Atheist sues to get back public money for cross
An atheist is suing to force the administrators of a towering cross in southern Illinois to return a $20,000 state grant toward its restoration, saying Thursday it was "blatantly unconstitutional" to spend taxpayer money on a Christian symbol, the Associated Press reports.
Caretakers of the 11-story Bald Knob Cross of Peace near Alto Pass, Ill., some 130 miles southeast of St. Louis, insist the grant was legally awarded to the 50-year-old landmark in mid-2008 by classifying it as a tourist attraction, not a religious symbol.
Rob Sherman disagrees, pressing in his federal lawsuit in Springfield, Ill., that the grant violates the U.S. Constitution's establishment clause used to argue a separation of church and state.
"There has never been any question, outside of southern Illinois, that this state grant is blatantly unconstitutional," said Sherman, who successfully sued to have an Illinois law requiring a daily "moment of silence" in Illinois public schools overturned.
"The job of atheists is to take clergy to court to challenge the epidemic of civil wrongs that they have perpetrated, on the sneak, against the people of Illinois," Sherman said on his website. "It's a big job, but somebody's gotta do it."
In his lawsuit filed Thursday, Chicago-based Sherman asks a judge to compel the caretakers of the cash-strapped cross to return the money or face what he pledged would be a drawn-out, expensive legal tangle.
Steve McKeown, a pastor and administrator of the cross, said he was confident Sherman would not win. He said Bald Knob drew roughly 1,000 visitors last weekend, underscoring its sway as a tourist draw.
"What Mr. Sherman fails to recognize is there's a long-standing precedent for the fact the just because an organization may have a sectarian purpose, it does not exempt them automatically from receiving tax dollars," McKeown said.
"What Mr. Sherman wants is a United States that's free from religion," McKeown said. "Our founding fathers never meant that to be the case."
The lawsuit's defendants include Gov. Pat Quinn and his predecessor, Rod Blagojevich, who is awaiting the verdict ini his trial on federal corruption charges. Also cited are the current and previous heads of Illinois' Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, which awarded the grant to Friends of the Cross, the landmark's fundraising arm.
The cross — built in large measure with area farmers' profits from selling pigs — has been a fixture on the 1,025-foot-high Bald Knob Mountain for a half century, standing sentry over forests and much of the region's orchards and burgeoning wine country. Easter services have been held on the mountain since 1937.
Over the decades, the cross and its porcelain tiles fell into disrepair, prompting its caretakers' feverish bid to raise funds for the half-million-dollar restoration expected to be completed within months.
Sherman's lawsuit claims that under the state's 2008 contract with the cross' fundraising group, the portion of the restoration work to be covered by the grant was to be finished by last April. Sherman says that work continues.
According to the lawsuit, the rehabbing effort "has the primary effect of advancing a particular religious sect, namely Christianity," with taxpayer funding causing "an excessive entanglement between (the state) and the Christian religion."
Friends of the Cross has maintained the grant has been spent long ago, though Sherman counters that the $20,000 remains in a certificate of deposit readily returnable to the state.
"Nobody's hiding any money anywhere," McKeown said.
No hearing date was immediately set.
Comments
Guess this could open the door to public funding of a mosque in Manhattan.
Posted by: Camille Quelquejeu | August 13, 2010 2:07 PM
Camille - The taxes they don't pay are an unconstitutional subsidy force on the rest of us to pay, by the government, in violation of the Separation Principle of the Establishment Clause of The Constitution.
Posted by: Robert Littel | August 13, 2010 5:17 PM
So Bobbles, would you likewise agree that Texas should return The Alamo to the Catholic Church and get the $20,000 they paid for it back?
Posted by: Dana LaRocca | August 14, 2010 1:21 AM
Dana - As long as you are bringing up something that isn't germane to to the question, I think the government of The Republic of Texas probably should have confiscated it for non-payment of taxes.
Posted by: Robert Littel | August 14, 2010 9:24 PM
The State of Texas purchased the Alamo in 1883, the “Republic of Texas” ended in 1848. At any rate the property wasn't taxable, so your point is just plain silly.
If it had been taxable the1883 maximum property tax rate rate was set at 20 cents per $100 valuation. That would be a maximum of 40 dollars. There was no income tax. Sounds like a fair deal Bobbles.
Posted by: Dana LaRocca | August 15, 2010 12:40 AM
Dana - The purchase of The Alamo would have been a moot point IF the Republic of Texas (1836-1845) had seized it, if not as a tax delinquent property, but as a national historical site.
