Anderson County Commissioner Jerry Creasey, standing, says a proposal to put the national motto on the Anderson County Courthouse in Clinton is dividing commissioners, and the county and Oak Ridge. Also pictured from left are commissioners Whitey Hitchcock, Zach Bates, Tracy Wandell, and John Shuey.
CLINTON—Questions about designs were unresolved Monday, and the Anderson County Commission sent a proposal to put the national motto “In God We Trust” on the county courthouse in Clinton back to a committee that has already considered it once.
The Anderson County Operations Committee recommended last week in a 5-3 vote to install black metal signs with white lettering and the national motto above the courthouse’s four entrances.
But the full 16-member commission discussed putting the national motto in granite lettering during a Monday night meeting, among other things.
“Here we are discussing something that we don’t have any idea what it will look like,” Anderson County Commission Chairman Chuck Fritts said.
He suggested the commission, which has already supported the proposal in a 12-4 vote, defer the vote for 30 days and allow more research on design ideas—rather than exchanging suggestions at the commission meeting.
“This way we could come back and have something in front of us,” Fritts said.
“We’re going to do it right,” Anderson County Commissioner Tracy Wandell said.
The commission’s vote to defer the signs back to the Operations Committee passed on a voice vote, with one “no” vote, from Anderson County Commissioner Zach Bates.
In a subsequent 8-7 vote, the commission rejected a proposal by Anderson County Commissioner Myron Iwanksi, who is also former interim county mayor, to consider how to change the signs to reduce financial risks. Iwanski said the process used by commissioners, approving the signs before researching them, has increased the county’s legal liabilities and risks.
“This was done for religious reasons rather than patriotic reasons,” Iwanski said. “It could cost us substantially.”
Hoping to keep the community from being divided, he proposed four signs with different slogans: “In God We Trust”; “From many, one”; Â “Liberty and Justice for All”; and “Agriculture and Commerce,” the state motto.
Anderson County Commissioner Jerry Creasey said he had a proposal similar to Iwanski’s.
“The action we’ve been taking is dividing this commission,” said Creasey, who stood up as he pleaded for justice, tolerance, and equality. “We’re dividing the county against Oak Ridge. I’m begging you to consider this idea.”
Voting for Iwanski’s proposal were Creasey, Fritts, Iwanski, and Wandell, and commissioners Mark Alderson, Robin Biloski, Whitey Hitchcock, and John Shuey. The motion needed nine votes to pass.
Voting against it were Bates and Anderson County Commissioner Robert McKamey, who has made motions to approve the signs, and commissioners Steve Emert, Rick Meredith, Tim Isbel, Steve Mead, and Jerry White.
Denny Phillips says
CommissionerJerry Creasy summed up his haughty attitude when he said “We’re dividing the county against Oak Ridge”.
This may come as a shock to Mr. Creasy, but the lion’s share of Oak Ridge is in Anderson County, save the portion that is in Roane County, of whose residents surely won’t be offended by the signs, lest they be placed on the Roane County courthouse as well.
As a constituent of Mr. Creasy’s, I would note that his commission district also includes residents outside of the Oak Ridge city limits. Mr. Creasy’s statement provides insight to the pre-existing rift between city and non-city residents as it demonstrates his prevailing thought process that the two are separate entities. Indeed Commissioners Creasy, Shuey, Biloski, iwanski, Hitchcock and Mead are all tasked in representing both city and non-city residents.
i do not believe that Mr. Creasy does any service to the supposed “unity” he seeks by referring to the two as separate entities. Nor do I believe that he speaks for the majority of his constituency when he attempts to represent the Oak Ridge citizens he represents views as being staunchly opposed to the signs. Indeed, Commissioner Shuey, who serves as bailiff for the honorable Judge Ronald N. Murch in Oak Ridge, expressed Murch’s desire to have similar “In God We Trust” signs placed at the Sessions Court in Oak Ridge.
Mr. Creasy and his fellow commissioners would do well to remember that their constituents hail from many areas, both rural and urban and that they are tasked with representing all of them. If they wish to define themselves as Oak Ridge citizens, rather than Anderson County citizens, a more suitable political office might be on Oak Ridge City Council.
Sam Hopwood says
There has always been a divide between Oak Ridge and the county, not as bad as it once was, but it is still there. Let’s move on and work on problems that need to be resolved. There is plenty of work to be done.
