ACLU Vs. Cross in Seal

[Acriku]

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

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?

Because Turkey doesn't have the U.S. Constitution, and I'm not sure whether or not they have a separation of church and state. But the United States does, so any analogy using another country is very weak.

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?

And I agree, the other things do characterize the county in Los Angeles, so for the county to say Christianity characterizes the county by putting a cross on its seal is a blatant endorsement. And I'm not sure what the county has in mind to replace the cross, but it's not my job to think of one.

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.

Whether or not the government "endorses" fisherman or not, there is no separation of fish and state, so that's completely irrelevant. And no one in here, especially not me, has said that the county is a theocracy, so now you're using strawmen to support your case. That doesn't help.

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?

If history is all the evidence you need, then it wouldn't be a problem putting it into your posts, correct? So far, I haven't seen this.

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

Seeing a cross on a government seal isn't a breach of conscience? Somebody walking down the streets of this county that is not a Christian sees a cross on the government seal would be rational to think that the government, at the very least the local government, is supporting Christianity and this person is suddenly an outcast. Doesn't mean he will think that, but it's rational upon seeing such an endorsement.

[Acriku]

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

I'm not the ACLU, but I wouldn't mind it for two reasons: it isn't as blatant to be a cross like on the seal; and it could be interpreted to be a geometrical design because it isn't shaped to support a human being being nailed to it, it's a plus sign basically. This is my opinion, and is subject to change.

[TMA_1]

acriku, there is no debating with you because you dont even try to listen! Earthnuker is probably one of the most fair and balanced people I know. He isnt a christian from what we have talked about, but he tries to understand and sympathizes with not only christians but people of all faiths (or lack thereof). He is trying but you are being kinda a jerk to him. come on man, instead of using your tactics where you just say that "oh I wont even argue that since it isnt a logical debate", because that is a sign that you wont win. You will debate somebody till they get to the focal issues, then when that happens you wont debate them because the arguments contain "strawman" arguments. Most of the time they arent even strawman arguments, which leads me to believe you dont specifically knows what that means.

Listen, many people have brought real issues to the forefront, but you havent even taken notice to them, or will just say the same things. In fact I predicted most of the things you would have said to their arguments, and that is saying something. good grief

[Anathema]

Because Turkey doesn't have the U.S. Constitution, and I'm not sure whether or not they have a separation of church and state. But the United States does, so any analogy using another country is very weak.

As I have mentioned several times, Turkey does have the seperation of religion and state. If you think that putting a cross on a seal / putting a crescent on a flag means the government is actively favouring one religious position above another, it is you who has to prove it. So far you haven't been doing a good job at it.

And I agree, the other things do characterize the county in Los Angeles, so for the county to say Christianity characterizes the county by putting a cross on its seal is a blatant endorsement. And I'm not sure what the county has in mind to replace the cross, but it's not my job to think of one.

Unless you're convinced that the governmen endorses fishermen as well as religion, your conclusion is illogical. The cross is really small, so hardly blatant at all. And you're the one who claimed there were better things to represent catholic missions.

If history is all the evidence you need, then it wouldn't be a problem putting it into your posts, correct? So far, I haven't seen this.

The most obvious example would be the Holy Roman empire, wich tried to legitimize itself with the goal of bringing religious unity to the whole world. But many other European monarchs used biblical verses to claim divine endorsement.

Seeing a cross on a government seal isn't a breach of conscience? Somebody walking down the streets of this county that is not a Christian sees a cross on the government seal would be rational to think that the government, at the very least the local government, is supporting Christianity and this person is suddenly an outcast. Doesn't mean he will think that, but it's rational upon seeing such an endorsement.

The quote seems to suggest protection against those who would abuse religion in combination with a man's conscience. That certainly does not seem to be the case, because the cross is so small you might not even notice it if you didn't take a close look at it.

