‘Offended’ Humanist Seeks Removal of Ten Commandments Outside Maryland Courthouse

Commandments-compressedBALTIMORE, Md. — A humanist in Maryland has filed a federal lawsuit in seeking the removal of a Ten Commandments monument outside of a county courthouse.

“It offended me then, and it offends me now,” Jeffrey Davis, an emergency room physician, told the Baltimore Sun on Monday.

The monument at issue was erected at the Allegany County courthouse in 1957 after being donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. It sits not far from another monument honoring the nation’s first president, George Washington.

Davis first called for the removal of the monument in 2004, and while his request was granted, the display was restored within days following a public outcry.

The following year, he formed the group Citizens for a Secular Government and sought to place his own monument at the courthouse, but his effort was unsuccessful.

Now, Davis, 66, is asking the courts to declare the monument unconstitutional. He believes that the Decalogue promotes Christianity over other religions.

“Plaintiff believes that the monument represents only one particular religious point of view and therefore sends a message of exclusion to those who do not adhere to that particular religion (Christianity), in violation of the U.S. Constitution,” the lawsuit, filed in March, reads. “Plaintiff does not want to have exposure to the monument on government property in the future.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Recently, the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a motion for dismissal of Davis’ suit, noting that a nearly identical monument was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“[H]is broad stroke recitation of the elements of an Establishment Clause claim does not survive Van Orden, where the Supreme Court made abundantly clear that the presence of a Ten Commandments monument identical to the one at issue here—indeed, one that, like here, was donated by the Eagles—on public lands is not itself a violation of the Establishment Clause,” it wrote.

The cited case is 2005 decision of Van Orden v. Perry, which centered around a display at the Texas state capitol building.

“Plaintiff does not have the law on his side, and he fails to plead facts sufficient to take this case outside the realm of squarely controlling Supreme Court precedent,” ADF’s motion reads. “Therefore Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed.”

Allegany County Commissioner William Valentine told the Times News that the monument was erected out of a campaign in the 1950’s to promote the classic film “The Ten Commandments” featuring Charlton Heston.

“These items were manufactured and put out by [filmmaker] Cecil B. DeMille,” Valentine said. “They sent these things out as promotional items for the movie. It was never in a church. It is an historic monument in an historic area.”

Therefore, he sees the display “as an historic artifact and not a religious artifact.”

Area residents have also rallied behind the monument, including local businessman Edward Taylor.

“Dr. Davis has been garbling on about this for 12 years,” he said. “To my knowledge, he’s the only one who has ever objected. I think it’s become an obsession with him. … There is absolutely no reason to take this down.”

Davis does not live in Allegany County, but owns land within its borders.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • bowie1

    Others might be offended by the theory of evolution. Maybe it too should be banned Mr. Humanist.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Except that “being offended” is not grounds for a lawsuit.

      • bowie1

        If that is the case the humanist may not have grounds for a lawsuit.

        • axelbeingcivil

          He’s not suing because he’s “offended”. He’s suing because it’s a blatant constitutional violation for the government to endorse public displays by one group and not those of others.

          • meamsane

            Can you point to the law that this is a blatant Constitutional violation of?

          • axelbeingcivil

            The First Amendment, as consistently interpreted by the SCOTUS.

          • meamsane

            The SCOTUS is hardly consistent! First question that needs to be asked about any alleged violation of the first amendment is what law has Congress passed that violates it? If there is no law, there is no violation.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Just as free speech is not held to only apply to actual spoken words, Congress is forbidden from taking any action regarding religious institutions (that aren’t somehow universal). Since the 14th Amendment ensures that all levels of government are guaranteed the same protections and restrictions, it applies to all levels of governance.

            Unless you want to be so literal in all laws, and allow the government to restrict non-spoken speech, say, you might want to consider context, eh?

          • meamsane

            Maybe you should read about how the main author of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham intended how the Amendment was to be applied and why it was written, to provide you some context?

