bibledude, your post smacks of redemption on the light issue. Too bad about that other thing.

Gazzettefan
In case you are referring to the church that has the sign here are the facts. After our latest construction phase we thought it was finally time to capitalize on our location on the interstate and the use of a sign would be a good tool. We ASKED the city for permission and they said yes. We knew nothing of RLUIPA until we read about in the newspaper AFTER the fact. There were complaints about the brightness, we lowered it to the point where it is now 30% of what is allowed by code. The city asked that we not have "traveling" or flashing messages. Even though according to RLUIPA we do not have to comply with code (which I think is absurd) we readily co-operated with the city. We are, have been and will continue to be in a good working relationship with our city officials. Those are the facts.

Any church that oversteps reasonable bounds. And the ones that don't overstep reasonable bounds but have failed to organize a corrective program to fix the ones that do.

Gazzettefan- When you say church are you referring to the church in the article or the church as a whole? Can you please clarify.

On point here is that the church insists on overstepping its bounds based on special privilege.

To both sides of the issue. This is an old thread that I was hoping would never start up again, if you want to debate this topic can you at least find a story that is half way relevant to the topic.

FROM THE STORY

Weakland, who has largely been out of the public eye since he retired in 2002 in the midst of another scandal, was questioned under oath for more than a day by Anderson. Portions of that deposition were released - a common practice in court cases - in which Weakland acknowledged that he never reported any suspected abuse while he headed the local church. He also testified that he never directly asked accused priests whether allegations were true and that he never discussed what he knew about instances of sexual abuse with his successor, Archbishop Timothy Dolan.

The war of words is a side skirmish in a lawsuit, being fought in the courtroom of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Jean DiMotto, in which seven men and women contend they were
assaulted by clergy decades ago.

The cases are expected to go to a jury trial in June or July 2009.

The cases are going to trial because the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled last year that the church could be sued by victims on fraud charges if they could show that the church knew about the misconduct and deliberately attempted to cover it up. In a ruling on the cases in her court, DiMotto dismissed actions against the church's insurance carrier, saying coverage did not apply to intentional acts.

That means that if the church loses in DiMotto's court, it will bear the full brunt of any financial award. John Marek, chief financial officer of the archdiocese, said in a Web page article last month that such a decision could "push the archdiocese toward bankruptcy."

Anderson said he was releasing the video that was taken as a part of the court case to rebut arguments that the deaths of witnesses would affect the outcome.

FROM THE STORY

Retired Archbishop Rembert Weakland admitted in a video deposition released Wednesday that he transferred priests with a history of sexual misconduct back into churches without alerting parishioners.

The former archbishop acknowledged that he did so because "no parish would have accepted a priest unless you could say that he has gone through the kind of psychological examination and that he's not a risk to the parish."

While similar allegations have been made for years as the scandal rocked the Catholic Church across the country, Weakland's statements give a rare glimpse of how a top church leader dealt with allegations of sexual misconduct by priests.

"I have never heard a bishop discuss openly the inner workings of this essentially secret handling of sex abuse cases," said Peter Isely, a spokesman for SNAP, a national support group for victims of clergy sex abuse. "I haven't seen anything like this anywhere in the country."

"Archbishop Weakland is able to comment on what he knew, but many if not all of those involved in these cases are dead," Jerry Topczewski, speaking for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "We'll never know fully what happened or the intent of these people and their actions that date back 20, 30 and 40 years."

The release of the heavily edited portion of Weakland's deposition, which was taken in June, came in response to a contention last month by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee that the deaths of key people involved in the church's coverup of sexual abuse allegations had thrown into question the fairness of a pending trial, and that if the archdiocese lost the pending cases, it could face bankruptcy.

Jeffrey Anderson, a lawyer representing those suing the church, said Weakland's comments vividly show that the trial would be fair because Weakland's testimony showed that a coverup existed.

Does anyone else find this article much ado about nothing?? The city has an issue with the sign but hasn't even approached the church to discuss it. How is this newsworthy? Either it's a slow news day or the Gazette thought they'd stir up some trouble.

Gfan you can't even stay on topic, and you offend with almost every post. You were obviously a first hand witness to some of the things you can't quit preaching about. Whenever a story about ANY church comes up, there you are bashing Christians, and saying none of us care about "institutionalized child rape"!
Get up out of your chair and go to one of the states like Vermont, who are sanctuaries for child molesters. Tell them all about it. Heck, start your own church. You can call it the "Holy Catholic I sure hate em, church of one"

“There is nothing real about this claim of substantial burden,” he added. “If this is a substantial burden, we might as well say that every claim wins.” http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm...

I wonder if the portion of the 501(c)3 rules which states "income derived from activities unrelated to a tax-exempt organization's purposes is taxed as if earned by a comparable for-profit entity" applies to churches. I suspect some churches would legally challenge this if they were taxed as a for-profit doing social service - or other - work which can now, under RLUIPA, be easily accomplished without licensing, staffing and in areas not zoned for such activity. ( http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1... ) It appears kicking the money changers out of the temple has been long forgotten given: "The church spent $150,000 on equipment for the franchise, will pay any additional operational costs, and will receive 100% of the profits." Ambitious churches are even making a big business out of spreading their marketing and financial expertise.( http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/con... )

Our 501c3 status has really not changed life for our church at all. Technically a church is tax exempt without the 501c3 status but it just provides for less of a hassle when you make large purchases. The merchants always ask for your 501c3 number so it becomes a headache without it.

A 501(c)3 nonprofit can raise funds by receiving public and private grant money as well as donations from individuals and businesses. Being non-profit, the tax laws encourage people and businesses to donate money and property for a tax deduction on their own tax returns. Structuring an organization as a nonprofit corporation also provides protection of the directors, officers, and members from personal liability for debts and liabilities.

bibledude,
The second part of the post was meant to be rhetorical. I know the Romans were hostile toward Christians which is why the Roman government wasn't giving tax breaks to the Jews that tithed.
.
My whole point with the 501c3 issue is that I'm wondering where the line should be drawn as far as government involvement. Are any other rights gained (besides a tax break) or lost (besides not endorsing/opposing candidates) by being 501c3?

Tax code details can be found at:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,i...

DrTalk- 1st part of your post in regards to the tithe I totally agree. The second part regarding the Romans, they did not practice and tithe system that I'm aware of. For the 1st 3 centuries they were hostile towards Christianity as you probably know.

Bibledude,
I know the Bible gives the command to tithe, but that shouldn't be dependent on a tax break. In Biblical times, did the Romans give tax breaks to those that tithed?

Federal tax law says tax-exempt houses of worship are free to address political and social issues and pastors may encourage voting as a part of good civic behavior but they may NOT use their resources to promote or oppose any candidate. While the IRS is serious about politics from the pulpit and has taken action when this is violated, to my knowledge, RLUIPA has never been applied to tax code issues except that churches that are tax exempt, may operate for-profit businesses under RLUIPA. (Example with franchising opportunities! - http://www.lordsgym.org/page/page/428298...

