Christina
03-08-2008, 10:50 PM
New York Times, March 1, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us/01cathedral.html?ex=1205038800&en=10d0a4903f7a850b&ei=5070&emc=eta1)
This minister painted the word ETERNITY in huge red letters on his roof, and the city is cracking down on him for violating their commercial sign ordinance.
The battle between the city and the church appears to come down to two essential issues: is the message of eternity a commercial one, and is the roof sign a nuisance so grand that the government must intervene?
Mr. Nimmons’s view is that his message is not commercial, and therefore not subject to the city ordinance. All he is selling, he argues, is faith.
“I just want people to go to God,” he said. “I don’t care where.”
On the first point, the city and the pastor clearly disagree.
“It’s arguable that he is trying to draw attention to his church so he is trying to garner new members,” Mr. Green said. “We are not engaged in content-based enforcement. He can say whatever he wants. Our problem with the sign is that we don’t permit signs regardless of content on top of a building.”
Douglas W. Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, said Mr. Nimmons’s position seemed more plausible.
“I would think it would be a mistake to conclude the word ‘eternity’ is proposing a commercial transaction,” Mr. Kmiec said, “even if one hopes for salvation.”
Mr. Nimmons said that he did not have money to pay hundreds of dollars in potential fines, but that he was willing to go to jail.
“The message is worth standing up for,” he said. “And worth dying for.”
I suppose eternity would have to be worth dying for, but given that his main argument is that no one will see it, dying seems a bit dramatic.
This minister painted the word ETERNITY in huge red letters on his roof, and the city is cracking down on him for violating their commercial sign ordinance.
The battle between the city and the church appears to come down to two essential issues: is the message of eternity a commercial one, and is the roof sign a nuisance so grand that the government must intervene?
Mr. Nimmons’s view is that his message is not commercial, and therefore not subject to the city ordinance. All he is selling, he argues, is faith.
“I just want people to go to God,” he said. “I don’t care where.”
On the first point, the city and the pastor clearly disagree.
“It’s arguable that he is trying to draw attention to his church so he is trying to garner new members,” Mr. Green said. “We are not engaged in content-based enforcement. He can say whatever he wants. Our problem with the sign is that we don’t permit signs regardless of content on top of a building.”
Douglas W. Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, said Mr. Nimmons’s position seemed more plausible.
“I would think it would be a mistake to conclude the word ‘eternity’ is proposing a commercial transaction,” Mr. Kmiec said, “even if one hopes for salvation.”
Mr. Nimmons said that he did not have money to pay hundreds of dollars in potential fines, but that he was willing to go to jail.
“The message is worth standing up for,” he said. “And worth dying for.”
I suppose eternity would have to be worth dying for, but given that his main argument is that no one will see it, dying seems a bit dramatic.