The suit is brought by Jeffrey Davis, of Swanton, who says the structure violates separation of church and state laws.
While Davis complained about the monument in the past, this time he filed a civil action lawsuit, dated April 29, in the U.S. District Court.
Civil action number 16CV689 lists the county's three commissioners as defendants.
More
24 comments:
Is it just me or would anyone else love to just slap the living hell our of those wackos? OUR laws are based on the 10 commandments you atheistic freaks. Get a life. Worry about abortion instead of a monument supported by 95% of the people.
would it help if they just called them the 10 suggestions ?
Athiests don't believe in anything so I don't believe in ATHIESTS.
How much taxpayer money will be wasted on this loser case? What a huge waste to pad some lawyers.
6:55 AM if you had any brains as I know you don't, just like the rest of America, you would know that evil is trying to prevail and how does evil prevail??? To turn everything good to bad and everything right upside down, which is why people can't seem to grasp why this stuff is goign on...
It is called evil, just evil and nothing more and nothing less... The only thing evil needs to win is for good people to do nothing and well you all are doing really good at not doing anything... And as Gandhi said, BE the change you wish to see... It is that simple for you simple minded....
No instead you want to let evil win and take over and just sit there complaining about it as if that will solve anything... You don't get something from nothing...
"..the structure violates separation of church and state laws.."
Exactly what "laws" are those?
There are NO laws that say that. Only opinions of 'offended' individuals and some court opinions that have no basis in actual law.
8:24-I think you've stumbled onto something.From now on I won't believe in them either.
If they don't want to see it,,,they don't have to look at it. This is wrong. I like the song "People Are Crazy". This proves it.
8:26 AM - Cretin.
athiests believe in themselves, they worship themselves...every one has 'a god', be it the Christian God or themselves as a god. leave the majority of people alone and get over yourselves. that monument is not hurting you in anyway.
Can't we sue to leave it stand? Does anyone know the answer?
Wow. The responses here make it glaringly clear that very few people know what atheism is, nor have they ever tried to understand anything other that parroting what they have heard others say.
Lets clear a few things up. Our laws are NOT based on the 10 commandments. In fact, it could be argued that it is just the opposite.
The first four of the ten commandments in fact are contradictory to the the establishment clause of the Constitution, be basis of and the starting point of our laws.
In fact, the only commandments that are found to be in law are in reference to murder and stealing. That's 2 out of 10. Also, these laws are common in almost EVERY culture and nation, so there is nothing special about pointing to the 10 commandments as a basis for these laws. In fact, murder and theft were illegal before the supposed time of the commandments, weren't they?
I'm not sure how one would argue that the American legal system is anchored in the 10 commandments, though I am open to hearing any arguments to the contrary though.
To clear things up a bit, being an Atheist only describes what you aren't, it doesn't describe what you are. Anyone positing anything else here is either misinformed, uneducated on the topic, or is lying which I'm sure in their religious perspective is a sin.
Atheist means not accepting the claims of your religion. That's it. It makes no other assertions, perspectives, or claims.
Example, if you don't believe in Islam, you are A-theist to the Muslim claims. This makes no other descriptors about you other than you don't accept Islamic claims.
People need to stop spreading misinformation and lies.
Put up the Koran, and no one will challenge it. Even Liberals are afraid to loose their heads.
If you do not like this country and cannot let us have our religion and history---------------LEAVE.
Sounds like a pretty simple fix to me. Sell that 10 square feet of land to a private person or entity. Done., move on.
Jesus Christ fulfilled those laws.
They are null and void.
He gave us a new commandment:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
How about the courts try that one on for size?
Courts need to stick with "Eye for an eye" way too many thugs getting off, SU anyone?
@3:48 PM
What a horribly Un-American thing to say.
Also, who is taking away your religion? Who is saying or trying to do that? Your religious liberty is protected via the Constitution, so no one can take your religion away.
