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: 72566
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
#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.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
I think it should for sure,who's it hurting? 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
Jesus Christ,the original ,cherish him,love him,but most importantly don't forget him
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.
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.
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. Who ever initiated the lawsuit should be visited in the night and have their ass kicked. Then they should put it back. Then tell the judge to F off. Tell the asswipe to throw out his money because it says God on it too. You can really be a moron sometimes.
Screw the islamics. They can go back to Arabia or to hell.
Yes you can. There is only one God.
Is it not a violation to teach children atheist views in public schools? We can't even say Merry Christmas anymore,we have to be inclusive of those that have no faith-Merry X-Mas Mr. President. When is this anti-Christian movement going to stop,does the statue burn your eyes sir?
Jesus Christ,the original ,cherish him,love him,but most importantly don't forget him
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...
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
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.
Indeed. That is what I'm saying... I can understand your desire for that. I can even respect it to an extent. It kind of seems fair. But if there truly is a God then he would be offended at that notion. Can you understand that?
Quote me what the constitution says and lets see if your argument holds water.
If being narrow minded means not opening yourself up to evil. Color me narrow minded. You can call me closed minded on certain issues too if you want. I've already made my mind up.
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.
We agree on something.
No it doesn't. Again quote me from the constitution what makes you think this wacky stuff.
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.
I think he is afraid to address the valid point that you made.
I always go for the jugular. I trumped your court decision with the actual constitution. Queen of Spades beats a 3 of diamonds every time.
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.
More Print ALBANY -- Gov. Paterson floated a possible state solution to the Ground Zero mosque fight yesterday -- offering public land for the proposed Islamic center farther away from the World Trade Center. Excerpt from NY Post http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gov_offers_land_for_mosque_if_it_YKrG1nuNaSdM bNuoZ7IabM Where's the uproar over this? We will give you public land to move your mosque off 9/11 lands. There should be no compensation for this.
Jesus Christ,the original ,cherish him,love him,but most importantly don't forget him
In a better world there would be no mosques in America or anywhere on earth.
You know what's wrong with that statement? Jesus doesn't demand everyone follow him,he gave us a choice. I have no problem with other religions,I don't agree but it's their right. Im sick of all this negativity over people worshipping Christ openly. Congress would have us all praying in dark alleys.
Jesus Christ,the original ,cherish him,love him,but most importantly don't forget him
He gave us a choice with consequences. In the Bible God told the Jews to not allow other peoples religion in their society.
I don't care if someone doesn't want to be a christian. It is up to them. I don't respect them for that choice though. You can't force people to accept the truth.
Amen
Jesus Christ,the original ,cherish him,love him,but most importantly don't forget him
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.
Comments (41 - 97) not displayed.
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
#3. To: A K A Stone (#1)
I think the statue should stay. What about you?
#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.
#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."
#7. To: Ferret Mike (#4)
Here in Eugene we had a huge cross that used to be downtown on Skinner's Butte, a hill overlooking city center.
#8. 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.
#9. To: Ferret Mike (#6)
You can't favor one religion this way and not have others want to compete in this way.
#10. To: Ferret Mike (#4)
It is a violation between church and state to allow any religion to place their icons on public land.
#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.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#5)
"You're stupid or a liar."
#13. To: Brian S, Ferret Mike (#11)
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.
#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.
#15. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
It just makes you look small and narrow minded.
#16. To: Brian S (#11)
#17. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
I am even against a Wicca shrine or icon on public land.
#18. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
The First Amendment calls for what is government to not favor one religion over another.
#19. To: A K A Stone (#14)
#20. To: master_of_disaster, Ferret Mike (#10)
Is it not a violation to teach children atheist views in public schools? We can't even say Merry Christmas anymore,we have to be inclusive of those that have no faith-Merry X-Mas Mr. President. When is this anti-Christian movement going to stop,does the statue burn your eyes sir?
#21. To: Ferret Mike (#19)
Why do you avoid commenting on the court ruling and instead rhetorically go for my jugular?
#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.
#23. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
#24. To: master_of_disaster (#23)
#25. To: A K A Stone (#24)
In a better world there would be no mosques in America or anywhere on earth.
#26. To: master_of_disaster (#25)
You know what's wrong with that statement? Jesus doesn't demand everyone follow him,he gave us a choice.
#27. To: master_of_disaster (#25)
I have no problem with other religions
#28. To: A K A Stone (#27)
You can't force people to accept the truth.
#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:
#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
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]