Several years ago, Metro Church had to fight the city of Edmond to build their cross on their private property off I-35 and 2nd Street (now Life Church Edmong Campus). The first decision reached by the council was against building the cross. The second decision approved building the cross, but on a smaller scale. What is your opinion of government restricting a church's right to build a structure on private property?

I was againt this cross because a lot of people might think Oklahoma City is nothing but strict religious people. However, if built too high it may look over powering and that would be a mistake... No matter any other reason.

If the structure violates zoning laws, then the government is more than entitled to restrict their building it.

I believe the zoning laws were what was in question here. In the second decision, I believe, granted a variance in the zoning restrictions.

As for the cross itself, my thought was always that it was a collossal waste of money. The God that most Christians believe in doesn't need man-made monuments to be glorified. He'd rather we donate the money to worthy charities.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Just getting plans through the city of Edmond can be a colossal waste of money

I agree with this, because lots of times, safety would be an issue. Personally, I think the cross looks great, and it is a symbol of faith and hope . I am glad they got the go ahead to have it built. I really enjoy looking at it when I am heading north to Edmond to visit my parents, or when I am heading south back towards OKC.

Like Fletch, I believe in a God who doesn't require heavy financing.

I think this worked out well enough for everyone: the church got its symbol, and the city got to claim that they were just doing their job.

This is a little off topic, but I do agree with you. Seems like the money would've been better spent serving homeless people, sending out missionaries, or something like that. Sometimes I think churches get too wrapped up in brick and mortar.

But, I suppose the money for the cross was donated by one family in the church at the time, so it wasn't really a decision by the church itself....more a desire of one church member.

To each his own I suppose.

So essentially, it's a monument to the ego of the person who donated the money. What a terrible way to make a statement about religion...

I think I'd feel different if it were somehow an interesting feat of art or engineering.. but as it stands, it's just a big 'ol expensive cross.

I never felt it was particularly contraversial. What they want to do on their land as long as they don't violate zoning ordinances is their business. I just think it's a bit tacky.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Nothing against Pentecostals/Charismatics, but it seems like a lot of Pentecostal/Charismatic churches push the ego issue. For example, before Life Church took over the building, the main auditorium at Metro Church was named after one of the largest donors. I've never been in favor of naming religious buildings after someone just because they gave the majority of the money to build it. Makes me think of the Pharisees. I always thought when you gave an offering to God, it was supposed be done in private submission, not to be seen by others. The gift from the lady in the Bible who gave all she had, but gave it quietly, seemed to be more meaningful to God than the gift from the rich Pharisees who flaunted their wealth and gave huge offerings to be seen before men.

The land belonged to Metro Church. Building a cross on their property at I-35 and Edmond Road didn't harm anything. I don't know what the big fuss was about. The cross provides a nice sight to travelers along I-35.

I'm still burned that the cross was removed from the Edmond city seal, but that's a whole other subject.

Well, the U.S. Supreme Court did what everyone knew they'd do. The city of Edmond wasted a LOT of money defending that stupid thing. It was an unwinnable fight, it just would have been political suicide not to fight it. The only ones that won in that case were the attorneys for the city

It very clearly violated the establishment clause though.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Did the city of Edmond ever replace the cross with anything? Last I checked, the space was still empty.

It's still empty to the best of my knowledge. Probably always will be. Can you imagine the turmoil in that city if they tried to replace the cross' spot with something else?

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

In spite of the Supreme Court, Edmond should've placed a statue of Buddha in that spot, just to see if it received a similar response.

It would've been intersting to see the response, but I suppose there would've been such a public outrage against about it, and the Buddha statue wouldn't have lasted.

Large fiberglass hippos don't last in Edmond, Buddha sure as heck wouldn't

I agree. If they placed Budda in that seal, can you imagine all the lawsuits that would be filed?

Stop the presses, because I'm going to agree with Reverend Bob on something. Not the Edmond seal issue, because as a public symbol it should not have been endorsing any religion over another. I'm glad the cross was removed. And I would be just as upset to see Buddha on the seal, as the government should be secular and completely unbiased when it comes to religions. The government, its land, its buildings, and all it holds is the property of the people. What is public should not lean towards a particular religion, because the people in Edmond (and the country) come from all sorts of religious backgrounds. And they all pay taxes.

As for the cross, it was private property--owned by the church--and the government has no right to tell them what they can and can't build there. Yes, it was a waste of money that could have been spent on more Christian things like helping the poor and sick (as Jesus commanded), but the fact remains that it is private property owned by the church. This is a great example of how I'm just as disgusted by radical left wingers as I am with radical right wingers. Neither group seems to respect freedom unless the issue to be defended is something they agree with.

I don't consider myself a Christian in the strictest sense, but I am not offended by the cross. They should have been able to do whatever they wanted with their own land. Government needs to stay out of the private sector. Period.

I think the original issue was that the cross violated an ordinance in Edmond governing the height of structures. After some debate, they were granted a variance.

nurfe, what would you think of including a pride flag on the Edmond city seal?

I would be opposed to it. Read what I just said. It is a public symbol, and as a public symbol it is owned by the people. It should not bow down to any one specific group. The job of the government is to see to the needs of all.

Now--AS YOU ARE SO FOND OF TELLING ME--back to topic. This thread isn't about the Edmond seal. It is about the Large cross metrochurch built.

And if you weren't so blinded by your hatred of me just because I happen to be a homosexual, you would have noticed I agreed with you on this issue. The cross was built on private property and I believe the church had the right to build whatever it wanted on their own land.

Notice the theme here? That the government should stay out of the private sector. Stay out of people's bedrooms. Stay out of people's churches. Stay off private property. Period. And I will defend anyone's rights to do whatever they want on their own property. I don't care if they're doing something I agree with or not. I respect freedom for all. Not just freedom for people I agree with.

I have to say though, that this is one of the things that angers me about people posting on here. Notice how the thread had nothing to do with homosexuality, but because I posted on it (and notice that I actually agreed with Reverend Bob on this specific thread topic) people feel the need to bring up the homosexuality issue. Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. And why are you assuming that I (or even most gays for that matter) are flag waving queens? I have never had a pride flag on anything I own. I don't march in parades. I don't club. I don't sleep around. I don't listen to Cher or Barbara Streisand. Get it? The picture you people paint of the gay stereotype doesn't apply to most of us. And I think that's why you really don't like me. Because you know deep down that the stereotype doesn't apply and it isn't going to hurt my feelings.

So no, Reverend Bob. I would NOT want a "pride flag" on any state or city seal. I don't even care for them as bumper stickers. To me, having "gay pride" is as silly as having "blond pride" or "blue eyed pride" or "white pride." It is divisive and stupid. Just like homphobia.

Your last post was quite enough, and totally off subject. As you mentioned, we need to stay on the subject. If a certain subject angers you, then maybe you should refrain from posting on it.

Was someone not baiting him here? Please, take it up with the person that was being "rude" according to the TOS -- that's Rev. Bob, in case you're wondering. He called out an individual member of this forum and baited him based on his sexual preference.

No sir, nobody was baited. Rev. Bob stated his opinion and asked a simple question, in a polite way (not rude) that required a yes or no answer. Granted, he got off the subject, which I have already PM'd him about. He was not offensive in any way. Maybe you should go back and read the TOS yourself....it may enlighten you.