Rob Sherman, Chicago-Area Atheist, Threatens To Sue Illinois Over Grant For Cross

A Christian group in southern Illinois attempting to restore one of the largest crosses in the Western hemisphere is being challenged by a Chicago-area Atheist this week, who claims the $20,000 the group received from the state to restore the cross violates the Illinois constitution.

Rob Sherman, who railed against proposed statewide "moment of silence" in public schools (which was ultimately ruled unconstitutional) said that the Friends of Bald Knob Cross need to return the state's grant money--or he would take legal action.

The Associated Press reports:

The money was used long ago as a down payment on the $550,000 makeover of one of the region's biggest tourist draws, said Bill Vandergraph, a member of Friends of Bald Knob Cross board. He suggested the city slicker fashioning himself as "the state's best-known atheist activist" shouldn't hold his breath that any money will be handed back.

Sherman, however, thinks the group will (and should) return the money.

"When the People of the State of Illinois sent that $20,000 to Springfield, we did it to pay for the State's constitutional obligations, such as roads and bridges, schools and teachers, law enforcement and mass transit," Sherman wrote in his blog. "We didn't send the money to Springfield so that the General Assembly could sneak the money to Friends of the Cross to pay for the cost of rebuilding a 110-foot-high Christian cross on private property. I think that Friends of the Cross now knows that."

The money was given to the group in December of 2008 as a grant from the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. Department spokeswoman Marcelyn Love told The Southern that they are aware of Sherman's concerns, but declined to answer further questions about the grant's constitutionality.

The cross has been atop the 1,025-foot-high Bald Knob Mountain since 1964, but started falling apart over the years. Those who support the cross restoration say the site has become a tourist attraction, located in Alto Pass, Ill., about 130 miles southeast of St. Louis.

Despite Sherman's lawsuit threats, those working to restore the cross say repairs will be finished by September "regardless of whether Sherman files a lawsuit," according to the Chicago Tribune.

Comments

[ThirdSection]

02:10 AM on 06/28/2010

Back in 1964, when the huge cross was first built on top of the mountain, I'll bet that it violated some zoning ordinances, and that the authorities looked the other way because it was a Christian symbol.

[jbarelli]

04:35 PM on 06/04/2010

This is one of those things that should not come out of tax dollars. It isn't because some Atheist doesn't approve, it's because religious monuments should be paid for through donations of believers, not tax dollars of everyone, whether they're a believer or not.

Sometimes people get bent out of shape about silly things. Crosses on headstones in national cemeteries and the like.

This is different, and that should be obvious to all concerned. Yes, it may also be a tourist draw to the area, and if the local Chamber of Commerce wants to fund it, that's fine. But not tax dollars.

There are people in Illinois that do not see the cross as a symbol of hope, but as a symbol of a particular faith that they do not share and may even strongly disagree with. Those people should not be forced by law to help pay for that symbol.

And somehow I doubt that forcing an atheist, or a Wiccan, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Jew to pay for the symbol of my faith will do anything to bring them closer to my understanding of God. For Christians to do that, we need to be living monuments. Large stone ones won't do.

“Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” - St Francis of Assisi

[Wirehedd]

10:19 PM on 06/17/2010

There are also a lot of people who see the cross as a symbol of oppression, deceit and hatred. I wonder if those folks will now also be willing to take another 20k out of the town coffers for a 100 foot star of david or a statue of vishnu, krishna or the buddha?

Of course they wouldn't. That would exactly answer the question of whether or not this is appropriate. If they can do it for one they better do it for all otherwise give the money back and tell them to pay for it themselves.

I am looking forward to reading about the lawsuit.

[el sistema]

12:07 PM on 06/04/2010

I don't have a problem with the state giving grants for rebuilding religious icons. As long as they also send grants for building a giant crescent moon, a giant star of David, a giant lightning bolt, a giant sized hawk-faced man etc etc.

No state should give Christianity preference over another religion. If you want a state sponsored religion you can go to Iran.

[Wirehedd]

10:19 PM on 06/17/2010

oops, missed your post, sorry, wasn't plagiarizing.

[gawd]

02:00 AM on 06/02/2010

20,000?? Kids don't have PE but the tax payers can pay for this??

[Tom Volkskrieger]

07:06 PM on 06/01/2010

I guess I know where I'll stop to relieve myself next time I'm in the area.

[wackette]

04:41 PM on 05/29/2010

What a hideous eye-sore! Who approved the grant for $20,000... needs to come out of their pockets.

[zariann]

10:18 PM on 05/30/2010

The cross itself isn't a work of art, but the view from that hill top will take your breath away. At night, the cross is illuminated and can be seen for miles around, if one is at certain spots in the countryside. Sunrise Easter services are conducted at Bald Knob Cross. Although I never attended during my 30+ years of living in the same county at Alto Pass, I have been told by regulars that the service is very moving given the ability to see the beauty of Mother Nature from that vantage point. If you live in IL, it might be worth a weekend trip to Union County and take in all that Mother Nature has to offer. Be sure to take the winding drive up Bald Knob Hill.

