ACLU Vs. Cross in Seal

[thomas]

*sigh* don't try me with your petty insults, the ACLU's actions here are not defending the constitution.

[thomas]

So now a crucifix is symbolic of a few missionaries that failed in their mission and, along with disease, new ideas and weapons, played a role in pretty much destroying an untainted native culture.

[alchemi2]

Wow one tiny little cross causing so much trouble, hardly noticed the thing!!! are those star of david next to it?

don't see how anyone can get offended by that, do people run screaming down the street in LA when they pass a church or mosque etc..... ::)

[danielsh]

it complies with the 1st no if's and's or but's. It stands for something historical not the religion(s).

the whole jewish immigrant perspective is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard. It's intent is what matters not the perspective. I could be a jew and travel to India and see the bhuddist/hindu swastika, I'd flip out and think they were endorsing the Nazi's and the holocaust, but no it's not that, it means peace or unity (I forget) but did I know that? no. Should they remove it then? no.

Yes, actually, they should be removed from official documents.  The separation of church and state is fundamentally important to a free society.  And intent is really not at issue here, as I keep discussing.  You didn't actually rebut my example, you just shouted "That's stupid" and brought up a new one.  I'll try again.  What if you were a Muslim man who received an official letter from Los Angeles, seal and all.  On seeing the cross, before this controversy, which connection would you be more likely to make?  "They are endorsing Christianity!" or "Ahh, a historic symbol representing the Christian missions in the area"?

[Acriku]

*sigh* don't try me with your petty insults, the ACLU's actions here are not defending the constitution.

Are you being completely serious? A Christian cross blatantly put in a city's seal, representing the government, is not a violation of the separation of church and state? Names of cities are one thing, but crosses on government seals is a definite violation.

[Dunenewt]

America is a Christian country, right?

If so then surely there is no problem with putting a cross there...

[Acriku]

Heh yeah that's what the religious conservatives want people to think. It's sad how little they know of their country's history and its founding fathers' views.

[Dunenewt]

Well surely it what's happening now that counts

[Acriku]

What do you mean? Our constitution is the same as it was back then, pardon the amendments (and most of those were done right after the ratification). It still has a separation of church and state in the Religion Clause, and sadly people still ignore it.

[Dunenewt]

But it's just making mountains out of molehills.  Do you really think people from other religions look at that bade and feel offended?

[Acriku]

A reasonable person would look at the seal and infer that this was a Christian seal, and may even go as far as inferring that Christians run the city. I don't know exactly what everyone would infer, but it's reasonable. If I was Jewish, which I was a long time ago, and saw this, I would feel outcasted. You may not feel outcasted, and a lot of people wouldn't, but that's not the point. Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, etc, all spoke of the dangers of mixing religion with government, and that's why there is a separation of church and state. You could argue that some of it doesn't harm anybody, but that's a bit naive and irrelevant. If they didn't put the cross there in the first place, there wouldn't have to be a lawsuit costing tax payer's money. But now that it is there, the ACLU has no choice but to bring it to trial, because that's what it does.

[TMA_1]

look...

America has never been a truly christian nation. In fact only a few of the founding fathers were christian. Most were just pricks who didnt care much for the common man, but were theory-hounds, trying to attempt a new form of government from a hodge podge of many other political ideals. They did a darn good job though, thank goodness. (all that was just largely my own opinion).

Now there have been large amounts of christians, or at least people who consider themselves christian. In fact a large majority say they are christians.

But because christianity has had a large influence on our government, (if you say it hasent, then you are just being a stubburn fool and are blinded by simple facts) we have a strong history which heavily involves christianity. It just so happens also that california was inhabited by spanish missionaries. They were extremely important in the shaping of california. There is a huge catholic-infused culture in california, and even many native inhabitents became catholics. There were some tribes that did not liek their way of life being threatened though, and rightfully so.

So you see california has roots in catholicism and christianity. It would be the same just say if it was islam instead of catholicism. (a bad example, but an example nonetheless.) What if there was a crescent on the flag, a small one that is hard to spot? I would not mind at all because hello???? it is purely historical.

