane, and comical a way to think.
You have captured the essence of Stone, except you left out that you're a baby murderer too.
Well Skip, maybe I've 'murdered' so many swimmers with half the gene pool of babies, I just had to do that out of feelings of deep personal guilt. [note to Stone: I am kidding in a very sarcastic manner, just so you don't get too excited here.]
The concept that earlier or historical precedents can be changed in the "blink of an eye" demonstrates that America is under siege. All the earlier rules built upon known precedent are NOW under tremendous influence, not by by anyone's thinking, too. It is a government OUT OF FUCKING CONTROL.
You are embarrassed about your own belief system? GET THE FUCK OFF THIS WEB BOARD OR I SHALL STEAL YOUR PASSWORD.
Have you ever restated your own quote in a mirror, say before going to work or after school, or even while you take a shower after sex with your wife? You know, you are a FUCKING ASSHOLE. I am sick & tired of your opinions, too. You are some MFer whacking off to porno sites that thinks bullshit. You only come here on this channel for some sort of passion about control based on RULES that you don't even observe.
This clearly flies in confluct with the intent of the First Amendment. Still you refuse to quote from the first amendment to make your case. You spin and twist........in the wind. For about the 10th time. What words from the first amendment are in conflict?
No. I favor going back several decades to the way it was back then.
Yes they would. We can learn from their mistakes. Do you think they would have made the same choices knowing the outcome?
First off I'm a native American. Most all of us are except the illegals. 1And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come on you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you shall call them to mind among all the nations, where the LORD your God has driven you, 2And shall return to the LORD your God, and shall obey his voice according to all that I command you this day, you and your children, with all your heart, and with all your soul; 3That then the LORD your God will turn your captivity, and have compassion on you, and will return and gather you from all the nations, where the LORD your God has scattered you. 4If any of your be driven out to the outmost parts of heaven, from there will the LORD your God gather you, and from there will he fetch you: 5And the LORD your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and he will do you good, and multiply you above your fathers. 6And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. 7And the LORD your God will put all these curses on your enemies, and on them that hate you, which persecuted you. 8And you shall return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command you this day. 9And the LORD your God will make you plenteous in every work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers: 10If you shall listen to the voice of the LORD your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul. 11For this commandment which I command you this day, it is not hidden from you, neither is it far off. 12It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it? 14But the word is very near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it. 15See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil; 16In that I command you this day to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that you may live and multiply: and the LORD your God shall bless you in the land where you go to possess it. 17But if your heart turn away, so that you will not hear, but shall be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; 18I denounce to you this day, that you shall surely perish, and that you shall not prolong your days on the land, where you pass over Jordan to go to possess it. 19I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live: 20That you may love the LORD your God, and that you may obey his voice, and that you may hold to him: for he is your life, and the length of your days: that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.
When you use words "separation of church and state" and say it is in the constitution. That is a lie or ignorance. In your case I know it isn't ignorance as I know you've read the first amendment. That is a fact. You still never offered any quote from the constitution that would require this statues removal. You should say these words from the constitution (then quote them) would forbid the placing of statue on mountain. Then we can see if the words you quote would render the placement of statue unconstitutional. But you only quote 3 words then use them out of context. Typical anti constitutional liberal.
You have captured the essence of Stone, except you left out that you're a baby murderer too. Yes that is my essence. Exposing people to the truth. If a person who has read the first amendment says that there is "separation of church and state" in the constitution They are lying. That is a fact. Quit whining about it. The truth shouldn't get you angry.
Have you ever restated your own quote in a mirror, say before going to work or after school, or even while you take a shower after sex with your wife? What I am saying is this buckeroo. If there really is a God. If his word really is the Bible. Wouldn't it be nice if we were all following him and living in peace, truth, love. Truly following God and doing what is right. If that were the case why would there be any mosques?
You have no sense of reality, pal. All you have are hopes and dreams based upon false ideals and opinions + you have no conceptual picture of the REAL world. What a laff!
If you had good reading comprehension. You would have understood what the words "In a better world" meant. You just assumed it meant something else. I think you assumed it meant we should harm muslims or something like that. That isn't what it meant. So you should have been polite and asked for clarification if you didn't understand. But that is ok. Now you know.
I have a great perception of what is going on. I know world events and a tiny bit about the Bible. Watch Syria fall. Take that to the bank. Syria, Libya, Iran, Egypt will all attack Israel someday soon. Egypt was our ally until recently. Libya was not going to attack Israel under Khadaffi. The Bible is true buddy. You can get great insight about where this middle east thing is going by reading the Bible. If you don't know that it is your problem not mine.
Good luck twit.
I see where you are going: covering your own errors of logic, Fine.
But notice your own self-defensive characteristics: no new data or presentation.
You are a "whack-job." And I am through with you, pal, with the exception of
saying this:and continue your self-stimulation. You are non receptive to ideas
or opinions. You are an ignorant MFer that knows nothing, understands nothing
and has no reach for anything about himself or the Universe around yourself.
There is no reason for me to make any more posts on your channel. Goodbye as I
can not learn anything. I saw that you deleted my earlier
post and called me a "twit." Go f**k YOURSELF similar to the hypocrisy of
your beloved patronage, "yukon." You suck donkey dicks, EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU IS
HYPOCRISY. You know NOTHING.
You are a twit. You said you were already gone. What 5 or 10 times now. Will you keep your word this time? I don't think so. Regardless have a good life. Sorry you are in such a foul mood tonight. Hope everything is ok.
It doesn't matter what's going on in his life, good, or bad, his behavior towards you was uncalled for. Just speaking for myself, I would have apologized to that walking hangover when hell froze over....jmo!
