- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Religion
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
Comments
"The religious people of
"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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
Please explain what specifically Christian ideas and beliefs upon which our country is based.
IÂm impressed, I must say.
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
This whole business of hating
This whole business of hating Christianity and Christians just plain stinks and, no, I am not a practicing Christian (or any other religion for that matter). It's just plain, old fashioned, meanspirited bigotry in action. It was said, "This is an illegal display." Since when? It hasn't been illegal for the last 58 years. Did Congress pass a new law I missed?
The writer put words in his Grandfather's mouth. I had not heard that the Jews despise Jesus. I would think that Mr. Brown would be more disgusted by the focusing of hatred against any one religious group just as the Nazis he fought were doing. No. Nobody is rounding up Christians in this country today. But the Nazis didn't round up Jews in the beginning either. That came later. They created a public hatred against them first, just as the writer of this article is endeavoring to do. As a Veteran and member of veterans organizations, I would think Mr. Brown would actually find it fitting that his fellow veterans, his brothers in arms were remembered by those of their kindred believers and that the friends he left in bloody rags on the fields of Europe were not forgotten.
There's a lot of ballyhoo about following the Constitution. I love the Constitution. I gave up 7 years of my life for the Constitution and I am 100% disabled today as a result of my service to the Constitution. And I have READ the Constitution. Why don't we try that? AMENDMENT I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or prohibiting the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Emphasis added for those who may not have ever seen this before.) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That means the Government cannot tell you how to (or to worship at all) as did the Kings of old.
A memorial statue is not a law forcing worship on anybody. Nobody is forced to stop and pay homage at the statue. Everybody has a choice to ignore it if they wish! Neither is a statue of Christ on a national park any more a Government promotion or endorsement of Christianity than are the myriad of Totem poles in the many parks a Government endorsement of Paganism. And for that matter, I don't recall any orders to strike down or remove those being issued. So there is no "separation of Church and state" issue. It is no secret that the statue of Christ is a War Memorial to the Veterans of WWII, most of whom were Christian. Any who do not appreciate such a sentiment can simply exclude themselves as being represented by it and build their own monuments, right next to it for all I care! But to deny such a monument to millions for the relatively few who would actually be offended by it is unjust.
As for the "Freedom FROM religion group, it is simple. There are many parks and that is no doubt a large National forest. Just don't go to the statue. If you happen to drive by it, don't look at it. In fact, you are trying to establish a government position on religion- Atheism! That's no different than telling everybody they have to believe in something particular! Religious expression no matter the religion should not be an affront to anybody. It's a celebration of hope. If you don't believe in their particular brand of faith, nod your head in respect (alas, we have largely forgotten what that means too) and go your way in peace. That is called "tolerance." This lashing out in hatred against religions (read Christianity in particular) is plain old fashioned bigotry. No I am not name calling. Definition of BIGOT (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot) : a person who is OBSTINATELY or INTOLERANTLY devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. (emphasis added.) They don't say religious groups but such "hatred" as they express has been directed at different religious groups throughout history and no doubt far back into prehistory and fits the definition perfectly. That is not the definition of the Knights of Columbus, or the average run of Christians today or WWII veterans. It does sound a lot like some other people though. You pick them. It isn't difficult. Just listen to the shouting. Enough. If I haven't made my point by now, I ain't going to.
I respectfully disagree. I
I respectfully disagree. I do see the placing of a religious icon onto land in which I have a citizen's ownership stake to be an endorsement of that religion, and thus a violation of the Establishment clause. I shouldn't have to just avert my eyes or try and ignore violations of my rights, nor should a Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim citizen who has to endure their religion being treated as second-class. When the government abstains from any religious displays, that's not favoring atheism, that's a level playing field.
http://www.cheapjuicycoutureu
http://www.cheapjuicycoutureuksale.com http://www.cheapjerseyssalestore.com http://www.cheapmonclersalestore.com http://www.classicbootscheapsale.com http://www.uggbootsgenuinesaleuk.com http://www.classicshortsalestore.com http://www.baileybuttonoutletstore.com
Zero religion represents a
Zero religion represents a central point in a level playing field between all religions in respect to freedom. If equality is the goal, it is impossible give all religions preferential treatment, and logically inconsistent to favor your religion over somebody else’s. Claiming that separation of church and state creates a bias towards no religion is correct. No religion is point of compromise where nobody receives preferential treatment. It may anger Christians that they cannot openly oppress gay people, but it also angers Muslins that want to circumcise females, and it angers Hindu cultures that they have to see beef in the grocery store. The basis of compromise that that everybody wins a little bit by sacrificing a little bit. If you argue that a no religion position favors atheists over other religions then it implies that Atheism is a religion with an agenda that seeks favor, which it is not. I challenge anyone to propose a level playing field scenario other than separation of church and state without including an inherent bias towards a particular faith.
