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: 76230
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 # 94.
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
I think the statue should stay. What about you?
It should be moved to private land. It is a violation between church and state to allow any religion to place their icons on public land. Here in Eugene we had a huge cross that used to be downtown on Skinner's Butte, a hill overlooking city center. It has been moved to the Eugene Bible College's hillside campus in West Eugene. This was done because of a court ruling based on it being a city park. The only other solutution would be to sell the land to a private owner.
Mike you're full of shit. You didn't quote from any law or anything in the constitution. The constitution says you can't make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. You're stupid or a liar. Sorry if that hurts your little feelings. I'm just telling it like it is.
I've taken a 400 level course when getting my degree on the U.S. Supreme Court, and have read up on this issue. I have a well informed opinion. And here, I am agreeing with the court ruling on the Eugene 88 foot lit cross case that had this icon moved. Calling me names doesn't make much of a point. It just makes you look small and narrow minded.
Quote me what the constitution says and lets see if your argument holds water.
Why do you avoid commenting on the court ruling and instead rhetorically go for my jugular? Do you have an argument explaining why you think court rulings on separation between church and state in cases like this is erronious. It's OK if you do offer an argument on this, Stone. Even though I'll know you are not grasping the concepts of the issue well.
Because the constitution never says "church and sate separation" or anything like it. It says the govenment can't make "ANY" laws prohibiting the free exercise of speech or religion. You're trumped. Check Mate.
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.
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?
You are lazy and blind. I did in post #34, 'BETWEEN THE NOTATION MARKS,' dumbshit. Learn how to read.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wherein the USCON does it so claim? That's your argument, afterall. For example you don't know what "no law" means. Then you spin it. That's a lie. I know exactly what NO LAW means. It means any law that is directly legislated or inferred from legislation that puts religion squarely in the public domain. I gave a perfect example of why your narrow [minded] interpretation is wholly against the spirit of the Framers' meaning. You wholly ignore the writings of Madison, who not only uses that same word "separation" but went so far as to even state that religious proclamations of the executive offend the 1st amendment as do chaplains in the legislature and military. The Framers wanted public discourse FREE from the BOUNDS of religion. Religion was a matter of the PRIVATE CONSCIENCE not PUBLIC. Here's a pop quiz...in 20 words or less, why did Virginia pass a religious freedom act in 1786?
Wherein the USCON does it so claim? That's your argument, afterall. Your argument is akin to me saying Obama can't be President because his name isn't in the constitution. Get a dictionary out and look up commerce. Then look up interstate. Then look up regulate. Then you will have the meaning of the interstate clause. It doesn't mean some African from Kenya can come here and make us buy healthcare. That is a huge stretch and if you are honest you will admit it.
Only if you have a second grader's sense of logic. Your argument is that since stare decisis isn't in the USCON so therefore it cannot be used as a means of deciding cases. You then claim that you can use a dictionary. I properly pointed out that method is not in the USCON either. Your turn. Get a dictionary out and look up commerce. Then look up interstate. Then look up regulate. Then you will have the meaning of the interstate clause. What you would have to "look up" for each and every one of those words is their 18th century definition. And trust me when I tell you that you would not like the 18th century definition of "regulate" - especially when it comes to 2A. "Regulate" in 18th century dictionaries had "correct by control" and "adjust into a standard purpose" as elements of its definition. And what is to stop you or me or Harvey Fuerstein from publishing our own dictionaries?
#95. To: war, A K A Stone (#94)
The preamble also states govt should take an activist role in promoting the general welfare of the people - yet I don't see A K A arguing for that kind of govt? What gives?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: A K A Stone (#1)
#5. To: Ferret Mike (#4)
It should be moved to private land. It is a violation between church and state to allow any religion to place their icons on public land.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#5)
"You're stupid or a liar."
#14. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
I've taken a 400 level course when getting my degree on the U.S. Supreme Court, and have read up on this issue. I have a well informed opinion.
#19. To: A K A Stone (#14)
#22. To: Ferret Mike (#19)
Do you have an argument explaining why you think court rulings on separation between church and state in cases like this is erronious.
#34. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan (#22)
#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.
#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."
#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."
#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.
#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]
#72. To: Ferret Mike (#70)
stare decisis
#74. To: A K A Stone (#72)
That isn't in the constitution. Unconstitutional.
#77. To: war (#74)
There's nothing in the USCON which establishes uniform rules of interpretation.
#84. To: A K A Stone (#77)
The constitution can be intrepreted with a dictionary.
#86. To: war (#84)
The constitution can be intrepreted with a dictionary.
#94. To: A K A Stone (#86)
Your argument is akin to me saying Obama can't be President because his name isn't in the constitution.
Replies to Comment # 94.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 94.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]