Jesus Statue in Montana National Park is Just Wrong
By Simon Brown
In a postcard-worthy spot on Big Mountain in Montana stands a statue of Jesus Christ. The statue is in close proximity to Whitefish Mountain Resort in Whitefish, Mont., and it has been something of a curiosity to skiers over the years.
The statue was put there more than 50 years ago by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, to honor World War II veterans.
Problem is the statue is on land that is part of a national park, so its placement constitutes a church-state separation violation. The U.S. Forest Service had planned to remove the statue after receiving a complaint from the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) until it learned why the statue had been placed there.
In August, the Forest Service denied the Knights of Columbus, who have never paid a fee to use the land, a 10-year lease for the spot. The Forest Service also requested that the statue be moved to private land about 2,600 feet away.
But the Knights are resisting, saying the statue is too fragile to move and that it is a historic landmark. They seem to have an ally in Congress who shares their view, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.).
“The Forest Service’s denial of the lease defies common sense,” Rehberg said in a statement, according to the Associated Press. “Using a tiny section of public land for a war memorial with religious themes is not the same as establishing a state religion. 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.”
But Rehberg’s argument is far from persuasive. A national park is completely different from a military cemetery where religious (and non-religious) symbols of many kinds are welcome on the graves of individual soldiers. Does the congressman think the park should set aside small plots of land for monuments from every faith tradition? If so, the park is going to get too crowded for hiking or skiing, and the constitutional problem would remain. The courts have held that government can’t prefer religion over non-religion any more than it can prefer one faith over others.
Despite the obvious flaws in Rehberg’s assertion, the Forest Service is now wary of the political implications of the dispute and is planning to take public comment on the fate of the statue. No matter how many Rehbergs step forward, however, the law is against the Knights of Columbus. You just can’t have a sectarian display on public land, plain and simple.
“This has been an illegal display,” FFRF’s Annie Laurie Gaylor said, according to the AP. “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.”
For its part the Forest Service is treading delicately. Phil Sammon, media coordinator for the Forest Service’s Northern Region, said, according to the AP: “We absolutely understand the local importance and local history of this statue. That’s what makes this a complicated issue.”
But this isn’t a complicated issue. It’s admirable that the Knights of Columbus sought to honor veterans, but they should recognize that not all veterans are Christian, like my grandfather Sid Brown, a Jew who served with the U.S. Army in Europe during the Second World War. He fought to preserve the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and I don’t think he would be pleased to see a memorial in his honor that focuses on Jesus.
No matter how many political games are being played with this statue, there is no question that it should be moved to private land. It is important to preserve history, but not when that history comes at the expense of church-state separation.
If the Knights of Columbus really want to honor veterans, they will respect the principles of the Constitution that those veterans fought for and move the statue.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
"The religious people of America must understand that the separation of church and state are essential to protecting the values of all people including Christians." Here's a big part of the problem. The amendment regarding separation of Church & State was WRITTEN BY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, MAINLY CHRISTIANS. It's meaning was clearly understood for 200 years. Any confusion over it's meaning is a modern creation of a relatively small but very vocal group of bigots who act not out of love or respect for anything but hatred of Christianity, this country, and all it has stood for for the past two centuries. Obama has said "this not a Christian country." Well, I'm sorry but, actually, yes it is. It was founded in blood by Christians. It was made open to all, by Christians. For 200 years it has been built and maintained by Christians. And by Christians, it was made into the greatest country on the face of the earth and by Christians it faced and defeated the two greatest evils ever seen upon the face of the earth. Yes, other religious factions were represented (I include Atheists in that group because "BELIEF" that there is no God qualifies to me as a religion. Since they cannot prove it, their belief can only be maintained by FAITH, another tenet of religion, therefore, Atheism IS a religion.) but it is doubtful whether there numerical numbers were sufficient to have any serious difference in the ultimate outcome. One commenter suggested his veteran Jewish Grandfather would have resented the Christians putting up a war memorial to their dead. Another suggested earlier Americans would have suppressed his people too. (True but only at the social level. There never were any death camps on American soil for Jews.) But, it was Christian soldiers (in the main) who liberated many of the Nazi death camps. Those Jews did not resent the appearance of all those Christians. I can't believe they would deny the survivors of those battles the right to erect monument commemorating their loss. Why then do some here who have suffer nothing attempt to do so? BAH! the bottom line is that this is an example of hatred and bigotry at work. There is no love, respect, or tolerance here. What needs to be done is to rewrite the constitution to say that there will be no freedom of religious expression because that IS NOT what it says now, or maybe, it should say, no freedom of CHRISTIAN expression? There are so many Christian memorials because until Obama came along, this was a Christian nation. Go ahead on tearing it down. You all are off to a good start.
There are many logical fallacies in assuming that atheism is a religion. Instead of getting technical and discussing how a null hypothesis works, I am going to talk about shoes. If I asked you what brand of shoes you are wearing, you would normally respond with Nike, Adidas, Hushpuppies, etc. If I asked you the same question while you were barefoot, would you say that “no shoes” is the brand? Could I trademark and patent “no shoes” and sue people for stealing my concept? Could I claim that “+shoes” is the natural state of things and that nobody can walk barefoot without consent of the no shoes corporation? People who portray atheism as a religion are doing the same thing. The absence of something is not the same thing as the presence of something. “No religion” is not a religion in the same way that “not wearing shoes” is not a brand of footwear. This is why congress advocating the absence of religion is not the same thing as advocating the religion of atheism.
