Mountain Jesus statue could lose its lease (1 Viewer)

[NCCommish]

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — 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.

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.

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.

"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 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."

Rehberg, a Republican, is telling the Forest Service he agrees the historical significance outweighs other concerns.

"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.'"

AP

This is why I don't join atheistic organizations. Always some idiot that wants to get their panties in a bunch over something this ridiculously trivial. Leave the statue be.

 

[Parrothead]

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — 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.

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.

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.

"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 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."

Rehberg, a Republican, is telling the Forest Service he agrees the historical significance outweighs other concerns.

"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.'"

AP

This is why I don't join atheistic organizations. Always some idiot that wants to get their panties in a bunch over something this ridiculously trivial. Leave the statue be.

bigger fish to fry..

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Agreed

 

[Flying V]

Why not just sell the plot of land to the KoC for a buck?

 

[NCCommish]

Why not just sell the plot of land to the KoC for a buck?

Sounds like a good answer to me.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Touchdown Jesus >> Mountain Jesus

 

[Rayderr]

I'd be fine letting it stay of we can put up a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the real one, not the FBG) next to it.

 

[Parrothead]

I'd be fine letting it stay of we can put up a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the real one, not the FBG) next to it.

or satan

 

[NCCommish]

I'd be fine letting it stay of we can put up a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the real one, not the FBG) next to it.

The real one?

 

[Rayderr]

I'd be fine letting it stay of we can put up a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the real one, not the FBG) next to it.

The real one?

Yes.

 

[Mr. Cross]

Now we need to change the names of the hundreds of U.S. cities affiliated with Christianity.

 

[DCThunder]

Now we need to change the names of the hundreds of U.S. cities affiliated with Christianity.

Starting with Corpus Christie, I'd think.

 

[fsword]

I'd be fine letting it stay of we can put up a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the real one, not the FBG) next to it.

Having a fsm statue is the same as no statue. When will these freedom from religion folks recognize their freedom from religion is a religion? Its ironic to see people trapped and regulated by their beliefs in nothingness while criticizing others equally bound to the idea of a Creator.

 

[Rayderr]

I'd be fine letting it stay of we can put up a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the real one, not the FBG) next to it.

Having a fsm statue is the same as no statue. When will these freedom from religion folks recognize their freedom from religion is a religion? Its ironic to see people trapped and regulated by their beliefs in nothingness while criticizing others equally bound to the idea of a Creator.

Speak for yourself. I firmly elieve that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster out there. Sadly, being 6'5, I am not that blessed by him (lucky midgets.) Now if you excuse me, I'm off to a sermon. Arr!!!

 

[BobbyLayne]

I think I'm OK with them tearing it down. It's pretty hokey.

pic

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I'd be fine letting it stay of we can put up a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the real one, not the FBG) next to it.

Having a fsm statue is the same as no statue. When will these freedom from religion folks recognize their freedom from religion is a religion? Its ironic to see people trapped and regulated by their beliefs in nothingness while criticizing others equally bound to the idea of a Creator.

No it isn't.

 

[ClownCausedChaos]

Touchdown Jesus >> Mountain Jesus

And Rio Jesus?

 

[NCCommish]

Touchdown Jesus >> Mountain Jesus

And Rio Jesus?

Rio Jesus rules

 

[ClownCausedChaos]

Touchdown Jesus >> Mountain Jesus

And Rio Jesus?

Rio Jesus rules

So...Rio Jesus >> Touchdown Jesus >> Mountain Jesus ?

 

[NCCommish]

Touchdown Jesus >> Mountain Jesus

And Rio Jesus?

Rio Jesus rules

So...Rio Jesus >> Touchdown Jesus >> Mountain Jesus ?

Personally I would go Rio Jesus >>>> Mountain Jesus >> Touchdown Jesus but I'm flexible on it.

 

[CrossEyed]

"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."

AP

This is why I don't join atheistic organizations. Always some idiot that wants to get their panties in a bunch over something this ridiculously trivial. Leave the statue be.

Yes, because that's exactly what is happening here.