DrTalk-I think so, I know we have. 501c3 has created no problems for us that I'm aware of. People really want to make sure a church has 501c3 before they give for tax purposes.

Yes, that's part of it. But the church could if it wasn't 501(c)3. Not that the churches should endorse political candidates anyway, but there are some issues that the church should address that kind of cross over into politics. I'm not sure how fine of a line the government puts on churches in this regard. Can the church discuss these issues without endorsing candidates?

Let's not forget that the worst extension of the mentality intrinsic to RLUIPA is the criminal enterprise known as the Catholic Church.

DrTalk We are not allowed to endorse political parties or candidates, is that what you mean?

deltafox5674: Only because you addressed said issue of mixing socialism and atheists. I also find it confusing why some link these topics unless its due to the history of Russia and China even though they were Communist vs. socialist (NOT the same thing). Just as mixing state and church is an explosive meld, economics and religion can be equally volatile and, again, that's the danger of RLUIPA on the local scene. Government is supposed to be neutral - neither favoring nor diminishing any religion or lack-therof but RLUIPA favors churches and their projects with special protections and rights over secular interests, institutions and public policy.

proartist,
We are of the same mind here, not sure why you addressed that post to me also... My comment to tjncj was to point out what you posted, that one has nothing to do with the other. I wonder why when anyone questions what a church does, they are automatically assumed atheists.

bibledude,
Doesn't that limit the church's freedom of speech? If the church is 501(c)3, the IRS can crack down on the church for certain things that are said from the pulpit.

yes we are

bibledude,
Is your church 501(c)3?

Sorry, tjncj...I meant to address the comment to you and deltafox5674.

tjncj: There is no socialist/atheist agenda nor should you presume my particular faith. The topic is legal issues not particular personalities or faiths. However it is fact what RLUIPA has caused adverse consequences and that many churches have taken/lobbied for government monies whether for faith-based charitable work (thus removing it from use by reputable professional programs) and/or school vouchers. Equally, there are also responsible and truly moral churches who more wisely live their faith, doing as they preach, and being a living example for all. Just as with anything, when there's an opportunity, some will take advantage of a situation beyond initial intentions with only their own benefit in mind while there are also others who who will work well within the intention of law so there are no harmful repercussions for either people receiving services or any others in the community. The intention of my comments? Solely to raise awareness that there may be more than one aspect of RLUIPA which many haven't considered and the realization that SOMETIMES institutions aren't really always as they may first appear.

"Your socialist/atheist agenda is getting old."
Why would you link socialism and atheism in the same context?

Proartist This is just an FYI kind of thing, our church never has and never will accept one nickel of government funding. Any program we initiate we will fund ourselves. I'm also not aware of very many churches in town who receive funds from the government.

Well Proartist, my church doesn't have an expensive sign but we do have an elementary school, many charities we participate and contribute to and a declining collection plate to fund it. Is all you can come up with is expensive signs? No comments on what happens if the charities die and the schools close? You may have homeless people living in your backyard then. Your socialist/atheist agenda is getting old.

I'm familiar with what signs such as this one (with electronic "ticker") cost. If churches have the money for these which are incredibly expensive, then they probably aren't as desperate for funding as they'd like others to believe. After all they do receive government funds via faith-based charity programs (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbc...) through the WhiteHouse and even with special government sponsored national conferences telling them how to access the tax-payer trough! If churches want to use my taxes, they should be held accountable to the same laws which other institutions, businesses, and I, as a property owner, also have to abide.

Madman, The homeless shelter and the law that allows it have been brought up here. I put this in as an example of what extent some people will go to to help there fellow man as the homeless shelter does. I ran across it and found it interesting historically as well.

As for the Catholic church less than 1.5% of priests offended. Still too high but some religions have higher rates, some lower. The problem was with the administration when these occurred. Those that allowed it to continue should be punished as as well. I was an alter boy for years under many priests and never had any bad experiences. The vast majority didn't.

Finally the RLUIPA law is new to me. I don't believe the vast majority of denominations use it to avoid laws. This church has reacted and changed the sign. We are a democracy. Our elected officials enacted the law and can change it if their constituency calls for it. As for those of you who think churches should pay taxes be careful what you wish for. The charity work done by all denominations would be destroyed and millions of people affected. Do you think the local churches are getting rich? Hardly. They struggle to keep their schools open and their charitable works funded. We need ECHO now more than ever. What would the Janesville school district do if the parochial schools closed and 700 to a 1000 new students (my estimate) needed teachers and class space? We can't afford it.

Even though the article refers to a complaint about the brightness of the sign and said complaint is the origin of the article I have read madman's post and have seen the light (pun intended). The sign's brightest has no relevance to this discussion whatsoever, please strike it from the record. Also please edit out the word sign from the article itself should you reread it. All other posts referring to the sign are also hereby stricken from the record by orders of the madman and who am I to disagree with a madman?

Bibledude...I can "divorce" myself from it because altho the article may have been about the church that you belong to, the title of the article refers to the signS of churchs. In other words the signs that ANY church may put up. And the fact that your church is refered to, but not named, and the OTHER church is the one that Gale Price is quoted as saying or paraphrasing(the reporter isn't clear on that)...
.
"a different church put up an electronic sign, the city tried to discourage them from doing so because the city wasn't comfortable with it fitting into the area"
...
turned this into a discussion of the RLUIPA, _NOT_ your sign.
.
Reread the article as if you had to give a grade on the conciseness of what is said.

madman1961 Yes it is about RLUIPA, one could even argue it's mainly about RLUIPA but it is also about the sign. How can you divorce the sign from the article when it's in the title? The lowering of the brightest of the sign is of interest to people following this chain.

BibleDude...once again...this is NOT about YOUR church's sign...it's about the RLUIPA and the fact that churchs have different rules.
.
TJNCJ...ummm, just what does that little tidbit, as interesting as it is, have to do with this?
.
Proartist...THANK YOU!!! That is exactly what I've been trying to get at...not the sign but the special privledge.

What'd I say?!!!

See what I mean? Always a comeback. I mean, geez, since Assembly of God put up their sign I hear the death rate over there has gone sky high!!

My biggest thing with gaz is the fact that his TWISTED WARPED SICK mind believes that Christians are all pedophiles and child abusers and that is one of his main reasons HE doesn't want the sign. It's a tool to get the kids in and do sick things to them. He is SOOOO wrong and he doesn't want to hear anything else. Maybe if the Catholic church allowed their "fathers" TO BE MARRIED THAT WOULDN'T BE SUCH A BIG PROBLEM IN THEIR CONGREGATION. I'm obviously not Catholic nor do I believe in a lot of their beliefs. Gaz has to stop grouping all Christians in the same category. See what I mean now? I never said the church was above the law, I was commenting to bibledude that I think it's a great idea and from what he said they lowered the intensity BELOW CODE, basically to make everyone "happy".