Ridiculous. Shoes are a tangible, material item. You are either wearing them, or not. Period. Faith and belief do not factor in at all.There can be no comparison between material and immaterial things. I guess you could argue whether a person believed they were wearing shoes when they were or weren't? Or maybe, whether or not a person was barefoot because they did or didn't believe in the existence of shoes? Foolishness. It still revolves around faith and belief. An atheist "believes" there is no greater force than themselves and that somewhen some inanimate spec(s) of dust or rock(s) suddenly ceased to be inanimate and became (a) living thing(s) from which all life sprang. The operative word here is "belief." I cannot "prove" the is a God" and an atheist cannot "prove" there is not one. Since there is no proof, there must be "belief." To maintain belief in the absence of proof requires "faith." Belief and faith equal religion. Ironic really. Atheists are arguing against themselves and believe me, some atheists are every bit as devoted to their beliefs as any Southern Deep Water Baptist is to his/hers and that's indisputable.
I dispute it all day long, seven days a week and twice on Sunday. I've never met an atheist who, even if they did believe that no gods existed, did so with the devotion and unreasoning fervor that qualifies to be called "faith." All that is necessary to be an atheist is to recognize that Theistic and Religious claims have not met their burden of proof, and thus to say that you therefore don't believe in them. To say Atheism is a religion is to say that barefoot is a brand of shoe, that bald is a hair color, that not-stamp-collecting is a hobby. Your assertions about what atheists supposedly "believe" are asinine and only reveal the depth of your ignorance and the desire to project that ignorance onto others.
Have you never witnessed, seen on TV, (or mayhap were to busy participating?) at an anti-Christian rally where people were waving signs, chanting, yelling, hollering and screaming epithets at any who dare say them nay? And you don't call that "unreasoning fervor"?! I realize that this will be something of a shock to you but the matter of your disputation, that you, personally, disagree is utterly immaterial to the discussion. However, the fact of your vehemence, your devotion to maintain it "seven days a week and twice on Sunday" is actually very indicative of the "devotion and unreasoning fervor" which you deny.(Btw-why Sunday? Why not any other day? Or is that merely to demonstrate your disrespect for others who fail to agree with you?) Speaking of screaming epithets, you cannot disprove my statements. You bring no reason to the discussion, merely repeating your fallacious argument of comparing belief in something to shoes or baldness--- there is nothing in common or in anyway applicable to compare with belief in a personal philosophy. So in typically and predictable liberal modus operandi (it never changes) where reason fails or is too burdensome, you shout epithets, insults and heap abuse upon any who do not immediately fall down and worship at the alter of your own petty, personal prejudices, and call them ignorant. I believe profanity and throwing things is the next thing on your schedule of the activists playbook? Unfortunately, neither will avail you much comfort here and your insults do not bother me for I expected nothing less. You did not disappoint me. I do not mean any of this against you personally. Any liberal atheist would have done the same. As a group, you all are very well indoctrinated, really.
Don't mistake passion about specific issues for overweening certainty about a very specific question of epistemology. You're getting sidetracked by the question of material vs immaterial and that's not the point. The point is that it's nonsensical to call the absence of something "something." Atheism is a lack of religion, as baldness is a lack of hair, barefootedness is a lack of shoes, and not-collecting-stamps is not a hobby. The alternative to not having the flu, a cold, a fever is not having some other sickness, it's being healthy due to the ABSENCE of illness. As for "twice on Sunday," it's called 'irony.' Look it up.
American Vet, I want to help you understand, but I need you to step away from your preconceived notions. Here is the logic you requested. Atheism is not a religion because it has no doctrine, no rituals, no social norms, no creed, no church, no leaders, no followers, and no beliefs. Non-religious people have no automatic affiliation with a community of other non-religious people. Yes, there are atheist organizations and anti-religious movements, but they are not religious institutions. In fact, most of these organizations are founded as a reaction to perceived social offenses committed by organized religion. If organized religion did not exist, these movements would not exist either. If “no religion” is a religion, then it should be able to exist as a religion independently of other religions. However, atheists are only atheist when compared to someone who believes in a god. I cannot explain it any simpler than that. Atheism is not a religion. My ego does not demand that I get the last word in this discussion, and I have no interest in turning you into an atheist. Unless you respond with something truly insightful, I am done with this conversation.
I dont think there is anything wrong with this. The U.S. is based on Christian ideas and beliefs. In God we tust is even on our money. We dont go to other countries and try to change their ideas. People here have the right to believe what they want but we have our traditions.
Raid Recovery
Please explain what specifically Christian ideas and beliefs upon which our country is based.
IÂm impressed, I must say. Really not often do I encounter a blog thatÂs both educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, you've got hit the nail on the head. Your idea is excellent; the difficulty is one thing that not sufficient individuals are talking intelligently about. I'm very joyful that I stumbled throughout this in my search for something referring to this. Car Insurance Dismember Cash loans till payday online encodable