I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with Annie Laurie Gaylor, but I’m not really behind her on her objection to the Statue of Jesus she wants to see removed in Montana.
I agree with her basic argument: “A federal agency should not hold a vote on whether to obey the Constitution!”
The statue, though, has historic and cultural significance outside of its religious context as it is a WWII war memorial.
At the moment I feel there has to be a better use of one’s energies, and that there have to be more important issue to be faced.
It seems that other memorials are allowed religious iconography. Where is the conflict between church and state in a life size statue of Jesus qua War Memorial?
By that standard, almost every Christian-themed thing that can be erected or placed in a public space can be deemed “historical”. Its a bit of a catch-22. New statues of other religious persuasions would be rejected as not being historical. But to be historical, it would have to be put up first. So there’s no way to win
I don’t care if its historical. Does the statue violate the law that the government not promote a religion? Yes it does, therefore it should be removed
They should remove the statue purely for being an eyesore, First Amendment considerations aside. By the way, this sentence is hilarious:
“We’re delighted that federal officials understood what we have argued all along — that this statue of Jesus does not convey any government religious endorsement of religion.”
How a statue of a Jesus doesn’t represent a government endorsement of religion is beyond me. If they feel it has historical value, get it registered as a landmark, like you would any old and culturally valuable religious building such as a cathedral. But to claim a statue of Jesus as non-religious is a little nutty.
Apparently the statue is on a tiny parcel of land the government has leased to the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic “fraternal benefits society”) at no charge. It’s interesting that some people think that is a way around the prohibition of government entanglement with religion.
Why did they put up a statue of Jesus as a war memorial? Does the U.S. go to war to protect Christianity? Are non-Christians not allowed in the armed forces?
Apparently “some people” includes a majority of the Supreme court. They’ve ruled that “the goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm”. Since the Mojave Cross case was quite similar to this one, I don’t see how the plaintiffs can hope to win.
I do agree, though, that the reasoning is quite silly. I think it would be much more sensible ofr the Supreme Court to point out that there isn’t any law against endorsement promotion of religion. There’s a law against Congressional establishment of religion, in which Congress sets forth a single religious body as the sole correct one, but that’s it as far as restrictions on government-church interactions.
The United States is a democratic republic. The people choose their representatives and those representatives make decisions, sometimes with appointed intermediaries also in the process. That’s how the decision to build this particular war memorial and countless others got made. There’s a long tradition of crosses and other religious icons as war memorials in this country and others. It has nothing to do with going to war to protect Christianity or not allowing non-Christians in the armed forces.
If all it takes to satisfy the courts is to lease the government land under a religious statue to a religious organization (for free), then why isn’t that done every time some idiot puts up a Christmas creche or a stone block with the ten commandments? Why doesn’t every church lease a few square feet on every courthouse lawn for a cross or two, especially if it costs them nothing?
No, that’s not how the decision to build and erect this statue of Jesus got made. Elected representatives had nothing to do with it; it’s owned by the Knights of Columbus. Where did you get your information about how this “war memorial” (ha!) came about?