          • axelbeingcivil

            You wanna cite anything in particular, there?

          • meamsane

            Why waste my time?

          • axelbeingcivil

            Well, you came back to reply to a post made a week ago. Clearly, if you think it’s of enough import to have it linger in your mind that long, why not cite a source?

          • meamsane

            I was away for a week. CNN apparently does not allow links.
            But if you put in Hughes-Hubris in search, it should be the first article listed under hubpages dot com. I used yahoo.

          • axelbeingcivil

            I had a look. That article doesn’t even mention Bingham, which is who I was asking you to cite about.

          • meamsane

            Yeah, gave you the wrong one. Go to thefederalistblog dot US and they have a lot of info on Bingham and the 14th Amendment as well as Incorporation doctrine. At least you seem to be willing to look which is more than most.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Do you seriously need us to rehash Incorporation Doctrine AGAIN?

          • meamsane

            No I’m not interested in how judges twist everything into a pretzel so as to give something meaning that it never had.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, you don’t need us to rehash Incorporation Doctrine. You just need us to remind you that laws you don’t like are still laws.

          • meamsane

            Only when it is based on the Enumerated powers given to the three branches of government, otherwise, it is void, as per Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers!

          • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

            THE US CONSTITUTION IS THE LAW. Read the Bill of RIghts; It is what our forefathers died for.

          • meamsane

            Yes. I am trying to point out to axel that the ten commandments monument is no violation of the first amendment.

          • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

            of course not!!!! It says FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, NOT FROM RELIGION. Go to DC and find scriptures all over all of the government buildings, even in the one that Pilosi inhabits. We have some here in many buildings…Why don’t you open the Bible and read the 10 commandments. Why not read the great writings of our founding fathers…boy…it will really cause a stomach ache when you see their brilliance and intellect…..compared to many of those occupying DC
            now.

          • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

            It isn’t….We have free exercise of speech, and free exercise of religion under the Bill of RIghts

          • bowie1

            Were others refused? If not then it would be okay I would think.

          • axelbeingcivil

            I’ve seen stories reporting him trying to get a statue of the Constitution raised an being rejected.

            If they accepted other statues and monuments, though, I’d be fine with that. As long as everyone gets equal treatment, I’m happy.

          • james blue

            The article says his monument was refused

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Uh, no. He’s alleging a violation of the Establishment Clause.

          • bowie1

            Doesn’t it also say that no one can “prohibit the free exercise thereof?” The humanist may be violating the establishment clause by not allowing the free exercise thereof. Naturally the atheist can also exercise his or her lack of belief in the public square.

          • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

            YES! Let me argue for nothingness….that is productive.

          • meamsane

            Naturally the atheist can also exercise his or her lack of belief in the public square.
            Yes, regardless of whether there is a religious monument or not.

      • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

        no…though I am a lawyer, I still am a Christian, still believe the whole Bible, which is what our culture is founded on. I do not believe in THE THEORY of evolution, which is not put to the test of sound scientific research. Just a way to pretend that God doesn’t exist, so we don’t have to follow rules and culture.

        • This style ten and six

          The T of E is one of the best supported theories in science.

      • TheBottomline4This

        Oh really?
        What about all of the bakers, photographers, Inns, etc that have been sued by those who are offended…you know the homosexuals.

        • james blue

          Those lawsuits were not based on being offended, they were based on non discrimination and public accommodation laws, the same laws that make it illegal to refuse goods and services to us based on disagreeing with our faith.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          They pursued because they broke the law, not because anyone was offended. I’m sure plenty of people were offended, but that’s irrelevant to whether or not they are legally liable.

    • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

      I surely am offended by the theory of evolution. However, when I was in college, I spit it out on the paper in order to get the grades and complete the course so as to move up the next step. I did the same, at times, when I was in Law School.

  • james blue

    After his monument was declined he may have had a case given to him.