Denny Phillips says
It should be noted that last nights Commission meeting included an invocation from an Islamic leader which frequently used the word “God”.
Apparently the word “God” is not as offensive to non-Christians as previously alluded to.
Denny Phillips says
Later, the assembly, including Mr. Creasy, pledged allegiance to “one nation, under God”.
Denny Phillips says
No concerns were voiced by Commissioner Iwanski on whether the prayer before the proceedings might invoke a phantom ACLU lawsuit.
CK says
I would love to see C.Jernigans response to the use of the word “God” in this instance.
Myra Mansfield says
I am an Oak Ridge resident and this is my opinion which was apparently not represented by either of my elected officials: I’m thrilled to see that they are going to place our national motto on our courthouse, and that they are going to do so in granite. The community will enjoy the beauty of a granite design.
Furthermore, why can’t Oak Ridge commissioners see that THEY are dividing Oak Ridge against the entire county. The portion of Oak Ridge which is in Anderson Co is a small portion of the overall population. All four of you voting the same way says that 100% of the persons in Oak Ridge are represented by your opinions. WRONG! At least two of you should be voting in favor of this action so as to represent the differing opinions of your constituents. So who is dividing whom?
CK says
“This was done for religious reasons rather than patriotic reasons,†Iwanski said. “It could cost us substantially.â€
Now how does Myron no what reason the majority of the people that want the NATIONAL MOTTO had ? He’s becoming more and more arrogant in his bid for more power .Myron, please do everyone a favor ,go to the Democrat party meetings and quit the facade of being associated with the Anderson County Republicans.You apparently don’t care for what the people in the “County” want ,nor believe in the things that Republicans stand for..
Charlie Jernigan says
Because he was there when,”Pastors at about 50 churches in Anderson County have asked to put the
motto “In God We Trust†on the Anderson County Courthouse in Clinton, the county mayor said in a report to county commissioners.”
CK says
You say He is responding to these pastors ? They were within the law weren’t they? Also were they citizens in Anderson county? So if you are speaking for what he is thinking ,why does it seem he is rather biased against the citizens of Anderson county if they happen to be ministers then ?What do you say ,is that true that Myron feels that way,or is there another reason he says things that are anti-religion like his statement quoted in my previous post?
CK says
My point is this ,If it’s a “Religious reason” it can still be a “Patriotic reason” .He seems to be biased against one of them in his own words.The history of our country shows that the 2 are NOT mutually exclusve .Although Myron may “think” they are. Here’s his quote “This was done for religious reasons rather than patriotic reasons,†Iwanski said. “It could cost us substantially.â€
Charlie Jernigan says
This is actually pretty simple… 46 Baptist ministers from 46 separate Baptist churches (according to the reports) asked to put “In God We Trust” on the courthouse at their expense. Was that religiously based? The verbal discussion seemed to say, “Yes!” The commission as a whole (with dissent) agreed to support this religious request at county expense.
If there are future equally valid religious requests that do not get the same support from the commission, that indicates a bias that is problematic for a government in the State of Tennessee, USA.
What would that problem be? The county is deeming which religion gets government support and which do not.
Simply stated, such a series of acts would be un-American.
BTW, what kind of name is CK?
Denny Phillips says
Charlie, were you at the Commission meeting when the discussion took place?
Denny Phillips says
I suppose I can see the conflict here. Some believe the Grand Design comes from something other then the Planning Commission. Others draw their Authority from somewhere other than the Housing Authority.
I suppose it is pesky when the subjects go over one’s head in the chain of command.
Silly commoners, believing their rights stem from a power higher than the government.
CK says
So you say it’s a”Valid religious request” So what’s the problem,other than silly hypotheticals? And there is not an Un-American scenario here However, I think & honestly believe that liberalism is un-American many times.Especially the ACLU type activities .
David Allred says
Iwanski is right though. Anyone looking at it will come to the same conclusion. It was large, collective church undertaking – probably the biggest show of Protestant unity in my 22 years of pastoring to this community. Calling it patriotic while denying religious motivation is a ruse. Those in favor should at least have the courage of their convictions. I am not in favor, took an unpopular stance on this issue, articulated my reasons with scripture in a theological delivery to my congregation. I didn’t have to appeal to the the standard political cover story, the Constitution, patriotism, or make any human appeals. I should think any believer could do the same for a favorable position on this issue just as easily. Once we’ve searched our souls and acted on our convictions, then there’s nothing else to do commit to prayer and rest in faith.