Good, bibledude, now maybe fewer people will be annoyed and fewer lives will be lost on the Interstate.

upnorthwi: Could you - and some others here - please advise why anyone who simply thinks churches should be required to obey the same laws as ANY other institution without crying "discrimination" to get whatever they want is "anti-religion", not faithful, or worthy your "Christian" demonization? YOUR own prejudices and lack of demonstrating "love of your neighbors" when it comes to neighboring property owners is showing. SOME churches DO bypass laws. Laws which have a basis in sound public policy and community planning without aiming to be discriminatory against religious instituions. Again, the information about RLUIPA is not to demean all organized religion as you repeatedly imply. It is to educate that churches (especially because they do readily accept faith-based charitable tax-payer monies) currently do enjoy SPECIAL and FAVORED status in society above all others because of RLUIPA.

A few of the GIFTS homeless shelter critics could take a lesson from this Janesville native on how to love your neighbor.

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/wo...

I'm still checking in. I can't believe that gaz just won't let it go. Like I said before, some people are so anti-religion they just grasp at straws and try so hard to bring a good thing down. Good for your church. You're doing a good mission!

This thread might be dead so no one may read this but I've been informed the church has lowered the brightness of the sign even more to below 40% of what is allowed by code.

And it should be understood that RLUIPA does not facilitate the "separation of church and state." Instead, RLUIPA subverts the "separation of church and state."

RLUIPA gives the full force of the federal government to the religious industry (note that a post below refers to the sign as "marketing tool.") for purpose of ignoring local codes and laws to the detriment of local people.

Exactly. You can thank RLUIPA for what it's done to divide homeowners, residential neighborhoods, communities, and what it has done to educate the citizenry about the dangers of the ongoing gradual melding church and state (funding without accountability/responsibility).

Who'd a thought that a sign for a church would create this much of a stir!

Thanks, deltafox.....

lovetoscrap, though I detect a bit of criticism in your post you seem to be mellowing-out a bit.

mrscott...unfortunately, gazettefan distorts and takes out of context most of what he reads. I guess it's just his way of getting attention. I too have posted regarding Israel and have stated that I would physically fight for the survival of Israel if it came down to that. I know exactly what you are talking about regarding the statehood of Israel. Everyone surrounding them hates them and wants to see them destroyed. Of course this hatred dates way back to Isaac and Ishmael. My Bible says that those that bless Israel will be blessed and those that curse Israel will be cursed.

MrScott, I accept that you are sincere in your post below and welcome you to the fold of those who wish for the survival of Israel. I'd only suggest that you be more careful about how you write a post.

Nonetheless, lovetoscrap revealed a lot about himself when he supported a post that was written in a way that would have your professor say: Admit you support the destruction of Israel, or rewrite this post.

Thank you, lovetoscrap. Most of Israels neighbors to not recognize it's existence and thus believe it should not be in the middle east. I was simply answering a question raised by another blogger who asked why Israel can't just make friends with it's neighbors, and I stated it was because Israel's neighbors do not want it to exist as a nation. Unfortunately one person took that WAY out of context and I am now an anti-semite because of it. Good grief!

yes,
Your wrong on both issues. First, even if the church was held to the city sign ordinance, the fact that they had their sign installed and operating illegally for a small amount of time demonstrates first hand that they were not being held to the City's ordinances for signs. The ordinance states that the sign must comply with all aspect before it is operational. Faith CC wasn't, not that it is a bad thing since they rectified the situation themselves to hold themselves to the same law as everyone. Second, the state doesn't have anything to do with on-premise signs, it is up to the local ordinances where the sign is erected. The only jurisdiction that the state has is over off premise signs (like billboards). RLUIPA is the main issue of conversation here, not attacking any one single church. gazettefan is spot on with his assessment about you needing to read the article. If you find discussion harassing, perhaps it is you who should go elsewhere...

He said hatred for Israel will only end if Israel didn't exist. And that the existence of Israel is why there's war. Both these statements are false.

The war against Israel is based in irrational hated for Israel. That why war exists there. Get it?!

The equivalent to your brainlessness is: Bad things happen to good people because good people exist.

lovetoscrap, I predicted you would put that spin on it. Saying everything is "issues" sure make's it easy to write posts, doesn't it. Do you actually know anything?

There's a reason Pope Pius XII is known as Hitler's pope.
------------------------
Here's Chaya's response from the other story.

Thank you, Mr. Haynes, for describing life in Israel as those of us who live here know it. Israel wasn't 'given' to us. We first built it up, starting at the turn of the 18th century; but even long before that we returned to our Homeland. The main reason for such a large Arab population here is that Jewish settlements (kibbutzim;moshavim) drew in large numbers of Arabs from surrounding ares. Those that had been living here were felaheen (peasants living on and working land owned by absentee Arab landowners). The Balfour Agreement was long before World War II. It also included what is known today as Jordan (which is a totally made up country). The British went back on their agreement by ignoring Arabs coming in illegally and turning back Jews trying to escape from the Holocaust.

gazettefan...even I can decipher mrscott's post. He was talking about Israel's neighbors...not himself. He wasn't agreeing with the neighboring countries, he was simply stating a fact. Man, you have some issues!

Your post from another story:

The only way Israel could make friends with their neighbors is if Israel were completely removed from the map. The majority of the reason why fighting is constantly happening is simply because Israel exists, and exists as a free zionist state. Israel's neighbors hate the fact that the land was "given" to them after WWII, and hate Judaism.

gazettefan - not sure how or why you would think I'm an anti-semite. I stongly believe in the protection of Israel and Jews as God's chosen people. FYI I love my Jewish bretheren as much as my Christian brethern. You're bordering libel in your assertion.

Hey, yes, read the story!

Gazettefan is amazingly wrong when he said this sign is allowed under RLUIPA. It is allowed under the Janesville Sign Ordinances and the Wisconsin D.O.T. ordinances. It is in no way in violation of any ordinances, so get over it and move on with your life........Faith CC is doing great work and is using the sign as a great marketing tool. Have you even seen the sign? I doubt it. Move on with your harrassment of someone else, it is unwarranted here.

Ghostwriter: Why is this newsworthy?

Because RLUIPA states no government can impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a "substantial burden" on the religious exercise of a person unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution.

This has dramatically impacted and hindered the fair and equal exercise of local government discretion in making land use decisions in applications by religious organizations. RLUIPA makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether denial of an application creates a "substantial burden" on the religious exercise of the applicant.

The intent of the law was fair treatment in land use decisions by religious institutions, but the unintended use of the law by SOME religious organizations has clearly been to more broadly define "religious exercise" for all forms of housing, schooling, and other land uses (i.e. fast food franchises, health and physical fitness centers, etc.) which are not related to "religious" exercise.

Existing and evolving court decisions under RLUIPA are unclear as to whether maintaining reduced housing density, maintaining the residential character of a neighborhood or preventing increased traffic and burden on water and sewer resources, historic preservation, and more are considered "compelling" enough considerations in land use applications submitted by religious organizations - even though such considerations are legally appropriate in all NON-religious land use applications.

The impact of RLUIPA has substantially diminished control over land use decisions by local municipalities and to negatively impact the confidence of residents of thousands of communities.

