In 1953 the Knights of Columbus of Whitefish Montana wanted to dedicate a memorial to WWII veterans. Their idea was to erect a statue on the well-known mountain that has become a mecca for downhill skiers. That statue, The Big Mountain Jesus, actually isn't as well-known as the mountain itself, until just recently when a atheist group from Wisconsin was informed about the statue and that it violates the separation of church and state. I'll return to that argument in a moment, but first let's look at another iconic statue in Montana that sits on U.S. National Forest land: Our Lady of the Rockies.
This statue sits in the Butte Ranger District of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and to visit the statue you have to drive through the Jefferson Ranger District as well. The website for the statue states that it was "built in the likeness of Mary, Mother of Jesus." That is obvious, but what isn't obvious is the intention of the statue to be "entirely nondenominational and was dedicate to[sic] by workers to woman[sic] everywhere, especially mothers." I suppose the Cristo Redentor in Rio de Janeiro is nondenominational too or the Star of David on the Israeli flag doesn't mean only a Jewish culture. I'm not advocating the removal of Our Lady of the Rockies from Federal land, nor am I advocating that Big Mountain Jesus's intentions be played down as a nondenominational icon.
Enter Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Madison Wisconsin group Freedom From Religion Foundation. Gaylor is advocating removal of the Big Mountain Jesus (BMJ) who, according to the Associated Press, says; "This has huge meaning for Americans. And if you aren't religious it has huge meaning as well. If skiers think it is cute, then put it up on private property. It is not cute to have a state religious association." Her advocacy is, in and of itself, dogma and is no different than religious dogma. Gaylor looks to force her will to have a symbol removed from public land leased by private industry. What's interesting about this group from Wisconsin is that they are worlds apart from Montana in the fact that Wisconsin land is 94.4% privately owned and 5.6% Federally owned whereas Montana land is 70.1% privately owned and a whopping 29.9% Federally owned. So the people of this country own more of Montana than they do of Wisconsin. Yet, here we have a group telling people to go put these symbols on private land and not just on land leased by private industry. That can be done, but looking at Wisconsin vs. Montana, it can be done more easily in Wisconsin with more private land.
Statistics is always a strawman argument so let's look at what the Bill of Rights says about religion and government:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The whole first amendment is pretty powerful. It covers a wide area of rights all related to our right to organically dictate our culture without interference from the Federal Government. Interference from the government would be considered social engineering and is not organic nor democratic.
When I was in high school there was a statute that afforded students exemption from major tests, homework and essays from being due on Thursdays because most churches held services on Wednesday nights. This springs from the McGowan v. Maryland case that challenged the Sunday Closing Laws. The Supreme Court rejected the Establishment Clause challenge by claiming that our culture surrounding a day off is secular and establishing that day as Sunday is just an easy standardization that also takes into account "the dominant Christian sects." Here's where today's secularists get hung up: "make no law respecting the establishment", they paraphrase it differently or perhaps literally; they will not allow congress or the state to respect the establishment of religion. However, "respecting" and "respect" are two different connotations.
We need to return to Freedom from Religion Foundation's argument about BMJ. They claim it is a "ruse and a sham" to consider the statue a historic marker. Gaylor told the Associated Press; "This has been an illegal display. The lease should have never happened. 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." I'm going to inject my own personal impression here and say that as I read this woman's comments I hear a lot of anger and hatred for this symbol and not any consideration or respect for others who have a love and adoration for this symbol. It is that dogma that has her secular views treading in, or on (pun intended), the same waters as her argument is directed against. The thing is, her symbol is "nothing" and cannot offend anyone, yet her actions offend many and are just as abrasive to the locals as the symbol of BMJ's image, supposedly, is to her. My question to her would not be "why does this offend you" it would be "how can you disrespect what this symbolizes". It seems to me, if she had some twisted amendment in the Bill of Rights to back her up, she'd have St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City torn down or even the Cathedral of St. Helena in Montana's capital city demolished and removed from her view so as to not offend her and other atheists worldwide. The Crusades were pious people going after heretics, Gaylor's movement seems to be secularists going after organic culture (locals devoted to the symbol of BMJ). Equal freedoms doesn't mean equal atrocities and no where in the constitution are her views supported. However, congress or the state shall make no laws respecting her dogma and establishment of her views as well. Paradoxically if read the way secularists interpret the amendment, it doesn't respect her views. So who's inalienable right is being infringed? The private business on leased public land respecting the symbol erected in memorial of WWII veterans or the private secularist foundation that has no respect for the symbol?