[Acriku]

I don't argue with people based on their personal being, that would make it personal, I argue with people based on their arguments. And I'd appreciate it if others did for me. And I do know what a strawman is TMA, and no one has yet to tell me that I was wrong that the accused statements were not strawmen. Your being the same old TMA that would come into a discussion with no argument and piss all over me with statements like "you're not listening" or "you're being a jerk" and every time that you have done that you have been wrong. I may be a jerk to some, but that's only because they take it that way.

[TMA_1]

its the truth though silly.lol

[Acriku]

As I have mentioned several times, Turkey does have the seperation of religion and state. If you think that putting a cross on a seal / putting a crescent on a flag means the government is actively favouring one religious position above another, it is you who has to prove it. So far you haven't been doing a good job at it.

Ok thanks for the information on Turkey. Now, I'm at a loss. I see the government putting a Christian cross on a government seal as endorsing Christianity. I can't see a way to prove it, it's by definition an endorsement. It shows the government supporting Christianity. How do you want me to prove it any further than its own definition?

Unless you're convinced that the governmen endorses fishermen as well as religion, your conclusion is illogical. The cross is really small, so hardly blatant at all. And you're the one who claimed there were better things to represent catholic missions.

I haven't said either way whether or not the government endorses fishermen, because it is simply irrelevant. And that is because it goes nowhere. What if I said it did endorse fishing? What then? You can't sue because you have no constitutional standing. And the cross is blatant, I saw it as soon as I saw the seal for the first time. And no matter how small it is, putting it on there at all is, especially alone, by definition an endorsement.

The most obvious example would be the Holy Roman empire, wich tried to legitimize itself with the goal of bringing religious unity to the whole world. But many other European monarchs used biblical verses to claim divine endorsement.

I must've missed your point somewhere, could you elaborate?

The quote seems to suggest protection against those who would abuse religion in combination with a man's conscience. That certainly does not seem to be the case, because the cross is so small you might not even notice it if you didn't take a close look at it.

That's rediculous. The argument that someone might not notice it has no standing.

[ordos45]

I see the government putting a Christian cross on a government seal as endorsing Christianity. I can't see a way to prove it, it's by definition an endorsement. It shows the government supporting Christianity. How do you want me to prove it any further than its own definition?

In that case I see the government as endorsing Neo Paganism for having a Goddess on the seal.  I can't see a way to prove it, it's by definition an endorsement.  It shows the government endorsing Neo Paganism.   

And before you say 'but no one worships Goddesses anymore', millions of people still do.  Tens to hundreds of thousands do in America alone.

[Anathema]

In fact, a flag or a seal is supposed to have some connection with the people under it. Avoiding a religious symbol for what it is is hypocritical, and certainly not required to uphold the separation between religion and state.

[Dunenewt]

And just think about all the money they would have to spend on all of this and all the court cases etc,  Wouldn't you rather they spend this on something worthwhile, like more medical care for Los Angeles, or improving the police force, or an M1A2...

[GUNWOUNDS]

1.) define "endorsement of christianity"

2.) define "supports christianity"

Acriku is yelling strawman... but Acriku is throwing these phrases around .... that are ambiguous as hell. Pot calling the kettle black.

what exactly does this mean?

[Acriku]

In that case I see the government as endorsing Neo Paganism for having a Goddess on the seal.  I can't see a way to prove it, it's by definition an endorsement.  It shows the government endorsing Neo Paganism.   

And before you say 'but no one worships Goddesses anymore', millions of people still do.  Tens to hundreds of thousands do in America alone.

So file a lawsuit and make them change it.

In fact, a flag or a seal is supposed to have some connection with the people under it. Avoiding a religious symbol for what it is is hypocritical, and certainly not required to uphold the separation between religion and state.

What are you talking about?

1.) define "endorsement of christianity"

You don't have a dictionary at hand? Endorsement is the showing of approval or support. That is clearly seen when the government puts a Christian cross on one of its seals.

2.) define "supports christianity"

This term doesn't need to be defined, unless you're vocabulary is that minimal.