Posted by: Robert Littel | August 15, 2010 11:16 AM
During most of the days of the Republic of Texas the Alamo was used almost exclusively by the military. It wasn't until 1841 that the Republic of Texas passed an act returning the Alamo to the Church. It was an abandoned building however, and it was soon once again used to garrison troops during the Mexican-American War shortly after Texas became a State. In 1855 the Texas Supreme Court returned the Alamo to the Church.
I should add that the Supreme Court decision not only returned the Alamo to the Church, but returned it expressly for the purpose of religion and for perpetuity. (San Antonio v Odin)
Posted by: Dana LaRocca | August 15, 2010 1:07 PM
Dana - You will never convince Robert regardless of how much evidence you present. He's too dug into the misconception that tax exemptions for nonprofits which happen to be affiliated with religion are unconstitutional.
Posted by: ravensfan | August 16, 2010 1:04 PM
ravensfan - Any non-profit that is religiously affiliated still should not get any special favor from government, that the rest of us have to make up by paying for it. Religion is a con, a fraud, and an intellectual dead end.
Posted by: Robert Littel | August 20, 2010 7:37 PM
Taxation would be prohibiting free exercise. You are paying for government with your taxes, not religion. If religion paid taxes it would be participating in the work of government. That would throw the concept of separation out the window.
You still have to pay for the Alamo though. The atheist who is suing Illinois is going to waste a lot more taxpayer dollars than the twenty thousand dollars the state is paying to restore this tourist attraction.
Posted by: Dana | August 21, 2010 3:04 PM
Robert – What you don’t seem to, or want to, understand is that that is nothing more than your opinion. As such it is completely meaningless to anyone except perhaps others who believe as you. You can not prove anything in that rant of yours. Before you respond with your usual proof challenge keep in mind I didn’t make any positive assertions here you did that puts the burden on you by your own rules. Also keep in mind logically lack of proof doesn’t disprove something just as lack of disproof proves it. Finally to be a fraud you would need to show not only that religion is false, but those who lead know it. Since you can’t prove any of it or even provide a logical argument for it all that can be done is to dismiss it as another of your illogical angry attacks.
Dana – You are wasting your time Robert only sees the constitution the way he wants. He would be quite fins stripping out the clauses that keep the government from eliminating all religion.
Posted by: ravensfan | August 23, 2010 1:26 PM
"Any non-profit that is religiously affiliated still should not get any special favor from government,"
If I were to use your logic then why should any nonprofit get special favor from the government? Wouldn't the rest of us have to make for them as well? Besides your own dislike of religion and personal belief it is a fraud is there any other reason to single them out?
Posted by: rino | August 23, 2010 1:49 PM
Ravensfan, thanks so much for the caveat, but I understand fully that Robert is beyond hope. I have a quite selfish motive. I have recently engaged myself in some quasi-political activity that requires me to smile and play nice among stubborn and poorly informed people.
This is practice. I'm not kidding.
Some years back I had to overcome my fear of the microphone in order to do some public speaking. I practiced by calling all of the right wing talk show hosts on WCBM and espousing far left opinions. Within weeks I had lost the tremor in my voice when I knew the response would be negative.
This is similar therapy.
Posted by: Dana LaRocca | August 23, 2010 5:03 PM
Dana - Good luck with your activity. I know we don't always see things the same, but I respect your knowledge of the topics you discuss as well as your passion for what you believe. I've heard a few of those shows and although I tend to lean to the right I find those shows way to far to the extreme right for me.
Posted by: ravensfan | August 23, 2010 6:12 PM
rino - Yes, the Separation Principle of the Establishment Clause of The Constitution of The United States of America. Non -religious non-profits can be exempt, but organizations whose major concern is spreading the infection of delusional god concepts cannot. Such an action is aiding and abetting in the establishment of religion, not the job of government and specifically proscribed by the Establishment Clause.
Posted by: Robert Littel | August 25, 2010 2:20 PM
No Bobbles that wasn't in the Constitution. That's in the Declaration of Independence silly:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's Delusional God Concepts entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Delusional God Concepts with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-...”
Heck, look at that, it's on my money too!
In Delusional God Concepts We Trust
Thanks for the laugh. I've been typing something serious all day and you brightened it up.
Delusional God Concept bless you!
Posted by: Dana | August 25, 2010 2:42 PM
Littel- You have a warped interpretation of the Establishment Clause. It’s tainted by your own personal views of religion. It clouds your objectivity. Not taking money from an organization does not equate to providing assistance or aiding in any way. Your interpretation would violate the “Free Exercise Clause” Another point you may want to consider is that just because you don’t believe something does not make it delusional.
Posted by: rino | August 25, 2010 4:32 PM