High legal fees in defense of RLUIPA claims and the risk that the defending municipality will have to pay potentially large legal fees of the applicant if the municipality loses an RLUIPA claim, place a substantial financial risk to communities who are trying to fairly interpret the evolving case law under RLUIPA while protecting the health, welfare and safety of the residents (in this case, highway safety). This, creates the very real risk that municipal land use decisions in religious applications have and will be made largely based on the threat of the municipality potentially incurring devastating legal fees rather than on sound and fair land use considerations.

THAT, and more, is why RLUIPA is VERY newsworthy. RLUIPA has been affecting Janesville planning decisions since it was signed into law in 2000 and the people need to be informed so they can take appropriate action - whether working with others to overturn RLUIPA or so they don't become victims of it by locating their families near a church/church facilities.

gazette...staying on point is what I have been trying to get you to do from the very beginning. Are you just getting it? Glad to hear it!

There are a few things I do not understand.
1. This article has only one source quoted.
2(a) said anonymous(sort of) church was not even named. Why?
2(b) said anonymous(sort of) church two was never named. Why?
3. Neither of the churches were contacted for their side of the story. Why?
4. How many calls were actually fielded and in what time frame?
5. How is this newsworthy anyway?

I have no problem with complex thought.
It just seems a waste to present it to a closed mind.

JohnDoe, what took you so long to say something bad about it?

What's with your obsession with typing words while remaining thoughtless?

Why do you have such a problem with complex thought? ADD?

MrScott, I just found out you're an anti-Semite. No wonder you're at home with a certain ilk here.

No pleasure at all. Pedophilia is a deplorable, despicable thing and I condemn it.
.
But the fact that you continually interject it in unrelated discussions indicates an unhealthy obsession, for whatever reason, on your part, and I do wish you well in dealing with it. No insult intended.

Once again, JohnDoe, you blindly show us that you take pleasure from tragedy by using it as an insult.

MrScott, read the post. The mentality is the same. Read the rest of the posts and notice how attacks on certain people took the place of a reasonable response to the issue. Notice the acquiescence to pedophilia.

gazettefan obviously has some issues to deal with on that subject and we wish him well in seeking help.

I'm just curious how pedophelia (which is widely associated with the Catholic Church) is brought into an article having to do with a sign at a non-denominational church (no association what-so-ever with the Catholic Church). I know you're making a self-policing point, but you're comparing apples to oranges and the pedophelia thing sounds more like bitterness than anything.

lovetoscrap, talk about being off-point. The issue is this. The story is about a sign that's a nuisance and a danger. That sign is allowed by RLUIPA. RLUIPA is a law that allows the church to be above local laws to the detriment of the local people (in other words it's a bad law). This is a milder, but revealing, form of the "we'll police our own" mentality of a church that wallows in institutionalized pedophilia. Get it?!

Here's some psychoanalysis: You're like a guy who can't bear to discuss a certain kind of criminality. A kind of criminality that you should be loudly against. Why? Fear of detection?

Talk on point and spare yourself the trashing.

Actually gazette...I haven't bailed. I just have a bit more going on in my life than being on here 24/7. I realize that nothing I will say to you is going to help you so until you get the professional help you need, you will continue to act in a manner that is irrational and negative. Also, you got me thinking. Often times a person who continually brings up a situation, especially when those comments are off topic like this, has a problem himself with those very thoughts. Kind of like the jealous husband who doesn't trust his wife because he himself is having an affair. Does this apply to you? You might need more help than any of us can imagine.

Don_Diego,
"...but doesn't believe the world is undergoing warming although scientifically proven and widely accepted as fact."
.
First of all, he never mentioned what he believed about global warming.
.
Second, the issue isn't whether there is global warming or not. The issue is whether or not it's caused by humans.
.
There are over 31,000 American scientists, of which over 9,000 have PhDs, that don't believe that global warming is caused by humans.
www.petitionproject.org/

villajanesville, leave JohnDoe, bibledude, and lovetocrap alone. They've had a rough time here.

upnorthwi, no on the bad church experience directly. And apparently by using it as an insult, you're to dumb to realized that you figured out a way to take pleasure from the idea of children being abused in church. You didn't think that out, did you?

I have witnessed how damaged the males are who suffered at the hands of catholic priests.

You read another article here but you haven't read all the posts for this one. That's why you sound so ignorant regarding the subject at hand.

And your stereotype of veterans shows more of your ignorance. What I posted on that other story was positive and helpful. You took something negative from it because your not very bright. Get a grip on what's being said here.

When will some people realize that for some of us, it isn't whether a church does the "right thing" about a sign or not...it's the fact that they don't HAVE to do the right thing, they can do whatever they want to do.
.
Is that so hard to follow? All I'd like to see is that all churchs have to do the same things that everyone else has to...that is pay taxes and follow the rules that are set-up by the local government.
.
As I've said many times in this thread, I know that this time, this church is doing the right thing...they could also turn the sign up to full power tomorrow and there is not one thing that anyone could do about it. No, I'm not saying that I think they will do that, but they could.
.
ctr1...speaking just for myself, there is no disdain of faith or people that have faith. There is a disdain of people thinking that I should help foot the bill by paying there share of the property tax for every church/mosque/temple/whatever that someone wants to open. Oh and by the way, while we're at it, let's not hold them to the same rules as every other business in town.

His mind is so warped... He is not the one that believes in a being that can't be seen, heard or proved in any scientific way but doesn't believe the world is undergoing warming although scientifically proven and widely accepted as fact. The only ones with warped minds are christians who are "so heavenly minded they're no earthly good." (Johnny Cash)

After reading another article I think I may have a clue as to why gazette is so warped. Either he's one of those vets that suffers from PTSD or he had an awful experience at church as a child. I don't know of any real Christians that think child abuse is ok or normal.

proartist, you need to check facts before running off at the mouth about the GIFTS program. These homeless people don't hang out at the church all day. They need to be in at a certain time, around 6, I believe, then the doors are locked and they are not free to wander the premises. They are fed early and must leave for the day. There are men volunteers that stay the whole night to keep watch and background checks are done on a lot, if not all, of the homeless people. Besides, it gets dark earlier and kids shouldn't be running around outside of their yard anyways. Why would you send your children to play in a church parking lot if you don't go to church anyway?

Bibledude, I'm sorry, but, no matter what you say to gazette is NOT going to help. His mind is so warped and twisted that ONLY an act of God will change him.

clouds, wow, you are living in them!! You'd be utterly amazed at how may people "would jump off of a cliff" for God (although I don't believe He would have us do so). Why are you so mad about the sign? I don't believe in global warming and all that bunk. Christians have the mission of spreading the gospel and a sign doesn't mean that God doesn't have the power to draw people Himself, it's part of the human's mission.

This all frustrates me. Some people are just so anti religion they will do anything to try to dampen the spirit. This whole world is in such a sad state I find it absolutely unbelieveable!!

What I dont get here is why do so many people assume that the church in question will not cooperate in a solution to this situation, I'm sure pastoral staff, or commitees within the congregation would be more then happy to discuss the issue at hand. One other thing, why the distain for someone of faith, are they pushing their beliefs on You? I see no serious "bible thumping" going on.