Git your ass back up there in the hills and FUCK your cousins. Enjoy your corncob pipe and 200% moonshine. It is a American tradition, correct?
I thought you weren't coming back. Is it harder then giving up booze?
I am smoking a cocaine rock of the purest origin upon the planet. And you worry about booze? What is the matter with you? Are you really a DUMBFUCK?
Here. I'll help you keep your word.
You are lazy and blind. I did in post #34, 'BETWEEN THE NOTATION MARKS,' dumbshit. Learn how to read.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Or are you so ill educated you don't comprehend the word 'thereof?'
What did you do? Ban buckeroo?
You are lazy and blind. I did in post #34, 'BETWEEN THE NOTATION MARKS,' dumbshit. Learn how to read. Hey dumbshit. Like I said. You posted 3 words then twisted the meaning. You're not an honest person. Here is all you offered. You must be offended by the constitution. You're an Obama groupie what would you expect. Your quote "this statue impedes 'the free exercise of religion' " Now dummy. Taking the statue down "impedes the free exercise of religion". Dumb ass.
When people talk like that to me they get the axe. Temporarily or permanently. Besides he is a crack head. He admitted it.
Look up the word "or". You're welcome.
You repeatedly show you don't know much about how case law works and what a legal precedent is. So it's no surprise the meaning of the First Amendment seems to go over your head. It is pointless discussing this issue with you. As for the bait and insults, they have nothing to add to the discussion. There is no point in either of us engaging each other that way. It is just a waste of time, and it doesn't add anything to a dialog on anything.
I don't give a shit about precedent. I care about what the document ACTUALLY SAYS! Not some asshole usurpers spin on it. Comprende?
This is off topic. Stay on topic.
Comments (70 - 97) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestFrom the opinion of the 9th Federal Circuit Court,[8] the official history of this controversy is as follows:
#30. To: master_of_disaster (#25)
Im sick of all this negativity over people worshipping Christ openly. Congress would have us all praying in dark alleys.
#31. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
#32. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
Thus it is a message - speech that violates the First Amendment separation between church and state.
#33. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
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.
#34. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan (#22)
#35. To: A K A Stone (#33)
"We made a mistake when we let non Christians immigrate here. We should have stuck with people with cultures like ours. Now some future generation is gong to have to wipe them out."
#36. To: A K A Stone (#33)
(Edited)
"Mike I'm going to have to call you a liar"
#37. To: Ferret Mike (#36)
By calling me a 'liar,' you are in fact saying any point of disagreement with you is a lie. thus if people don't robotically believe as you do, they are a liar living in a lie.
#38. To: Skip Intro (#37)
"You have captured the essence of Stone, except you left out that you're a baby murderer too."
#39. To: Brian S (#0)
"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."
#40. To: master_of_disaster (#3)
Since when has it become okay for someone to be persecuted for their beliefs? I find the mosque being built on 9/11 sites way more agregious,but im a Christian I can't say that.Geesh
#41. To: A K A Stone (#24)
In a better world there would be no mosques in America or anywhere on earth.
#42. To: Ferret Mike (#34)
this statue impedes 'the free exercise of religion' by implying a preference of one religion over another by giving Christianity a spot to advertise and imply their faith is better then all others.
#43. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
So you favor a theocracy like we have in Iran,
#44. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
I'm sure many native Americans would agree with you about banning immigration and expelling religions not their own.
#45. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
But if they had done that from the start, where would it have left you Christians?
#46. To: Ferret Mike (#36)
Post #34 uses verbiage from the First Amendment to expound on my argument, and my opinion is no lie, it is an opinion.
#47. To: Skip Intro (#37)
By calling me a 'liar,' you are in fact saying any point of disagreement with you is a lie. thus if people don't robotically believe as you do, they are a liar living in a lie.
#48. To: buckeroo (#41)
In a better world there would be no mosques in America or anywhere on earth.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#48)
Wouldn't it be nice
Wouldn't it be nice
#50. To: buckeroo (#49)
#51. To: buckeroo (#49)
+ you have no conceptual picture of the REAL world.
#52. To: A K A Stone (#50)
#53. To: buckeroo (#52)
#54. To: A K A Stone (#53)
You would have understood what the words "In a better world"
meant.
#55. To: buckeroo (#54)
I saw that you deleted my earlier post and called me a "twit."
#56. To: A K A Stone, buckeroo (#55)
Sorry you are in such a foul mood tonight. Hope everything is ok.
#57. To: Murron (#56)
#58. To: buckeroo (#57)
#59. To: A K A Stone (#58)
#60. To: buckeroo (#59)
#61. To: A K A Stone (#42)
"Still you refuse to quote from the first amendment to make your case. You spin and twist........in the wind."
#62. To: A K A Stone (#60)
this statue impedes 'the free exercise of religion' by implying a preference of one religion over another by giving Christianity a spot to advertise and imply their faith is better then all others.
#63. To: A K A Stone, buckeroo (#60)
Here. I'll help you keep your word.
#64. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
"Still you refuse to quote from the first amendment to make your case. You spin and twist........in the wind."
#65. To: Fred Mertz (#63)
What did you do? Ban buckeroo?
#66. To: Ferret Mike (#62)
#67. To: A K A Stone (#64)
#68. To: Ferret Mike (#67)
You repeatedly show you don't know much about how case law works and what a legal precedent is. So it's no surprise the meaning of the First Amendment seems to go over your head.
#69. To: Ferret Mike (#67)
It is pointless discussing this issue with you. As for the bait and insults, they have nothing to add to the discussion. There is no point in either of us engaging each other that way. It is just a waste of time, and it doesn't add anything to a dialog on anything.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]