Former state legislator and Montana secretary of state, Bob Brown sums it up pretty well:
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? We are accustomed to it. It is part of our tradition here. So we are thinking, 'why does anyone want to tear that down.'
They won't leave us alone because they don't respect us and our traditional norms, Bob, and those norms are seen as vile and offensive in other cultures like those in Wisconsin. This isn't about secularism, really, it is about standardizing and equalizing an engineered society. Most places call that egalitarianism, I call it totalitarianism. The first amendment protects us from totalitarianism and state-engineered society, so Foundations such as Freedom From Religion dictate to us how our culture should be formed. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are the perfect solution to that social engineering. These foundations and organizations will force their ideals upon us saying that it isn't cute to use symbols of organized religion all the while using the Constitution to back them up. How can they not see the hypocrisy in that? Let the organization of religion force their views on the atheists and see how ugly the battle gets. The sleight of hand with these foundations must be exposed. These atheists are hiding behind the constitution as they see it interpreted but don't see that it protects others from what they are trying to do. The "free expression" of Big Mountain Jesus is protected. If it offends you, don't ski there. If you can't respect Big Mountain's tradition in honoring WWII veterans, maybe they should have you removed.
This is why I don't advocate Our Lady of the Rockies to be removed nor Big Mountain Jesus's intentions to be changed to a nondenominational icon. Both actions are absurd and ridiculous, because I am just one person. Freedom is Freedom. Liberty is Liberty. If the majority in our society see fit that our culture no longer shall use religious symbols, then the society has organically shifted away from these symbols, regardless of their location. If the majority start to see that statues of the Virgin Mary or Jesus are nondenominational, than culture has organically moved away from seeing them as religious symbols. But, to have a small group of atheists impose their culture on the whole of the society is not organic. They may have found a way to get around the Constitution's prohibition of governmental social engineering, but that doesn't mean that the Constitution gives them free reign to socially manipulate our "free expression". The 1st Amendment is worded very well to protect us not only from the Federal Government, but also from small organizations that fall just outside of that purview as well. If Gaylor ran for President, she'd lose all of the power she thinks she has. Using the courts and the Constitution to make laws respecting an establishment of religion is prohibited and negates her entire argument regardless if she is part of an NGO or a government official. Trying to use the system to negate itself is paradoxical and is like trying to build a bottle around the water rather than putting the water into the bottle. If you're prohibited from putting the water into the bottle, than you don't have bottled water,,,period. Okay, that's a weak analogy for such a convoluted issue. No one can take the position of the state to make a law respecting an establishment of religion, not even Gaylor and her Foundation of atheists. However, she has a concentrated group of people who advocate a belief, therefore they have their own "religion" that is protected also from the state and no one can take the position to make a law respecting that. They can't be prohibited by law and they can not use the that same right to prohibit others. That's the paradox. So why do they think they have the power to do just that? More pointedly; How have they been able to form a foundation with the sole purpose of Freedom From Religion? Here's an extension of that paradox. They are manipulating more and more people to advocate their ideas and are growing in numbers to become the majority so that they can claim that this movement, this cultural shift, is organic. The manipulation negates the definition of an organic movement. On top of that, people are free from religion already if they so choose. The advocacy proves that they don't want freedom from religion, emancipation from dogma, they want to erase religion because they think it is best for everyone and they have no respect for your cares, wishes and culture.
As of the writing of this blog on Monday the 24th of October, 2011, there is one article written on Sunday the 23rd that states in its subtitle: "U.S. Forest Service Reverses Decision to Remove Montana Statue" It will be opened for public discussion. The respect of the people comes first. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
No comments:
Post a Comment