 

[CrossEyed]

Same "group" (one guy, in reality) trying to stop pre-game prayers at a school in Alabama.

Link

 

[[icon]]

I think I'm OK with them tearing it down. It's pretty hokey.

pic

Then again, how often do you get a chance to snowplow Jesus in the face?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Same "group" (one guy, in reality) trying to stop pre-game prayers at a school in Alabama.

Link

Sounds like he's right to me. Pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation.Doesn't matter how many people like it. In fact, that's kind of what the Bill of Rights exists for- to protect certain vital concepts from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[CrossEyed]

Same "group" (one guy, in reality) trying to stop pre-game prayers at a school in Alabama.

Link

Sounds like he's right to me. Pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation.Doesn't matter how many people like it. In fact, that's kind of what the Bill of Rights exists for- to protect certain vital concepts from the tyranny of the majority.

The Supreme Court went back and forth on student-led prayers for years, so to call it a "pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation" is a stretch, imo.I'm not sure why some people (Christians included) can't just allow folks to do what they want to do to express themselves (assuming it's not rude, vulgar, etc.) without taking personal offense. How do students praying before a high school football game In Alabama affect this guy who filed the complaint?

 

[fsword]

I'd be fine letting it stay of we can put up a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the real one, not the FBG) next to it.

Having a fsm statue is the same as no statue. When will these freedom from religion folks recognize their freedom from religion is a religion? Its ironic to see people trapped and regulated by their beliefs in nothingness while criticizing others equally bound to the idea of a Creator.

No it isn't.

Following a set of beliefs is religious. Belief in nothing is still a belief.

 

[fsword]

Same "group" (one guy, in reality) trying to stop pre-game prayers at a school in Alabama.

Link

Sounds like he's right to me. Pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation.Doesn't matter how many people like it. In fact, that's kind of what the Bill of Rights exists for- to protect certain vital concepts from the tyranny of the majority.

At what point did Christian tenets unconstitutionally invade the government of the United States?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Same "group" (one guy, in reality) trying to stop pre-game prayers at a school in Alabama.

Link

Sounds like he's right to me. Pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation.Doesn't matter how many people like it. In fact, that's kind of what the Bill of Rights exists for- to protect certain vital concepts from the tyranny of the majority.

The Supreme Court went back and forth on student-led prayers for years, so to call it a "pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation" is a stretch, imo.I'm not sure why some people (Christians included) can't just allow folks to do what they want to do to express themselves (assuming it's not rude, vulgar, etc.) without taking personal offense. How do students praying before a high school football game In Alabama affect this guy who filed the complaint?

I didn't see that it was student-led, so you could possibly argue that it makes it less clear-cut, although I think it's still pretty clear-cut that student-led prayer is a violation of the First Amendment. Also I find the claim of "student-led prayer" pretty dubious anyway; my guess is that in most cases an authority figure is organizing it.Also, it's not yours or mine or anyone else's place to judge why someone finds something objectionable. If they do (heck, even if they don't), they have a Constitutional right to be free from it. As a non-Christian it doesn't really bother me personally, but I can definitely see how it would bother some people. Being made to feel like an outsider at a government-sponsored function can suck. I like living in a country where I don't have to feel like that.

And if you want to look at it from a practical "who cares" standpoint instead of a practical "fundamental rights" standpoint, who cares if you can't pray out loud? Can't God hear your prayers regardless of whether you articulate them publicly? Why the need to share your beliefs with others whether they want to hear them or not?

 

[GoFishTN]

Same "group" (one guy, in reality) trying to stop pre-game prayers at a school in Alabama.

Link

Sounds like he's right to me. Pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation.Doesn't matter how many people like it. In fact, that's kind of what the Bill of Rights exists for- to protect certain vital concepts from the tyranny of the majority.

I think we've moved on to the tyranny of the minority at this point.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Same "group" (one guy, in reality) trying to stop pre-game prayers at a school in Alabama.

Link

Sounds like he's right to me. Pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation.Doesn't matter how many people like it. In fact, that's kind of what the Bill of Rights exists for- to protect certain vital concepts from the tyranny of the majority.

