Friday, September 06, 2013

City Leaders Object to Church’s Cross

When the Left are as far as possible pushing Christianity out of public view, large crosses are one way of making sure they do not succeed

It’s a battle of Christians versus Christians in Brandon, Miss. where city officials oppose efforts by a prominent church to erect a giant cross because it violates a zoning ordinance. But the pastor of the church said elected officials are also afraid the cross might offend Muslims.

The First Baptist Church of Brandon petitioned the city to install a 110-foot tall cross on its property alongside Interstate 20. The project is sponsored by “Crosses Across America,” a non-profit group that builds giant crosses along the nation’s highways.

“They were led by the Holy Spirit to seek a location in Mississippi,” Pastor Scott Thomas told Fox News. “92,000 cars a day travel along the Interstate 20 corridor. Those are people who need hope, who need inspiration.”

The Federal Aviation Administration and the Mississippi Department of Transportation signed off on the plan, but the church hit a snag when they took their request before the city’s planning commission. They voted 4-3 to not recommend construction.

Mayor Butch Lee told Fox News the cross is considered an auxiliary structure and under the law the cross can only be 20 feet high.

“The tallest structure in the city is two stories,” the mayor said. “The cross is 11 stories.”

The final decision on the cross rests with the board of alderman and Pastor Thomas said the outlook is bleak. He said he suspects there’s more to their objections than just the size of the cross.

“They asked other questions that indicate to me that there’s something else that concerns them,” he said. “They asked, ‘what if the Muslims, the Buddhists want to build a sign?’”

Pastor Thomas said the city did offer to let them build a smaller cross.

“They said they would allow a 50-foot cross but they would not allow a 110-foot cross,” he said. “Our problem with that is that we want to make an impact. We want to make a statement. And it’s on church property.”



Anonymous said...

So it becomes an "arms race" or a symbol race between religions - who has the biggest? Kinda similar to who has the biggest wiener, and just as puerile!

A. Christian said...

A 110 foot cross? Seriously? And they wonder why they were refused? Do they think, in this anti-Christian environment, that pushing the envelope (that far) is going to help their cause? And what are they going to do when that infamous "anonymous" atheist shows up? You know, that one atheist the ACLU always manages to find no matter where they are?

Anonymous said...

It might be church land but it is subject to zoning laws created to benefit the community. If they don't like the laws then move. This is not a Christian bashing exercise no matter what they think.

Uno Hu said...

This is an example that is comparable to the case of the gay couple suing a bakery owner who refused to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. They "went after" this baker in attempt to make the point that he had to bow to their wishes regardless of his preference. Most Christian observers of this situation lamented this as an encroachment on the baker's religious liberty. In the city where this occurred, there were certainly other bakeries that would have welcomed their business, but it was this couple's choice to use lawfare to force acceptance of, or at least acquiescence to, their preference upon someone they knew would find their choice offensive.

Now comes a church in a community with zoning laws that limit construction to "2 stories" or approximately 20 feet. The church requested permission to build a 110-foot cross (an 11 story structure). This permission was refused, but in an effort at compromise, the planning commission offered to approve a 50-foot tall cross (essentially offering a free variance of 30 feet to the church). The church declined this and is pushing (likely unsuccessfully) to be able to construct a 110-foot cross. In this case, who is attempting to impose his will upon whom?

Anonymous said...

gov prohibiting the free exercise of religion. unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

So presumably 3:30 thinks that that bakery would also have been entitled to refuse service to a black/afro couple on grounds of personal preference to serve whom it chose. License to serve the general public does not permit a commercial operation like this bakery to discriminate against customers on the grounds of personal attitudes, and is not the same thing at all as public bodies deciding on zoning regulations about outsize structures!

Uno Hu said...

3:18 AM states that "presumably 3:30 PM (i.e., this commenter) thinks that the bakery should have be entitled to refuse service to a black/afro couple. . . ."

3:18 AM is right - I do think the baker should have been able to refuse service to a black/afro couple, or a white/afro couple, or a yellow/afro couple, or even two white heterosexual anglo/saxons but you get the idea without me listing all possible combinations, I should hope.

Does my failure to follow PC dictates make me a racist? Oh well, if that idea didn't make me a racist, some other non-PC-compliant notion that I hold, (and I hold plenty of'em) would, so . . . .

Anonymous said...

Well yes Uno, your freely expressed views do kinda make you a racist and the homophobe and other kinds of undisclosed bigot. But where does that get you when your views oppose other less bigotted views? Well,Russia for instance is keen on your attitudes.

Anonymous said...

if muslimes or other religions want to build a sign, let them. What have we to fear for God's sake.