# Lawsuit Against Jesus (Statue) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 1, 2012, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475 "2012-02-01T23:43:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/21 "2012-02-02T04:01:25Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > So whatever the majority wants goes? Yes. > [@kenetic](#): > > There’s no benefit for having a system to protect people’s basic rights? No. > [@kenetic](#): > > Got it. > > Also, can I get a free lease from the forest service to put up my FSM monument? No. > [@kenetic](#): > > Or is that somehow not equivalent since it’s not “traditional”? Correct. This topic is a sore point for me, because it’s so obviously, blatantly done with no regard for the Constitution. It happens often; most recently and memorably (IMO) to a small religious group called Summum in Utah. [Here’s the thread about the initial court case](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=492381&highlight=pleasant+grove) filed in 2008. And [here’s the thread about the 2009 SCOTUS decision](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=519232&highlight=pleasant+grove) saying that yes, the city of Pleasant Grove, UT can deny Summum’s request to erect a statue in a park that already houses other religious statues. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/22 "2012-02-02T04:18:47Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > What’s specifically Roman Catholic about a statue of Jesus? A lot of Protestants don’t believe in that sort of thing, perhaps because they take the Ten Commandments fairly literally. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/23 "2012-02-02T04:19:53Z")
It seems that Summum has filed another lawsuit in late 2011, basically seeking the same thing they were denied in 2009. Are you ready for the argument that the ACLJ will use to try and deny? It’s the same reasoning that Justice Alito used in writing the majority opinion the SCOTUS used in 2009: [ > [@Oyez](#): > > The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit holding that the placement of a monument in a public park is a form of government speech and therefore not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. > > \ > > the Court reasoned that since Pleasant Grove City had retained final authority over which monuments were displayed, the monuments represented an expression of the city’s viewpoints and thus government speech. ]([http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20090305.html](http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20090305.html)) Here’s the ACLJ attorney: [ > [@](#): > > Governments have the right to regulate monuments on public property, said Geoff Surtees, an attorney who works for the American Center for Law and Justice in Washington, D.C., and will represent the city in the case. > > Unlike speeches or prayers before a public meeting, a monument is permanent, he said. > > “Nobody is saying Summum can’t come to the park and speak about their principles,” Surtees said. “But a monument is permanent, and it becomes the speech of the government.” > > Also, despite the religious origins of the Ten Commandments, Surtees said they are historical because of their influence on the founding documents of America and the Mormon pioneers that settled Utah. ]([http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700195510/Utah-religious-group-sues-to-display-monument.html?s\_cid=s10](http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700195510/Utah-religious-group-sues-to-display-monument.html?s_cid=s10)) That 10 Commandments monument was put up in 1971, so much later than the Jesus statue in Montana. I gather that the argument Summum is trying this time is different than the public forum argument they made in 2009, but I doubt it will have a different result. I’d sure love to see someone try and get a Flying Spaghetti Monster monument erected on public land tho. The court case would be hilarious and saddening at the same time, but it’s entertainment value might be worth it as we could watch a lot of people tie themselves in knots trying to explain why it shouldn’t be allowed. That’s essentially the same argument that Justice Samuel Alito offered in his opinion for the high court in 2009. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/24 "2012-02-02T07:19:18Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Apparently “some people” [includes a majority of the Supreme court](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/supreme-court-refuses-ban-mojave-cross/story?id=9536679). 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. I am reminded from past study of the Austin case. The court ruled a Christian cross on the city seal passed the Lemon test. The cross was more of a “historical” symbol than religious. > **[947 F2d 147 Murray v. City of Austin Texas | OpenJurist](https://openjurist.org/947/f2d/147/murray-v-city-of-austin-texas)** As a side note, in the Supreme Court chambers itself is a frieze of the 10 commandments along with other “historical” moments of the “Law givers” over time. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/25 "2012-02-02T07:37:39Z")
