ACLU Vs. Cross in Seal

[Acriku]

It was made in 1957, now doesn't that ring a bell? Oh yeah! The year right after the two years of putting the other god references in our pledge and money! And what was going on during those years? The anti-communist movement! They had no regard for the Constitution when putting that cross on the seal, they were appealing to the emotional masses and their hatred for so-called atheistic communism.

[ordos45]

Relative morality on "Atheistic/Communist Russia" bit, courtesy of Tom Clancy's Red Rabbit. 

Our little Soviet clerk guy in the KGB is an Atheist, apparently never exposed to Christianity, except what he hears from agents in The West.  He starts having nightmares though, when he becomes involved in a plot to assassinate John Paul II.  When the American spies in Moscow make contact with him and ask why he's betraying his nation he tells them his conscience won't allow him to help a good man be killed.

Later when in debriefing by the Americans and British he tells them the man is holy, and eventually just spits out it's the Pope.  A small lesson, slightly off topic, in objective morality on the "Atheistic Communist" threat.  Was the character an Atheist and Communist?  Sure.  Did he still have a conscience?  Yes.

[thomas]

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.

it is the Goddess Pomona . . .

and on the seal it is currently understood that is represents the missions, I agree that they could have chosen something a bit less vague. The ACLU's current lawsuit is not worth the trouble because:

A. it's a tiny cross which is used to represent them missions

B. to change the seal from all official documents and so on will cost the city alot of money and just isn't worth the time or money

C. No one in Los Angeles really gives shit it's there (resident of LA county speaking here)

[Anathema]

C. No one in Los Angeles really gives shit it's there (resident of LA county speaking here)

[sarcasm]Well you see Scytale, it doesn't really matter what the people involved think, what's important is that the government avoids any seemable conection with religion[/sarcasm]

[Acriku]

it is the Goddess Pomona . . .

and on the seal it is currently understood that is represents the missions, I agree that they could have chosen something a bit less vague. The ACLU's current lawsuit is not worth the trouble because:

I was using Venus as a side example, I was not referring to the goddess depicted on the seal. But that also could serve as an example. And it may be understood among the Christians, sure.

A. it's a tiny cross which is used to represent them missions

It can be a tiny cross or a huge block of the ten commandments, a violation is a violation.

B. to change the seal from all official documents and so on will cost the city alot of money and just isn't worth the time or money

First off, I'd like to see your estimations of how much it would cost before you start spouting that it will cost a lot of money. Second, the money would never have had to have been spent if they regarded the constitution in the first place!

C. No one in Los Angeles really gives shit it's there (resident of LA county speaking here)

That's an ignorant statement. It was because part of the public was offended and called the ACLU that the ACLU got into it in the first place. Just because you live there does not give you the authority to speak on everyone's behalf.

[Anathema]

Acriku, depicting a cross in a seal in itself is not a breach of the separation of church and state (and neither is putting religous symbol in flags, like all the countries I mentioned did). It's not an act of bias, it's a historical reference. Maybe a handful of die hard atheists would take offense but only because they misinterpret it.

[Acriku]

Putting a Christian cross on a county seal is blatantly an endorsement of the Christian religion. The county can show its history of missions without using a cross. From a rational person's perspective, upon seeing the cross they would not think of the missions the Spanish had centuries ago, they would think of the Christian religion. What's worse - is that it was only put on there in 1957 - hardly at all a long time ago that it was put on. The ACLU has offered in replace of the cross images that depict the actual missions, not the Christian religion. And you are only showing how ignorant you are by saying a handful of die hard atheists would only take offense.

[Anathema]

I think of myself as a rational person. When I go to to Turkey, and I see a flag with a crescent moon on it, I think "a reference to the long islamic tradition of Turkey". In fact, Turkey prides itself on having a secular state. If I were totally ignorant of the Turkish culture and history I may not be aware of that, but if I were, what would I be doing there?

I didn't know though that it was only put there in 1957. Devising such a seal would be bad taste in my eyes, but it's nothing to get all exited about. It's not as if they're tearing down the separation between church and state.

I'm ignorant? Tell me, how many persons does it take to make the ACLU notice an alleged breach of the constitution? Not much, I expect. Scytale's the inside guy here, you're as ignorant of the local situation as I am.

[GUNWOUNDS]

just curious ....... does anyone know what the replacement images are?

what would the "non-christians" accept as proper images?

I am just worried that any image .. a dove, a branch, a book, open hands, etc will be construed as "christian"

so what can be put on the seals that wont offend "non-christians" ?