At what point did Christian tenets unconstitutionally invade the government of the United States?

I have no idea what you're asking. If you're asking when has Christianity been incorporated into government functions in a manner that violates the Constitution, the answer is lots and lots of times. But since you can find that with a simple Google search for First Amendment religion jurisprudence I suspect that's not what you're asking.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I'd be fine letting it stay of we can put up a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the real one, not the FBG) next to it.

Having a fsm statue is the same as no statue. When will these freedom from religion folks recognize their freedom from religion is a religion? Its ironic to see people trapped and regulated by their beliefs in nothingness while criticizing others equally bound to the idea of a Creator.

No it isn't.

Following a set of beliefs is religious. Belief in nothing is still a belief.

Zero is not a real number. Thats why the Romans left it out.

 

[Rayderr]

I'd be fine letting it stay of we can put up a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the real one, not the FBG) next to it.

Having a fsm statue is the same as no statue. When will these freedom from religion folks recognize their freedom from religion is a religion? Its ironic to see people trapped and regulated by their beliefs in nothingness while criticizing others equally bound to the idea of a Creator.

No it isn't.

Following a set of beliefs is religious. Belief in nothing is still a belief.

Pretty sure believing in a higher power is a religion (or religious). Just believing is not. I believe that Alyssa Milano is incredibly hot, yet that is not religious. I believe Honda makes good cars, that is also not religious.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I'd be fine letting it stay of we can put up a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the real one, not the FBG) next to it.

Having a fsm statue is the same as no statue. When will these freedom from religion folks recognize their freedom from religion is a religion? Its ironic to see people trapped and regulated by their beliefs in nothingness while criticizing others equally bound to the idea of a Creator.

No it isn't.

Following a set of beliefs is religious. Belief in nothing is still a belief.

Nope. You're still wrong.

 

[CrossEyed]

Same "group" (one guy, in reality) trying to stop pre-game prayers at a school in Alabama.

Link

Sounds like he's right to me. Pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation.Doesn't matter how many people like it. In fact, that's kind of what the Bill of Rights exists for- to protect certain vital concepts from the tyranny of the majority.

The Supreme Court went back and forth on student-led prayers for years, so to call it a "pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation" is a stretch, imo.I'm not sure why some people (Christians included) can't just allow folks to do what they want to do to express themselves (assuming it's not rude, vulgar, etc.) without taking personal offense. How do students praying before a high school football game In Alabama affect this guy who filed the complaint?

I didn't see that it was student-led, so you could possibly argue that it makes it less clear-cut, although I think it's still pretty clear-cut that student-led prayer is a violation of the First Amendment. Also I find the claim of "student-led prayer" pretty dubious anyway; my guess is that in most cases an authority figure is organizing it.Also, it's not yours or mine or anyone else's place to judge why someone finds something objectionable. If they do (heck, even if they don't), they have a Constitutional right to be free from it. As a non-Christian it doesn't really bother me personally, but I can definitely see how it would bother some people. Being made to feel like an outsider at a government-sponsored function can suck. I like living in a country where I don't have to feel like that.

And if you want to look at it from a practical "who cares" standpoint instead of a practical "fundamental rights" standpoint, who cares if you can't pray out loud? Can't God hear your prayers regardless of whether you articulate them publicly? Why the need to share your beliefs with others whether they want to hear them or not?

Are you really arguing that every American has the Constitutional right to be free from everything they find objectionable?As for prayers, you're absolutely right. God doesn't need us to put voice to our prayers in order to "hear" them. But sometimes people like to pray as a group in a unified way. I'm still not sure I understand how that can be offensive to someone who doesn't believe the same way. If I lived in a country that was primarily Muslim, I'd pretty much expect to hear Muslim prayers. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't be offended. :shrugs:

 

[TobiasFunke]

Same "group" (one guy, in reality) trying to stop pre-game prayers at a school in Alabama.

Link

Sounds like he's right to me. Pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation.Doesn't matter how many people like it. In fact, that's kind of what the Bill of Rights exists for- to protect certain vital concepts from the tyranny of the majority.

