Jump to content

ACLU Vs. Cross in Seal

ordos45
 Share

Recommended Posts

thomas

thomas

Posted
Posted

saint francis, saint joseph and the city of angels all were names given by the missionaries. In california I believe there are around 21 missions. 21 beautiful structures of adobe and wood. To use a cross in the seal of Los Angeles is to use a cannon in the seal of Gettysburg.

Acriku

Acriku

Posted
Posted

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.

Yes, if it does not seem to the rational person like the government is endorsing one religion over another. Putting the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of a government building is a clear endorsement, but putting them in a crowd of examples of law-givers with no indication of favor or bias, then the endorsement is not seen by a rational person.

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.

But there is no indication of missions, no little hint to say that it represents missions. There's just a Christian cross on a seal. It's a very general religious symbol encompassing all of Christianity and its denominations, not at all telling you off missions that happened during its beginnings - which is why the ACLU has requested for a better image(s) to be put on the seal to represent these missions.
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.
It seems the ACLU, and the Board of Supervisors currently holding office, disagree.
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.
Where is the significance if it is just a general religious symbol encompassing an entire religion, not at all specifying the missions? To me, they are just showing what religion they were, not the missions.
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

Yes it does.
Again I must stress, displaying a religious symbol isn't inapropriate for what it is, it's inapropriate for the reason behind it.
That's not entirely true. What matters is what a rational person would see when noticing this display. A person could draft all of this historical significance of the Ten Commandments to the certain building (that may not even exist), but a rational person walking by and noticing it will find it as an endorsement of religion. That's what matters.

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.

The ACLU is not trying to ignore this important history of this region. It simply wants a better representation that doesn't violate this separation. There are better ways to represent missions than putting a general religious symbol on it. In fact, I don't think it does the missions justice.

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? ? ?  NO it doesnt .. THAT is the point peope have been trying to tell you.  YES YES i know there is no law of separation of fish and state... but that is NOT what we are talking about.... we are asking a simple question......

I never said that the Goddess does not endorse the Neo-Pagan religion, or that the fish does not endorse fishing. Sure, they probably do show support of fishing, it's a big business and industry. As for the Goddess, well that's a bit hairy and up for the Supreme Courts to decide. The rest of that part of your post pretty much relies on my saying they are not endorsed, so no use replying to it.

Support is different from Approval... Support has the connotation of the entity benefitting.  Endorsement could also have the connotation of the entity benefitting.  you agreed that Christianity does not benefit from this seal at all.. thus once again your argument falls apart.

Connotations be damned. You put those connotations in there. My argument stands.

Your strawman is that you would feel completely outcasted as a Jewish man due to viewing a cross on a seal"  Completely stupid and childish

That wasn't an argument, and thus cannot be a strawman (an argumental fallacy). It was an example, sorry.
That is something you alone need to do.  Also calling people "childish" because they do not agree with you does not make your argument stronger or make you right.  You think you can intimidate people and make them back down by dishing out insults... But it only makes you look weak that you had to stoop to ad hominem ... ACRIKU.

I keep calling them childish (well, before it was mostly you) because these people keep resorting to these strawmen and irrelevant arguments that I just find childish. I'm in this for a good discussion, not arguing strawmen or arguments that if thought through would never reach the surface of this discussion.

... this is not something that is of an urgent nature and it is not "clear cut". Therefore it would be foolish to waste city funds on such bullshit.  Also  "showing little regard" for the constitution is a subjective term.  As the constitution is completely open to interpretation by supreme court justices ... for example people in the Unites States Still cant fucking agree on what "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS" means. Gun Control is still debated to this day.... So dont tell me that the Constitution is just crystal clear in definition. That is pure bullshit.  It is a document to be interpreted as the people wish. Thus there is no "disregard".

I agree a lot of it is ambiguous. But that's why the founders had notes! Historians read all of the letters, the documents, and the summaries of the Constitution Hearings and such to gather the intentions behind clauses and sections of the Constitution.
GUNWOUNDS

GUNWOUNDS

Posted
Posted

I'm in this for a good discussion, not arguing strawmen or arguments that if thought through would never reach the surface of this discussion.

Well for some of us there is no discussion because to some of us there is no perceived violation and most of us here share feelings of apathy to the issue.

Acriku

Acriku

Posted
Posted

Well for some of us there is no discussion because to some of us there is no perceived violation.

So when someone tells you that they are offended by something and that some constitutional "xxx" has been violated  but meanwhile you cannot fathom what the hell they are talking about... then you can only disagree with them on a basic level.  Thus there can be no deeper discussion.

It is because you do not see this as a violation that I continue to argue. It's obvious to me because I've researched this separation, what Madison thought, what Jefferson thought, and I've gathered from it that perception. Now allow me to repeat this crucial point that I stated a couple times before: It is a cross. It has nothing specific to do with the missions, as it is a very general religious symbol. Nothing about it says missions specifically. I look at it and I see the Christian religion. What do you see when you look at it? We can play connect the dots all night, but there is nothing inherent about a Christian cross that points towards the missionary history of this region.
I see no childishness here.  All i see is you blowing the issue out of proportion by saying that if you were a Jewish man you would feel outcasted by a seal.  Just because we do not share your unwarranted sensitivity to this issue does not make us childish or wrong.  I do not even see how the adjective childish came into this discussion..... as i review this entire thread the only thing that i see that is childish is your hyperbole of being outcasted  and your instigation of a flame war.  Nothing else i see is childish.  To me it just seemed like you were getting ganged on by multiple people and you felt aggravated and therefore lashed out wanting to piss people off.
I don't know why you keep referring to the outcast example, it was a minor example from a while back. Get over it.
To me that is somewhat childish.... starting a flamewar in a thread.  I mean you got Anathema to blantantly ask you to Fuck off.  And you got TMA to tell you to your face that your arguments werent sound.  So you wanted  a nice discussion huh? Way to go man ... looks like your going about it in the right way  /sarcasm off.

Who's starting a flame war in this thread? Who me? Couldn't be! Then who? I don't see a couple swearing as flame wars GUNWOUNDS, you're kind of jumping the gun there. Oh so Earth told me to fuck off, who cares?
Anathema

Anathema

Posted
Posted

That's not entirely true. What matters is what a rational person would see when noticing this display. A person could draft all of this historical significance of the Ten Commandments to the certain building (that may not even exist), but a rational person walking by and noticing it will find it as an endorsement of religion. That's what matters.

And it's up to the judge to decide wether or not the average, rational Californian could justifyably assume the cross was meant to show support for christianity. I don't think he would though, but we'll see.

GUNWOUNDS

GUNWOUNDS

Posted
Posted

Haha keep up the childish foolery GUNWOUNDS, I think you've made your point already that you don't have shit for an argument.

sure thing outcasted Jewish man,

thomas

thomas

Posted
Posted

Well the Board of Supervisors already agreed Earth, so it may be a while before people take it to the courts. *Ignores GUNWOUNDS*

erm, no they haven't

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

I don't think Gunwounds has been that childish. Its humorous, yes. To be honest, posting a mock-up of the seal is not the worst thing I've come across here. But, it seems that it isn't helping debate.

Further, about the seal. Would a mission-shaped structure with a cross on top be adequate to represent Christian missions? I think the drawing of the structure is enough; it identifies it as a Christian mission, which was the historical precedent, without endorsing the religion. I.E., just a big cross.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.