[Bigh4u2]

Related:

‘Fire Set At Statue Of Jesus In St. Paul’

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/04/10/fire-set-at-statue-of-jesus-in-st-paul/

[markomalley]

They should change the name of the city back to the original. After all, “St Paul” is clearly a violation of Separation of Church and State (/sarc).

Of course, the muzzies might not approve of the original name.

[DManA]

But no one has a problem with the two story tall "Indian god of peace" in city hall.

[DManA]

Please note that this statue is located on PRIVATE PROPERTY.

[DManA]

I can’t say this for sure but I believe Mr. Pham is a Catholic. So it would be really nice if the Diocese would give the representatives of the people of St. Paul some guidance on this matter.

[wideminded]

A while ago there was a discussion on FR about a cross erected on a city-owned water tank (in a different, small town). I said that, as an atheist, I felt that this was improper use of public property and it should be taken down.

In the case of this statue, since it is on private land, I don't have a problem with it's visibility. But since it violates a pre-existing ordinance about construction on the bluff, I think the city has a right to order it to be moved.

Of course I do not approve of the fire, but I wonder if Mr. Pham may have set it himself.

[MplsSteve]

WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC’S MINNESOTA PING LIST!

148 MEMBERS AND GROWING...!

FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT ON OR OFF THIS LIST!

[Between the Lines]

Curious that the city is only interested in the statue of Jesus. Note that in this picture that the bluff is behind the statue and so is some other art work. Which means the other art work is much closer to the edge of the bluff than is the statue.

You can see the black marks where a fire was set under the statue previously.