CK says
You can ‘t prove that at all David. You do not have the ability to condemn ALL Patriotic activity just because there is a religious element involved. That sounds very suspicious Neither you or Iwanski have special powers to discern everyone’s thoughts. Nice try though. Iwanski and you are wrong!
CK says
David wrote” Calling it patriotic while denying religious motivation is a ruse.”
That was Iwanski that 1st injected that concept in his statements.Why is it when it comes to gay marriage questions ,the liberals will defend it by saying,it shouldn’t affect others? How does this affect you? Not in any way right? Since it’s a legal act to display the national motto.
I personally am not affected either way by the Motto of our country on the courthouse. But it exposes those that don’t wan it for their anti-religious reasons .That appears to include you and Myron .
So if you agree with him as you say you do,you are both responsible for the “RUSE” Sounds like you and he have a Strawman argument and it’s a “Ruse ” IMHO.
David Allred says
I wouldn’t support taking it down any more than putting it up and those reasons are religious, not anti-religious. Jesus and Paul are both crystal clear in the New Testament that the courts solves problems when the Gospel fails. Both were clear that spiritual things were to be written on the heart, not on tablets of stone. The Church collective should have discussed these things before moving in unison on the issue imho. But none of that really is of issue now.
You seem to believe that that it’s ok to call the move “patriotic.” That’s fine – I honestly don’t care one way or the other, I’m just telling you flat out how a person using Reason is going to see it. Iwanski knows it, not because he’s got a handbook with philosophy terms like “Strawman” in it, but rather because that’s what the evidence leading up to the motion reveals.
Denny Phillips says
Mr. Allred, again, you and I have discussed this at length before and I told you then and will remind you again that the people that addressed commission cited many numerous reasons for wanting the signs.
Again, I have attended the meetings, rather than “Reasoning” from afar, and have seen numerous American veterans
CK says
” Jesus and Paul are both crystal clear in the New Testament that the courts solves problems when the Gospel fail”
To do what ? The Gospel has never failed anyone whose adhered to it. It’s the Good News in a world full of bad news. How can God fail? Please show me the scripture where you get that. Thanks in advance!
Sincerely,Curt Kelsey
Denny Phillips says
Indeed, CK, Commissioner Iwanski’s assertion that his fellow commissioners voted for the measure for “religious reasons” is reckless and inappropriate. Mr. Iwanski can not testify to a degree of certainty as to why any if the commoners voted to approve the national motto. I’m sure his fellow commissioners do not appreciate him attributing motivations for them.
By asserting that the signs were placed for religious reasons, Mr. Iwanski has placed the county in litigious peril by declaring the intent of the body as being religiously motivated. His quote would certainly be cited by any potential litigants against the county. If I were a fellow commissioner I would call for a censure of Mr. Iwanski for attributing motivations for the commission as a whole without the authority to do so.
Additionally, what’s more asinine is that Iwanski and Creasy’s proposal removes no liability from the county. Four signs stating “IGWT” would be no less a liability then would one. Either it is a violation or it isn’t . If you follow their logic, it makes about as much sense as saying “I only raped that woman once, the other three times she wanted to have sex”.
As per usual, the intelligentsia have proven a poor substitute for common sense. My advice for Mr. Iwanski and Mr. Creasy: If you find yourself in a whole, you might want to stop digging.
John Huotari says
CK,
Please remember to use your last name for those who don’t know who you are. Thank you.
John
Karen Buckley says
I just want to say the laws of our country are based on the rule of law. They are not based on religious law. If they were, we would have a system much like the Sharia law of the muslims. Jesus said to keep God and Cesar separate. On this basis, I think it much more appropriate to put something like “liberty and justice for all” on the county courthouse. “e pluribus unium” (from many one) is another good choice. On the other hand, we could just leave the facade of the building like it is. It would save money and could be better used to help people in need.
Denny Phillips says
I’m having trouble following your logic here. You say that the laws are based on the rule of law, not religion. Then you cite the reason that the country’s national motto shouldn’t be placed on the courthouse is because Jesus said not to.
Isn’t that using religion to govern?