Acriku is yelling strawman... but Acriku is throwing these phrases around .... that are ambiguous as hell. Pot calling the kettle black.

So where are my strawmen? If I'm the pot calling the kettle black, then where are my strawmen Gunwounds?

once you think about that and digest it a bit...then you will finally understand what the hell Anathema and everyone else is talking about.

You obviously have no idea what I am talking about. I never said that the Christian churches suddenly get land or money, that's not what I said at all. Damn, all of this repeating going on is making me nauseated.

When will people start making real arguments and stop with this childish bickering. Tell you what, if you guys will actually research what separation of church and state is, what endorsement is, what "support" is, then we can actually have a discussion!

And just think about all the money they would have to spend on all of this and all the court cases etc,  Wouldn't you rather they spend this on something worthwhile, like more medical care for Los Angeles, or improving the police force, or an M1A2...

I completely agree - this money that is being spent (which I'm still waiting for from Scytale as an estimate since he decided to argue that it will cost a lot of money) could have been spent on other things, but a bunch of silly people decided to put in a cross from the Christian religion and cost the county however amount of money! I am disgusted at their disdain and neglect they have shown this county, and how little they regarded the United States Constitution.

[Anathema]

That is clearly seen when the government puts a Christian cross on one of its seals.

You treat this as a given and base your whole argument on it, and that's where it all fails.

[Acriku]

So, tell me. Is putting the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of a strictly government building endorsing Christianity?

[Dunenewt]

So, tell me, does anyone really care apart from a few PC warriors?

[ordos45]

So file a lawsuit and make them change it.

Not my job.

[Anathema]

Not really, I just care about being right.

Acriku, I fail to see the relevance of that comparison.

[Wolf]

Hey, the government didn't put the cross on the seal, the people did. Didn't the state council have a contest, or a discussion, or whatever to determine what should go on the symbol? And didn't people from all over the state come together to help design it? If anything, if I look at it that way, what is on the state seal is not an infringement on the rights of the people, but the very expression of those peoples' rights.

Or, am I just wrong, and the government decided the state seal without ever consulting the people?

And about the Ten Commandments... doesn't that also endorse Judiaism? And does that not also endorse Islam, to a certain degree? Why does it have to be Christianity? Here, its a little ambiguous. I know that some government buildings -- library of Congress, government monuments, and things of historical nature -- do have emblems and items of religious value. But, those are historical strucutres. Structures that participate in the machinery of government should be treated a little differently. So, I suppose that if the religious item in question was displayed as part of a purely historical exhibit, it would be okay. But, if it was just there, without any denotation that it was there for museum purposes, then I suppose that's too much of an endorsement of religion.

Then again, I find it hard to be offended by the phrase "Thou shalt not kill", regardless of the religious context.

Call me crazy!

[TMA_1]

you didnt answer ordos' questions acriku.

[Acriku]

Not my job.  It's the ACLU's. ;D  They're supposed to keep my rights from being violated by the Los Angeles County's open endorsement of Neo Paganism.

Then tip them off your local ACLU organization ;)

Not really, I just care about being right.

Acriku, I fail to see the relevance of that comparison.

Does it or not? I have been playing your little game, the least you could do is play mine.

Hey, the government didn't put the cross on the seal, the people did. Didn't the state council have a contest, or a discussion, or whatever to determine what should go on the symbol? And didn't people from all over the state come together to help design it? If anything, if I look at it that way, what is on the state seal is not an infringement on the rights of the people, but the very expression of those peoples' rights.

Actually...

(The County seal was designed by former Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, drawn by Millard Sheets and adopted by the Board of Supervisors March 1, 1957.)

And now the current Board of Supervisors agreed to remove it. And around the circle we go...

Or, am I just wrong, and the government decided the state seal without ever consulting the people?

It doesn't matter if the government consulted the people, the government at that level made a breach of the separation of church and state.

And about the Ten Commandments... doesn't that also endorse Judiaism? And does that not also endorse Islam, to a certain degree?