It’s not at all clear if this was really originally a “war memorial”: > [@The Washington Post](#): > > The statue has been maintained by the local Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, ever since members that included World War II veterans — inspired by religious monuments they saw while fighting in the mountains of Europe — erected the monument in 1955. The Knights have never been charged for use of the public land. – [Jesus at mountaintop ski resort in US allowed to stay after feds reverse statue’s eviction](http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/jesus-at-mountaintop-ski-resort-in-us-allowed-to-stay-after-feds-reverse-statues-eviction/2012/02/01/gIQA1qC5iQ_story.html) I really think the “Oh, it’s a war memorial!” dodge is more insulting than if these people would just say “Yeah, it’s a big old cross/Statue of Jesus which is _obviously_ a monument to Christianity, but gosh, it’s been up there since those dim and misty days of yore–er, 1955–so it has ‘historical significance’.” The war memorial thing though, is basically saying “As a memorial to all the American servicemen who fought and bled and died defending our freedom in World War II–Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and atheists alike–here is a big old statue of Jesus! Thanks, Corporal Solomon!” > [@Skammer](#): > > What’s specifically Roman Catholic about a statue of Jesus? As noted, it belongs to the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/26 "2012-02-02T07:56:39Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > As a side note, in the Supreme Court chambers itself is a frieze of the 10 commandments along with other “historical” moments of the “Law givers” over time. It would be more accurate to say that the Supreme Court chambers includes a representation of _Moses_, along with Menes (legendary first king of Egypt), Hammurabi (credited with one of the earliest known legal codes), Solomon (also from the Old Testament, and famous as a judge), Lycurgus of Sparta (credited with reforming the Spartan constitution), Solon and Draco of Athens (both famous lawgivers), Confucius, Octavian Caesar AKA as the Emperor Augustus, the Emperor Justinian (who ordered a major codification of Roman Law), Muhammad (for _Sharia_ Law–nobody tell the Oklahoma Lege!), the Emperor Charlemagne, King John of England (on account of the Magna Carta), King Louis IX of France (a canonized Christian saint, credited with creating the first court of appeals), Hugo Grotius (Dutch legal scholar), Sir William Blackstone (famous English professor of law), John Marshall (a Chief Justice of the United States, author of _Marbury v. Madison_), and the Emperor Napoleon of France (for the Napoleonic Code), the obvious theme being “great lawgivers of history” (including some more-or-less legendary guys), and including members of various pagan traditions (Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans), Jews, Christians, a Muslim, and a Chinese guy. The exterior of the Supreme Court Building also includes a representation of Moses, Confucius, and Solon, representing lawgivers from “three great civilizations” (ancient Israel, ancient China, and ancient Greece). (More info on the Supreme Court building can be found [here](http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/archdetails.aspx).) ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/27 "2012-02-02T14:28:44Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > So whatever the majority wants goes? There’s no benefit for having a system to protect people’s basic rights? There’s great benefit to a system that protects people’s basic rights, but no basic rights are at issue in this case. The existence of a statue does not violate anyone’s basic rights. If you can find any passage in the Constitution that says “All individuals shall have the right to destroy any statue which they do not like” (or words to that effect) then I will agree that you have a basic right to destroy this statue, but otherwise I will not. > [@](#): > > Also, can I get a free lease from the forest service to put up my FSM monument? Or is that somehow not equivalent since it’s not “traditional”? It’s not equivalent because you by yourself do not constitute a democratic majority. > [@sh1bu1](#): > > You left out the part about the Constitution. See above. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/28 "2012-02-02T14:56:33Z")
Look, people, it’s not **ITR champion** ’s fault that none of you can read. It’s all right there in the text: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion unless a democratic majority says it’s alright.” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/29 "2012-02-02T14:59:11Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > It’s not equivalent because you by yourself do not constitute a democratic majority. The relevance of this escapes me. Would it be illegal to put up a statue with a Jewish theme under these circumstances? Jews are certainly not a majority of the U.S. population, even though their faith predates Christianity by centuries and is arguably its wellspring. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/30 "2012-02-02T15:01:11Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > It would be more accurate to say that the Supreme Court chambers includes a representation of… > > …King John of England (on account of the Magna Carta… Really? That seems like crediting Kaiser Wilhelm for the Treaty of Versailles. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/31 "2012-02-02T15:24:24Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Look, people, it’s not **ITR champion** ’s fault that none of you can read. It’s all right there in the text: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion unless a democratic majority says it’s alright.” The Constitution does not say that, nor have I ever claimed that it does. What I’ve claimed is that the Constitution says nothing at all about statues, and therefore a statue is not a violation of the Constitution. Needless to say, a statue is not an establishment of religion. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > The relevance of this escapes me. Would it be illegal to put up a statue with a Jewish theme under these circumstances? No, it would not. (As a side note, if the federal government did decide that all memorials with religious symbols or significance on any government property needed to be destroyed, that would require many Holocaust memorials to be destroyed, because many of them contain Jewish symbols. Luckily, the ACLU and other anti-free-speech groups haven’t demanded that those be destroyed. Yet.) ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/32 "2012-02-02T15:28:01Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I could envisage an irreligious statue of [Jesus](http://www.redjaxxcollectibles.com/images/BifBangPow/Big-Lebowski-Jesus-Bobble.jpg). I was thinking more of [this one](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31qKKxFtAKL._SL500_AA300_.jpg). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/33 "2012-02-02T15:32:21Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > No, it would not. So the number of worshipers _isn’t_ important? So a flying spaghetti monster statue _is_ legal? ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/34 "2012-02-02T15:33:03Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > (More info on the Supreme Court building can be found [here](http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/archdetails.aspx).) Thanks for the link, but I have toured the SC building on my many trips to DC. I even sat in on an oral argument in 1975 and saw some greats of the court including Thurgood Marshall, William Rhenquist, William O. Douglas and CJ Warren Burger and even Harry Blackmun. Former President and Ohioian William Howard Taft, afer his service as CJ, was instrumental in getting the Court it’s own building. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/35 "2012-02-02T15:35:43Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I’d sure love to see someone try and get a Flying Spaghetti Monster monument erected on public land tho. The court case would be hilarious and saddening at the same time, but it’s entertainment value might be worth it as we could watch a lot of people tie themselves in knots trying to explain why it shouldn’t be allowed. > > That’s essentially the same argument that Justice Samuel Alito offered in his opinion for the high court in 2009. For what it’s worth, when I’m not not collecting stamps, I spend a lot of time installing invisible pink uniform statues on government property all over the place. If you want them to become visible to you, you have to chant the name Dawkins three times (non-blessed be he) and your eyes will evolve to see the right wavelengths. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/36 "2012-02-02T15:39:44Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The Constitution does not say that, nor have I ever claimed that it does. What I’ve claimed is that the Constitution says nothing at all about statues, and therefore a statue is not a violation of the Constitution. Needless to say, a statue is not an establishment of religion. Since the Establishment Clause applies to the states, even state courts can decide what object/action violates it. The Constitution is SILENT on acts/words and objects that could trigger the EC, that is one function of Article 3 and inferior court’s to determine. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/37 "2012-02-02T15:42:15Z")
Outside the question of religion, I am curious how an organization gets a free “lease” on government land for what appears to be over 55 years. If they actually rented it out to the KoC for a fair price and they wanted to erect a statue, I wouldn’t see a problem. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/38 "2012-02-02T15:46:08Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So the number of worshipers _isn’t_ important? So a flying spaghetti monster statue _is_ legal? Are we having a failure of communication here? I’ve taken the position, throughout this thread and others, that the First Amendment protects freedom of religion and expression and speech throughout the United States of America. I have never deviated from that position. On private property, the private individual makes decisions such as what statues to erect. On public property, such decisions are made democratically. I am opposed to all attempts by the ACLU and other anti-free-speech groups who demand that the First Amendment be interpreted as a call for censorship on both private and public property. Is my position difficult to understand? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/39 "2012-02-02T15:49:36Z")
Well, it’s that you muddy the waters when you say things like “It’s not equivalent because you by yourself do not constitute a democratic majority.” What does “democratic majority” have to do with this issue at all? Is a possible future where Christians no longer comprise a majority of the U.S. population relevant? Besides, are you claiming that this specific issue was decided “democratically”? Did the Federal Government put the issue to a vote before leasing out the small parcel of land? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475/40 "2012-02-02T15:49:46Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > What’s specifically Roman Catholic about a statue of Jesus? They dreamed him up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawsuit-against-jesus-statue/611475.md?page=3)