Christians don't get special privilege. They are as equal as everyone else. I think you confuse persecution with not being allowed to force your religious perspective down everyone else's throat. Religious freedom is a right, being able to impose your religion on everyone else is not.
7:12.....substitute the word "gay" where you have used "religious".
What IS it with atheists? NO ONE is holding you down and waterboarding you with Jesus. You are NOT having anything "forced down your throat". No one is going to kidnap you and torture you into conversion. Not a single freedom guaranteed to you in the Constitution is being threatened. Lighten up.
Are you so soft and tender that you can find offense at anything and everything that has a religious connotation? A cross erected IN THE DESERT (!) offends you and requires you to file legal briefs? Statues and plaques that have been in place for decades are now so insulting that you just can't take your eyes away from the grotesque horror of being told to honor your mother and father, not steal, don't murder, etc.??
11:40....maybe he didn't mean to say "anchored in the Ten Commandments", but instead, "anchored in Christian religious beliefs". If you wish to argue otherwise, WHO is really being disingenuous?
Our country was founded by people who risked EVERYTHING for our freedom and asked GOD to protect and preserve them. Which he did. Only to see them ridiculed and persecuted by people who have never risked anything for anyone, unless one considers the risk of going blind by looking at a statue....
Conservative Atheist said..
@ Imclain
Well I guess it's about time you showed up. It may take a minute to unpack your usual false claims and straw man arguments, but I guess lets get to it.
Gays want the same rights as everyone else. They aren't asking for special rights, just the same. When there are people, arguably religious, who are spearheading laws and legal action to remove rights for no other reason than "my holy book says gays are icky", then there is a problem.
Gays wanting the same liberties, rights, and legal protections is not the same as Christians wanting to post their iconography on public property at the same time denying the iconography of other religious persuasions, or forcing people to sit through religious prayers. You are not arguing the same points or perspectives, hence, your argument fails.
You always come back to the straw man arguments of Atheists being "tender" or being so "offended". This has nothing to do with feelings or offense, and everything to do with what is allowed under the law. The bill of rights was written partially to ensure that a majority could not oppress a minority. Christians are 75% of this country now, and have been the majority for this nations history. They have enjoyed this privilege. When people stand up to support and enforce the law, i.e. the Establishment Clause, I can't possibly think how you could construe it the way you do.
To your point about "anchored in the Ten Commandments", that point was handily refuted, and as I see you haven't posted anything to the contrary I assume you agree, but I am open to hearing any discourse you have on the subject.
If one asserts our laws are "anchored in Christian religious beliefs" then they bear the burden of proof to that claim. I'm not sure how one could point our laws and legal system back to Christianity as it's basis, but I'm open to hearing that. One should keep in mind when doing this that correlation is not causation. I would be open to hearing you support this claim.
What's interesting, is your lack of historical knowledge on religious persecution. Turns out that this "risked everything" meant for their own religious persuasion, and not the protection of others.
At the time of the writing of our founding documents, the writers had to find a way to stop the in fighting between differing sects of Christianity in the states. Some areas had laws preventing certain people from holding office if they weren't a specific sect, down to out right bloodshed between sect thereof. The solution the founding document writers penned were 3 fold: Ensuring religious liberty to the individual via the 1st Amendment, the inclusion of the Establishment Clause, and the Religious Test Clause.
Also, the puritans who first came to this country are hardly what I would call "understanding" about any viewpoints contrary to their persuasion. I seem to recall them being particularly strict about religious doctrine and not being tolerant of any other faiths at all.
Imclain, or anyone really, I look forward to your reply.
12:49....Thanks for admitting that 3 of 4 people in the USA are Christians. The actual rate is a bit higher.
The "risked everything" people I referred to were the men and women who left their homes and families to stand up to the greatest military power on Earth and it WAS NOT for "religious freedom". They already had that. It was against the tyranny of a government that TAXED them without allowing a voice in their governance.