I was going to say Judaism as well, but I recall Jesus talking specifically of those commandments in the New Testament, whereas in the Old Testament there are many more commandments. But this is going offtopic.

But, if it was just there, without any denotation that it was there for museum purposes, then I suppose that's too much of an endorsement of religion.

What do you call a religious symbol put above a Hollywood bowl and beside two stars? There's no indication of missions, there's not even a specification of Catholic missions, there's just a religious symbol.

Then again, I find it hard to be offended by the phrase "Thou shalt not kill", regardless of the religious context.

Call me crazy!

No of course not, but then again the first commandment is I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Heh I'd be offended if that was being endorsed by our government.

Mother, I mean TMA, I'm not the ACLU and I don't decide what is considered religious by the government's terms. The government wouldn't recognize some religions that people professed (anyone remember the Jedi religion?), so I have no idea if he has any standing. That's why I directed him to a local ACLU organization.

[Wolf]

Haha, okay, Acriku, you got me on who designed the seal. It's a good thing we figured that, though. So, I take it you're all right with religious emblems being displayed in exhibition, museum, or historical site contexts? Judging from your opinion that the state seal doesn't denote itself as being historical.

[TMA_1]

lol okay son, oh I mean acriku ;)

I agree on one point that it isnt what the people want in these cases. I mean there have been arguments flowing around this thread that say if the people want it than its okay. That isnt true if it goes against the constitution. I agree with that, but that isnt the point because the cross on this symbol does not refer to any group that exists at this point in time. The cross does hold meaning to many christian groups, that is just plain obvious, BUT that cross is referring to the old spanish missions, not to modern christianity in america at this point in time.

Now if I see any 400 year old spanish missionaries supporting this symbol, than by all means I will agree with you. Till then (ahem.lol) I and most others see this as a symbol of historical significance, and because of it, it does not go against the constitution. Now if the people were against anything that was unconstitutional than I agree with you that it would be wrong, but those that say it has only historical significance have a strong argument to support that, so really it is beyond argument, and it is up to the supreme courts to decide the constitutionality of this specific topic. They should listen to the reason of history and the people though, because most can see through all that has been said. I agree though that there have been some christian groups that have been ruining credability on this topic. There are many who arent christian though who see the truth that this is purely historical. So you see this is clearly just interpritation, and because a large majority see that it has nothing to do with the second amendment, I tend to agree with the majority. And because of that interpritation it would be hard for you to say that your ideas are "more" correct than others. That is why interpritations dont deal with who is right or wrong, but how you see it in the first place, and that is why you have the supreme courts. there, I think that helps a bit.lol

[Anathema]

Very well then, in my eyes, putting the 10 commandments in a purely governmental building breaks down the separation of church and state. There's a difference though.

There is no reason that could justify putting the commandments there, or at least none that appear from your example. In the seal case, there is. It probably wouldn't qualify as a historical reference because the connection is vague (I would relate the 10 commandments to Moses before I'd relate them to the missions) and it's the only thing on display- the selectiveness of their choice implies endorsement of the judeo/christianic God.

It's up to the judge to consider all the relevant factors, but he probably would rule it unconstitutional.

Again I must stress, displaying a religious symbol isn't inapropriate for what it is, it's inapropriate for the reason behind it.

[Wolf]

Actually, I think the historical justification for the cross on the seal as representation of the California missions is more justified than the 10 Commandments in a statehouse or courthouse. San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles? Are these not names with religious connotations, probably starting from the missions that spearheaded their founding? I think missions did play a large role in the history of the region, and ignoring them would be an oversight.

[GUNWOUNDS]

You don't have a dictionary at hand? Endorsement is the showing of approval or support. That is clearly seen when the government puts a Christian cross on one of its seals.

See this is where your argument breaks down.... the Goddess doesnt endorse mythology, the Fish doesnt endorse fishing, etc, etc... yet the CROSS BREAKS THIS PATTERN and endorses Christianity? ? ?