[nexxtep54]

02:38 PM on 05/29/2010

550 K for that thing? Must have been ordered through military procurement. Actual cost, 10K

[zest]

12:29 PM on 05/29/2010

They were fools to seek public funds; the amount of dustup for $20,000.00 will not be worth it.

[MDayne]

11:34 AM on 05/29/2010

Separation of church and state....what is not to understand? Churches enjoy tax exempt status because of this, so why should any religious individual or organization be funded by the state?

Even though I am an atheist, I have no problem with anyone practicing any religion or believing in any God, symbol, ghost or holy animal they choose. However, I find it curious that school children are still encouraged to cite "...on nation under God" in their public school classrooms and public officials are sworn in using a Bible.

http://daynepost.blogspot.com

[emsmith]

07:32 PM on 05/29/2010

Would it not be better if churches paid at least real estate taxes on their buildings of worship( I will schools a pass as long as no formal worship takes place)? The burden on any one church would be small though accumulated revenues might make a huge difference. It might slow down these mega churches

[lvogt]

11:17 AM on 05/29/2010

All people should be free to express their religious and philosophical ideas, in their own time with their own money. Not mine. It should never be done with public funds... Ever.

[MDayne]

11:35 AM on 05/29/2010

Amen to that! :)

http://daynepost.blogspot.com

[Grips]

01:23 AM on 05/29/2010

It seems like the town has deemed this an investment that will increase tourism. $20,000 from the town, and ultimately from the state, is the town's prerogative. Plus, in the overall view of the project, it is only a small investment to show support for a local, and becoming more widespread, attraction/business.
Here's a question, can a private small business not get grants from the State of IL without strings attached? What if the small business is a religious book store?? They're not eligible for grant money??

[lvogt]

11:20 AM on 05/29/2010

Religious institutions should be insisting the government stay out of their business. Nothing good comes from combining government and religion. They are like bleach and ammonia: useful separately but toxic when combined.

[miles120]

08:15 AM on 05/30/2010

The legal definition for 'church' is well established. Churches may be small [or sometimes large] businesses, but they have special protections in this country, and because of that have special prohibitions. But to answer your question: no, small business do not get grants without strings attached. Think about it. If I'm a foundation or government giving out money, I better be concerned that it is spent for reasons specified in my mission statement.

[DavidGW]

04:08 PM on 05/28/2010

Illinois State has two choices. (1) Convince "Friends of Bald Knob Cross" to take up a private collection and return the $20,000 to the State. Or (2) pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending itself from a law suit it is bound to loose - and then spend even more money to recover the $20,000 it wrongfully gave to the "Friends". As a tax payer in a nearly bankrupt state I prefer the first option.

However, if the Official State Religion is Cristianity then the original grant would be OK.

[llisa]

12:08 AM on 05/29/2010

Not MY Illinois.

I hope they pony up. We can't pay the schools and hospitals as it is.

[Grips]

01:25 AM on 05/29/2010

Ummmm... the state wouldn't be in so much trouble if people would actually carry their own weight!!!! Leaches are sucking the state dry!!!

[BBaker]

02:34 PM on 05/28/2010

Asking a organization to return money after a grant has been approved is wrong. The group applied for the grant and the government approved it 2 years ago. Rod Blagojevich government approved this grant.

They do get donations from other groups - http://thesouthern.com/news/local/article_8d9b0b30-2d9c-11df-8c4c-001cc4c002e0.html

Personally I don't believe that they should have applied for a grant... there is a reason for separation of church and state.

[Caleb Owens]

06:56 PM on 05/28/2010

The article doesn't say that Friends of Bald Knob Cross applied for the grant, it says the town did. Then the town decided to give the money to the FoBKC. If you've got further info, please post link.

They need to give the money back to the town and the town should be part of the lawsuit for their actions, also.

[Grips]

01:30 AM on 05/29/2010

The town can do with it as they see fit. If they think the cross is a good investment, then so be it!!!

[Lakeview Greg]

12:47 PM on 05/28/2010

They really need to give that money back to the state.

[Craig Rhodes]

11:48 AM on 05/28/2010

I live in southern Illinois not far from the Bald Knob cross and I can attest to the fact that many of us here view this thing as nothing more than a vulgarity. It ruins what otherwise would be a beautiful natural area. However, it is on private property and the owner of that property has the right to put anything up on his property he deems fit even if vulgar and offensive. What he does not have the right to do is use taxpayer's money to fund his particular view of religion. Trying to characterize what he's done as a "tourist attraction" belies the reality that he's using taxpayer money to proselytise his particular view of religion.

It is entirely appropriate that he should repay the state given the many more serious needs during this time of budget short fall. If it's that important as a tourist attraction then he should come up with the funds himself or solicit a private group to do so rather than expect the taxpayers of Illinois to give him his money.

[llisa]

12:09 AM on 05/29/2010

As someone who grew up in that area, I can't agree more.