Contested Statue of Jesus

There was an article in the New York Times this morning that both annoyed and puzzled me.  The issue that the article was addressing was a six foot statue of Jesus along a ski run at the Whitefish Mountain Resort in Montana.  Technically, it sits on U.S. Forest Service property.  The ski resort itself is also on Forest Service property and leases the land for its own use.  So what is the issue?  According to a group of atheists, the statue represents the combination of church and state, a direct violation of constitutional rights as the statue sits on public land.  It doesn't matter to them that the statue has been there for over 50 years or that it was erected in honor of the soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division who fought in Italy during World War II.  There main beef is that it sits on public land and obviously poses as a risk to their consitutional rights.  So why is this being fought over so ardently now?  Mainly because the permit for the spot the statue sits on is up for renewal and they don't want the permit renewed.  As is the norm in this country now, both the atheists who want the statue removed and the supporters of the statue have secured legal council and have vowed to go to court over this issue.  It seems to me that these atheists have picked a relatively easy target for their "alleged" grievances and really aren't taking into account larger grievances that could be more directly tied to a violation of their consitutional rights.  But lets take a look for a minute at what exactly are their consitutional rights.  As it is and has been, the phrase "separation of church and state" appears no where in the Consitution or even in the Bill of Rights.  What the Bill of Rights does say, in the First Amendment is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  Taking a look at exactly what our Bill of Rights states, how is a statue either a) a law respecting an establishment of religion, or b) a prohibition against the free exercise of religion?  The atheists have perverted the true meaning of the First Amendment to suit their own needs and desires.  If they feel that a statue of Jesus threatens them in some way, their freedom, or their right not to believe in anything; then they have far more serious problems than this one statue represents. 

If the atheists truly want to battle over their perceived consitutional rights, then they should be going after much bigger fish.  Perhaps the biggest they should go after is our monetary system.  Why aren't they going to battle over the phrase "In God We Trust" which has appeared on all U.S. coins since 1864 and on paper currency since 1957?  It seems to me that this would be a much more wide spread grievance that they could battle since every person in the United States uses money.  Personally, I was not aware of this statue in Montana till this morning yet I knew that our currency contained the word "God" for years.  As it is, it is not a law that the phrase appears on our currency, yet it does and they haven't brought the fight to this arena.  I would think that this, a phrase that they as atheists would likely find fault with, would be a much bigger threat to their ideology than a statue on a mountain top.  Perhaps they don't have the guts to go after this phrase or perhaps they are simply content with seeing the demolition of a Statue of Jesus which, compared to the population of the United States, relatively few people will ever see.  Their fight, in my mind, is a pathetic attempt for recognition and if successful, will be a direct blow to our nation and what we stand for.  I am not simply speaking from the point of a Catholic, which I am, but as a citizen of the United States.  I believe in equal rights for everyone as afforded us by the Consitution and the Bill of Rights and abhor anyone who believes in perverting the wording of said documents to champion their own cause.

When you look at either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, the wording may be a bit archaic by our standards, but its messages are not.  These documents were intended to provide a framework by which our country operates, to limit the power of our government, and to protect the people and their rights.  To me the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights reads quite simply.  (I know I posted it a few days ago, but for the sake of the argument here, I will post it again.)   "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 statue of Jesus, in no way violates our First Amendment rights as gauranteed by our government.  To take this to court and to fight so ardently about it is ridiculous.  If the atheists find such fault in this statue, why not erect a statue of their own?  (Although what that statue would be of is beyond me).  If you really want to take issue with this, the atheists are pushing for a violation of our Constitution rights by forcing the hand of the courts to not allow this statue to remain where it is.  By getting the courts involved, they are in essence saying that they want a law enforced against an established religion and as such, the atheists should be prosecuted for attempting to get our government to enact laws against religion.  But enough is enough, let those who believe in God believe what they will, and those who don't, don't.  A statue is not a law either for or against religion and as such, this issue should be dropped.