Posted by Chris A on March 22, 2006 4:24 PM|Permalink
Comments
As a former specialist in local sign regulation, I can assure you that a cross is a sign. The modest fee required will certainly come nowhere near paying for staff's time in dealing with Christians and other crazies who think that they should be exempt from the local regulations that apply to everyone else.
It would be very hard to distinguish a cross from another type of advertising on any strong or objective basis (certainly in the USA where the First Amendment requires us complete"content-neutral" objectivity in evaluating religious, or other, communications media). If there were no restrictions at all, many churches, mosques and temples would get completely covered with writing, pictures and/or other symbols, a proliferation of which very many people would find objectionable, certainly on a storefront or other non-religious setting. And not everyone wants to give religious facilities preferential treatment.
The ordinances do take staff time to administer and it is generally considered fair that the parties who tax staff's time should bear the costs.
Please, when you become clergy, don't adopt a holier-than-thou attitude vis-a-vis your local governemnt. If the rules are unpopular, they can be changed through the democratic process, and if so they should be changed in a way fair to everyone in the community.
Comments
As a former specialist in local sign regulation, I can assure you that a cross is a sign. The modest fee required will certainly come nowhere near paying for staff's time in dealing with Christians and other crazies who think that they should be exempt from the local regulations that apply to everyone else.
It would be very hard to distinguish a cross from another type of advertising on any strong or objective basis (certainly in the USA where the First Amendment requires us complete"content-neutral" objectivity in evaluating religious, or other, communications media). If there were no restrictions at all, many churches, mosques and temples would get completely covered with writing, pictures and/or other symbols, a proliferation of which very many people would find objectionable, certainly on a storefront or other non-religious setting. And not everyone wants to give religious facilities preferential treatment.
The ordinances do take staff time to administer and it is generally considered fair that the parties who tax staff's time should bear the costs.
Please, when you become clergy, don't adopt a holier-than-thou attitude vis-a-vis your local governemnt. If the rules are unpopular, they can be changed through the democratic process, and if so they should be changed in a way fair to everyone in the community.
Posted by: Vik Slen | March 24, 2006 3:59 PM