  • Reason2012

    The vast majority of residents are offended at it being removed – so looks like democracy wins and it stays.

    • axelbeingcivil

      Luckily, the Unites States is not a raw democracy but is, in fact, a constitutional republic, which guarantees rights and equal treatment of all citizens by their government.

      • meamsane

        I don’t know, but am I the only one that see’s the “guarantee” part of your statement as not being practiced by our government?

        • axelbeingcivil

          The US government is, as a whole, wildly inconsistent in its application of the law, yes. In theory, though, this is the case.

      • Reason2012

        Except you pretend stepping on the rights of the vast majority that wants it is called “equal rights”. He wants NONE – Vast majority wants one. You demand he gets his way and the rights of everyone else do not matter.
        You are wrong.

        • axelbeingcivil

          He has a right to be treated like everyone else before the law. If the law allows other groups to put up their monuments, then that’s fine and dandy. But if only one group gets a monument? That’s blatant discrimination.

          • Reason2012

            He doesn’t want a monument – instead he doesn’t want the vast majority to have theirs. That’s blatant discrimination.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Government neutrality can take two forms: Either the government disallowing a service completely or allowing all takers.

            In this case, he has apparently offered to erect a monument of the Constitution and been denied, so…

          • TheKingOfRhye

            A monument to the Constitution would make a lot more sense outside a courthouse than one to the Ten Commandments, I think.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          No, the rights of everyone else do matter. It’s just that “everyone else” don’t have a right to post a religious monument on government land.

          • Reason2012

            Feel free to post the law that says freedom of religious expression is illegal. The Constitution says otherwise.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            There is no law nor did I say there was. This matter concerns something that happened on government property, so it is an Establishment Clause issue, not a Free Exercise clause issue.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “hence it’s not illegal for the vast majority to want to put up such a monument, or the vast majority to NOT want to put up a monument”

            Correct. People are legally allowed to want whatever they want. Nobody sued anybody because of what they “wanted” to do. The state was sued because of what it ACTUALLY did.

            “Also, no law has been passed forcing them to put up a monument, so the establishment clause is not violated either.”

            Oh come on, we’re not going over this again. State Actor doctrine under Everson v. Board of Education. Yes, I know you don’t like it. No, the law doesn’t care. It still exists and is still law.

  • meamsane

    Technically speaking, The Ten Commandments were given to the Ancient Israelites, so it is more a Jewish thing than Christian which means the premise of his being “offended” is inaccurate to say the least.

    • axelbeingcivil

      It was given by a Christian group, accepted by Christian officials, defended by a Christian group in protests… It’s pretty clear who this is a symbol for.

      • meamsane

        This does not change the truth of my statement.

        • axelbeingcivil

          Kinda does. To say “It’s a Jewish monument” when it is also a part of the Christian tradition is blatantly disingenuous.

          • meamsane

            No. I spoke in terms of origins of the ten commandments, not whether it was a Christian tradition. That’s why I said “technically speaking”. I wasn’t attempting to make an argument against Christian traditions. So, there is no disingenuousness about it on my part.

          • axelbeingcivil

            You said it was more of a “Jewish thing” than a Christian one. That, to me, is massively disingenuous when all these Ten Commandments monuments are erected by Christians and defended by Christians. If it were more of a “Jewish thing”, why such a strong Christian reaction?

          • meamsane

            Is it so hard to understand what I have said? You call me “massively disingenuous” because you took my statement beyond it’s intent. You read into it what was not there and then wanted to argue with me about it.

          • axelbeingcivil

            If your intent is to say “Since the Decalogue also features in Jewish tradition, and therefore not exclusively raising Christian tradition over others, he has no basis to be offended”, then that’s not true; it still raises the Christian tradition over others. Just because another religion uses the Decalogue as a part of their belief system doesn’t mean that this isn’t a blatant display by a Christian group. Even if it might privilege one other group, theoretically, it still privileges some groups over others, Christianity among them.

    • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

      They were given to God’s people. They are also intended for all the world as God is the God of all the world.

  • axelbeingcivil

    This issue was previously resolved by moving it literally across the street, to someone’s backyard; where a private citizen hosted them freely in a way that didn’t show government favouritism. If it weren’t for a desire to have a government endorsement of religion, why would that be a problem?

    If he’s allowed to pay for and place his own monument, no problem. If he is refused that right, that’s a blatantly illegal act and his case is pretty much made.

    Either move the monument or let others be put up but do not grant one group special privileges.

  • TheBottomline4This

    The poor little humanist who’s probably just seeking his 15 min of fame.

  • james blue

    I live in the Bible belt, we almost have a church on every corner (okay not quite, but we have lots and lots) yet I don’t recall seeing a ten commandment monument on any of their grounds. There are far more churches than courts or capital buildings, so why are there not monuments on clear display facing the road on church ground?

    The ten I want to see outside courts and capital buildings is the bill of rights.

    • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

      In the 1950s, we had prayer in the schools. Nobody collapsed into spasms. Our forefathers came here to get away from spiritually dead Europeans who persecuted them. They did so at huge peril to life,limb and property. We even said the Pledge to the flag.
      They are on display as the laws were based on the Books of the Law and the 10 commandments.

  • Amos Moses

    Snowflakes ………….. /SMH

  • Becky

    All rubbish. The Ten Commandments are embedded within our laws and our government system. Our judges willingly and faithfully take an oath, an oath that ends with “So help me God, whilst their hand rests upon the Holy Bible (our courts use it, too). Are we to remove our laws against murder or theft because they “promote Christianity over other religions”? Of course not, that’s absurd…just like this heathen’s case.

    The framers of the constitution perpetually revealed their faith at the closing of the document…”Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth”

    Nothing heathen-like about “Year of our Lord”.

    • james blue

      Countries that do not follow biblical faith have laws against murder and theft and there is no requirement to swear on a bible or say “so help me God” for any government position in the USA.

      The first amendment of the US constitution explicitly prevents the US government from enforcing commandment like “thou shall not have any God before me”

      Other than not stealing or killing American citizens are constitutionally allowed to break all the other commandments except for bearing false witness and even that one is only a crime when under oath or in a criminal investigation.

      • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

        and murder, and blasphemy, and theft, and gossip etc.

        • james blue

          ???

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Which commandments “are embedded within our laws and our government system?”

      • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

        murder, theft, many of the property rights, how to behave, and how leaders are to behave, sexual sins. get into Leviticus and Deuteronomy, it is about the LAW of God. THe 10 commandments are for all of us.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Murder and theft, fine. What do you mean “how leaders are to behave” and “sexual sins?” What laws are you referring to?

          And what do you mean by “get into Leviticus and Deuteronomy?” The Ten Commandments were handed down to Moses in Exodus. Do you even know what you’re talking about?

    • Rick Drywaal

      Only 3 of the 10 Commandments have been incorporated into US law. Don’t murder, steal, or commit fraud. And those are no-brainers.

      • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

        However, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and the other books of the Law are in the Bible…and many of the laws are incorporated into our current laws. That was one of the surprises I got when I started Law School.

  • Emmanuel

    I hope Maryland does the right thing and not remove the 10 Commandments.

    • axelbeingcivil

      They can leave it in place, so long as they allow other groups to put up theirs.

      • Emmanuel

        that is easy; nothing will go there, just an empty podium or slab of cement

        • axelbeingcivil

          The guy’s a humanist. There’s a lot of humanist ideals and symbols.

  • Michael A. Todd

    To the offended humanist, the Ten Commandments are central to the Old Testament, the Old Testament is part of the Holy Bible, which is a Christian’s book of knowledge. So, duh, yes it promotes Christianity over other religions. His built in moral code, put there by God, is what has been eating at him for a long time. Removing the monument may be a small victory for him, but, will not settle his issues with God. I believe God has been working on him and he doesn’t like it.