It was against the tyranny of a government that held them without charges, invaded and took their homes, and beat anyone who protested. And you say it's ME with a poor historical perspective and knowledge??? Really?
Read the words of Patrick Henry for some of what you call "historical perspective".
Or perhaps Madison and Jefferson, who wrote of a "supreme being" and asked for the "protection of God".
What about the punishments (still on the legal books, by the way, since you tried to say that only TWO of the 10 Commandments are reflected in law) for adultery?
The "establishment clause" you refer to is also used to bludgeon religion but is popularly misinterpreted (like you have) to mean there can be NO religious symbols or message anywhere on government property. Maybe someone should have told the architects and designers of our buildings, monument, and money.
Further, you are absolutely wrong about gays not wanting special rights.
They are, just as ALL citizens are, protected by the laws that apply to EVERYONE.
Having said THAT, explain the reasoning for "hate crimes" and the EXTRA punishment that goes along an assault that is accompanied by some homophobic comment? Looks an awful lot like "special rights" to me.
And yes, atheists are "tender", "sensitive" and easily offended. They LOOK for things to offend them. Entering a courthouse that has a tablet or engraving that counsels "thou shalt not murder" and "thou shalt not steal" is SO horrible that you might shrivel up and die?
It also DOES NOT "establish" a religion. It takes a bit more than a plaque to "establish" ANY religion. I don't think that if I put up a Buddhist statue on the courthouse grounds, it would "establish" Buddhism in the nation.
When did we get to the point, like you apparently are, that everything that offends YOU, in any way, MUST be the subject of lawsuits and punishment.
Looking the other way, saying "so what?" or just going on with your life is NEVER an option, is it?
You MUST make sure that no one is living in any way that might give you "offense".
That's tender and sensitive, son, in any language.
Conservative Atheist said...
Thank you for clarifying, and they did risk everything. It was about taxation, not religion, so what were you asserting in the first place? You asserted that a deity protected them, demonstrate this?
Founding fathers were mostly deist, and spoke as people did in that time. Madison and Jefferson were the staunchest supporters of the establishment clause.
Jefferson:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." 1802
John Adams:
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
Thomas Jefferson:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding...." 1823
Madison:
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" 1819
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" 1820
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" 1822
On Adultery, cite a law on the books that makes adultery illegal? I will concede and up my number to 3 out of 10 if you do.
There is Christian iconography on our buildings, monuments, and money. Christians have enjoyed a healthy majority and privilege and have been able to get away with it for years. The pledge and our money were a result of the 1950's red scare.
What is interesting is that when challenged in the courts, overwhelmingly they are found to be Unconstitutional. Not all,but most. A few:
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
I've all ready addressed your mistaken "gay" analogy and don't need to add any further, and have addressed your ad hominem insults & straw man arguments, so no need to bother with those again.
Insulting people is not very Christian, so how about we stop with that?
MD Code 10-501 .
You did not address my "gay" analogy.
Answer the question as to why an assault has a stronger punishment if one makes a homophobic comment while beating someone's brains out?
THAT is "special rights".
And, I noticed you conceded that "not all" cases of this nature are found to be un-Constitutional. What's the reason?
Lastly, you must also concede the fact that atheists just can't seem to let anything go. Anything.
A plaque or a cross - anywhere - sends you guys into spasms of pain.
Remember when some of your ilk tried to have a PRIVATE PROPERTY owner take down a cross he erected on HIS PROPERTY because it offended atheists who could see it from the highway?
And how about the atheists who wanted to put up a billboard saying the Bible was a long story of incest? You want to label THAT kind of aggressive as okay???
The list of highly offended atheists who can't wait to attack ANY manifestation of religion wherever they MAY encounter it is long.
Apparently, there is no middle ground for you guys.
Finally, I reiterate -- a plaque or a statue does not "establish" a religion. Any more than the LACK of religious displays "establish' atheism. However, I do like the exchange.
Back at ya.
Post a Comment