The Supreme Court went back and forth on student-led prayers for years, so to call it a "pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation" is a stretch, imo.I'm not sure why some people (Christians included) can't just allow folks to do what they want to do to express themselves (assuming it's not rude, vulgar, etc.) without taking personal offense. How do students praying before a high school football game In Alabama affect this guy who filed the complaint?

I didn't see that it was student-led, so you could possibly argue that it makes it less clear-cut, although I think it's still pretty clear-cut that student-led prayer is a violation of the First Amendment. Also I find the claim of "student-led prayer" pretty dubious anyway; my guess is that in most cases an authority figure is organizing it.Also, it's not yours or mine or anyone else's place to judge why someone finds something objectionable. If they do (heck, even if they don't), they have a Constitutional right to be free from it. As a non-Christian it doesn't really bother me personally, but I can definitely see how it would bother some people. Being made to feel like an outsider at a government-sponsored function can suck. I like living in a country where I don't have to feel like that.

And if you want to look at it from a practical "who cares" standpoint instead of a practical "fundamental rights" standpoint, who cares if you can't pray out loud? Can't God hear your prayers regardless of whether you articulate them publicly? Why the need to share your beliefs with others whether they want to hear them or not?

Are you really arguing that every American has the Constitutional right to be free from everything they find objectionable?As for prayers, you're absolutely right. God doesn't need us to put voice to our prayers in order to "hear" them. But sometimes people like to pray as a group in a unified way. I'm still not sure I understand how that can be offensive to someone who doesn't believe the same way. If I lived in a country that was primarily Muslim, I'd pretty much expect to hear Muslim prayers. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't be offended. :shrugs:

I'm not sure how you get the bolded from my post. I guess if you take that sentence out of context, but it's obviously not what I meant. There are two completely separate questions:(1) is this constitutional (clearly not, in my opinion, end of story), and (2) why would someone find this objectionable.

Since I think the first question is pretty clear, I'll just answer the second, because I think it's interesting and it's good to share the non-Christian perspective.

There's a difference between "offended" (a word I think you used earlier) and "objectionable." I wouldn't be offended by very much, even, say, a teacher that marks tests with religious imagery instead of grades, or if a Congressman introduced legislation to require the judiciary to consider the teachings of the Bible in making sentencing determinations. However, I'd object pretty strongly to both things.

As far as why displays of religion in publicly funded and maintained areas are objectionable- it's hard to really articulate. I think it basically comes down to the fact that non-Christians already are made to feel like outsiders. Is it really so much to ask that the government not provide an avenue for those sentiments? What's the loss if you are required to pray silently, or before you arrive at the game? Or if you have to move your manger to private property?

Obviously a cost-benefit analysis is kind of secondary anyway since it's a Constitutional issue, but even if you do a cost-benefit analysis I don't see much of either. It's not a big deal if that stuff exists in government places, but it's not that big a deal if it doesn't, either.

 

[[icon]]

Same "group" (one guy, in reality) trying to stop pre-game prayers at a school in Alabama.

Link

Sounds like he's right to me. Pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation.Doesn't matter how many people like it. In fact, that's kind of what the Bill of Rights exists for- to protect certain vital concepts from the tyranny of the majority.

The Supreme Court went back and forth on student-led prayers for years, so to call it a "pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation" is a stretch, imo.I'm not sure why some people (Christians included) can't just allow folks to do what they want to do to express themselves (assuming it's not rude, vulgar, etc.) without taking personal offense. How do students praying before a high school football game In Alabama affect this guy who filed the complaint?

Doing what you want <> Having organized christian prayer before the event. If a group of people get together privately and want to pray before a school event... sure.

If they announce over the PA that they're going to pray and then a pastor/student walks out and leads the crowd in prayer = No good.

 

[CrossEyed]

Same "group" (one guy, in reality) trying to stop pre-game prayers at a school in Alabama.

Link

Sounds like he's right to me. Pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation.Doesn't matter how many people like it. In fact, that's kind of what the Bill of Rights exists for- to protect certain vital concepts from the tyranny of the majority.

