Ruling on Jesus statue is latest in conflicting Establishment Clause decisions


Return To Article
  • Wingnut1 USA, UT
    Aug. 2, 2013 3:47 p.m.


    I had the exact same thought when I read that statement. It just proves how people expect people to act in a certain way because they appointed them. The word that describes that is corruption.

  • Mike Johnson Stafford, VA
    Aug. 1, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    The establishment clause in the first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In what way does a private religious group erecting a statue constitute Congress making a law establishing religion or prohibiting its free exercise?

    From the 1930s, the Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment to extend this protection to acts of states and local governments. So, in what way did a state legislature or city or county or town pass a law or an ordnance to establish religion or prohibit its free exercise?

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 1, 2013 6:48 a.m.

    Since the federal government controls the internet, should anything regarding any religion be allowed on there? Wouldn't it constitute establishment if the feds allow an image of Jesus on the internet? And what about these church-owned sites? How can the government allow us to continue to be exposed to them? Is this conversation actually legal?

    I say Uncle Sam should get rid of anything on the internet that is overtly religious. Then, after they've taken care of that, they should outlaw anything on the internet that even has the subtleties of religion. After all, something religious on a federally controlled internet constitutes establishment, right?

    Let's preserve what the internet was really intended for: news, shopping, on-line gambling, and pornography.

    When will the insanity end?

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 2, 2013 6:13 a.m.

    A couple observations: Every time a cross or statue on Federal lands is challenged, it's suddenly remembered that it was a memorial to veterans. It's not much of a memorial if only a few people know that. Secondly, would the defenders of that statue be equally vigilant about defending a symbol of a minority religion on public lands? For example, a statue of the Hindu god Shiva or an altar erected by Satanists? The "freedom of religion" argument isn't worth the pixels used to print it here if it only applies to popular religions. And even the "popular" religions might be upsetting. Wicca, for instance, is one of the ten largest religions in the US. How comfortable would you be with a Wiccan memorial to Pan, the horned god, being erected in your favorite public park or on the courthouse lawn? Finally, I'm curious about where one reads a commandment in the Bible that directs followers to erect statues of the Christian God or build crosses everywhere? The closest thing I can recall is a commandment prohibiting the making of graven images of God.

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    July 1, 2013 6:32 p.m.

    I just wish I had the same view that a similar statue has in Brazil.

  • From Ted's Head Orem, UT
    June 30, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    It seems to me that religion played a larger role in Americans' lives 100 or 200 years ago than it does now. In our information age we have access to more knowledge than ever before. It could be argued that we have a more highly developed civilization than has previously existed, especially when considering the hundreds of millions of people who live in our country. Religion helped bring education and order to the masses (pun intended) in the past and that need is no longer as valid as it once was. The presumption of a Judeo-Christian preference in society excludes far too many people today and that crutch to human morality is no longer as helpful to a more educated populace. I am not suggesting that religions should be banned from preaching what they believe, no matter who might not enjoy their message or even be offended by it. Put a statue of Jesus on your front lawn, right next to your American flag and your yard gnomes if you please. Live your religion from the inside out and let your actions be your religious branding. Religious folks aren't perfect and should spend their time improving themselves, including me.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 29, 2013 8:05 p.m.

    "maybe they should replace it was some Islamic terrorist"

    Umm.... sure. Not sure what the heck that has to do with anything.... but why the heck not. Perhaps a Buddha as well.... since were at ti.

  • TripleCrown Santa Ana, CA
    June 29, 2013 2:18 p.m.

    There is NO Constitutional right to be free from religious influence or symbols, even on property owned by the federal government. The purpose of the Constitution was to enumerate and LIMIT the powers of the Federal Government, NOT We The People or our religions. The founders wanted freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

    This article misquotes and twists the meaning of the Bill of Rights by saying, "the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from “respecting an establishment of religion”". The First Amendment to the Constitution does NOT prohibit the US government from "respecting an establishment of religion". It emphatically states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of".  The word "respecting" has several meanings. As used here, it does NOT mean "esteem or honor", but rather "in relation or reference to". This is yet another proof that the founders intended for the legislature to make the laws, NOT bureaucracies under the control of the executive branch that are not accountable to We The People.

  • My house was stolen Roy , UT
    June 29, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    The Establishment of Religion clause is still arguable and our country was founded under GOD and if you live here you should respect that. You don't see people going to other countries to challenge their religions or their culture. It is about time since I have seen a sensible judge in our system.

  • timpClimber Provo, UT
    June 29, 2013 6:31 a.m.

    Thank goodness for a sensible judge. We need tolerance and kindness in our society or we will end up like the Taliban who when they gain power set about destroying great works of religious art and burning books that don't support their narrow views.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 28, 2013 6:20 p.m.

    For the government to remove a statue in place is for it to fight against the religion that is there. What the FFRF people fail to admit is for the government to actively work to suppress religious express is to deny religious freedom. Public property can not be made religious free property without denying the free speech and free exercise points of the first amendment.

  • FT1/SS Virginia Beach, VA
    June 28, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    A victory for now. But, the attacks on religion will get thicker and heavier. Standfast!

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 28, 2013 5:03 p.m.

    as an atheist I honest do not think if it were me I would have challenged the statue but having said that I would be very conceded if I was a Christian by the cheapening of my religion that want to dismiss such simples of having no meaning or religious meaning, at that point why would you even defend it? It means nothing anyway.

  • ApacheNaiche PINETOP, AZ
    June 28, 2013 4:14 p.m.

    I have one inside my great room. Anyone want to attempt to take it?

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    June 28, 2013 3:39 p.m.

    "Gaylor said she didn't expect that type of ruling coming from an Obama appointee like Christensen."

    Wow. That statement speaks volumes.

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    June 28, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    It seems to me to be shameful that so many decisions by the Supreme Court are established with a 5-4 vote. It just depends on who makes up the 9 on a given day.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 28, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    ".... for most who happen to encounter Big Mountain Jesus, it neither offends nor inspires...."

    Should it take a Federal court ruling to sort this out by stating the obvious? I guess it does as long as there are those who prefer filing lawsuits to taking their dog for a walk.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 28, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    maybe they should replace it was some Islamic terrorist

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    I'm not religious, but for goodness sakes whatever happened to tolerance and respect for the beliefs of others?

    Kudos to this judge for good decision.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    June 28, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    I suspect that back in the 1950's when this statue was erected everyone in the community knew that it was to honor the troops that served in the mountain areas. So they probably didn't think that it was necessary to put up a plaque to explain its existence immediately. Over the decades people forgot the facts of why it was there leading to the confusion in the last few years.

  • Spider Rico Greeley, CO
    June 28, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    The constant attack on religion will never stop. It's a statue for crying out loud

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    Good decision.

    The liberals can deal with it. Jesus isn't bothering anyone

    Keep up the good work!