At the Whitefish Mountain Resort in Montana, there's a statue of Jesus overlooking the ski slopes. That might not be a problem if it weren't for the fact that this statue of Jesus is sitting on U.S. Forest Service land -- i.e., public land. The Jesus statue was erected by the Knights of Columbus in the 1950s and they have never been charged for use of the public land to promote their religion.
Now the Freedom From Religion Foundation has complained and the U.S. Forest Service is likely to remove the statue. Apologists for Christian Privilege are not idle, though, and are working to keep the statue on public land rather than move it a couple of thousand feet to private land. One argument is that a statue of Jesus isn't really religious.
"This has huge meaning for Americans. And if you aren't religious it has huge meaning as well," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, with [the Freedom From Religion Foundation]. "If skiers think that it is cute, then put it up on private property. It is not cute to have a state religious association." ...
Gaylor, with the group fighting the statue, called it a "ruse and a sham" to consider it an historic marker. "This has been an illegal display. The lease should have never happened," said Gaylor. "Just because a violation is long lasting doesn't make it historic. It makes it historically bad. It makes it worse. It makes it all the more reason to get rid of it."
Source: AP
It's important to note that there's no one opposing the placement of a statue of Jesus on private property and, moreover, that there is even private property nearby where the statue of Jesus might be able to go. It's only the use of public property to promote Jesus and Christianity that's at issue -- that's what secularists object to and that's what apologists for Christian Privilege are defending.
Thus the most important question in cases like this may be: why is it so important for you that this religious image/symbol/icon remain on public property and be associated with the government instead of having it on private property where it can be associated with whomever maintains it?
Apologists will have difficulty answering that question in a way that doesn't make them look silly and/or doesn't reveal that their real goal is, in fact, associating their religion with the government in way that privileges their religion.
Whitefish resident Bob Brown, a former state legislator and Montana secretary of state, said the issue dominated talk at his American Legion meeting this week. He said residents, few old enough to remember a time when it wasn't there, don't understand the turmoil.
"We all agreed around the table this is a tempest in a teapot. This is making trouble for us in our little community. Why don't they just leave us alone?" Brown said. "We are accustomed to it. It is part of our tradition here. So we are thinking, 'why does anyone want to tear that down.'"
Uh, maybe because it's illegal, Bob? I guess it's too much to expect a politician to care about following the law -- or maybe it's only too much to expect when that politician is a Republican and the subject involves religion.
[Rep. Denny Rehberg (R)] appeared on Fox & Friends this morning to promote his effort, but ran into some trouble while responding to a statement from the foundation behind the lawsuit. "Just because it's maintained and was put up by the Knights of Columbus does not make it a religious statement," he said. No, the fact that it's a statue of Jesus makes it religious.
Source: Think Progress
There really shouldn't be any question that a statue of Jesus is religious. Well, in a museum it could qualify as not being a promotion of religion, but it would still be religious. Thus Denny Rehberg's argument is beyond bizarre -- it's transparently false. He has to know that he's saying something that's false. Just how little does he think of the intelligence of Fox News viewers that he imagines that they'll believe him?
It's worth noting that even some atheists are unable to understand the importance of separating church and state. Look at what Shannon Cloke has to say in comments:
Look I am as liberal as they come, as a matter of fact my politics are socialist, but if this statue has gone this long without anyone being harmed what's the big deal. I am an atheist myself, but this is over reaching IMHO.
Being an atheist doesn't automatically mean that you support church/state separation, that you understand law, or even that you're very good at sound reasoning.
Being a liberal is irrelevant because church/state separation is something that conservatives can and should support, so why bring it up? The idea the statue of Jesus is somehow acceptable because it's been around so long is too ridiculous to take seriously. Does Shannon Cloke really believe that there is a statute of limitations on violations of the Constitution -- that if you can get away with breaking the law long enough then you're automatically OK?
It's never "overreach" to defend the Constitution and insist that the law be followed. It's only apologists for Christian Privilege and Religious Privilege who try to come up with absurd rationalizations for illegal activity like this. Shannon Cloke's defense of the statue of Jesus is, if anything, more ridiculous than Denny Rehberg's claim that the statue isn't really religious.
No comments:
Post a Comment