Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Atheist wants Jesus statue removed from ski resort

Details

  • Description

    Carrie Hackett and Doug Burns break down the legal argument

  • Duration 4:14
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Latest News

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

If -- -- -- right to go forward with court case.

To remove a statue of Jesus nearest ski resort in Montana Wisconsin based freedom from religion foundation originally.

And did not name anyone who could be harmed by the statue.

On federal land so they were in danger of having their -- thrown out of the foundation and proceed with William Cox who lives fifteen miles from the resort.

And that was good enough for the US district judge to deny a request by the Knights of Columbus to have the case dismissed and so you know.

What's the likelihood that atheists actually win this is on federal land it's close to it it's close to -- the ski resort doesn't have.

Then there's this was here is whether there is via web -- -- sort of fox website has the story.

There's a ski resort make a difference here is it just because on federal land.

-- see the way you just explained it sets up my explanation which is that the case.

And I looked at just the nine page opinion this is that what we lawyers -- -- standing issue in other words of our group -- -- it says.

We object to the statue there are rules of standing under the constitution you need a real case or controversy yeah somebody who is specifically affected so they stepped forward with this man William Cox.

And he said I go skiing pass this monument.

It therefore bothers me so the judge said as you just explain part -- it.

That's enough to get the case forward but your second questions about -- one that doesn't necessarily equate.

To the fact that they're going to be successful on the merits of the case so it's worth having lawyers myself and -- explain this is a procedural ruling.

Saying.

Somebody is potentially harmful but we're not saying that he was we're gonna -- -- that now.

All right -- one very.

I I completely agree this is a standing issue and they from the judges didn't judge found that there was standing there as long as some person a particular person.

Had issue with this monument the statute.

In this particular case I think that this is an interesting one because it is in fact AG says.

-- statue that is on federal lands.

And there is an establishment clause in the First Amendment that says that the government can't predict -- or endorse any one particular religion.

I think in this case it's going to be interesting to see.

Whether the -- whether the Knights of Columbus can come up width.

Other feasible reasons that best Jesus statue is on this mountain I think that if they can show that there is some other historical significance here.

Or there's some other reason that the -- on the mountain there's a good shots and that the statue will be able they continue to remain awareness that this is.

There's a legitimate hobby desert cross in the -- exact -- on federal land at -- this has put up by World War II veterans yet.

And it's it's a 57 year old -- maintained by the Knights of Columbus it's on federal land.

Right what it what Karrie was saying is.

If you can show that this is secular purpose that sort of the test on the law.

You know exactly at the outset when it was put there was there -- secular purpose then it will probably withstand constitutional.

Attacked the other formulation legally is does it excessively entangle the government religion that's really -- stretch on this background and particularly if it's been there she says for a very long.

So it's not visitors saying no other religion can have a voice on this place it's just that -- -- this is business group of people that put this happen.

Somebody has offended and are we getting the point where now are legislating about a offensively.

-- -- ends may your points better yeah a very good point we're seeing a lot of cases about this now.

And it's starting to really and the other case you mentioned I think is the one recovered a while back where it was actually they made him cover up in and the shots.

I had and the fact -- that they had been there for something like eighty years.

And and there was it was actually actually because it was an end run they tried to have -- bought privately none of that day and we don't try to get it and there was an injunction exactly and there was an injunction but again your observation and your question is are these cases may be going a little too far as the society's more and more litigious I think.

Possibly can and I can I couldn't legalize your offense yes yeah all right I want to thank you very much Doug burns and carry -- get for being here on the legal faith panel kinda like -- And I -- thank you.

Load More