[GUNWOUNDS]

also i agree with anaethema.... muslim crescents and stars of davids do not offend me.

i mean what is being truly offended mean?

to me... offend means the feeling i get when i see a nazi swastika.

that is being offended.

to say you are offended by a cross, a star of david, or a crescent is ignorant and childish...

or to say someone could infer from such a symbol that "christians"

[thomas]

That's an ignorant statement. It was because part of the public was offended and called the ACLU that the ACLU got into it in the first place. Just because you live there does not give you the authority to speak on everyone's behalf.

er, not really. The ACLU just came out with a lawsuit, no one has complaned about til now and the ACLU's lawsuit is not becuase of few citizens complaining, it's just another in their string, the ACLU has launched similar lawsuits to cities such as San Bernadino(St. Bernard) and Redlands. The ACLU has launched about 20 similar lawsuits.

[TMA_1]

"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."

Duh...lol sorry man but it is true because...

if that is the case then what about the swiss flag? the greek flag? the english jack? Do you know how many government flags and symbols have the cross on them? If I use your logic, then those symbols should be removed too.

Do you know how many american symbols have christian undertones in them?  LOTS!

Now if you say that since christianity is not a dead religion, than you are saying that we should remove all those symbols as they have religious undertones. come on acriku, the cross symbolized the missionary movement in california hundreds of years ago. Those missions have not been in active service for hundreds of years, and because of that they fall into the realm of history. You would remove them simply because that symbol has significance to this day? that is just being stubburn man, like I posted before. It falls into the realm of history! what you feel is revisionism, and is a destruction of that same history.

Would you remove the ten commandments that are written on the walls of many buildings in washington DC that have existed for over a hundred years? No you wouldnt because they are apart of our american tradition. This symbol in california has likewise been around awhile and its meaning goes back even further. So by your logic we should remove the ten commandments at the grand supreme court building in washington dc, because "they still hold virtue to over a billion to this day".

come on acriku, that is a bit childish.

[Acriku]

I already dealt with the people who are acting like a fucking child, so I'll ignore them until they grow up. As for you Scytale, where are you estimations of how much it will cost? As for your post right above mine, I will try and find the article that mentioned that citizens called them and reported it. But it also makes sense, the ACLU cannot monitor every violation of the separation, so someone had to have reported it. Possibly a local ACLU participant? I don't know.

And TMA posted right before I did, so I will address him.

if that is the case then what about the swiss flag? the greek flag? the english jack? Do you know how many government flags and symbols have the cross on them? If I use your logic, then those symbols should be removed too.

I'm sorry, I thought this was about the U.S. constitution! What in the world are you doing talking about England and Sweden? Completely irrelevant.

Do you know how many american symbols have christian undertones in them?  LOTS!

And that's sad. But this no meager undertone - it's the cross! How blatant can that be?

Now if you say that since christianity is not a dead religion, than you are saying that we should remove all those symbols as they have religious undertones.

Well I don't want to be labeled as anti-Christian now do I? I would agree with the ACLU if it was a blatant Islam symbol. If it was a blatant Jewish symbol. It's only because some Christians decided to go on this tyrade  across the nation and add Christian references to government items to show the evil bad communists what the U.S. stood for - God!

come on acriku, the cross symbolized the missionary movement in california hundreds of years ago.

I'm going to allow you to tell me where in the cross does it even hint towards the key word missions? Tell me! Because I'm dying to hear it. All it says to me is Christianity. Maybe I'm just some crazy nut who thinks the cross = Christianity, so just ignore my insane quibbles.

Those missions have not been in active service for hundreds of years, and because of that they fall into the realm of history. You would remove them simply because that symbol has significance to this day? that is just being stubburn man, like I posted before. It falls into the realm of history! what you feel is revisionism, and is a destruction of that same history.

I do not want to take away their relevant history. I want to take away their symbol of Christianity from a government seal. They can put anything they want about missions on their seal as long as it isn't an endorsement of religion - such as putting a blatant Christian symbol on it!

Would you remove the ten commandments that are written on the walls of many buildings in washington DC that have existed for over a hundred years?

That's interesting, because the Ten Commandments in, for example, the Supreme Court was finished being built in 1935! And that like many others were placed along with many other lawgivers without a hint of favoring one over the other. So it wasn't prominently displayed as an endorsement of the Judeo-Christian religion. The seal, however, is.

No you wouldnt because they are apart of our american tradition.

And could you explain that tradition? The Ten Commandments is just used as an example of law and justice right along many other examples, it doesn't mean our country had a tradition of it.

This symbol in california has likewise been around awhile and its meaning goes back even further. So by your logic we should remove the ten commandments at the grand supreme court building in washington dc, because "they still hold virtue to over a billion to this day".

So because it was on the seal for almost 50 years it shouldn't be touched? That's rediculous.

[TMA_1]

lol, why not comment on my posts? it sounds like you are skirting the issue, instead of answering my questions. and it seems that you are referring to me with that little gem of swearing, since you started out with a plural, then ended with the curse-laced singular.lol i could be wrong though.

It seems apparent to me that they defeated your arguments, and others that have seen it have told me so. Not trying to be a jerk, but it is just obvious.

but hey, if I am wrong than prove it please, instead of swearing. ;)

but if you dont respond I will take it that I am correct. I would really like to make sure.