Yes, I would. I do watch My children, they dont run wild. You must have a biased vew of homeless people, all drug addicts, lazy, crazy, ect. Have You ever given someone down on their luck a chance? It might be worth Your time. :)

protist-Our facilities are not conducive for it.
gazettefan-I'm engaging in dialogue, you don't like my responses as we have different worldviews, not much I can do about that.

The comments that have been posted here about a simple sign demonstrate the intolerance that humans have for each other and is a testimate to the fact of why we have wars. It also demonstrates why this world will never see "peace on earth and goodwill towards men". A debate over differences in ideology and theology is probably best left to Theologians while the "common man" should concentrate on "signs".

bibledude: Why are you avoiding the dialogue? Why do you have to imagine a stance of emotional control over the other person? Why can't you participate as an equal?

bibledude: Just curious...why supporting GIFTS but not hosting?

gazzettefan- why are you so angry? Hundreds of people attend Faith Community each weekend and are some of the finest people our city has to offer. Why would you say such things about a church you know nothing about?

Proartist- Yes that is correct, we are a participating church in that program in that we will be assisting one of the other church. We will not be a host so the men will not be staying at our churche.
Gazzettefan- Most of the feedback we've received from the neighborhood has been supportive. I will look into having the intensity lowered even more.
As to the child abuse, that is not even close to the topic of this article. However, I do agree that with you that abuse of children should not be tolerated. Perpetrators of such acts within a church should be brought to justice not passed onto another church.

Thanks, clouds555.

bibledude, why the focus on kids and convicts? Is there a problem trying to sell your spiel to adults who can think clearly?

Your sign is a stretch even for RLUIPA. Your rationale i.e. JC said to do it, is also a stretch. Does your special land use privilege allow for biblical human sacrifice too? A case re: that sign with the city administration or in a court of law may be in order now.

You're out of your element. This is the sphere of pure thought. Your mind numbing bible thumping before kids and misfits doesn't fly here. That's why you have to endure the comments of clear thinking people now.

JohnDoe, you've come a long way if you're even attempting to mimic wisdom. Are you seeing the light on that other issue?

Try to understand the complexities here compared to the other issue.

Also, lose the sarcasm, this is not funny.

bibledude, For starters: Don't use your power to disturb your neighbors. Don't make driving on the Interstate dangerous in the vicinity of your operation. Get rid of the sign. Reject RLUIPA. Condemn the church's war on children. Keep convicts away from kids.

lovetoscrap, yeah, you're a psychologist, that's way you realized you've painted yourself into a corner. That's why you've bailed out here, bailing is consistent with the avoidant mentality of your little world.

madman91, nice catch. Why haven't either bibledude or lovetoscrap condemned the church's war on children and the criminal enterprise known as the Catholic Church?

Seabee in the matter of tolerance or intolerance you should focus on what bibledude and lovetoscrap TOLERATE. Especially lovetoscrap's tolerance of child rape in the Catholic Church i.e. not all priests rape boys.

lovetoscrap, I guess child rape is at a tolerable level for you; that must be why you don't condemn it here.

taxpayer3...perhaps you didn't notice, but the topic went off just enough to be more about RLUIPA and tax-exempt status, not about THIS church and THIS sign. We have acknowledged that this sign is well within compliance to city regs...the "debate" at this point is that they don't have to do that and they have the full backing of the federal government and THAT is where most who are on the, shall we say the devils advocate side, are going after.
.
BibleDude...if you don't like my answers to your question, don't ask them. You won't always hear what you want to hear.

What a stupid debate. The church is compliant with code even though it doesn't have to be. The church sign is 50% of the brightness allowed by code. Maybe the church should double the brightness so you can see what is allowed for ALL signs per city code.

I note from a brochure that Faith Community is one of the participating churches with the homeless shelter program, G.I.F.T.S. This is one of the faith-based programs allowed in Janesville because of RLUIPA. Without RLUIPA, such activity would be appropriately licensed and zoned for a variety of reasons in the public interest. Will you still happily allow your children to play in the parking lot should homeless men be on the premises with the new shelter-rotation this fall?

I live in close proximity to the church in question. The sign fortunately doesnt affect us, but having saw it from the interstate at night, I see where the complaints come from, the people that are effected the most I think are the residents of the apartments to the north, the sign just lights the entire side of the building with bright red light. However, I have personaly dealt with pastoral staff at the church, and can say without a doubt, that all that has to be done is communicate with them, they have been good neighbors to the area, in one case My kids would ride their bikes, or play catch in the parking lot when it got dark, at one point a pastor told Me that the kids were welcome to play there, He liked the idea of kids having a safe place to ride their bikes (no sidewalks in this area)and offered to set their lighting timers to stay on later. This congregation does good work in this community, so I think this will not be a lingering situation.

So much for putting others before yourself. When I was younger me and some buddies were shooting off some fireworks at night in the parking lot of an apartment complex and this lady comes up and says "What if some mother finally got her baby to sleep after it had been crying all day and your fireworks woke him up? You need to consider the preciousness of others." WOW! Needless to say we stopped firing off fireworks. Turn off the sign for the love of your fellow human being. WWJD?

In my opinion, they should be required to turn it off after a certain hour.

Yeah, it's that big church on the corner's sign. People I know that live near it say it flashes all night & reflects on their walls. That affects the city & yes the city should be able to regulate it.

If one were to follow gazettefans theory of convolution; since churches are exempt from paying property taxes by law, and we continue to elect politicians who fail to overturn those laws, then we are all for those laws.
And even the ones who don't vote are for them by not voting.

madman1961 Sounds like a piece of cake, I'll get right on that. Should have it done is a week or so.

I'm not Gazettefan, but I'll take a swing at answering your question, BibleDude...
.
Start with paying property taxes like everyone else does. Then move on to not having a federal law that exempts your church and all others from having to obey law rules and laws.
.
Get those two things under control, then we can work on other stuff.
.
Remember, just because someone tells you no, that doesn't mean that they are saying BECAUSE you are a church.
.
And yes, I realize that YOU aren't a church, but in this forum, you seem are coming off as representing your church.

Gazettefan (if that's really your name)
I bow to your vast wisdom. Please tell me what the church should do to live up to your expectations? Remember it will take me a long time to respond because I'll have to google your big words so I'll know what you mean.

No matter how some may try to change the subject to demonize personalities, it IS the law of the land that churches are able to exempt themselves from all the laws, regulations and civic rules that other people, organizations and secular businesses must abide by and yet, all the while, still able to access government (tax -payer) funds for their faith-based missions. This is not a prejudicial nor discriminatory statement. It's simply the facts of life under RLUIPA. Some churches will handle this unlimited power responsibly and others will not. That, too, is simply a fact about human nature whether Judeo-Christian or not.

bibledude, I wouldn't worry too much about gazette...he must have had some major issues in his past to have such a phobia toward churches. To direct so much hate and intolerance toward a group of people he doesn't even know does indeed indicate that there are some deep seated issues going on in his life. Maybe this is his way of persectuing the Christians as Paul did right before his conversion.