And i mean, do you know how many large towns and cities were originally missions? Do you realize now that those missions dont exist? that means they are apart of history, and are no longer apart of the present! and because of that they play an important role because those places used to be resident to catholic missionaries. It is pure history and if you cannot see that then you are just blinded by some weird bitterness that I cant yet understand. You dont see the simple fact that historically, christianity played an important part. Just like many other symbols in the flag play an important part. What if it was another religion besides christianity? Well duh, then that religion played an important part and it shouldnt be removed. (and frankly the ACLU wouldnt have attacked it because since christanity is the majority religion of america, they seem to enjoy being unfair and attacking it more. please dont pretend not to agree).

Sorry for acting emprwormy. This kind of stuff jsut bothers me though. The ACLU started with truly noble roots, kinda like the NAACP. They started for freedom and justice, but have turned into selfish interest groups.

[Anathema]

Reminds me of the Red Cross organisation. Islamic countries saw the red cross as a symbol of christianity and for that they came up with the red crescent. But the red cross is simply a reversed Swiss flag, and not intended to be a symbol of religion! Same goes for the cross in the seal. Sure it's a symbol of christianity, but it's also a part of history. You may not like it, but what are you going to do? Remove all references to christianity from school history books, because schools are state facilities? Hypocrites.

What if you were a Muslim man who received an official letter from Los Angeles, seal and all.

[Acriku]

Earthnuker, that's a horrible argument. There isn't a separation of fish and non-fish, there's a separation of church and state. So, a fish shouldn't cause any controversy  ::)

TMA, from what I've read you sound about right.

[alejandro]

The ship is also outdated, remove it and put an Airbus.  ::)

[Anathema]

Fat chance, seeing that Airbus is a European brand.

Acriku, if I had for some reason a resentment for fishermen just like the ACLU seems to have for christianity, I could be offended if out of ignorence I thought that the state was biased towards fishermen. The ACLU knows that's not the case though, making their argument all the more stupid.

The government of Iraq, if it turns out right, will not only be a democratic one but also one that separates religion from state- yet there's a crescent in their flag! Or the Republic of Turkey, wich also has a crescent in their moon, while the Turkish above most others value the separation of religion and state. Then there's the Swiss, Israel and probably others.

Only a truly ignorant person would think that those states somehow favour one religion above another.

[Acriku]

Well I guess I should have read more of your post TMA! Your attacks on ACLU are unwarranted. ACLU are not discriminatory in who they prosecute. As I said before, they actually helped get a biblical verse back into a school's yearbook because keeping it out violated that person's rights. That doesn't sound like the organization you were talking about -

What if it was another religion besides christianity? Well duh, then that religion played an important part and it shouldnt be removed. (and frankly the ACLU wouldnt have attacked it because since christanity is the majority religion of america, they seem to enjoy being unfair and attacking it more. please dont pretend not to agree).

Making Christianity out to be the victim is not helping your case. Also, the fact that Christianity was involved in our history as a country does not give a reason why religion at all should mix with government. I wonder why you don't see a problem with the cross on the seal - oh yeah you're a Christian! It's hard to see what's wrong when it is your own symbol. It isn't hurting you, or offending you, so why should it be a problem for anyone else?  ::)

Earth, if you went to the judge and said that fishing offended you, you would have no constitutional standing. The ACLU does have constitutional standing. Sorry?

[Anathema]

You're saying that the government of California can be biased to anyone they want, on anything but religious grounds?

The fact that there's a cross in the seal for another reason then favouring christianity does not mean that the state of California is biased in favour of any particular religion. Neither is the state of Turkey, Swiss or Israel.

[Acriku]

I'm saying that the government can be biased towards anything as long as it isn't prohibited by the constitution, or any other laws. It is biased towards veterans for giving them extra benefits that non-veterans would receive, and that pisses some people off, but they're not going to win any lawsuit because they're offended. They just do not have any constitutional standing like the ACLU does.

[thomas]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

as I said before it is a historical item like the Galleon, it does not respect any religion but a set of old buildings.

