Posted on Mar 16, 2016
Giant Texas cross sparks atheist lawsuit (and you won't believe why) | Fox News
2.32K
19
11
8
8
0
I was intrigued by the title and amused that the atheist who wants to stop the giant cross being built at Corpus Christi, Texas is offended because the sign is tacky. Since the name of the city literally means “Body of Christ” I expect "lifelong atheist Patrick Greene" needed to be creative about how he approached this issue.
"The 230-foot tall cross is being erected on property owned by Abundant Life Fellowship – paid for by donations.
Pastor Rick Milby said it will be the largest cross in the western hemisphere. So tall, in fact, that the church was required to install a lighted beacon on the top.
Mr. Greene said the cross is a safety hazard and said it should not be seen from the highway.
“I don’t think it should be within eyesight because it jeopardizes people’s safety on the road,” he said.
So the San Antonio atheist filed a lawsuit.
But Mr. Greene did not file a lawsuit because he believes the cross is tacky. Nor did he file a lawsuit because of potential safety hazards.
He filed a lawsuit because the mayor and other city leaders attended a groundbreaking ceremony for the cross.
“When I saw the mayor in her official position and the council in their official positions were attending a groundbreaking ceremony for a Christian symbol – that smacked right in the face of the Constitution of the state of Texas,” he said.
And he also sued Preacher Milby.
He was accused of violating the law by inviting the mayor and the council members to the groundbreaking, the Caller-Times reports.
“It’s ridiculous,” the pastor told me. “He’s attacking my rights and the rights of the mayor. The groundbreaking was on a Sunday and these are Christians and they have a right to their faith.”
Think about that for a moment -- the atheist sued a preacher for building a cross on church property in a city named Body of Christ.
“It’s shocking to me that we’ve gotten to a point in society where we have atheists suing pastors for crosses erected on church property,” attorney Jeremy Dys told me.
Dys is with First Liberty, a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases.
Milby has since been dropped from the lawsuit. However, the mayor and council members are still facing litigation.
“No matter what belief you have, this is the name of our city and it was my constitutional right to attend, and I will never regret being there for this wonderful moment,” Mayor Nelda Martinez told the Caller-Times.
Mr. Greene said he had no problem with the mayor attending the ceremony as a private citizen. But attending in her official capacity was a violation of her oath of office.
Attorney Dys called that a load of hooey.
“You can’t ban people from going to a church,” he said. “This guy is trying to use the legal system to ban city council people from attending any type of church service. To get the court to admonish them for daring to go to a church service is just wrong.”
I reminded Mr. Greene that the church was building the cross on property they owned with money they collected. So what right did he have to tell them what they could or could not build?
“Church property or not, the reverend showed incredibly poor judgment in putting it where everybody can see it – just because he wants to proselytize his faith and get coverts,” he said.
It’s true there are plenty of signs along Interstate 37. So I don’t see the harm in adding one more – especially a sign that provides directions to the highway to Heaven."
"The 230-foot tall cross is being erected on property owned by Abundant Life Fellowship – paid for by donations.
Pastor Rick Milby said it will be the largest cross in the western hemisphere. So tall, in fact, that the church was required to install a lighted beacon on the top.
Mr. Greene said the cross is a safety hazard and said it should not be seen from the highway.
“I don’t think it should be within eyesight because it jeopardizes people’s safety on the road,” he said.
So the San Antonio atheist filed a lawsuit.
But Mr. Greene did not file a lawsuit because he believes the cross is tacky. Nor did he file a lawsuit because of potential safety hazards.
He filed a lawsuit because the mayor and other city leaders attended a groundbreaking ceremony for the cross.
“When I saw the mayor in her official position and the council in their official positions were attending a groundbreaking ceremony for a Christian symbol – that smacked right in the face of the Constitution of the state of Texas,” he said.
And he also sued Preacher Milby.
He was accused of violating the law by inviting the mayor and the council members to the groundbreaking, the Caller-Times reports.
“It’s ridiculous,” the pastor told me. “He’s attacking my rights and the rights of the mayor. The groundbreaking was on a Sunday and these are Christians and they have a right to their faith.”
Think about that for a moment -- the atheist sued a preacher for building a cross on church property in a city named Body of Christ.
“It’s shocking to me that we’ve gotten to a point in society where we have atheists suing pastors for crosses erected on church property,” attorney Jeremy Dys told me.
Dys is with First Liberty, a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases.
Milby has since been dropped from the lawsuit. However, the mayor and council members are still facing litigation.
