Support the Café
Search our site

Catholics aim to keep Jesus on Big Mountain

Catholics aim to keep Jesus on Big Mountain

As Catholic Bishops in the U.S. plot public relations strategy to improve their public image, I suggest they throw in with the Knights of Columbus in Montana, who are working to make sure a statue of Jesus Christ stays where it is on Forest Service land on Big Mountain.


The statue of Jesus has been a popular fixture on the mountain since 1954, when it was erected as a memorial to the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division. Earlier this year a national organization of agnostics and atheists sued the U.S. government over placement of this statue, and a federal judge has just ruled that the Knights can intervene in the case.

The Knights of Columbus can intervene to fend off a lawsuit over a statue of Jesus at a war memorial on federal land, a Montana federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen in Missoula, Mont., said that the Catholic service group has a protectable interest in the lawsuit since it holds a special use permit for the statue.

“Should the plaintiff obtain the relief it seeks, the resulting removal of the statute from federal land would constitute a serious impairment of the ability of the Knights of Columbus to protect their interest in the special use permit,” Christensen wrote. “This matter has not been set for trial and no pretrial schedule is yet in place; thus, the application to intervene is timely.”

I do know from having skied at Big Mountain that a lot of folks in Montana dig the Jesus statue, which seems to be as much a piece of public art as it is a religious symbol.

Dislike (0)
0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

10 Comments
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lionel Deimel

Like much of the Constitution, the establishment clause is imprecise and subject to interpretation. Making The Episcopal Church, say, an established church would be clearly unconstitutional. The courts have generally held that favoring one church over others or favoring religious people over non-religious people is likewise unconstitutional. The effect in particular instances is effectively the same as if one religion were, in fact, established. The statue in question is pretty aggressively Christian.

The argument that others are free to put up their own statues representing other religions is wrongheaded for two reasons. First, a Buddhist statue next to the statue supposedly celebrating the Tenth Mountain Division simply makes no sense. Second, creating situations in which non-favored religions are forced to spend money to prevent another religion from having a favored status on public land is fundamentally unfair.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Chris H.

Lionel, I do not see where the Constitution clearly states that religion must be invisible in public areas as long as one is not protected or condemned more than the rest. The gov't hasn't thought the statue was breaking the law for 60 years.

No one said whether we should destroy the sacred circles and paintings hereabouts. It's still public land. Interesting that Christians can find the statue so offensive. I presume you've all written your mayor to demand the city cease all public Christmas nativities/displays, carols, and angels, religious motifs and prayers on war memorials, battlefields, paintings in parks,courthouses, etc.

JCF, being a minority doesn't always make one automatically right or give the right to trample on the majority, anymore than being in the majority does. There can be abuses in both directions.

Chris Harwood

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
RonF

The phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. It's most famous early example in American history is from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut who objected to having taxes pay for a Congregational parish. Congregationalism was the established religion in Connecticut. It received direct state support, whereas no other religion did.

Permitting a private party to use public land to set up a statue is not an establishment of religion so long as other religions are permitted the same privilege - which means that they have to get the money together to pay for such a statue (it was not built with public funds).

The Founders wanted to ensure that we wouldn't have one religion become part of the State, such as in England where the 26 most senior Bishops of the Church of England sit in the House of Lords and where (at that time) the State persecuted members of other religions. But the Founders NEVER intended - and thought it would be ill advised - for the State to support religion overall. As long as the State doesn't grant privileges that it isn't willing to grant to others, it is not in violation of the First Amendment.

[Editor's note: Thanks for the comment. Please sign your name.]

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
tgflux

I do know from having skied at Big Mountain that a lot of folks in Montana dig the Jesus statue, which seems to be as much a piece of public art as it is a religious symbol.

Yup, majorities generally dig majority privilege (and can't understand why anyone would see them AS a privileged majority, as opposed to the entire "public". And, when this is pointed out, often whine about it, AS IF they were the victims).

Which is why we need Constitutional RIGHTS (e.g. the First Amendment's separation of Church&State), to protect minorities from everything a majority may happen to dig.

Being of a catholic temperament, I often love statues of Jesus . . . IN CHURCH (or in my home) where they belong.

JC Fisher

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Lionel Deimel

It sounds like the statue is a clear violation of the separation of church and state, a principle that serves both church and state.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_001

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café