In California (where else?), the Mt. Shasta Ski Resort, per the wishes of the owners, plans to erect a statue of the Virgin Mary. As predictably as the sunrise, the usual suspects voiced their outrage.

"Virgin Mary at a ski resort makes no sense, keep religion out of skiing," one critic wrote, echoing the complaints of multiple others.

"As a lifelong skier of this park and mountain that holds a dear place in so many peoples' hearts, I am severely disappointed by the choice to erect a giant statue of the Virgin Mary…" another said. "Shame on you Mt. Shasta Ski Park for desecrating this beautiful, powerful & spiritual place…"

A third capitalized on concerns that the move disrespects the area's history imbued in Native American culture.

"Are you kidding?" they wrote, adding in part, "Given the deep Native American history to that area and the long mysterious Lemurian beliefs, it would be a shame to add this statue!!"

The resort replied that the statue was a long-standing goal of Robin Merlo and her late husband Ray. Ray passed away in 2020 but Mrs. Merlo is still invested in her late husband's wishes; a statement released by the park's management stated:

"In the words of Robin Merlo, This statue is a promise fulfilled and a true representation of the dedication to family that we all value so much here at the Ski Park," the post read. "The goal is not to focus on any one religion but to acknowledge and honor the beauty and spiritual power of the mountain we all love so much."

Personally, were I involved in this, my reply would have been, "It's private property. If you don't like it, ski elsewhere." But then, my cranky and curmudgeonly nature is well known.

Still, this is the best response. Oh, sure, the people who are complaining have First Amendment rights as well and are free to whinge about the proposed statue. They are also free to take their business elsewhere. The park is evidently run by a private corporation, and while they have use permits from the Forest Service for the use of some federal land, if the statue is placed on private land, there is no reason for the government to intervene. The statue is to be placed on Douglas Butte on Mt. Shasta, which appears to be within the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, but the entire resort appears to be within those bounds and most of the National Forest system includes enclosures of private property.

The resort has not mentioned any plans to reverse course on the statue.

The project itself is expected to be completed at the top of Douglas Butte on Mt. Shasta next summer, with the platform visible this season.

Wikipedia has this to say about the ownership of Douglas Butte and the resort as a whole:

The ski area is located entirely on 2 sq mi (5.2 km²) double section inholding of private land within the checkerboard pattern of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, and road access is via Forest Route 88 across national forest land.

This case is interesting, as it comes at a time when a certain satanic incident in the Iowa state capitol is being hotly debated. Churches are, for who knows what reason, often the targets of ire, even by climate nuts; I'm at a loss to understand what the Catholic Church's carbon footprint is, but climate crazies are certainly exercised about it.

Here's the thing a lot of folks have a hard time understanding: The First Amendment applies to everyone. The right to free exercise of religion certainly includes placing a religious statue on private property - assuming that this is private property. It also allows the people who don't like it to complain about it. But complaining is all they can do, aside from not patronizing Mr. Shasta Ski Park.

Speaking as a guy with no dog in this religious fight but also as a staunch First Amendment advocate, I hope the Mt. Shasta Ski Resort holds fast.