Montana violates the separation of church and state with huge jesus statue, do you support the 1st amendment and want it taken down?

by American☆Atheist Posted 2012/02/02 01:16:35

Related Topics: Forest, Separation Of Church And State, 1st Amendment, Montana, Church And State, Statue, Huge, Separation, Land, Church, Jesus

Read More

37 votes
Read all 69 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	yes	20 votes	54%
	no	17 votes	46%

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/forest-lets-montana-keep...

Add a comment above

Jimbo 2012/02/02 02:48:10

no

+8
I want the land sold to church groups for 10 million dollars to reduce the national debt instead of paying for it to be taken down. For those that think they should not be bothered by the religious, very funny.

>> See Replies

More polls by American☆Atheist

BigFig#9 2012/05/19 07:53:53

no

Not given the situation.... seems harmless enough....

reply
laureenf 2012/02/03 15:56:44

no

Separation of Church and State has NOTHING to do with religious symbols placed where some anti-religious person can see it...

reply
America... to laureenf 2012/02/04 05:09:34

yes it does.

reply
laureenf to America... 2012/02/04 12:16:26

if you read the above, it does not. Jesus statues are not mentioned. Only that the legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the right thereof. Sounds like someone is trying to prohibit the exercise of....and trying to make laws as to the establishment of christianity....

reply
America... to laureenf 2012/02/04 21:37:34

jesus is part of a religion

reply
seathan... to laureenf 2012/02/08 00:40:57

+1
Yes, actually, that's precisely what it does. We're not wolves. We don't operate on the principle that whoever pisses on something first owns it, nor do we operate on the principle that a large enough religious group can intimidate others into accepting whatever religious advertising they want to vandalise public space with.

You want to advertise your religion? Do it on private property, where that sort of crap belongs.

Funny how the same people who want the state to pay for the advertisement of their religion have the hypocracy to pretend they are "against" state interference in their lives. I guess when it's the lives of others that are being interfered with, that doesn't matter.

reply
laureenf to seathan... 2012/02/09 16:38:33

I like your 'wolf' analogy because that is EXACTLY what the Islamic religion believes. But I digress....
I suppose the Occupy wall street crowd and THEIR destruction of public property is OK???? Crapping on police cars and destroying the parks has been lauded as free speech....I prefer a cross or a Jesus statue thank you very much.

reply
seathan... to laureenf 2012/02/10 00:45:30

+1
"I like your 'wolf' analogy because that is EXACTLY what the Islamic religion believes"

It's what you believe too, since you have expressed the exact same sentiment. But I digress.

The rest of your post is off-topic and has nothing to do with anything I wrote or think - an admission that my point is correct and you have nothing to defend your position with.

reply
laureenf to seathan... 2012/02/10 00:50:52

Whatever butters your bread....

reply
seathanaich 2012/02/03 05:20:01

yes

+1
Sounds like taking it down could be something to do at 3 in the morning.

reply
laureenf to seathan... 2012/02/05 15:13:13

true but Jesus isn't making any laws concerning our legislature nor should our legislature make any laws banning or prohibiting religious expression. Nowhere does it say religion must be kept out of eyeshot of a public place....

reply
seathan... to laureenf 2012/02/08 00:42:04

Like most religionists you don't understand what "public" space means. "Public" does mean that you get to do whatever you want to do there. We're not wolves, we don't operate on the principle that whoever pisses on something first owns it. On public land, we use the political process to put things up. The political process does not consist of large religious groups bullying everyone else - or it shouldn't in a civilised and democratic society.

You want a religious monument? Put it on your private property. That's what private land is for. And spend your money on it, not tax dollars.

reply
laureenf to seathan... 2012/02/09 16:30:13

sadly even religious symbols on private property, that can be viewed by the non-religious, have been attacked. Separation of church and state is only to PROTECT religions from government interferrance, not to HIDE religion from the general public. Art forms that denegrate religion seem to have no problem in the public arena and are declared 'free speech' by the looney left but they're quick to declare a statue of Jesus or a cross as a violation of some imagined law...

reply
seathan... to laureenf 2012/02/10 00:46:12

"sadly even religious symbols on private property, that can be viewed by the non-religious, have been attacked."