    • bowie1

      Since it is in the old testament it would also include Judaism who would call it the Tanakh, so it would include more than one religion.

      • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

        No it isn’tt!!! It is only one God. It is God’s Word from the Torah to the New Testament.

        • bowie1

          Of course. But the Jews don’t recognize the New Testament but they do believe in the Ten Commandments which is in the Torah. So, technically, the monument would support the views of both Jews and Christians. P.S. Some Jews are willing to concede that Jesus is the Gentile Messiah but not their own.

          • Charles

            There is absolutely NOTHING in common between Judaism, and Christianity. NONE.

          • bowie1

            I don’t think I was asserting that. However, both Christians and Jews do still believe in the Ten Commandments. The difference is that most Jews do not accept Jesus (Yeshua) as the Messiah.

          • Charles

            Well.. If you don’t worship Jesus, then you don’t worship God the Father.

            Joh 14:5-7 KJV
            (5) Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
            (6) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
            (7) If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

            They don’t worship the same God YHVH or Jesus Christ. Different God.

          • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

            The Old Testament with the books of Law and the adventures of the Patriarchs is directly translated from Hebrew…and New Testament came primarily from Greek…but it doesn’t matter now, as there are translations in almost every language.

          • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

            Then you have not read either, or didn’t understand it. Try a more modern version of English in the Bible…like New King James or New International Bible…it is in plain English….Old King James does not make it more spiritual…Chinese get it in Chinese, and it is translated in so many languages.

          • Edward MacGuire

            Jesus was a Jew. Didn’t he follow all the Jewish laws? Didn’t he say “I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them”? Are you a cretin, an anti-semite or both?

          • Charles

            ha. ha.. Funny.. Just stop with the canned “Anti-Semite” garbage. Didn’t say a thing about “Jews”.. I said Judaism.. Being a Jew, and worshiping Judaism are quite different.. There are Jews that worship Jesus, as well as many other religions. Just like there are gentiles that worship “Judaism”.

        • Bob Johnson

          So Judaism and Christianity is one religion? What about Catholics, Mormons, Anglican, many people on this site claim these groups are not Christian? And what about Islam, do they not worship the same God?

          • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

            Judaism is our founding faith….starting with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob…then Jesus came, the son of God, and He showed us God in the flesh, coming to save us from hellfire. Because He loves us. Being crucified is a horribly painful way to go…but He did so to protect us and bring us with Him to heaven.

          • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

            Judaism and Christianity came from the same roots…the line of Abraham, Jacob, et al…When Christ, the son of God, came to earth, and allowed himself to be crucified…a horrendous death, in order to provide the ultimate blood sacrifice to keep us from hell, we received freedom from that torture.

          • Charles

            Just to clear up something Madeleine. I believe I understand what you are saying Jews who follow the Tanakh. Which is the Old Testament of our current Holy Bible. However, Judaism is something entirely different.. It’s man made books called the Talmud. 36 Books of man made filth. Not to mention the slander of our Lord Jesus Christ.

          • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

            In my understanding…though most of my relatives are rather secular Jews, that the Talmud is not a part of the Bible. Genesis through Malachi the last book of the Old Testament. It is all God’s inspired Word. And has more excitement, wars, sin, and goodness…Most importantly is that we learn how to get to be in heaven.

    • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

      I agree… God did that to me too. I became a Christian by listening to them to argue with them and reading scripture to assist others to do so.

    • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

      God did not designate the new and old testament…He gave the scripture. Of course when Jesus resurrected, it was all New Testament from there on.

  • Kelly Samuelson

    It said this guy didn’t even live in the county. Sounds like someone just sounding like a donkey trying to get attention to me. Yes, for the past 12 years

  • Rick Drywaal

    When the Government plops down in the public square a giant slab of granite that has been carved with a list of their god’s commands, how is that not the Government establishing a religion?

    • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

      If you will look at the 10 commandments, which so harm you? They are pretty much about decency and how to live together. That is it.

      • axelbeingcivil

        “I am THE LORD, Your God. You shall have no other gods before me.”

        I think there’s a lot of non-Christians who might quite plainly find the idea of the government endorsing this idea a touch upsetting. Imagine how you’d feel if the government outright plopped erected monuments saying “There is no God but God and Mohammad is his prophet”, or “There is no God”.

        • Bob Johnson

          Now about a monument to the Four Noble Truths.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Such a monument would be an impermanent and unsatisfactory thing. (Tee hee)

          • Bob Johnson

            Truth Hurts. (rule number one)

          • Edward MacGuire

            Or perhaps the first shahada and the second shahada, in English, Spanish and Arabic. Shouldn’t be a problem; freedom of religion and all that.

        • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

          I find non-Christians “a touch upsetting”.

          • axelbeingcivil

            That’s sad? I don’t know what kind of response you’re hoping for.

        • TheBottomline4This

          As long as the ones that are pro-Christian can stand too, no problem.

          • axelbeingcivil

            That’s fair, then. As long as everyone can get a monument placed, thumbs up.

            Naturally, this does run into some problems if too much space is used. Maybe a waiting list and time limit could be instituted then, though, should it ever become a problem.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Um, if they are scattered throughout the land, then there should be no problem. If you try fitting them all in one spot, that would be silly to begin with, but would cause issues. If that’s what you’re going for…causing issues, then I guess we’ll have to deal with that at some point.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Scattering at random raises questions of prominence, dunnit?

      • Mellow Fellow

        Christianity is a crime against society, whether in the constitution or not, it violates the promotion of families, the natural order of society and proper sexual orientation, and basically screws up the human moral compass. So yes, it should be outlawed in a moral society. Enough of this suppression of basic right and wrong.

    • meamsane

      No law has been made to establish such!

      • Ambulance Chaser

        It has been ruled over and over and over again that any state action, not just a law passed by a legislature, can run afoul of the Constitution.

        Yes, I know you don’t like it, so spare me the protests. You are entitled to that opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. I don’t care if you like the law, I just want you to accept it as reality.

        • meamsane

          You obviously have no clue as to what the US Constitution says, since you would rather listen to activist judges pet theories re-defining what it actually means.
          So pretend to defend the Constitution if you wish! I would not waste my time with you protesting what you say. It is near impossible to un-brainwash the brainwashed!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “You obviously have no clue as to what the US Constitution says, since you would rather listen to activist judges pet theories re-defining what it actually means.”

            What I would “rather” do is irrelevant to this discussion. I’m stating how the law works. You’re stating that you don’t want to hear it and would rather believe in some other, fictitious legal system instead.

            “I would not waste my time with you protesting what you say. It is near impossible to un-brainwash the brainwashed!!”

            If by “brainwashed” you mean, “understands how the legal system works, how it is taught in every law school, and practiced by every judge and lawyer in the country,” then I guess I’m brainwashed.

            If, however, you mean that I don’t understand the legal system that exists only in your head, then I guess I’m guilty of that.

          • meamsane

            That’s mighty predictable of you.
            Goodbye.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What’s predictable? That I would continue to state my position?

            I take it from your taking your ball and going home that you have no response, then?

  • bowie1

    I would hazard to say this monument includes not one but two religions – Christianity and Judaism , who have the commandments as part of the Tanakh. So therefore it does not promote one religion over another one.

    • axelbeingcivil

      Even if it promoted five or six, it would still promote some religions over others (or over non-religion).

