@NedGrimlyI 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.
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?
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?
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.
I just wish I had the same view that a similar statue has in Brazil.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A victory for now. But, the attacks on religion will get thicker and heavier.
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
I have one inside my great room. Anyone want to attempt to take it?
"Gaylor said she didn't expect that type of ruling coming from an Obama
appointee like Christensen."Wow. That statement speaks volumes.
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
".... 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.
maybe they should replace it was some Islamic terrorist
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
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.
The constant attack on religion will never stop. It's a statue for crying
Good decision.The liberals can deal with it. Jesus isn't
bothering anyoneKeep up the good work!