Bibledude...I thought I was making it clear that I was making a general statement as to the so called seperation of church and state. I guess I wasn't clear enough on that.
.
What I was trying to say, in a general way, is that just because, regarding this sign, your church did follow city rules, the fact is that, because you are a church, you didn't HAVE to follow the city rules.
.
I, on the other hand, have no choice in the matter. If I decide that I wanted to install a sign proclaiming "All Hail The Great Pumpkin" in flashing neon or LCD or plasma, the city would, rightly, tell me that I couldn't do it. Why the difference? Do you REALLY believe that if the city tells you "no" that it's discrimantion based on religion?
.
Oh and SeaBee...While G-fan and I have locked horns on occasion, I will absolutely attest to the fact that he doens't pick on judeo-christians any more or less than anyone else. Or are you one that tries to defend the Roman Catholic church for it's, shall we say "habit"?, of just moving a priest to a different parish if there are accusations of molestation?

Gazette fan, best be careful, your intolerance is shining through. Oh wait, my bad, I forgot that its ok to be intolerant, as long as you attack judeo-christian religion.
btw, who are these most religious people in america filling up the prisons? Last I saw Jeremiah Wright and Obama were still walkin the streets.

bibledude, your googleized idea of research leaves your response inadequate and lazy. It is in step with the avoidant nature of how you deal with the world.

Your religious ruse allows you excessive rights and power. You embrace this.

So do a lot of other people. That's why the most religious people in this country are in prison. Which is why prisons are over crowded with recidivists. And that's why your fellow "Christians" in the Catholic Church have sanctimoniously institutionalized its war on children.

By the way, it's also why you're comfortable with your obnoxious and dangerous sign so close to the Interstate.

If Jesus Christ were not a mere historical figure and actually capable of returning he most assuredly would read you the riot act about your sign.

Existentialism requires responsibility, not philosophical ruses: Existence precedes essence.

Gazettefan. Our church is doing a series right now call Virtuous Reality which focuses on such virtues as perseverance, love, kindness and self control. Since the definition of the word existential is "affirming or relating to existence" that is as existential as it gets. As far as shirking our existential responsibilities I'm not sure what you mean. We help the poor and the homeless, feed the hungry, provide for the sick as best as we can. There has been a lot of anti-faith, anti-Christian posts here by you. I promise you, you will not here any diatribes like that at our church. We do not degrade people who have chosen not to believe in God or speak in a condescending manner about them as you do about people of faith.

bibledude, I saw that sign last night in the evening. Even with reduced intensity it's a dangerous, inconsiderate eyesore. It's a nice simile for the blaring dogma you rely on to make your way in the world. A world you refuse to confront; a world in which you shirk your existential responsibilities.

Gazettefan- We have a faith in Jesus Christ. He commanded the church to tell others about His love and sacrifice. The sign is a tool to invite them to "come and hear" as are ads in the newspaper and the phonebook. What you call manipulation for some strange reason we call obedience. When someone comes to the Lord we do not feel "safe" we feel joy.

Great post, proartist.

And when the bible thumper below sited the separation of church and state, he only revealed how confused his thinking is: Allowing religion more rights than everyone else is a VIOLATION of the separation of church and state, not the contrary.

RLUIPA is akin to the mentality of the Catholic Church "policing our own" re: the subject of pedophilia. Clear thinking religionists (as oxymoronic as that sounds) should be speaking against RLUIPA.

RLUIPA gives religious landowners a SPECIAL right to challenge land use laws which their secular neighbors do not have. Even if a given zoning law (signage, historic preservation, parking, at-risk population facilities, etc.) is void of any discrimination, Congress ruled strict scrutiny needs to be applied to city zoning regulations thus putting the burden of proving a negative (i.e. no religious discrimination) upon the city. Realistically, what cities have the financial where-with-all or tax-payer approval to spend millions proving they are not discriminating??? Thus, RLUIPA does give churches special rights other citizens, organizations, and facilities do not enjoy. Theoretically, RLUIPA can be trumped by "health and safety" concerns, but even that was proven a dubious recourse in Janesville when it was a very valid concern some years ago - and even today. The fact so few people are even aware of RLUIPA indicates why so few are wary of its very real danger.

lovetoscrap,
Do you really believe that? You think its governments job to dictate religion to your children in schools? Really? That is so wrong in so many different ways, I don't have time to explain them all...

Someone please explain my post below to JohnDoe.

Yes, clouds555, the sign proves that people don't really believe in God. What they believe in is the BELIEF IN GOD. The need is there for others to believe. When someone claims he believes in God, what is doing is trying to sell the belief to others. Others believing in God makes him feel safe. It's a technique for the purpose of manipulation. It all amounts to shirking existential responsibilities.

lovetoscrap and JohnDoe, you two found a way to take pleasure in pedophilia by using it as an insult.

Very revealing. Get help.

gazettefan...you need some help. You should do as johndoe suggests and get some help. You really need it.

I am not sure I would take a trade delta...I am thinking the law should be taken as originally intended and that is to keep the state out of the church...not the other way around.

"Building codes!!! What about pedophilia?!!!-"
.
Talk to your counselor about it.

Madman Just to correct you, if you reread the article our church was never discouraged from erecting the sign. Notice it says he asked "a different church" not to put up a sign not Faith. We were never discouraged to erect a sign by the city at all.

G-Fan...I was actually trying to keep this sorta on track. That said, I agree...there may not be a pedophilia problem with THIS church...and I'm NOT trying to imply that there is anything untoward about it OTHER than putting up a sign that the city tried to discourage them from installing...but there are in other churchs and taxpaying citizens and businesses are paying their share, too.

This whole RLUIPA thing is new to me. Faith Community has agreed to abide by regulations even though they don't have to, which I think all churches should do. At Faith we ask permission from our local government not make demands and abide by what they say. I think churches should abide by the same rules everyone else does and I attend church.

Building codes!!! What about pedophilia?!!!-

I realize that this is going to go a little bit afield of the article, but if the city can't enforce laws/ordinace/rules/etc. as they apply (or don't aplly) to a church, what about little things like building codes? And if churchs get to have cart blanche when it comes to signs and perhaps codes, too, AND not have to pay property taxes, why do WE have to pay for the fire department FOR them?

Prevention. No offense taken, you have every right to express your opinion and have done so in a respectful manner. What I meant was this is the first I'd heard such extreme language used to describe the sign. I do think you are overreacting here. I drive the interstate too and the sign has nothing close to that effect on me when I drive by at night that it has had on you.

BIBLEDUDE: "This the first I've heard of that. We are 50% below code right now."

I don't understand. Which part haven't you heard? I understand that you are 50% below code now, but when it is completely dark outside, it is VERY bright!

I do not have a problem with the sign. I do have issues with things that interfere with my driving. I guess I will just have to not drive the interstate at night to avoid the bright sign and take the country roads to hit a deer instead.

I apologize if this offended you and the church, but constructive criticism is sometimes abrupt and taken out of context.

"deep seated origins", that's a good one.

Wishing I would go away is an admission of defeat.

