The Cross - "It's not a sign, it's a symbol!"
Is Orlando favoring one religion over the other?
I haven't tried to construct a 100 foot tall Star of David in the middle of downtown lately, or have I thought of a 150 foot tall statue of Buddha along I-4.
Nor can I put up a 175 foot tall Mickey Mouse near the SR 192 exit
(if there should be any giant symbol that should symbolize the religious trek of millions of pilgrims, certainly Walt's creation should be the most appropriate).
Mostly the reason is because of zoning laws, which restrict what kind of signs and buildings can be allowed.
But apparently it doesn't matter when it comes to the 199 foot Christian cross being installed on the west Orange County campus of the first Baptist Church of Orlando.
Read the whole article here.
Even though the structure violates zoning height restrictions by 5-1/2 times the height normally allowed for signs, The Rev. Clayton Cloer stated,"The cross is not a sign; it is a symbol. A sign identifies; a symbol expresses." Cloer said, "To compare the cross to a Wal-Mart sign or a McDonald's sign . . . is what we believe would be an incorrect comparison."
District 1 County Commissioner Teresa Jacobs opposed the cross, saying she could not reconcile it with county regulations and variance stipulations. The cross will be in her district."We cannot single out Christianity . . . without providing that opportunity to all other churches, mosques and synagogues," Jacobs said. She recommended amending the code to differentiate between signs and symbols.
Are the laws merely being bent by the roaring religious crowds at the city hall meeting? Or did they find a valid loophole?
I wonder if a 199 foot tall Muslim Crescent would have been equally approved by the city council?
I haven't tried to construct a 100 foot tall Star of David in the middle of downtown lately, or have I thought of a 150 foot tall statue of Buddha along I-4.
Nor can I put up a 175 foot tall Mickey Mouse near the SR 192 exit
(if there should be any giant symbol that should symbolize the religious trek of millions of pilgrims, certainly Walt's creation should be the most appropriate).
Mostly the reason is because of zoning laws, which restrict what kind of signs and buildings can be allowed.
But apparently it doesn't matter when it comes to the 199 foot Christian cross being installed on the west Orange County campus of the first Baptist Church of Orlando.
Read the whole article here.
Even though the structure violates zoning height restrictions by 5-1/2 times the height normally allowed for signs, The Rev. Clayton Cloer stated,"The cross is not a sign; it is a symbol. A sign identifies; a symbol expresses." Cloer said, "To compare the cross to a Wal-Mart sign or a McDonald's sign . . . is what we believe would be an incorrect comparison."
District 1 County Commissioner Teresa Jacobs opposed the cross, saying she could not reconcile it with county regulations and variance stipulations. The cross will be in her district."We cannot single out Christianity . . . without providing that opportunity to all other churches, mosques and synagogues," Jacobs said. She recommended amending the code to differentiate between signs and symbols.
Are the laws merely being bent by the roaring religious crowds at the city hall meeting? Or did they find a valid loophole?
I wonder if a 199 foot tall Muslim Crescent would have been equally approved by the city council?
posted by lubomira at 12:53 PM
<< Home