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: 70505
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 (1-39) not displayed.
.
.
.
#40. To: master_of_disaster (#3)
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.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Stare_decisis You don't understand. Your opinion does not change the way the legal system works. You are always welcome to have your opinion on the system or stare decisis, but you are taking issue when people explain it as well as support it. You may not like the system of creating consistency and fairness in the legal system this way, but your opinion does not change reality. Je le comprende, mec. Le probleme est tu ne le comprende jamais.
Likewise, I am sure.
That isn't in the constitution. Unconstitutional. The constitution means what it says. Says what it means. All spin by the freaks in black robes is subject to being overturned. For example. The interstate commerce clause doesn't mean the government can do whatever it wants to. The General Welfare clause doesn't mean that either. I hope for a Gadaffi like fate to those who are presently destroying and perverting the constitution. Think Obama and his masters.
You should really take the time to learn the topic. others and myself have tried to explain this topic to you, but you don't want to listen. That is your choice; as is mine to not want to try to show you over and over again where you are not comprehending how the U.S. Constitution works and it's relation to the legal system. Your argument has no standing with me because I have spent a great deal of time in school and in doing activism where I've learned how the Constitution and legal system works, how it affects what I care about, advocate and what it's faults and graces are. I'm sure there is an institution of higher learning near you that allows folks to enroll in classes that deal with the high court and the U.S. Constitution.
There's nothing in the USCON which establishes uniform rules of interpretation. When a controversy arises, whether it's based on statutory, common or constitutional law, in deciding the case, a judge will always consider previous similar cases in making his or her decision. The Framers make reference after reference to Blackstone and other, lesser legal authorities, in their deliberations: But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the law of the land. The knowledge of that law is derived from experience and study; from the viginti annorum lucubrationes [war: iirc, the learning of life or lifelong learning], which Fortescue mentions; and from being long persoually accustomed to the judicial decisions of their predecessors. And indeed these judicial decisions are the principal and most authoritative evidence, that can be given, of the existence of such a custom as shall form a part of the common law. The judgment itself, and all the proceedings previous thereto, are carefully registered and preserved, under the name of records, in public repositories set apart for that particular purpose; and to them frequent recourse is had, when any critical question arises, in the determination of which former precedents may give light or assistance. And therefore, even so early as the conquest, we find the præteritorum memoria eventorum [iirc, the memory of previous events] reckoned up as one of the chief qualifications of those, who were held to be legibus patriæ optime instituti [teachers or deciders of law, I think]. For it is an established rule to abide by former precedents, where the same points come again in litigation: as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion; as also because the law in that case being solemnly declared and determined, what before was uncertain, and perhaps indifferent, is now become a permanent rule, which it is not in the breast of any subsequent judge to alter or vary from according to his private sentiments: he being sworn to determine, not according to his own private judgement, but according to the known laws and customs of the land; not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one. Blackstone, Commentaries of the Laws of England Stare decisis in contract law is why, when someone rips you off by not paying you for work, you have legal recourse to collect and, possibly, punish.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
I know the concept. The constitution has been destroyed.
Three dimensional representations of Jesus are a heresy condemned by the Christian councils.
"This is what economic policy in the West has become--a tool of the wealthy used to enrich themselves by spreading poverty among the rest of the population." Paul Craig Roberts
The constitution can be intrepreted with a dictionary. People are liars. They lie about what it says. That is how you get precedents that pervert it. For example you don't know what "no law" means. Then you spin it. I know there are judges who put great thought and deliberation into a case. Then they write an opinion on it. That is fine. But today we are in the place where these "precedents" have been put in place and have made the constitution say things that it CLEARLY isn't saying. So if you read the constitution use that as your basis then you can get to the TRUTH is something violates it or not. If you are willing to be honest with yourself.
"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law." Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."
"This is what economic policy in the West has become--a tool of the wealthy used to enrich themselves by spreading poverty among the rest of the population." Paul Craig Roberts
Who cares what some council says. What does the Bible say? You might have a point. I know what you are referring to, about making a likeness or something. I don't think that is a problem if you are not worshiping a statue. Show me the text and I would be happy to read it and see if it alters my opinion.
Interesting. I don't believe it though. How about quoting the text Jefferson was referring to. Jefferson was great but not perfect.
Comments (81 - 97) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSince 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.
#70. To: A K A Stone (#68)
(Edited)
Stare decisis (Anglo-Latin pronunciation: /Èst[Yri dhÈsajshs]) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed."[1] In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb settled matters.[1]
#71. To: A K A Stone (#69)
"This is off topic. Stay on topic."
#72. To: Ferret Mike (#70)
stare decisis
#73. To: A K A Stone (#72)
"That isn't in the constitution. Unconstitutional."
#74. To: A K A Stone (#72)
That isn't in the constitution. Unconstitutional.
#75. To: Ferret Mike (#73)
#76. To: A K A Stone, Ferret Mike (#75)
#77. To: war (#74)
There's nothing in the USCON which establishes uniform rules of interpretation.
#78. To: A K A Stone, war (#74)
Blackstone, Commentaries of the Laws of England
#79. To: Godwinson (#76)
Three dimensional representations of Jesus are a heresy condemned by the Christian councils.
#80. To: Godwinson (#78)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]