And I mean that in all sincerity.

You should heed your own advice.
.
You remarks to bibledude and your rants about religion are showing deepseated origins that are best resolved privately.
.
Good luck.

JohnDoe, I can write them for you but I can't read them for you.

Respond to my posts with facts and reasoning,not digs.

gazettefan realy should seek out a different counselor to help him with his inability to deal with things pertaining to religion and Briarmoon.
This one isn't working.

To get back on point:

The most religious people in this country are in prison.

Prisons are over crowded due to recidivism (repeat offenders).

Above the law.

Get it?!!!

Prevention. This the first I've heard of that. We are 50% below code right now.

I haven't been to Faith in a while, but I do know that, as a resident of Janesville who uses the Interstate to get from the airport area to the WalMart area, this sign has created many a headaches as I travel the interstate.

If they want the sign, they want the sign. But it does light up the entire area and has created a few instances where I could have created an accident. I hope the city is able to convince the church to adjust the brightness of it!

A sign like this maybe something unusual for a town our size but they are extremely commonplace. Some companies manufacter ONLY church signs while others target churches as a specialization. We used a local company that did a fine job but some of the companies that deal with electric signs for chuches can be found at signsforfaith.com and advantagechurchsigns.com. There are many such companies.

because of your immaturity.

bibledude, why is the age 12 on your mind?

gazettefan, are you 12?

bibledude, and you didn't know what you were doing when you asked your question?! Ha!

gazettefan your remarks are vulgar and rude.

lovestoscrap, I would make that trade any day.

First off I dont attend faith community, but I have heard good things about it. My guess cloud is the sign is away of reaching out to people who are looking for a church. Also it lets people know that the are several service times to meet there schedule. It is a simple advertising tool. It's no different then a Restaurant or Hotel uses.

bibledude, take your head out of it and maybe it'll occur to you.

I was wondering if Satanists but up a big bright Neon/Electric sign if it wouldnt be that big of a deal?

gazettefan, and just where would that be?

I know where the church can put that sign!

deltafox, it's the law, as I have been told in previous posts...separation of church and state...what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Apparently it can't be both ways. So, I guess if a society doesn't want prayer in schools then they can't tell a church where to put a sign.

sfcm: Sorry about the mix-up. I guess I never stopped to really contemplate the difference between a neon sign and an electronic sign. I'm glad you were here to point that out, though. Thanks for correcting me, and hopefully you find peace (you know, that feeling those neon signs give you) in knowing that I won't make that mistake again.

Yeah, nice going Faith Community.

Down with RLUIPA.

I think, and I may be wrong, that gazettefan is trying to draw a parallel to the fact that churches are not governed or policed the way the rest of society is. That is why I had my question about 70x120 or whatever. I find it extraordinarily commendable that Faith Community voluntarily adhered to the law of everyone (not hypocritical like many other churches).

No...the last I checked this article is about a sign. I have not discussed raping of boys because this article has NOTHING to do with it. I am not mitigating anything. I am sorry that this has affected you personally...but this is not what the discussion is about. And it is no reason to take such a lousy attitude with all churches as they are not all like that. That is the definition of discrimination at it's best!

If you're not angry about what's going in the church, it's you who has to make the change.

No special considerations for Christians or people of any other "faith" when it comes to the rules and laws of society.

I was raised a Lutheran in an area where there were many victims of Catholic priests. I saw the effects.

You are mitigating what they did.

I did...now what does this have to do with signs? I think you are stretching here. The church in question, although not legally required to do so, has done more than abide by city ordinances. You are comparing apples to sausages...

Just another way to try and cut down churches. Not all of them rape boys. Not even all "catholic priests" rape boys. You need to learn to let go of your anger. You will feel better if you do.

Reread my post.

gazettefan...and this has to do with signs how?

There is an attitudinal similarity here with the Catholic Church's attempt to allow child rape to flourish within its own special universe, exempt from the authority of the local police. "We'll police our own." was the response to the attempt to end the institutionalization of the Catholic Church's war on children. The "remedy" i.e. strategy was to transfer the offending priest to another parish where he had a fresh flock to choose from.

RICO statutes are being considered in the ongoing effort to rid this country our children's enemies.

There are responsible churches (apparently as in this case) and those who put their "mission" above their neighbors rights and general community goodwill. Ultimately what the people or a community think is acceptable, and what is legal to other people and institutions, doesn't matter under RLUIPA. What any given church wants to do on it's land, it will get under RLUIPA protections that, practically-speaking, exempt churches and their properties from all laws. http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:vw-P...

lakennedy--the aforementioned church signs aren't neon. they're electronic. Personally, I think neon signs are VERY peaceful.

bibledude--I respect and thank you for your input and knowledge about the sign. I find it interesting that one of the purposes of the sign is to notify people that your services will continue despite bad weather. I guess it makes sense to get the word out about your "no-closure during bad weather" policy as long as you advertise this ahead of time...I was picturing people flocking to the interstate to find a church that is open during a blizzard! I hope your sign continues to meet your expectations. All the best!

Another important point is that weeks prior to the complaint at the city council the church was in compliance with the sign ordinance. The 1st day it was up we knew it was too bright but could not figure how to dim it. Then within 48 hours of the installation one of our staff figured out how to adjust it set it to meet code. Then a very nice woman from the neighborhood came to to mention the signs brightness so we adjusted it a second time to a level 50% BELOW code where it has remained. So prior to the council meeting the brightness level was far below what code allows.

lakennedy I certainly respect your opinion on this matter. In the past 2 weeks four families have visited the church directly as a result of the sign. They were very grateful for both the sign and the positive message they heard in the service. They would differ with you as to the sign being unnecessary. Here's another more practical reason for the sign. This winter we had some very difficult weather and many churches canceled their weekend services because of it. We have a policy that we do not cancel our weekend services for bad weather. Many people from other churches attended ours those weekends because they wanted to attend service somewhere and their church was closed. This winter the sign will notify passers by that we are open on such days in case they would want to attend should theirs be church closed that weekend.

Looks like I can't type today.
Repost:
lakennedy,
All I did was ASK you what you meant by what you said IF you didn't mean that churches shouldn't use signs to get their message out. This time I made no assumptions. But I will assume that by "tacky" you weren't referring to the viscosity.

lakennedy,
All I did was ASK you what you meant by what meant by it IF that is not what you meant. This time I made no assumptions. But I will assume that by "tacky" you weren't referring to the viscosity.

Yet another typical Dr. Talk response:
"... if you weren't implying that churches shouldn't use signs to get their messages out."

If you read my post, you'd see that I specified "neon", which I did again in a later post when I specified that it was just my opinion...

I'll make this real easy for you...in my opinion, neon signs in front of churches are tacky and unnecessary.

If the church touches one life who comes because of the sign and makes our community a better place its worth every penny we spent.