Religiously sterile being
Religiously sterile being acceptable because atheism isn't a religion is a convenient copout since it recognizes the religious beliefs of atheists and no one else. If you want to take your reasoning one step further, your religious rights arent being infringed because in atheism you don't have religious beliefs to be denied and you're not being forced to accept those of others through symbols on a memorial. Unlike female circumcision and denying same sex marriage to gays based on religious reasons, this statue doesn't deny anyone else their rights. Here's the answer to your challenge. There is nothing more equal than letting all people incorporate any religious symbol into a memorial recognizing someones death or sacrifice. Its not a preference of one religion over another since all religious people are afforded the same offer. Its not a preference of the religious over the non-religious since the non-religious can include significant parts of the memorialized lives into their memorial as well. The idea that denying the significance of the religious beliefs or religious symbols in the lives sacrificed for us is somehow the epitome of equality, is nonsense. The "equal sacrifice" of religious people never seems to include an equal sacrifice on the part of atheists.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
I don’t want to drag this
I don’t want to drag this conversation out any further. You consider this to be a harmless statue of your deity honoring dead veterans. I see this statue as the government endorsing a religion that would have shamelessly murdered my family in any other century. The government gave the Knights of Columbus till Dec 31 to submit their proposal for removing the statue. That is it.
Prof.B wrote: Submitted by
Prof.B wrote: Submitted by ProfessorB on Oct 28, 2011. I don’t want to drag this conversation out any further. You consider this to be a harmless statue of your deity honoring dead veterans. I see this statue as the government endorsing a religion that would have shamelessly murdered my family in any other century. The government gave the Knights of Columbus till Dec 31 to submit their proposal for removing the statue. That is it.
Prof didn't mention his antecedents, but, there's fair odds in an even earlier century his kin was busy murdering Christians or somebody else. That is immaterial to current event's.
What is "it" is, that he has the right and ability to vent his resentment safe from harm as a direct result of the sacrifices made by the veterans that statue he so despises commemorates. That is it.
It is very disingenuous to
It is very disingenuous to invoke the name of veterans to attack me and my position. Your status as a veteran does nothing to strengthen your agrument against me, and the claims you makes about honoring dead soldiers is just an appeal to peoples' emotion. I am a veteran from Operation Iraqi Freedom, my father was a POW in Vietnam, and my Grandfather was a WWII veteran. We were all non-religious people who beleived in freedom. You see, veterans exist on both sides of this argument and trying to drag military service into the argument has very little value. If there is some point of logic that you want to discuss I'll play along, but don't rant to me about what my peers did for this country.
I am so sick of stupid
I am so sick of stupid atheist(Satanists) taking over the internet to spread their message of hating God. They say the devil will have a convincing tounge and you, sir are walking the path of the devil. I am not one of those weak spirited Christians that will sit back and tolerate the likes of you spreading blashemy in a world that my kids are growing up in. Don't be so certain that your family is safe in this century.
If "that is it", then that's
If "that is it", then that's what you should have said from the get go instead of saying our religous beliefs being beaten down for the benefit of atheists was in our own best interest. My diety commanded us not to make graven images, so the statue itself is something I'm completely against. However, my religious beliefs aren't more important than those of the Knights of Columbus and allowing this statue to stand doesn't equate to a government endorsement of their beliefs over mine. Unfortunately, the government itself shamelessly killed my ancestors just over a century ago. Maybe we can stop our endorsement of government instead of just those actions people used government to commit. Have a nice weekend.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
The religious people of
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. Their statue establishes a precedent for other religions to invade public land, and appealing to religious politicans for help is the same evil tactic that would be used against Christian protestors if this was an Islamic statue. Unfortunately, religious doctrine promotes a worldview where it is absolutely reasonable to give your own religion preferential treatment while working to persecute all others. This doesn't sound good in writing so they invent clever excuses like tradition and honoring the dead to earn sympathy from easily fooled adults. So it is up to the atheist to fight for religious freedom in America, and keep the playing field level for everyone.
