Judge rules: Jesus statue can stay

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Kalispell, MT, Daily Inter Lake

Posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:00 am | Updated: 10:23 am, Tue Jun 25, 2013.

Judge rules: Jesus statue can stay

The famed Jesus statue on Big Mountain can remain where it is — at least for now — thanks to a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Dana Christensen that was announced on Monday. ... The Freedom From Religion Foundation had challenged the legality of the statue because it is located on national forest land above Chair 2 at Whitefish Mountain Resort.

Christensen, a former Kalispell attorney, granted the defendant’s request for summary judgment to allow the Flathead National Forest to reissue the permit for the statue, which has been maintained on the ski hill by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, for 60 years.

“Leasing public land within a private ski resort to a private organization that maintains a statue of Jesus does not violate the establishment clause,” Christensen ruled, referring to the First Amendment’s assurance that the state shall not establish a religion.

“The statue does not convey to a reasonable informed observer that the government rather than a private party endorses Christianity over any other faith or the absence of faith,” the federal court based in Missoula decided.



Read more: http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_8b0dca8a-dd3c-11e2-a977-001a4bcf887a.html

---

From The Missoulian:

Judge: Jesus statue can stay on Big Mountain

HELENA — A Jesus statue that has for six decades been a curiosity to skiers as they cruise down a popular run at a northwest Montana ski resort will not be evicted from federal land, a judge ruled Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen said the Flathead National Forest can re-issue a 10-year permit for the statue installed on the ski hill by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men's organization.

The judge disagreed with a Wisconsin-based group of atheists and agnostics that argued the Forest Service was unconstitutionally sanctioning the statue. Its religious nature has been made clear in special-use permit applications since the 1950s, the Freedom From Religion Foundation had argued.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Seriously, I had no idea that Jeebus could ski. What color slope is that? Looks like a blue.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Actually, it sounds like you just proposed a test that can be empirically evaluated on the statue.

[Buzz Clik]

4. "Tips up, JayCee!"

[AtheistCrusader]

8. 'That tree will buff right out'

[Javaman]

27. ...

jesus, like Elvis, is everywhere.

[DainBramaged]

3. "The statue does not convey to a reasonable informed observer that the government rather than

a private party endorses Christianity."


How would the average citizen discern that? Looks to me like Jesus is on Federal land, so where is Buddah, Krishna, ObiWon?

[Buzz Clik]

7. ObiWon is old school: The Alps and Aspen. Nowhere else.

[OnlinePoker]

12. When I'm skiing, I wouldn't know I was on federal land

If I've paid a lift ticket fee to a company and there's nothing on the receipt to say I'm on federal land, I would just assume the land was owned by whoever sold me the ticket.

[Beartracks]

15. How would the average citizen discern the statue is on Federal land?

Sure, YOU know it's on Federal land, because you're following this story/issue. But what about the average skiier who just goes up there and happens to spot Jesus on the way down? He may or may not be aware that the land is Federal; he may or may not bother to approach the statue and look for a plaque affixed to it.

===============

[DainBramaged]

19. I've driven through areas of Virginia where there are three crosses on the hills

How do I know whose land they are on? I don't, but if they were on Federal land it would bother me immensely, since no religion should be promoted by the government and no religion is America's religion...

[Beartracks]

21. So in that case, a reasonably informed person would/could/should know...

...whether the land was Federal, whether the land was leased, whether the statue was historical, etc. But just driving through... I'd have no idea either, because I'd only be reasonable but not informed.

=================

[happyslug]

33. What? American has no Religion? That is not what the UN has said over the years

When the UN first made a list of Nations and their Religion, when it came to the US the religion was listed as "Capitalism". In many ways the wag who did that was correct, any attack on Capitalism is viewed as an attack on America, and thus it is the religion of the US. Voltaire once made a comment that if you find a group that is untouchable (and if attacked is defended harshly), it is the religion of that country.