The Supreme Court went back and forth on student-led prayers for years, so to call it a "pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation" is a stretch, imo.I'm not sure why some people (Christians included) can't just allow folks to do what they want to do to express themselves (assuming it's not rude, vulgar, etc.) without taking personal offense. How do students praying before a high school football game In Alabama affect this guy who filed the complaint?

I didn't see that it was student-led, so you could possibly argue that it makes it less clear-cut, although I think it's still pretty clear-cut that student-led prayer is a violation of the First Amendment. Also I find the claim of "student-led prayer" pretty dubious anyway; my guess is that in most cases an authority figure is organizing it.Also, it's not yours or mine or anyone else's place to judge why someone finds something objectionable. If they do (heck, even if they don't), they have a Constitutional right to be free from it. As a non-Christian it doesn't really bother me personally, but I can definitely see how it would bother some people. Being made to feel like an outsider at a government-sponsored function can suck. I like living in a country where I don't have to feel like that.

And if you want to look at it from a practical "who cares" standpoint instead of a practical "fundamental rights" standpoint, who cares if you can't pray out loud? Can't God hear your prayers regardless of whether you articulate them publicly? Why the need to share your beliefs with others whether they want to hear them or not?

Are you really arguing that every American has the Constitutional right to be free from everything they find objectionable?As for prayers, you're absolutely right. God doesn't need us to put voice to our prayers in order to "hear" them. But sometimes people like to pray as a group in a unified way. I'm still not sure I understand how that can be offensive to someone who doesn't believe the same way. If I lived in a country that was primarily Muslim, I'd pretty much expect to hear Muslim prayers. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't be offended. :shrugs:

I'm not sure how you get the bolded from my post. I guess if you take that sentence out of context, but it's obviously not what I meant. There are two completely separate questions:(1) is this constitutional (clearly not, in my opinion, end of story), and (2) why would someone find this objectionable.

Since I think the first question is pretty clear, I'll just answer the second, because I think it's interesting and it's good to share the non-Christian perspective.

There's a difference between "offended" (a word I think you used earlier) and "objectionable." I wouldn't be offended by very much, even, say, a teacher that marks tests with religious imagery instead of grades, or if a Congressman introduced legislation to require the judiciary to consider the teachings of the Bible in making sentencing determinations. However, I'd object pretty strongly to both things.

As far as why displays of religion in publicly funded and maintained areas are objectionable- it's hard to really articulate. I think it basically comes down to the fact that non-Christians already are made to feel like outsiders. Is it really so much to ask that the government not provide an avenue for those sentiments? What's the loss if you are required to pray silently, or before you arrive at the game? Or if you have to move your manger to private property?

Obviously a cost-benefit analysis is kind of secondary anyway since it's a Constitutional issue, but even if you do a cost-benefit analysis I don't see much of either. It's not a big deal if that stuff exists in government places, but it's not that big a deal if it doesn't, either.

Yeah, it's not really a huge deal to me either. Like I said, I also see Christians who get unnecessarily offended by things that I think they could just let go. Not sure why it's such a big deal to some folks to try to look for reasons to feel wronged.

 

[Sconch]

Same "group" (one guy, in reality) trying to stop pre-game prayers at a school in Alabama.

Link

Sounds like he's right to me. Pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation.Doesn't matter how many people like it. In fact, that's kind of what the Bill of Rights exists for- to protect certain vital concepts from the tyranny of the majority.

The Supreme Court went back and forth on student-led prayers for years, so to call it a "pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation" is a stretch, imo.I'm not sure why some people (Christians included) can't just allow folks to do what they want to do to express themselves (assuming it's not rude, vulgar, etc.) without taking personal offense. How do students praying before a high school football game In Alabama affect this guy who filed the complaint?

