@ Mona: A religious symbol on public land gives the impression that the
government is favoring that religion by giving it access not afforded to other
religious groups.@ UtahBlueDevil: Many government facilities rent
out space - and the groups that rent that space are allowed to use it for
reasonable purposes. But those spaces are not just for rent to religious groups
- they are available for rent to anyone or any group who can pay the rental
cost. @ the truth: There are many limits placed on expression in
the public sphere. Don't believe me? See what happens if you walk naked
down the street or play your music loud at 2 a.m. or build a big middle finger
at Whitefish. Churches and religious individuals should be held to the same
public standards as everyone else.
the truthHolladay, UT@LDS LiberalHave you ever
considered artistic expression of ones faith?Freedom of expression
is protected even on public lands and the public square, even for religious
people.5:36 p.m. July 5, 2013======= So then
'the truth', are you supporting graffiti [artistic expression]
"even on public lands and the public square"?You can't
have it both ways.Don't be a hypocrite.
pragmatistferlife, where is it written that there cannot be displays of
religious symbols on federal land? I sincerely want to know. The Constitution
provides for separation of church & state, but I don't believe that
having a religious symbol of any kind on federal land is violating that. So it
must be a later interpretation?
"No where in our Constitution is the permission given for a private concern
to use the public square to advertise their product. The purpose of the
Constitution amendment about religion was for the exact purpose of preventing
the government to favor a religion. "Ummmm...... but if a
religious organization leases land, are they still prohibited from using it for
religious use..... No. Many churches lease school facilities with out issue to
hold their religious services. Lets not get carried away with church and
state arguments here. If our church, LDS, were to lease a convention
center.... owned by a city... or state.... we could surely post anything we
want, and say anything we want in that facility.Lets not confuse
@LDS LiberalHave you ever considered artistic expression of ones
faith?Freedom of expression is protected even on public lands and
the public square, even for religious people.
Those of us who are LDS are very fond of the statue of Christ on Temple Square.
Many of us often look at the statues of Angel Moroni that grace many of our
temples. Who hasn't paused in front of the magnificent statue of Joseph
Smith? Who has looked at the paintings on Temple Square without seeing the faces
of brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers who turned to deity after turning away
from the profane? Paintings, statues and scriptures each remind us
of the places, the people and the doctrine that make life purposeful. Those who are teachable invite inspiration, even when that inspiration comes
via a statue.
Regardless of what the courts say;This pretty well explains it to me.Ten Commandment #4,Thou shalt not make any graven images...Why Bible believing folks keep insisting on putting up statues ANYWHERE
is beyond me.
Saying it is inappropriate to have a statue of Jesus on federal land is not
interfering with anybody's religion. Christians can still believe in
As typical, hysterics fromt he left over nothing. The Federal
Government is PROHIBITED from interferring with religion in any form for any
reason: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging 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."For those who try to
use the "establishment clause", "shall make no law" covers their
twisting of the Constitution. For those who think that "an
establishment" of religion, or existeing church, erected the statue,
"shall make no law" still prohibits the Federal Goverment for
interferring.For those who think that they should be exempt from
"religious words", the freedom of speech portion of the 1st Amendment
nixes that idea.For those who object to people gathering to see the
statue or to pray while in proximity of the statue, the "peaceful
assembly" part of the 1st Amendment allows that.No matter how
the anti-religionists frame their agnony at being in America, WE, THE PEOPLE,
have forever forbidden the Federal Government to interfere with religion - in
Would the letter writer have the same feelings if the items in question were
crescent moons or Buddha? Or are only Christian symbols the ones that matter?I find it ironic that the same folks who complain about big government
interrupting our lives are the first ones to complain if a Muslim Rec center or
temple is built in their communities. Sorry repubs, you can't
have it both ways.
Last time I checked, there are lots of things I'm not allowed to do on
private land that I am allowed to do on my own property. For some reason, people
who espouse a certain conservative philosophy in this country seem to think that
the Constitution is a Christian document. Guess again.
RE: Mr. JI see the irony. Socialist leaning & highly religious
(an oxymoron behind the Zion Curtain) Brazil has citizens who have perspective
and balance and not a bunch of easily offended puritans.
Comparing Brazil's public land to America's is comparing apples to
oranges. Notice, the Brazilian favelas or ghettos which house hundreds of
thousands are all built on public land. Their laws and enforcement is far
different than our own. I am a Mormon and a Christian and even
I'm getting tired of a few vocal Christians playing the victim card
incessantly. Yes, we get it. You're still upset over the defeat of prop 8.
Now get over it. There are other more important issues to discuss. The
unsustainable military spending, bad economy, and tax cuts for the richies all
need to be addressed.
Remember, if allowed, every religion would have equal rights of placing symbols,
monuments etc on public land whether it be Catholic, Buddhist, Islam or
Churches and nonprofit religious organizations that object to providing birth
control coverage on religious grounds do not have to pay for it.Female employees could get free contraceptive coverage through a separate plan
that would be provided by a health insurer. Institutions objecting to the
coverage would not pay for the contraceptives.Insurance companies
would bear the cost of providing the separate coverage, with the possibility of
recouping the costs through lower health care expenses resulting in part from
fewer births.If you want to use the "money is fungible"
argument then that argument can also be applied to tithes collected by churches
and church-owned businesses.
