Dudley Wood Methodist Church in the UK just moved to a new location and wanted to erect a cross so people would know their new location was a church. Not so fast, says the city. The Dudley council told the church the cross constitutes an advertisement under national planning laws and will require a $130 fee for planning permission.
So is the cross advertising? The church itself said they wanted to put up the cross so people would know the new building was being used as a church. They’re certainly using it as a means to get the word out. You could compare it to a restaurant putting up a symbol denoting food, or an automotive store putting up a car symbol. Of course that’s not exactly a flattering comparison for the cross.
Vinny
March 13, 2006
I really think the cross is a form of advertisement. It seems sometimes the church wants to have its cake and eat it too. Churches are all too willing to accept tax concessions (especially property tax exemptions) but then cry foul when the same government that the church is cozily sharing a bed with dares to make a church live by the same rules other organizations are required to follow.
This is perhaps a finer point than the example Kevin shared, but we had a recent flareup here regarding a United Methodist Church’s desire to erect three crosses (30-ft, 26-ft and 22-ft, respectively) on the front lawn of the church. This ran afoul of the city’s 12-foot height limit on freestanding signs. The city further claimed that because one of the crosses was the UMC cross and flame design, it crossed the line from generic Christian symbol to advertising sign. Oh, and the display would be a possible traffic hazard (think Effingham, Illinois).
Eventually, the city backed down from their position and allowed the crosses to be erected (probably out of fear of a lawsuit), although I’m not convinced that was the best possible outcome, even though the crosses are pretty slender and not an eyesore, IMHO. To me this issue is somewhat akin to the point being made by the McPassion – should the church try to take advantage of all the possible alliances (holy or not) offered by the secular world?
Dan
March 13, 2006
Not to get this thing too complicated, the tax issue is a longstanding one. Churches are non-profit, so I don’t see that anyone is “in bed” with anyone more than any other non-profit organization.
As a newspaper reporter who has covered lots of zoning and plan commission meetings, churches have to go through the planning process and conform to height,design and other issues just like anyone or justify why they shold be granted a variance. So no big whoop there.
Sometimes they get a little favorable treatment but that’s often tied to the historic significance of the church in the community.
Calling the cross advertising is unusual, I’ll grant you. I suppose it is. But in the U.S. I don’t think you could make any restrictions — like limiting churches to commercial districts — stick on that basis under the First Amendment’s protection of religion.
Ron Gehrke II
March 13, 2006
This saturday I was awakened by a the knock of a Jehova’s Witness. We had a great discussion and when we talked about the cross, he told me they believed Christ was actually crucified on a stake…my response….
A cross looks better on a sign.
Vinny
March 14, 2006
Dan, I would tend to agree with you except that since RLUIPA (the federal statute enacted to protect churches from zoning discrimination) was passed in 2000, increasingly churches in the US who don’t get their way in a zoning dispute claim religious discrimination under RLUIPA and threaten to sue (as happened in the case I mentioned). Local planning and zoning boards don’t relish being taken to federal court, and so they roll over and give in to the church, even if there might be a compelling public interest in the land use restriction in question. It’s no longer a level playing field – churches now have what amounts to a congressionally mandated unfair advantage over every other entity, whether for-profit or not.
Dan
March 14, 2006
Vinny, I guess I just don’t see anything nefarious on the church’s part om this. Usually when these issues come up, it’s because of anti-religionists or those who don’t want to see land taken off the tax rolls. I think protecting the First Amendment right of religious exercise is a good thing.
In the vast majority of cases, churches, neighbors and local planners work in concert and are sensitive to everyone’s feelings. Churches, after all, don’t usually want to tick off their “constituents” anymore than politicians do. So a middle ground is usually found.
On the tax issue, for instance, it’s common place in my state for churches being built to pay a fee in lieu of taxes — sometimes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars — to local municipalities to help cover costs to the public.