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    The Ten Commandments are the foundation of the Western Civilization’s goodness and lawfulness thus of the entire world. The atheists/humanists/Sodomites hate what is good and right. The West has nothing good or right apart from the Judeo-Christian values as a man is nothing apart from his good conscience. Unbelieving Westerners are repaying the good with evil to Christianity, their lifeline, this century. So chaotic and self-destructive. Whatever would become of the children in Sodom? May God intervene for the sake of all children.

  • Madeleine Bryant-Kambe

    Our culture was created from the 10 commandments and other scripture. It is why we have laws that protect the vulnerable, women and children and teaches us the love of Christ in our dealings with people.

    • axelbeingcivil

      Was it, though? Because last I checked, most of the things in the Ten Commandments are found in the laws of cultures across the world. Don’t lie, don’t covet, don’t murder, don’t steal, etc., are all found pretty universally, and concepts like protecting the vulnerable, feeding the hungry, etc., are also pretty universally admired.

      And the idea of universal rights is older still. The idea of a person having rights in the West dates back as far as the Roman Empire, and perhaps even earlier into certain Greek philosophers.

      Our culture is a thousand streams merging into a river; some larger than others but none simply vanishing in its totality into the flow without in some way changing it.

      • Charles

        “”Was it, though? Because last I checked, most of the things in the Ten Commandments are found in the laws of cultures across the world. Don’t lie, don’t covet, don’t murder, don’t steal, etc., are all found pretty universally, and concepts like protecting the vulnerable, feeding the hungry, etc., are also pretty universally admired.””

        That’s because they “Borrowed” them from God’s Laws.

        “”And the idea of universal rights is older still. The idea of a person having rights in the West dates back as far as the Roman Empire, and perhaps even earlier into certain Greek philosophers.””

        That’s impossible.. God’s been here since the beginning.

        Rev 22:13 KJV
        (13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

        • axelbeingcivil

          Borrowed how, exactly? These concepts are found in the Americas, far away from the Israelites, and the concept of human rights is found at its earliest in the Mediterranean, not the Middle East.

          • Charles

            That’s because God’s Laws were established from the beginning. Of course, they are going to “Take” what they want out of it.. Whatever they didn’t agree with they removed.. It’s called Apostasy.

          • Bob Johnson

            So basically what Charles is saying is that Confucius and Hammurabi were Prophets.

          • axelbeingcivil

            A proper Unitarian, then, eh?

          • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

            Have you read the code of Hammurabi?
            “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, (Rom 2:14-15 NAS)
            Everyone has an innate sense of God’s Law. Most do their best to suppress and corrupt that. LGBTQs revolutionaries being a prime and obvious example.

          • Mellow Fellow

            If biblical morals were written on our hearts, everyone would know which of these offences are worthy of immediate death:

            A) Allowing the Ark of the Covenant to contact unsanctified ground
            B) Impregnating your property while she is married to another slave
            C) Stopping the Ark of the Covenant from falling off a cart
            D) Taking the virginity of a foreign child outside of war
            E) Looking at the entire contents of the Ark of the Covenant
            F) Forcing wives to drink a poison that makes them rot inside

            Most people would instinctively do the exact same thing as the “criminal” above who was murdered by god. According to god, the life ending offence is the third from the top. The bible is filled with stories of people being killed directly by god for doing things that are normal human reactions and not nefarious in any way.

  • Charles

    “”“It offended me then, and it offends me now,” Jeffrey Davis, an emergency room physician, told the Baltimore Sun on Monday.””

    Well Sir.. Allow me to “Offend” you some more with God’s Most Beautiful Laws..