"The Fourth of July renews our Constitution and the freedoms it provides.
Let's celebrate the good things of our country."Actually
(this is easy to find in both a US History class and Wikipedia), the
Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. I think the
document you are unsuccessfully attempting to refer to is called the Declaration
of Independence. Just so you're aware, they aren't the
No where in our Constitution is the permission given for a private concern to
use the public square to advertise their product. The purpose of the
Constitution amendment about religion was for the exact purpose of preventing
the government to favor a religion. When religion advertises in
the public square, whether it be by clothing, jewelry, religious actions, public
prayers, statues and even buildings, they are violating the Constitution of the
United States for the unfettered freedom of religion of others. Yet we do
allow these things because of tradition. Today the public square
is taken to be the physical boundary of public land and the air space
immediately above. Private property is likewise so defined. The sky, the view
and that part of the world available to our eyes and ears is not yet allocated.
When technology makes it possible to paint the sky, will parts of
the sky become private property? Even today our view is often blocked by
The court said it can stay, so what's the big whoop? Anytime a
religious group decides to set up a religious monument on public land, that is
cause for concern in my opinion. The court weighed the issues and decided the
harm was negligible. Sounds reasonable.
@Mister J --"Let me just point out that there is a similar
statue in Liberal Brazil overlooking a very carnal & secular metropolis yet
I know of no howling & whining at all."That is, of course,
because Brazil is actually a very religious country.The population
of Brazil was 90% Catholic up until the 1970s. In fact, Brazil continues to have
the highest number of Catholics of any country IN THE WORLD.These
days, Brazil is still 65% Catholic. Another 22% are Evangelical Protestant, and
only 8% identify as non-religious.
Uh, it's on public land. So, yeah, there's a Church/State issue.
J: How irony? Brazil and the USA? Different traditions. We have a written
constitution. They do not. Ours allows for no State religion. They can have
whatever they choose. Easy, right? If they had a pentangle looking over Rio
would you see irony then?
@ciNice red herring first were did any of the posters claim to be
traumatized by the statues and secondly how do you not see the two issues are
not the same argrument rather then in conflict with one another. People that do
not share your religious views do not wish to have them forced on us. If the
Catholic Church wants to engage in activities outside its eclisatical duties
then it is going to have to flollow the civil laws just like anyone else.
Because I love irony... Let me just point out that there is a similar statue in
Liberal Brazil overlooking a very carnal & secular metropolis yet I know of
no howling & whining at all.
I find it fascinating that the posters who claim to be traumatized over a Jesus
statue (or highway memorial) in the public realm tend to be the same one who
have no problem forcing the Catholic Church to pay for their birth control -
then they have the audacity to lecture about minority rights, religious freedom
and tolerance when it obvious they are only qualified to provide an illustration
of arrogance, politically correct fundamentalism and hypocrisy
Stop playing the victim for your party's lack of popularity. Look inward at
the obstruction. Stop blaming others.All of your fears are
completely slippery slope irrational fears. If you really fear all church
buildings will be hidden someday, then please never leave your cave, keep the
tin foil hat on, listen to bro beck, and never come outside.
According to court records, there have been 20 cases filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Montana in the last seven days. From their
descriptions, none seemed to be about religion. There may be valid objections to
this type of lawsuit, but court congestion is not one of them.
Religion is really playing victim these days. Consider that the statue in
question is on public land, and that in the end it was allowed to stay. I have
no problem with that, because, in Whitefish, the statue is up on the hill and
not metaphorically wandering the halls of government. Whitefish is a great ski
town full of Calgarians and delightful pubs like the Bulldog where, to say the
least, one does not feel the pall of religion hanging over everything. The two
can coexist peacefully. And, although I don't believe that some divine
being will suspend all natural laws at my behest, I have invoked such help
anyway when close encounters with snowboarders occur.
Mike your ruse is way too obvious. You don't give a hoot about the courts
you're just upset because once again Jesus is under attack. Mike, it was
federal land. Have you ever seen a lawsuit about removing a religious symbol
from a church on private property? No and you never will. Get over yourself.
Religion is sill King.
"I think it is time for the courts to get back to our original Constitution,
granting freedoms from these suits."This is exactly what the
courts are there for... to ensure the minority in society has redress when it
feels its rights are being trampled on by the majority. An as was the example
in the case you site... the courts made the decision granting maximum liberty.
In this case, both sides were given the opportunity to make their
arguments, and the courts made an eqyutable decision.... just as the
constitution designed them to do. Providing a venue for debate and defense of
our rights is exactly what the courts were established for..... what would you
rather them do? Proved a venue for people to sue for a million
dollars because they didn't know their coffee was hot?
How dare a "minority" group avail itself to its constitutional rights?