Religion is not the belief in God, or gods, or even if God or gods do or do not exists, it is a world view, how people see the world they are living in. What is they role in the world. Thus Capitalism is a Religion, for it is a view on how the world should be run.

[Pelican]

41. You sound easily bothered...

[harmonicon]

40. They would use their special head-meat - or "brain" - to reason it out.

Do people think the government runs the ski slope and the chair lift? How on earth could someone figure it out?

[24601]

46. But Jesus was Jewish. How could anyone infer definitively that it refers to Christianity instead of

Judaism? And isn't Jesus is a Prophet in Islam?

And is the statue saying follow me? Is it saying don't do what I did and get executed?

Way to much ambiguity here.

But suppose it does refer to Christianity. Common understanding is that Christianity was established around 2000 years ago. Merely erecting a statue is therefore not establishing something already established anymore than celebrating the anniversary of your birthday results in your being reborn, in a literal vice religious sense.

[premium]

49. During my career, I was assigned to Region 1 in Montana,

I saw that statue as part of my duties as a Ranger, I didn't ever hear it speak, preach or exude an aura compelling me to take up religion.

All I saw was a beautiful statue that most people ignore.

[cosmicone]

5. I suppose

now they will have no problem having statues of Buddha, Krishna and Karl Marx on the same hill? Throw in a flying spaghetti monster as well!

[iamthebandfanman]

6. They should be glad I dont live nearby...

id be there knocking it over by morning :p

hey, they have a right to put it up.. I have a right to take it down...

so let there be anger at my actions and if im lucky a fight will break out..
thus proving why we don't allow things like this on national/public land.

[OnlinePoker]

9. So you're of the opinion the Taliban had the right to destroy Buddah statues in Afghanistan?

[iamthebandfanman]

13. Because thats the same thing..

but only in your head...

[telclaven]

17. Funny

That's exactly what it is. But you knew that, right?

[pitbullgirl1965]

39. It's Buddha and that is NOT the same thing!

Are you seriously comparing 1,700 year old statues near the Silk Road that have been listed as
a World Heritage Site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization with that tacky statue?
I don't see much difference between the Taliban and the Christofacists in America. Given half a chance I'm sure they'd be delighted to destroy them too.

[premium]

11. And some of my former comrades, USFS Rangers,

will be arresting you for destruction of private property. You are under the assumption that just because it's on Federal land, you have the right to knock it down, well, I'm here to tell you that you're 100% wrong.
The only fight that would break out would be between you and Rangers and I can guarantee that you would lose.

[iamthebandfanman]

14. spare the mancho bravado

nobody cares how tough folks are who want to step all over people of other religions..


I don't like it when my rights are being trampled, no matter what a low court says.

I don't care if the property is leased or not. its still federal land. period.

you can disagree with me and my sentiment all you want..

but statements like your last sentence only cause me to roll my eyes and little more.. (im really shaking in my boots!)

glad to know people love the use of force with their tax payer dollars enough to gloat about it being used!
which , by the way, I find odd.. why should federal employees be used to force protection of personal property that's been left by its owner ?
that's like saying, if someone leaves a pop can on a trail in a national forest I could be beaten and arrested for daring to throw it in the trash... which I do all the time ... I better watch my back eh ?

ill let you get back to your busy schedule of creating posts for people to vote to hide :p

[premium]

16. I'm not being mancho bravado at all,

I'm telling you the law and the law says you don't have the right to destroy private property on Federal land and you would be arrested for it.

You're the one who threatened violence if someone tried to stop you, I'm just stating a fact of what would happen if you tried to resist my former comrades, you would be arrested for assault and battery on a Federal Law Enforcement Officer, resisting arrest, destruction of private property, which would probably land you a stint in Club Fed.

[RebelOne]

18. I am an atheist, but I would never commit the violent act of knocking it over.

It is a piece of sculpture and that's all it is.

[Beartracks]

22. You have the right to knock it down?

Do tell.