I didn't see that it was student-led, so you could possibly argue that it makes it less clear-cut, although I think it's still pretty clear-cut that student-led prayer is a violation of the First Amendment. Also I find the claim of "student-led prayer" pretty dubious anyway; my guess is that in most cases an authority figure is organizing it.Also, it's not yours or mine or anyone else's place to judge why someone finds something objectionable. If they do (heck, even if they don't), they have a Constitutional right to be free from it. As a non-Christian it doesn't really bother me personally, but I can definitely see how it would bother some people. Being made to feel like an outsider at a government-sponsored function can suck. I like living in a country where I don't have to feel like that.

And if you want to look at it from a practical "who cares" standpoint instead of a practical "fundamental rights" standpoint, who cares if you can't pray out loud? Can't God hear your prayers regardless of whether you articulate them publicly? Why the need to share your beliefs with others whether they want to hear them or not?

Are you really arguing that every American has the Constitutional right to be free from everything they find objectionable?As for prayers, you're absolutely right. God doesn't need us to put voice to our prayers in order to "hear" them. But sometimes people like to pray as a group in a unified way. I'm still not sure I understand how that can be offensive to someone who doesn't believe the same way. If I lived in a country that was primarily Muslim, I'd pretty much expect to hear Muslim prayers. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't be offended. :shrugs:

I'm not sure how you get the bolded from my post. I guess if you take that sentence out of context, but it's obviously not what I meant. There are two completely separate questions:(1) is this constitutional (clearly not, in my opinion, end of story), and (2) why would someone find this objectionable.

Since I think the first question is pretty clear, I'll just answer the second, because I think it's interesting and it's good to share the non-Christian perspective.

There's a difference between "offended" (a word I think you used earlier) and "objectionable." I wouldn't be offended by very much, even, say, a teacher that marks tests with religious imagery instead of grades, or if a Congressman introduced legislation to require the judiciary to consider the teachings of the Bible in making sentencing determinations. However, I'd object pretty strongly to both things.

As far as why displays of religion in publicly funded and maintained areas are objectionable- it's hard to really articulate. I think it basically comes down to the fact that non-Christians already are made to feel like outsiders. Is it really so much to ask that the government not provide an avenue for those sentiments? What's the loss if you are required to pray silently, or before you arrive at the game? Or if you have to move your manger to private property?

Obviously a cost-benefit analysis is kind of secondary anyway since it's a Constitutional issue, but even if you do a cost-benefit analysis I don't see much of either. It's not a big deal if that stuff exists in government places, but it's not that big a deal if it doesn't, either.

Yeah, it's not really a huge deal to me either. Like I said, I also see Christians who get unnecessarily offended by things that I think they could just let go. Not sure why it's such a big deal to some folks to try to look for reasons to feel wronged.

Like the War on Christmas folks, right?

 

[CrossEyed]

Like the War on Christmas folks, right?

Yeah, some of that stuff seems a bit over the top. Although I'm glad to see that more stores have realized that the word Christmas really isn't offensive. The name of the federal holiday is Christmas. It's OK to use it in your advertising/marketing.

 

[Sconch]

Like the War on Christmas folks, right?

Yeah, some of that stuff seems a bit over the top. Although I'm glad to see that more stores have realized that the word Christmas really isn't offensive. The name of the federal holiday is Christmas. It's OK to use it in your advertising/marketing.

"SOME"?

 

[CrossEyed]

Like the War on Christmas folks, right?

Yeah, some of that stuff seems a bit over the top. Although I'm glad to see that more stores have realized that the word Christmas really isn't offensive. The name of the federal holiday is Christmas. It's OK to use it in your advertising/marketing.

"SOME"?

Yeah, I think the radical stuff that threatened boycotts, etc., was pretty ridiculous. But I don't think there is anything wrong with an individual respectfully expressing their feelings to the manager of a place where they do business.That's why I said "some".

 

[TobiasFunke]

Same "group" (one guy, in reality) trying to stop pre-game prayers at a school in Alabama.

Link

Sounds like he's right to me. Pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation.Doesn't matter how many people like it. In fact, that's kind of what the Bill of Rights exists for- to protect certain vital concepts from the tyranny of the majority.