How tacky.

clouds555,
Read bibledude's post. The church is in compliance with city ordinances.

correction:
I meant to say "shouldn't use"

Yet another classic lakennedy response.
What was meant by "I don't understand the necessity for a church to have a neon sign, I mean isn't God's word supposed to send the brightest message, anyway?" if you weren't implying that churches should use signs to get their message out?

bibledude: Did I ever write that church's shouldn't be able to advertise? Nope. Personally, I just don't understand the need for neon signs. It's just my opinion, but to me, church is a place that is appealing because of the peace it offers. Neon signs, in my opinion, are anything but peaceful. This is my opinion, I'm not stating it as a fact, and I sure am not saying that church's shouldn't be able to advertise, so please don't put "words" into my mouth, bibledude.

I do agree this sign and the electronic billboards and well just large annoying signs should not be allowed. I do not choose to eat places or buy certain things because of Billboard advertising. I drive the Interstate pretty much every night home from work and yes the sign is distracting. In some states Billboards are just not allowed. Who needs a "sign" to tell them what church to go to. What a waste of electricty. My "god" does not need to be advertised.

"Imagine that you live in a peaceful, quiet neighborhood and that the house next door to you has just been sold. But curiously, you hear rumors that the house has not been purchased by a family or individual, but by a church of all things. Being a conscientious yet perplexed neighbor, you walk next door to meet your new neighbors and inquire into their intentions. The church’s pastor greets you in the front yard and excitedly explains, “Yes, this is just the perfect site. ..." Read more of this article at http://works.bepress.com/daniel_lenningt...
and then realize similar and worse situations have been happening in Janesville since 2000.

lakennedy I tried to address that below is my comments. our church has had several families visit in the short time its been up so for us its helping us touch lives. At Christmas we are bring in a nationally known recording artist. this will help us get the word out to people who drive by about the concert. There are many reasons but communication and community awareness are the main two. I could turn the question around and ask why shouldn't a church be able to advertise?

In all fairness, it was there before I moved in, so I really don't have anything to complain about now do I?

I live right by New Life. The sign is beyond annoying. I don't understand the necessity for a church to have a neon sign, I mean isn't God's word supposed to send the brightest message, anyway? I wish it would go away. I pray and pray, yet there it stands...

I'm in agreement with proartist on this issue.

I suppose that if a church actually did erect a “70’ by 120' sign with flashing neon and strobe lights" (such as the kind you might see at an Indian casino) then the point proartist makes would be valid. Until then, abstract concerns such as those do not really address the issue.
Still, I don’t believe this law would stop the government from regulating a sign that causes a traffic risk, but even if it does, we have a tradition in this country of tolerating free speech, including religious speech, even when it inconveniences and annoys a majority of those who hear it, or in this case, see it.

bibledude: Ditto! Thanks to your church's administration for being more responsive and more responsible than some other church institutions in the area! "Do as I do"...rather than just "do as I say" always commands respect. Well done.

Leading by example is the greatest good anyone could do. Thank you bibledude for your information, I did see it last night and was impressed that is was changed. Thank your administration at your church for adhering to the same laws the rest of us do. Again, my thanks!

deltafox5674 Yes, we are in compliance with those aspects too. They were brought to our attention one week ago and we immediately made the changes. If you drove by today you would see there are no traveling messages and we are in compliance with the length of time as well. Remember, as a church, whether one agrees or not, we do not have to comply with these regulations but we desire in to do so.

bibledude, your sign does not comply with the city ordinance. FYI, text messages must, according to the law, remain in place for 5 seconds before changing and be monochromatic, with no special effects (like motion, scrolling, and flashing). I am not attacking your church, and I applaud your churches efforts to comply to the best of their ability to a law that doesn't apply to them. Everyone should have the right to advertise and get their message out to the public.

I attend the church with the sign. I wanted to take a moment and address the valid concerns that have been raised here. The church is in full compliance with city ordinances. At first it was too bright and after the first complaint the intensity was lowered to BELOW requirements. The reason a sign was purchased is for a couple reasons: 1) Awareness- 100,000 people drive by there everyday and many are from the area. Until now they did not even realize the building was a church. Being on the interstate gives our church good visibility and we thought a sign would help us take advantage of that. 2) Commication- If the church has a concert or event it's a useful tool. Mainly, it is to people know what time the services are held and whether or not we are open in case of bad weather. The desire of the church is to be in compliance and then some. It is true that there are different regulations for churches then for businesses but it is not the church's desire to be treated any differently.

deltafox5674: You ask: "Does that mean they could put up a 70' by 120' sign with flashing neon and strobe lights and the city couldn't do anything about it?" Yes...it does mean that! A church can threaten to sue a city (and usually win) under RLUIPA when denied anything while any other citizen/organization/institution has to abide by the law. RLUIPA applies to all level of laws - local, state, federal. Some churches (as some commenting have noted in this instance) do try to abide by the law and act responsibly without problem. Others see this as a new opportunity to make lots of profit and build empires ( http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1... ). As I noted on the WCLO comments, the issue of light from a sign may seem very minimal to some considering the more severe problems and damage done since RLUIPA was signed into law. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20...
Again, RLUIPAs intent was very well intentioned. Because of it's very vague language, the results have been very disturbing. RLUIPA has been affecting neighborhoods in Janesville since 2000 but it seems to have only been visible to those personally affected. Everyone should research and heed..and then hope RLUIPA is overturned someday soon.

I think that it is odd that a city can't regulate the aspects of church signs. Does that mean they could put up a 70' by 120' sign with flashing neon and strobe lights and the city couldn't do anything about it? I find that strange. What keeps them from erecting signs that would be dangerous (I am not saying that the one in question is) when driving? The law seems to state that it would be off limits to city and state government.

I live near the church sign in question by the interstate. That first night that it went in it was pretty bright, but the night after that it was not nearly as bright. I figured it just took a day for them to dial it in right.

It is no brighter than any other sign out there on I-90. Drive by it and take a look for yourself. What is the big deal?

I didn't think it could be New Life's. I can see their sign from my window and it's not that bright. I'm thinking it's Faith Community. Yes, joeflint, this is the separation of Church and state that everyone is talking about. We can't have our children praying in school and we can't have our city telling our church what to do :) I haven't been by the sign at night but I can't imagine that it's any brighter than other signs that light up the night.

Nope its not Assembly of God its along I-90 the story reads so it has to be the 1 behind the old Menards the new sign is right along the interstate I noticed it the other day but I didn't see anything wrong with it...... Hopefully the church won't get hasseled over this when there are way more pressing things this city needs to worry about! Come on get A grip its A church not A bar or A stripclub why complain about the sign, I think the Gazette needs to follow up with this one A bit maybe get up on I-90 the sign is about 3/4 of A mile south of the Hy 14 exit get A few pictures from up there and maybe A couple from the churches parking lot let the public see what the city of Janesvilles next target is up to...... I hope this isn't A sign (no pun intended) of things to come from the post Sheiffer regime if so may God have mercy on your dark pathetic souls.

How is regulating an electronic sign interfering with the mission of any religious group? I'd love to hear both the city attorney's explanation now -- and the pastor's explanation should the church decline to adjust the sign. Bright or blinding lights are obvious dangerous while driving at night!

I would assume the New Life Assembly of God

Which church is this about?