Whiteville Mayor Wants Cross to Stay
This video is no longer available.
A foundation representing a Whiteville resident said a cross on the top of the city’s water tower is unconstitutional and sends the wrong message. “It sends a message of exclusion and even intimidation for a town to place a religious symbol on a water tower. In this case a Christian symbol says ‘we’re a Christian town….the government is Christian, the rest of you aren’t wanted. Leave or you mustn’t go public that you’re not Christian. It could be dangerous,'” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Gaylor said the Whiteville resident contacted them in 2010 prompting them to send two letters to Mayor Bellar. “We followed up with two letters and got no response. There was no choice then but to go to court. We hired an attorney in Tennessee who sent a letter saying if the town didn’t respond and remove the cross from the water tower that we would go to federal court,” said Gaylor. She said the mayor took an oath when he took office which she does not feel he is upholding. “The mayor takes an oath of office to uphold our constitution which is secular and godless, no religion in it. All the references to religion are exclusionary and we should not have to threaten a lawsuit to get the mayor to uphold the constitution,” she adds. Some Whiteville residents do not want the cross removed. “If that cross offends you, you really should take a deep look inside,” said Thomas Taylor, a Whiteville resident. Mayor Bellar said several attorneys have offered to represent the city pro bono. He said he is consulting with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian nonprofit organization, to consider the city’s options. The Freedom from Religion Foundation has given Mayor Bellar until October 29 to remove the cross before pursuing further legal actions. Mayor Bellar said unless his consultation with the Alliance Defense Fund reveals a suitable option, he will remove the cross before the October 29 deadline. He said if it appeared the city would not win in a lawsuit, a judge could require the city to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees, a gamble he says he is not willing to take.