[Acriku]

You posted right when I posted, grow up!

[GUNWOUNDS]

It seems apparent to me that they defeated your arguments, and others that have seen it have told me so. Not trying to be a jerk, but it is just obvious.

Excellent Observation.  5 stars.

[Acriku]

Oh really? From what I saw, you were stocked full of strawmen, and of issues I had already addressed. If that's what you call a defeating argument, then I can't help you. Scytale seems to be the only one who is actually bringing up valid points, instead of non sequitors, strawmen, or any other argumental flaws.

[Anathema]

You're calling me a child? Fuck you Acriku.

How in hell is this possibly an endorsement of christian religion? It was never intended to, and every rational person knowing the slightest bit about Califiornia would know it. Fish & oil are obviously things characteristic to California and so is christianity.

You have said that there's a separation of church and state, and that it has been violated. What the hell do you think that principle is supposed to mean? "strip religion from any place where it could possibly be related to the government"? Separation of church and state was in the old days deemed necessary because governments abused religion to legitimise their governorship and because religious figures would abuse their influence to influence government policies. Neither is the case. If Thomas Jefferson, Franklin or any other important statesman from that time were here right now, they'd laugh at your pathetic little lawsuit.

This argument is over as far as I'm concerned.

[GUNWOUNDS]

:O

[Dunenewt]

And that's sad. But this no meager undertone - it's the cross! How blatant can that be?

The Hawaiin State flag contains a cross.

[Dante]

if that is the case then what about the swiss flag? the greek flag? the english jack? Do you know how many government flags and symbols have the cross on them? If I use your logic, then those symbols should be removed too.

'english jack?'  :D 

[Acriku]

You're calling me a child? Fuck you Acriku.

No but I have dealt with your issues before. Mentioning Turkey in a United States discussion about the U.S. constitution is meaningless.

How in hell is this possibly an endorsement of christian religion? It was never intended to, and every rational person knowing the slightest bit about Califiornia would know it.

Let's see, it's a fricking cross on a flag? Anyway, it's easy for you to say that a rational person would know that it was meant to be, because you already know that. There can be other images about missions without using the Christian cross.

You have said that there's a separation of church and state, and that it has been violated. What the hell do you think that principle is supposed to mean? "strip religion from any place where it could possibly be related to the government"?

Possibly be related to government? We're talking about a county seal. That is not possibly related to the government, it is the government! On a government seal there is a Christian cross. There's no way around that being an endorsement.

Separation of church and state was in the old days deemed necessary because governments abused religion to legitimise their governorship and because religious figures would abuse their influence to influence government policies. Neither is the case. If Thomas Jefferson, Franklin or any other important statesman from that time were here right now, they'd laugh at your pathetic little lawsuit.

This argument is over as far as I'm concerned.

Where's your evidence to suggest anything that you said? You're providing little evidence to support your argument. Here's a quote that I'd like you to ingest slowly:

No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the conscience of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose (Letters to the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, Connecticut, Feb. 4, 1809).

By Thomas Jefferson, the same person you said who would laugh at my lawsuit (and when did it become mine exactly?).

[Acriku]

The Hawaiin State flag contains a cross.

Are you referring to the two lines perpendicular to each other in the top left corner? That's the British flag, honoring their friendship with Great Britain.

[Anathema]

Didn't plan on taking this any further, but what the hell...

No but I have dealt with your issues before. Mentioning Turkey in a United States discussion about the U.S. constitution is meaningless.

It shows that all this is a matter of opinion. And the majority of people will disagree with yours, and the judge will probably too. What makes you think my analogy is irrelevant?

Let's see, it's a fricking cross on a flag? Anyway, it's easy for you to say that a rational person would know that it was meant to be, because you already know that. There can be other images about missions without using the Christian cross.

It's only rational to assume so because apart from the cross there are several other items on it that characterize LA, all the more because it's only a small cross. And what suggestion would you bring forward to replace the cross?

Possibly be related to government? We're talking about a county seal. That is not possibly related to the government, it is the government! On a government seal there is a Christian cross. There's no way around that being an endorsement.

The government doesn't endorse fishermen or oil companies either. Neither does Turkey endorse islam or Swiss with christianity. A person who upon seeing a small cross on a seal immediately thinks that LA county is a theocracy jumps to conclusions.

Where's your evidence to suggest anything that you said? You're providing little evidence to support your argument.

History is all the evidence I need. If what I said was false, what do you think the point is of separating of religion and state?

were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the conscience of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose

However, nobody is considering any conquest over the conscience of anybody. It is only foolishly interpreted as such.

[Dunenewt]

Are you referring to the two lines perpendicular to each other in the top left corner? That's the British flag, honoring their friendship with Great Britain.

Those two perpendicular lines are the St George's Cross, now doesn't that seem religious to you?