No, they haven't, but you need to change the subject in order to avoid admitting that my point is correct.

reply
laureenf to seathan... 2012/02/10 00:53:48

You do realize that you don't need to re-type my comment....it says who you are responding to and what was said. It will save you time claiming you're correct but, whatever frosts your cake....

reply
seathan... to laureenf 2012/02/10 23:47:01

+1
"You do realize that you don't need to re-type my comment"

I re-type it so (a) you know what I'm responding to, and (b) you can tell which post I'm referring to once these threads have lots of replies. I have to explain this to stupid / non-tech savvy people, but never have to to the more intelligent / observant ones.

reply
laureenf to seathan... 2012/02/11 17:33:11

the more intelligent and savey ones don't need you to re-type the comment....it's quite clear who you are responding to. The re-type is for those that are 'stupid/non-tech' as you so eloquently put it.

reply
UrbanHillbilly 2012/02/03 04:37:16

yes

As you state the question, it seems an open and shut case. The Surpreme Court ruled some time ago that the Bill of Rights applied to state governments, and erecting a religous statue pretty much defines "respecting an establishment of religion." There has to be more to this.

reply
Ann Dennison 2012/02/02 23:51:37

no

+1
No, I do not believe that the Montana violates the separation of church and state with the huge Jesus statue. Insignificant subjects like this is something those who have nothing better to do. And a funny thing is the city/states depend on churches for help during many circumstances and emergencies.. I think the statue of Jesus is beautiful; and also, we have so much more to worry about. Raves for Montana!

reply
Anonymouse BN-0 ~bibbityboo~ 2012/02/02 17:21:30

yes

+1
In a Christian country like mine, I wouldn't care, but in a country founded on secularism and separation of the government from religion, I think this is rather bad, just shows that the constitution is constantly flouted.

reply
America... to Anonymo... 2012/02/02 22:58:03

+1
Don't you live in the UK?

reply
Anonymo... to America... 2012/02/02 23:01:55

+1
Yes I do. We are technically a Christian Country, we have our own denomination of Christianity, of which The queen is the head, and we have bishops in government, as Spiritual Peers.

reply
America... to Anonymo... 2012/02/02 23:06:16

+1
They are more secular than the US

reply
Anonymo... to America... 2012/02/02 23:20:29

+1
The people are, but the country and our history aren't.

reply
America... to Anonymo... 2012/02/02 23:22:36

+1
Americans call the UK too progressive.

reply
Anonymo... to America... 2012/02/03 23:16:52

Indeed. We're progressive in the wrong ways, we give lots of foreign aid and have weak immigration laws, and then we give those immigrants lots of money, and we suck up to the EU, but we have a punishment based failed judicial system, like the US, we have hereditary titles still, and we still have private schools.

reply
Tony 2012/02/02 16:51:46

no

+1
oh noes, there's a Jesus statue in public! Alert the media! Oh wait.... someone already did.

reply
Ann Den... to Tony 2012/02/03 00:01:04

+1
I like wit in this answer. A Jesus statue in public...Is the world going to hell in a hand-basket ? The Jesus Statue does not take anything away from any religious group, and those that don't like it, don't look at it!

reply
Mandy 2012/02/02 14:14:20

yes

+1
The 1950s were a high time for unconstitutional religious propaganda to spread. That's when we got "In God we trust" on our money, instead of the original "E Pluribus Unum" (From many, one) and that is when they added "under God" to the pledge of allegiance. But of course most people these days don't realize that these things were added during the McCarth era due to paranoia of the godless communists.

reply
FUS RO DAH! 2012/02/02 14:00:50

no

Just don't put up a huge Muhammad statue.

reply
UrbanHi... to FUS RO ... 2012/02/03 04:43:33

Oh definitely! We've got enough trouble with the moslem world as it is!

reply
deadfies&frogs 2012/02/02 13:56:53

no

+2
This isn't a 1st amendment issue. Besides maybe it will encourage liberals to pray for common sense and intelligence.

reply
Ann Den... to deadfie... 2012/02/03 00:06:29

+2
I agree with you that this is not amendment issue as some would like it to be.

reply
KingdomNow 2012/02/02 11:36:31

no

+1
The First Amendment does not apply.

reply
Ambassador II 2012/02/02 05:55:36

no

+1
Who cares? They also have the world's largest statue of Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox. So, why not another "larger than life" character?

reply
gregory.ditzler 2012/02/02 04:21:29

yes

+1
we should have a commission to regulate religion in this country.

reply
hisomouth to gregory... 2012/02/02 19:36:55

We could have them start by ording all the tree lovers symbols cut down. Things have gotten out of hand. If you do not like something don't look ----your rights end at the tip of your nose!

reply
Ozzyboy to gregory... 2012/02/09 17:22:50

We do now, it's called the White house.

reply
gregory... to Ozzyboy 2012/02/09 22:16:19

+1
if only that were true.

reply
Ozzyboy 2012/02/02 03:57:59

no

+1
I see the opportunity to practice tolerance.

reply