The Supreme Court went back and forth on student-led prayers for years, so to call it a "pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation" is a stretch, imo.I'm not sure why some people (Christians included) can't just allow folks to do what they want to do to express themselves (assuming it's not rude, vulgar, etc.) without taking personal offense. How do students praying before a high school football game In Alabama affect this guy who filed the complaint?

I didn't see that it was student-led, so you could possibly argue that it makes it less clear-cut, although I think it's still pretty clear-cut that student-led prayer is a violation of the First Amendment. Also I find the claim of "student-led prayer" pretty dubious anyway; my guess is that in most cases an authority figure is organizing it.Also, it's not yours or mine or anyone else's place to judge why someone finds something objectionable. If they do (heck, even if they don't), they have a Constitutional right to be free from it. As a non-Christian it doesn't really bother me personally, but I can definitely see how it would bother some people. Being made to feel like an outsider at a government-sponsored function can suck. I like living in a country where I don't have to feel like that.

And if you want to look at it from a practical "who cares" standpoint instead of a practical "fundamental rights" standpoint, who cares if you can't pray out loud? Can't God hear your prayers regardless of whether you articulate them publicly? Why the need to share your beliefs with others whether they want to hear them or not?

Are you really arguing that every American has the Constitutional right to be free from everything they find objectionable?As for prayers, you're absolutely right. God doesn't need us to put voice to our prayers in order to "hear" them. But sometimes people like to pray as a group in a unified way. I'm still not sure I understand how that can be offensive to someone who doesn't believe the same way. If I lived in a country that was primarily Muslim, I'd pretty much expect to hear Muslim prayers. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't be offended. :shrugs:

I'm not sure how you get the bolded from my post. I guess if you take that sentence out of context, but it's obviously not what I meant. There are two completely separate questions:(1) is this constitutional (clearly not, in my opinion, end of story), and (2) why would someone find this objectionable.

Since I think the first question is pretty clear, I'll just answer the second, because I think it's interesting and it's good to share the non-Christian perspective.

There's a difference between "offended" (a word I think you used earlier) and "objectionable." I wouldn't be offended by very much, even, say, a teacher that marks tests with religious imagery instead of grades, or if a Congressman introduced legislation to require the judiciary to consider the teachings of the Bible in making sentencing determinations. However, I'd object pretty strongly to both things.

As far as why displays of religion in publicly funded and maintained areas are objectionable- it's hard to really articulate. I think it basically comes down to the fact that non-Christians already are made to feel like outsiders. Is it really so much to ask that the government not provide an avenue for those sentiments? What's the loss if you are required to pray silently, or before you arrive at the game? Or if you have to move your manger to private property?

Obviously a cost-benefit analysis is kind of secondary anyway since it's a Constitutional issue, but even if you do a cost-benefit analysis I don't see much of either. It's not a big deal if that stuff exists in government places, but it's not that big a deal if it doesn't, either.

Yeah, it's not really a huge deal to me either. Like I said, I also see Christians who get unnecessarily offended by things that I think they could just let go. Not sure why it's such a big deal to some folks to try to look for reasons to feel wronged.

Seems like we mostly agree.I do think it's interesting, though, that the "why does this bother you?" question only seems to be asked in one direction for the most part. Being asked to move religious activities or displays a couple hundred feet away doesn't really strike me as a significant hardship.

 

[marshall88]

Not sure why it's such a big deal to some folks to try to look for reasons to feel wronged.

I don't know if this statement (which was at the end of a multi-post discussion) refers to the statue or the prayer sessions before games - but in either case, it doesn't seem to me like anybody has looked very hard to find the objectionable action.The statue is sitting on public land, on a ski run, and is apparently very easy to see. The lease is up for the statue's small land and the government (rightly, I believe) has stated they are not renewing. It seems to me that the people in favor of keeping the religious symbol on government land are the ones making the bigger deal out of this.As for the public prayer, it's also not as if you have to look closely to find this taking place. If you go to the football game, then you'll hear the prayer.

 

[CrossEyed]

Not sure why it's such a big deal to some folks to try to look for reasons to feel wronged.