"...the separation of church
"...the separation of church and state are essential to protecting the values of all people including Christians." Seriously? The separation of church and state causes religious people to pay for all sorts of things that go against their values. Since atheism is basically classified as a lack of religion, any religious person that pays taxes to a secular government will end up funding things based on an atheist point of view rather than the secular government protecting their religious values. This wall of separation is sloped on the atheist side and at a ninety degree angle on the religious side. Because this statue takes away no ones religious freedom and is no more an endorsement of religion than protecting religion in the constitution is, you should instead say "It is up to atheists to make sure the religious bend to the will of atheists by making them enjoy our complete lack of religion while they're on public property as well.".
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
First, let me say that I
First, let me say that I appreciate your rational counterargument. I agree that tax dollars go to support things that religious people do not agree with. It would be nearly impossible to accommodate the value systems of every religion in a fair society. Some values should intentionally not be honored. As I recall Christian values outlawed mixed race marriages until 1967. Even as an atheist, the government uses my tax dollars to pay for things I do not agree with. For example, there is a giant statue of a bigot god sitting on public land that is maintained by tax dollars. It is disingenuous to declare that a statue of Jesus is not an endorsement of religion. If it was a statue of Mickey Mouse you would not be able to convince anyone that it was not an endorsement of Disney.
The government has already
The government has already endorsed religion by offering it protection in the constitution. I don't know about the bigot god statue you're having to pay for, but as for the statue in this story, I didn't see where the government was paying for the maintenance on the statue itself or where the Knights of Columbus were offered the opportunity to pay the upkeep so that you wouldn't have to pay to maintain this one as well. As for religious people paying for things that are against their values, one way separation doesn't benefit religious people as you said earlier. It benefits the non-religious. So, if it should be as the articles author states and government can't show preference to religion over non-religion, then the government should offer the Knights the opportunity to pay for the statue or it is showing a preference to the non-religious over the religious. I suppose the Klan being able to use the national mall for a rally is a government endorsement of Klan ideals and not the ideal of freedom of speech, no matter how bigoted they are.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Now, if this statue had no
Now, if this statue had no religious aspect to it whatsoever, why was it a Jesus statue? Could it not easily have been a statue of say, Thomas Paine? Abraham Lincoln? Thomas Edison? I mean, if it had no religious aspect whatsoever, couldn't have anything been used? Why a religious figure? Why use a religious figure that happens to promote and endorse one particular religion? Strange, coindence, right? What would happen if this was a statue of a Hindu figure or of a Jewish star? What if there was a verse of the Quran on a statue? Would the congressman have defended such a statue? Is there a bridge in Montana I can see you? Are there many bridges in Montana?
The fact is if the religious right can say any statue of Jesus or a giant cross or even a 10 Commandments displays is a war memorial, they can put them up anywhere. On the front lawn of the Capitol, on the lawn of the Washington Monument. All they have to say, "what, you hate our veterans and don't want to honor them?" There could be millions of little statues of Jesus on public land and all could be called war memorials.
Jerome McCollom
This is one of those stories
This is one of those stories that makes one think there are people that would beat up a nun to prove a point. The statue seems to be in an obscure location, isn't part of a plan to get religion involved in government affairs, and is a monument honoring people, many of them draftees, that gave their lives on the orders from the government. As for those weeping for the jewish and atheist dead, add them or stop saying you're actually concerned for their memory as well.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Having something illegally
Having something illegally and wrongly for a long time on public land, doesn't stop it from being wrong and illegal. The religious right think they have a monopoly on all parts of society and the government. The government is not a tool to promote Christianity. Period. What is so hard to understand? Humanists aren't trying to get public displays on public land, only those on the Christian rightwing.
Jerome McCollom
Wow! I am so totally
Wow! I am so totally offended! My Grandfather died in WWII and he was an atheist. This is another way that organized religion is trying to keep it's grip on weak minded people. Jesus needs to go. They can find another way to honor their Vets. How about an American flag, now that would be original...
DAR
If I remember correctly,
If I remember correctly, Jesus was Jewish. How quickly we forget the sacrifices of the men and women who served our country...whether drafted or volunteered. They should be respected and honored, where ever. Our government sent these men and women into battle why shouldn't there be something to honor them on government soil, (for the living), in addition to cemeteries for those that were killed.
From what I can tell there's
From what I can tell there's really no problem with it. I mean I personally think they should just leave it there, it's already been there for 50 years, why change it now?