In yesterday's Herald, there was a story about a man who is receiving hate mail and harrassing phone calls because he put up a 12' wooden cross on his property in Carmel Valley. He lives on 40 acres and yes, the cross is visible from pretty far away but it is on HIS property and its a cross he constructed from 2 pieces of wood - nothing obnoxious, brightly colored, just 2 pieces of wood stuck together to form a symbol. Now the county wants him to apply for a permit which costs money and could be denied. I have pasted a link to the article if you are interested in reading more about it...
http://www.montereyherald.com/search/ci_8700529?IADID=Search-www.montereyherald.com-www.montereyherald.com
So, should we have the freedom to express our faith, religion, etc. or if someone else finds this particular symbol offensive, do we have to remove it? The land owner feels that his constitutional rights are being denied. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
He should have his cross! On what basis is it wrong for him to have it on his property. What about all the signs painted round of farmers and things in this valley by the artist that does the bigger than life stnad up wood paintings.
I think that he should be allowed to have a cross on his property. It's his property and he therefore has the right to do pretty much anything with it. Plus he is exercising he freedom of religion, so it's well within in his rights to put a cross on his lawn. Maybe a compromise could be made and he puts a smaller cross on his front lawn, that way it wont be totally noticeable
Post a Comment