I don't know if this statement (which was at the end of a multi-post discussion) refers to the statue or the prayer sessions before games - but in either case, it doesn't seem to me like anybody has looked very hard to find the objectionable action.The statue is sitting on public land, on a ski run, and is apparently very easy to see. The lease is up for the statue's small land and the government (rightly, I believe) has stated they are not renewing. It seems to me that the people in favor of keeping the religious symbol on government land are the ones making the bigger deal out of this.

As for the public prayer, it's also not as if you have to look closely to find this taking place. If you go to the football game, then you'll hear the prayer.

My point regarding the bolded is that everyone is subject to hearing things they don't like or agree with. If I walk through the mall or down the street I'll hear conversations and language that I'd rather not. But I don't ask them to stop talking or to take their conversations to a private location.

 

[parrot]

Like the War on Christmas folks, right?

Yeah, some of that stuff seems a bit over the top. Although I'm glad to see that more stores have realized that the word Christmas really isn't offensive. The name of the federal holiday is Christmas. It's OK to use it in your advertising/marketing.

Was it really ever anyone's position that the word Christmas is offensive, or did they just feel that "Happy Holidays" was more inclusive?

 

[CrossEyed]

Like the War on Christmas folks, right?

Yeah, some of that stuff seems a bit over the top. Although I'm glad to see that more stores have realized that the word Christmas really isn't offensive. The name of the federal holiday is Christmas. It's OK to use it in your advertising/marketing.

Was it really ever anyone's position that the word Christmas is offensive, or did they just feel that "Happy Holidays" was more inclusive?

Not really sure. Didn't follow that war all that closely.

 

[E Street Brat]

I'd be fine letting it stay of we can put up a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the real one, not the FBG) next to it.

The real one?

Yes.

penis alert!

:reported:

 

[marshall88]

Not sure why it's such a big deal to some folks to try to look for reasons to feel wronged.

I don't know if this statement (which was at the end of a multi-post discussion) refers to the statue or the prayer sessions before games - but in either case, it doesn't seem to me like anybody has looked very hard to find the objectionable action.The statue is sitting on public land, on a ski run, and is apparently very easy to see. The lease is up for the statue's small land and the government (rightly, I believe) has stated they are not renewing. It seems to me that the people in favor of keeping the religious symbol on government land are the ones making the bigger deal out of this.

As for the public prayer, it's also not as if you have to look closely to find this taking place. If you go to the football game, then you'll hear the prayer.

My point regarding the bolded is that everyone is subject to hearing things they don't like or agree with. If I walk through the mall or down the street I'll hear conversations and language that I'd rather not. But I don't ask them to stop talking or to take their conversations to a private location.

In general, I agree with you. But I'm sure you realize there's a difference between hearing something you don't like or agree with from a private person versus hearing the same thing from a governmental employee acting in their governmental capacity.

 

[Dr. Gobbler]

I prefer River Rafting Jesus, you get the cool boat, helmet and other accessories. Just a great toy!

 

[fsword]

Same "group" (one guy, in reality) trying to stop pre-game prayers at a school in Alabama.

Link

Sounds like he's right to me. Pretty clear-cut First Amendment violation.Doesn't matter how many people like it. In fact, that's kind of what the Bill of Rights exists for- to protect certain vital concepts from the tyranny of the majority.

At what point did Christian tenets unconstitutionally invade the government of the United States?

I have no idea what you're asking. If you're asking when has Christianity been incorporated into government functions in a manner that violates the Constitution, the answer is lots and lots of times. But since you can find that with a simple Google search for First Amendment religion jurisprudence I suspect that's not what you're asking.

I could have, and maybe should have used "religion" instead of "Christianity". But christianity/religion has been involved in active government from the beginning, and involved constitutionally. Prayer is merely one example from the nation's founding, when federal leaders have invoked God's name in the public square, in an official capacity. There is no creation of a state religion found in prayer. There is only regulation of religion found in regulating belief. The "purge" of religion from government is a relatively modern act of governance, based upon an opinionated court changing the laws of religious freedom for elected officials and those involved in any way with the federal government.