“No matter what belief you have, this is the name of our city and it was my constitutional right to attend, and I will never regret being there for this wonderful moment,” Mayor Nelda Martinez told the Caller-Times.
Mr. Greene said he had no problem with the mayor attending the ceremony as a private citizen. But attending in her official capacity was a violation of her oath of office.
Attorney Dys called that a load of hooey.
“You can’t ban people from going to a church,” he said. “This guy is trying to use the legal system to ban city council people from attending any type of church service. To get the court to admonish them for daring to go to a church service is just wrong.”
I reminded Mr. Greene that the church was building the cross on property they owned with money they collected. So what right did he have to tell them what they could or could not build?
“Church property or not, the reverend showed incredibly poor judgment in putting it where everybody can see it – just because he wants to proselytize his faith and get coverts,” he said.
It’s true there are plenty of signs along Interstate 37. So I don’t see the harm in adding one more – especially a sign that provides directions to the highway to Heaven."
Giant Texas cross sparks atheist lawsuit (and you won't believe why) | Fox News
Posted from foxnews.com
Fox News Channel
Faith
Jesus
Christianity
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
Yeah, that's a ridiculous reason for a suit. I am sure there are building codes and safety rules that were followed before this project was given the greenlight. Plus, it is on private property so I think this is how he had to go about it to get a suit to actually go forward.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
From Texas Bill of Rights: Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship.
From American Bill of Rights: Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
From the perspective of the Texas BoR nothing was infringed upon. They aren't trying to control people's thoughts or opinions on religion, and they aren't showing a legal preference to any religion. The mayor and some council members simply decided they wanted to be there, maybe they are part of the Church that's doing this anyway and by expecting them to not be there to support and practice their freedom of beliefs the "atheist" in question is infringing on their rights. Only if they were doing this on government time/money would I see it being an issue.
And from the perspective of the American BoR still nothing was infringed upon. All too often people try to use the lame excuse that building a monument or having a statue or anything else is "Unconstitutional" when it's not. Congress is in no way making a law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting exercise of religion.
People need to stop bitching and moaning about such petty issues like this. There's far more important things to worry about. A church building a Cross doesn't mean that the government is trying to push Christianity on everyone.
From American Bill of Rights: Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
From the perspective of the Texas BoR nothing was infringed upon. They aren't trying to control people's thoughts or opinions on religion, and they aren't showing a legal preference to any religion. The mayor and some council members simply decided they wanted to be there, maybe they are part of the Church that's doing this anyway and by expecting them to not be there to support and practice their freedom of beliefs the "atheist" in question is infringing on their rights. Only if they were doing this on government time/money would I see it being an issue.
And from the perspective of the American BoR still nothing was infringed upon. All too often people try to use the lame excuse that building a monument or having a statue or anything else is "Unconstitutional" when it's not. Congress is in no way making a law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting exercise of religion.
People need to stop bitching and moaning about such petty issues like this. There's far more important things to worry about. A church building a Cross doesn't mean that the government is trying to push Christianity on everyone.
(2)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
SrA Matthew Knight the only way, and this is a stretch, is that if the government officials used government vehicles, then his tax dollars were used for religious purposes, and that infringes on his right not to have religion. Like I said, it is a stretch, but this is America, anyone can sue for anything. See ya in court!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
LTC Stephen F. used to live in Las Cruces NM. It is actually (this is about to be butchered) La Ciuded De Las Tres Cruces. City of the the three crosses referring of course to Jesus hanging around on the cross. There is a monument in the city that is just that it is two crosses of equal height set lower and behind a third larger cross in the fore front. It sits on city property. Had someone said that the city needed to take it down because of the religious implications, I would have said that person needed to be spayed or neutered so as not to pollute the Human Gene Pool. This guy is not suing because it is tacky (though a cross big enough to be seen from low orbit does seem tacky to me). He is not suing because he is an atheist, and it is a Christian Symbol. He is not suing because the mayor and city council of Body of Christ showed up to the ground breaking for a cross. He is suing because he is butt hurt that atheists don't have anything to stand for so he couldn't even invite the mayor to ground breaking for his Atheist symbol. Pure and simple he wants attention, he saw a way to get attention, and he went for it. Guess what he won. He got attention. He got just what he wants: Attention.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
That does pose an interesting question, though. Say atheists decided to build, I don't know... someplace for them to do whatever atheists in large numbers do. They invite the mayor for the groundbreaking, and the mayor refuses. What then?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google