Posted on 09/02/2015 8:28:58 PM PDT by This_far
A Ninth Circuit panel has just rejected a Freedom from Religion Foundation challenge to the Montana Big Mountain Jesus statue, which was apparently first placed on government land in 1954.
Heres most of the opinion, signed by Judges N.R. Smith and John Owens:
[T]he governments continued authorization of the [Big Mountain Jesus] statue on federal land does not violate the Establishment Clause. [Footnote: Our analysis assumes, without deciding, that [the U.S. Forest Services] continued authorization of the statue on public land constitutes government action.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Especially since, there was (possibly) a larger target involved?...
"http://www.ourladyoftherockies.net/"
Good!!! PTL.
>> Freedom from Religion Foundation
A collection of clowns that don’t have the capacity to differentiate themselves from “religion.”
Jesus statue on federal land in Montana doesnt violate the Constitution...
...but federal ownership of land in Montana almost certainly DOES violate the Constitution.
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
Libtards need to learn that, to them, Jesus is secular.
They missed the most fundamental reason that the statue should stay. Only Congress could establish a religion through their powers to legislate and they haven’t done that.
The same reason Judge Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments monument should still be in front of his court house.
I thought the meaning of the exclusion clause was that the government could NOT establish a common religion (congress/legislature etc)?
It is. But the 1st Amendment tacitly acknowledges Congress’ sole authority to establish anything that might be established by explicitly naming things it may not establish.
IOWs what other authority does the government have to establish anything than through a legislative act of Congress? The other two branches, nor any subordinate agency, could establish a state religion, even if it were not prohibited, because they don’t have the Constitutional authority to do so.
Putting up a statue or monument doesn’t constitute such an act in any case. Even if Congress enacted a bill to put a statue of Jesus in the Capitol Rotunda that would not be establishing a state religion. It would be establishing a Congressional decoration of the Capitol.
"Congress" in this case specifically means the Federal legislature. Thus to make a case that the First Amendment is broken, why should one not first be required to identify the specific law that congress made in violation of it? What is this specific law in the case of this statue?
Totally wrong/backwards. The federal congress is singled out as being prohibited from making laws respecting religion in the First Amendment. In the 9th and 10th Amendments its made clear that this prohibition is for the Federal government and that the people and states retain any power not except those positively granted by the Federal Constitution to the Federal government.
I'd say that we're in agreement on P1 & P2 of yours, plus you've given me, in P3, that which makes the post worthwhile to ME! Thank You
At this point they are making more enemies/antagonists than supporters even amongst the down hill crowd.
It’s a semi-historical site, put up by military veterans.
Did you go to the accompanying post about ‘Our Lady of the Rockies’?
PBS aired an hour show about that accomplishment (and if a Jesus statue in the middle of a ski mountain upsets a gaggle of atheists, how are they ever going to use US Interstate 90/15 to pass through Butte?)
Yes, I know, that is what I said.
I argued that a lot about Roy Moore and his TC monument but even here on FR it seemed that not many got it. A rock, a piece of art at best, is not a religion. And it certainly isn't a law as it establishes nothing in any legal sense. Without a doubt you could say that it honors a religion but that in no way makes it a state decree compelling anyone to be observant of that religion.
If the mere sight of a religious object established law then we'd be a nation of subtext not a nation of written laws. A nation of hints and suggestions.
I suggest that if libtards, atheists and secular humanists feel that vulnerable to subliminal stimuli they need to go live in darkened caves far away from normal people. ;-)
Thank YOU!
More to re-read and learn.
Did you go to the link about ‘Our Lady of the Rockies’ and if so, do you have any thoughts about a challenge to THAT edifice?
I hadn’t noticed the URL until you mentioned it. It doesn’t say anything about who owns the land at the site. I don’t see how anyone could challenge it if it’s on private land.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.