    Exo 20:2-17 KJV
    (2) I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
    (3) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
    (4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
    (5) Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
    (6) And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
    (7) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
    (8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
    (9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
    (10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
    (11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    (12) Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
    (13) Thou shalt not kill.
    (14) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    (15) Thou shalt not steal.
    (16) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
    (17) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

    Signed,
    A lover of Gods Laws…

  • Julie Iwanicki

    Jesus is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords! God Bless and save America from the work of the enemy, PC and utter lunacy incited by the work of the devil that is so prolific in this present age… The End Times.. Last Days!
    Father forgive them for they know not what they do. Jesus I pray you would save Jeffery Davis and show him you love, mercy and grace! God is love, God is Light and in Him there is (and cannot be) no darkness! Let thy will be done and let thy kingdom come, here on earth as it is in Heaven, in Jesus’ mighty name! Amen. ✝🙏🏽🕎✝✡🌈😄

  • JamalZ

    I personally think that that certain sacred texts that have existed since the formation of our nation are sacred and should be honored. Not merely in a religious context but in the context that what has always been should be without desecration or destruction by men of malice & spite. And personally it’s offensive to point of irreparable harm when people like him go out of their way to try to remove things that have been a part of a historical building for a very long time.

    • axelbeingcivil

      … What, you mean, like, the 1950s? Because that’s how long any of these monuments have been there.

  • Nidalap

    It’s the Truth in there that does it.
    If these folks truly believed all this to be the fairy tale they claim, they wouldn’t be offended by it nearly as easily. Especially considering that our government is showing by its actions that it has no intention of even taking any suggestions from Christianity, much less establishing it as a national religion…

    • axelbeingcivil

      You’ll note, friend, he’s not offended by, say, the existence of churches or of religious people in general, but rather a government display preferentially favouring one group over another. Could it be, perhaps, he’s offended by government favouritism and not the mere existence of religion?

      • Nidalap

        Nah. I’m going with the whole anti-Christian angle. 🙂

  • Lexical Cannibal

    Brb guys, gonna go donate a monument to the nine pillars of Islam to my local courthouse. I’m sure no Christians will take issue with a promotion of Islam on government property and the ADF or liberty council will defend me in court, seeing as they’re so pro religious freedom.

    • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

      There is no neutrality.

      • Lexical Cannibal

        Only when your world’s black and white.

        • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

          Jesus Christ said, “He that is not with Me is against Me.”

          • Lexical Cannibal

            Which is yet another reason I chose to stop following him. All-or-nothing relationships aren’t generally healthy.

          • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

            Christ will be glorified in those He saves by His grace and glorified in His justice when He throws His enemies into hell. There is no third group.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            Thanks for also reminding me that Jesus threatened me and anyone else who doesn’t capitulate to his demands with everlasting torture and horror. I’ve already got ISIS to worry about, don’t need any more monsters like that in my life.

          • Mellow Fellow

            Personally, I could never worship an all-powerful deity who is so incredibly vain and shallow that he tortures and kills over trivialities. The god described in the bible is objectively harmful to the human race.

            Hey Christians,
            If your great grandfather swore at someone in Tx and for this crime all his descendants, including you, are tortured and vivisected for years… Who is to blame? The person who is judge, jury and executioner?

          • Mellow Fellow

            What you are describing is an evil blood god.

  • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

    I am offended by Obama. I demand his removal. I am offended by 5 members of the Supreme Court. I demand their removal. I am offended by all liberals and atheists. I demand their removal. I am offended by all who do not honor God and give Him thanks. I demand their removal.

  • Josey

    This guy needs to get life, he is obsessed and have to agree with you Nidlap, if he believes it to be some fairy tale why is it bothering him to the point that I think the guy needs mental help. I’ve got more important things to do with my own life than to worry about every thing out there that offends, no thanks, will let God take care of what offends as long as it doesn’t harm a person’s physical well being and I’m just going to move onward.

  • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

    The single issue is Christ and submission to Him. Everyone and everything that opposes Him is on one side, and those who willingly kneel to Him on the other. “He that is not with Me is against Me.
    It matters little if it secularism, liberalism, Islam, false Christianity or humanism. All those that oppose Christ’s rule are His enemies. This is the great and eternal dividing line. This is an inescapable line that runs even through families. There is no neutrality.
    The Lord is on His threshing floor separating the wheat from the chaff.

  • George T

    In God we Trust