Thursday, September 03, 2015
Federal Court Preserves Jesus Statue Against Militant Atheists
A 6-foot tall statue of Jesus that has spent the last 60 years overlooking a northwestern Montana ski hill may stay there, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments from a group of atheists and agnostics that allowing the statue to remain on U.S. Forest Service land violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Two members of the three-judge panel agreed with U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen of Montana, who found that the statue's secular and irreverent uses outweighed its religious uses.
In June of 2013 Christensen wrote that "Big Mountain Jesus has been the subject of much frivolity over the years," serving as a meeting place for skiers, a wedding location and being festooned with ski hats, goggles, Mardi Gras beads and other secular decorations.
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Why are activist atheists always described as "militant" but not equally activist religionists?
Because this is the definition of militant: combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.
and it fits activist atheists based on what they do and how they do it, minus the 'violent' part of that definition.
Then why not apply it to religionists and theists who can be just as "militant" as atheists, or is it just using prejudiced and emotive language.
Well this is a surprising good ruling from the 9th Circut Court noting that they have been pretty bad in the past with that Mr Newdows idiotic demands
Narrow minded self centred athiests who demand the whole U.S of A abide by their stupid rules they need to either tollerate religious freedom or just Go Away
Jesus is a historical figure. I am an atheist and I have no objection to statues of Jesus as long as they are not used to push religion on to those who do not want it.
religious statues = idolatry!
Anon 1:47 Stay away from FFRF,ACLU and SPLC
history lesson, nowhere in the constitution does it say separation of church and state, it was Thomas Jefferson's interpretation
What the constitution realy prophibits is having a established religion like the kinds religion back in the 1600's and 1700's there is nothing about any separation of Church & State the ACLU and the rest of the militant athiests have been lying for far too long
It means that the new United States was (and still is) a secular state because there is not a state religion (ie. not established as a state religion - like the "Church of America", for instance), so that the US does not favor one religion or denomination over another, or prevent any test/requirement to be a member of a certain religion or denomination for public office, as was the case in Britain at the time - the Church of England (Anglican/Episcopalian). Therefore candidates for public office in the US can hold any religion or none at all, and laws passed will not favor any particular religious view-point or dogma. So in that sense there was and is "separation of Church and State" in the United States of America.
Post a Comment