[Acriku]

No, the drawing of the goddess Venus is a historical item, the cross is a very much alive religious symbol from a religion that is practiced by a billion people today. Don't give me that historical bs, it's a religious symbol and that's what is prohibited by the sep of church and state. The cross is a religious symbol. The star of david is a religious symbol. I'm not picking on Christianity, Christianity is in the forefront of violating the separation, therefore it gets noticed more often and is the topic of violation more often.

[Andrew]

Well we could get right into it, why does the president of the U.S. when sworn in swear on the bible or whatever?

Also the national anthem has a reference to "in God is our trust", which is not much of a seperation of church and state. So they should rewrite the anthem.

oops, "Oh Canada" makes references to God, gotta rewrite that also.

What the hell lets rewrite anything that has to do with the government and religion mixed together.

Also the line "From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:" could be interpreted as planes crashing into buildings, which some people are sensitive to. So that should be rewritten as well. :)

Although I am not in support of people bringing in certain religious items and shoving it in others faces. (like the monument in the gov building last summer) But rewriting history is wrong.

So I am a two sided coin :P

[Acriku]

Well we could get right into it, why does the president of the U.S. when sworn in swear on the bible or whatever?

Purely voluntary. A couple politicians sworn in used what is called an affirmation. The constitution clearly states what is required of a presidential oath:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

As you can see, it is purely secular.

Also the national anthem has a reference to "in God is our trust", which is not much of a seperation of church and state. So they should rewrite the anthem.

The national anthem was written by Francis Scott Key during an emotional and very inspiring event in American history, so it makes sense that he would put a god reference in there. It wasn't written to be adopted as our national anthem, but politicians later adopted it as such and the god reference stuck. Changing the music to exclude that god reference is a bit extreme, and ruins the flow of the song, so I'm not sure about doing anything about this. It's a complex issue.

oops, "Oh Canada" makes references to God, gotta rewrite that also.

I didn't know Canada had a separation of church and state? If they do, then good for them.

What the hell lets rewrite anything that has to do with the government and religion mixed together.

And why not rewrite anything that has god in it that is in an entanglement with the government? The motto on our coins, the motto on our paper money, all of this was written in long after our country was formed. They were put in during the middle to late 1950s (1954 and 1956) by a Protestant movement. They had no reason being in there, and was just a move against the "atheistic communist" threat, which was rediculous in the first place. So, blame them for the things we have to fix, because they were the ones who violated the constitution.

Also the line "From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:" could be interpreted as planes crashing into buildings, which some people are sensitive to. So that should be rewritten as well. :)

Now you're just being silly.

Although I am not in support of people bringing in certain religious items and shoving it in others faces. (like the monument in the gov building last summer) But rewriting history is wrong.

So I am a two sided coin :P

Depends on what sort of history you are talking about. The national anthem, yes it's a beautiful song and I wouldn't want to molest it. As for our national motto and having it on our coins and paper money, that isn't history it's only a half a century old and a remnant of the atheistic communist threat, which Edric has time and time again shown that it wasn't an atheistic communism.

[SurlyPIG]

Well this issue to me is a less-important grey area.  Really, it's not all that important what's in the seal, it's what's in the law that matters.  It would be nice to see more consistency but this isn't a big deal at all.  It's not like that prick in Alabama installing a monument of the ten commandments in a judicial building in Alabama.  A symbol for the missions on a seal is perfectly fine, but couldn't the missions be symbolised better by something else?  A crucifix doesn't say "missions" it says "Christ."

[Andrew]

The national anthem was written by Francis Scott Key during an emotional and very inspiring event in American history, so it makes sense that he would put a god reference in there. It wasn't written to be adopted as our national anthem, but politicians later adopted it as such and the god reference stuck. Changing the music to exclude that god reference is a bit extreme, and ruins the flow of the song, so I'm not sure about doing anything about this. It's a complex issue.

And When was the seal of Los Angeles created? Yesterday? If it was there from the start, then I see no reason to remove it. But if they just put it in recently then remove it.

I don't think Canada has a seperation of Church and state, just taking an example.