===============

[premium]

23. That one got me too.

He may have the ability, but he doesn't have the right and I think my former comrades would disabuse him of his fantasy real quick.
He also threatens violence on someone trying to stop him, which, again, my former comrades would quickly disabuse him of.

[Beartracks]

31. Oh, yeah. He mocks the supposed threat of force....

... after he said he'd cause a ruckus and "if im lucky a fight will break out."

Basically: "I'll cause a fight to prove that fights break out over this shit!" Which is oddly similar in gist to, "I'll hamstring government to prove that government doesn't work!"

Isn't there a roll-eyes smiley here? Ah, here it is:

====================

[Ter]

42. Internet tough guy alert

n/t

[premium]

43. I have no idea where he came up

with this "right" to knock it down, but, as I told him earlier, I'm fairly confident that my former colleagues would disabuse him of the notion that he has the "right" to destroy private property on public lands.

[MADem]

10. Jesus stays, voting rights go....

[askeptic]

24. As long as USFS leases land for other religious/non-religious private monuments, then no problem

but if other faith/non-faith groups are not afforded the same opportunity (or are denied a permit), then the judge is wrong.

[Ian David]

28. I want to see a Star of David, The Affirmations of Secular Humanism, a Buddha, Satanic Pentagram...

... and of course Islamic and Native American symbols there, too.

[premium]

30. Well,

all you've got to do is apply to the USFS for permits to put up those symbols, if they refuse, then you have a good case for discrimination.

[secondwind]

25. leave this statue alone... if you didn't complain 50 years ago, you are too late.

[frylock]

26. and if you're under 50 and have objections? then tough fucking shit..

amiright? what a wonderful country!

[Politicalboi]

29. LOL!

I am an Atheist, but sometimes it's hard. Yes it is federal land, so the statue shouldn't be there, but if it doesn't get in your way of skiing, so what. I don't like it's on federal land, I guess one could cover it without taking it down, or better yet don't give them your business. I love In N Out Burger even though my cup has a bible voodoo on it. Am I going to stop going, Hell NO!

[premium]

32. I love In N Out burger,

whenever the wife and I get to Las Vegas, we'll stop and eat at one.
Our little town only has a McDonalds and local joints, refuse to eat at McDonalds.

[Politicalboi]

34. Me too

I like McDonald's fries better for some reason, but the burgers are the best at In N Out. I have a friend who's partner is a manager, and she makes over $100,00 a year at In N Out. Don't know if it's true for sure, but they do seem to have happy people there, and it's clean.

[boilerbabe]

35. I can't believe the posts i am reading on this thread in favor of this.

but then i never saw much difference in "librul" christians. they just give cover to their fundie brethren

[premium]

37. There's nothing wrong with this ruling

as long as the USFS gives equal space for other religious symbols.

[wordpix]

36. I'd like to know how much US taxpayers are earning from this ski resort lease

Anyone know? Usually we get nothing but an 1850 rate.

[pitbullgirl1965]

38. Christians think they have the right to force their

inferior religion on the rest of us. And the Knights of Columbus are anti choicers.

[premium]

45. How is this statue forcing religion on others?

It's a statue, it doesn't preach, it doesn't speak, unless it has some weird aura that makes people embrace religion, it's harmless.

[Kablooie]

44. Seems a statue of a bearded man in a robe is not necessarily a support of religion.

Put a label on it that says "Socrates" or "Willie Nelson" and then that's who it is.
A poor interpretation of the person, granted, but artists have freedom of expression.

Maybe the plaque should say "Give me your tired, your poor."
Then what would it mean?

[DeSwiss]

47. A statue of Buddha and Mohammed......

...would look great right next to Jesus, don't cha think???

- I sure hope someone applies for special-permits......

K&R

[RoccoR5955]

48. I wonder

if they would let me put up a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster next to it, with the phrase, "May you be touched by His noodly appendages," on it

Ramen!

[XemaSab]

50. Nice violation of the second commandment there

/fundie think