I’m kind of torn on this. I can understand the ‘separation of church and state’ concerns, but does that mean we should take all of our monuments and yank off anything remotely religious? And why would they complain about a teeny little cross, but not about a much larger pagan symbol on the same seal?
Isn’t this a slippery slope? How much longer before ‘In God we trust’ gets changed? Some people suggested that the cross might be “offensive to Atheists” which really struck a funny bone with me, because I would figure Atheists to be the last people to complain about it.
“In God We Trust” should be changed. It’s arrogant and presumptuous–I don’t trust in God, and yet I’m an American and therefore supposedly part of the “we”.
I don’t know about the L.A. County seal. Arguably, it’s simply referring to the place Spanish Catholic missions had in the county’s history.
This is a tricky one. If a new city were founded today, it certainly wouldn’t be appropriate to incorporate a cross in the seal. Seems like the intelligent thing to do here, though, is to grandfather it in.
After all, L.A.'s **name ** is religious in origin. Should we force them to change their name, too? How about St. Louis?
Should they be allowed? As opposed to, what, blocking them from the legal system? The ACLU is allowed to file whatever lawsuits they deem worth the attention of our legal system. They are not, however, the ones changing the seal of L.A. The only people who can do that are the Board of Supervisors or, indirectly, the judicial system. If you wanna be upset with somebody then be upset with the Board for not fighting this in the courts. The ACLU is just doing what its mission says it will do, even though some of us might disagree.
I’m an ardent supporter of separation of church and state, and I say you allow it. Everything on that seal is there to represent an important cultural or historical aspect to the county. The county wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for Catholic missionaries, and that’s what the cross is representing. It isn’t there to preach or reflect/support current missionaries or ideals, it’s simply reflecting the area’s history.
I’m not sure what disappoints me more, the fact that LA county did not fight it because their lawyers said they would “probably lose on the issue” and that it wasn’t worth “wasting treasury money on a lost cause”, or the fact that people will so readily raise a stink about something that has been around for YEARS.
Should the ACLU be allowed to bring a legal challenge to an apparent breach of the principle of separation of church and state, to be decided on its merits?
Sure. They can’t “force” the county to do anything, but they can certainly raise the argument. If, as seems likely, the cross is simply a reference to the area’s history and not a specific endorsement of Christianity, then the compromise solution of substituting the image of a mission seems a good one.
Why the cross, and not the goddess? My guess is that the goddess Pomona has very few adherents in the modern age, whereas Christianity is still a going concern, and one that seems to be very much entwined in certain branches of our government. Pomona has devolved to a symbolic image, where the cross is still evangelical in nature.
I definately don’t think this case is worthy of the ACLU.
it’s pretty close to meaningless even if it was a SOCAS infraction: been there a long time, hurts no one, few ever even notice it
it’s plainly not an endorsement of religion: it is one historical element about the city’s history
this will only help the ACLU’s enemies paint it as a bunch of nutjobs
Of course the enemies of the ACLU are usually dead wrong about it being anti-religion (ignoring all the cases in which it was defended private individuals against unwarranted silencing of religious specch in places like public schools), but this case makes me think that maybe some at the ACLU at the very least lack good judgement.
Actually, the name is very specific to Catholicism. *El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora La Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncula * shows that the city was founded on that feast day.
This is one case I wish the ACLU would just drop. They already forced my hometown to drop the cross from their seal, where it commemorated the town’s founding fathers. It’s so meaningless a suit…<sigh>
Could be, but I think we all know which particular angels we’re talking about here. They certainly are less generic than “God”, as in “under God” or “in God we trust”. The point I was trying to make is that I think it’s silly to try to expunge all the historical religious aspects of this country.
In the end, though, it’s a judgement call. As long as we allow **SOME ** religious symbols, which we clearly do, then you have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere. A tiny cross on a county seal, which has some real historical significance seems rather trivial to me.
On the politics: I can’t believe the ACLU is wasting money on this. There has to be better ways for them to protect our freedoms. This case is mostly bad press for them, with little to actually gain. It’d be better to do a separation of church and state case that actually mattered. (Really, how many people actually look at the details of a government seal?)
On the merits: is a cross really the best symbol for representing the historical influence of the Catholic church and its missions? A cross can symbolize many things–it’s better to use something less abstract. Why not represent a mission directly? I think the arched profile of a mission wall with bells would evoke the cultural influences much better. This would be make it clear that the seal is refering to the historiy of the missions, instead of Christianity in general.
When I first heard about this case, that’s exactly what I thought of. Something like the mission bell symbol you see all along El Camino Real. But the point is whether or not LA should have to change this now, as opposed to what they should have done in the first place.
Since over eighty percent of the people in this country believe in God I think it is appropriate to have the “God” slogan on our money. God is thought of as a Higher Intelligence and it is wise to appeal to greater intelligence in time of need. I have no idea why you would think that arrogant. You can’t prove God doesn’t exist, so it is only a belief with you, no different than those who do believe.
The seal has nothing to do with separation of church and state.
But it is a small thing to be attacked by the non believers, that they might actually win.
I think the general public grow tired of this game and will regretfully vote Bush back in attempting to hold onto some of their religious values.
If you really believe as you say and want to separate church from state, why not go after the thousands of chaplains in the armed services of our country, paid by our tax dollars, representing many religions, and while you are at it you could ban prayer from the battle fields.
I think I know what would happen if they tried that.
If eighty percent believe in God, then twenty percent don’t believe in God. At any rate, the whole point of the First Amendment is that religion isn’t subject to majority rule.
No one is trying to prevent you from appealing to a higher intelligence than your own, Leroy. However, the principle of freedom of religion is that you can’t force me to appeal to your God.
The arrogant part is not you saying you trust in God. The arrogant part is you saying I trust in God. I’ve got no objection to people proclaiming their own trust in God, but when they adopt a “national” motto on the subject, they’re claiming that I trust in God, which isn’t true.
I’m sure someone has explained this to you before, but I don’t have to prove God doesn’t exist, as I’m not saying “There is no God”, only that I haven’t been given any reason I find adequate to form a belief in God, so therefore I don’t have any such belief. Saying that I do–“In God We [Americans, and I am an American] Trust”–is therefore a lie. Or else I’m not an American, but I know that’s not right, because the Fourteenth Amendment is pretty clear on the subject.
Actually, I would prefer that chaplains have their salaries paid by the denominations which ordain them.
The bit about banning prayer from the battle fields merely shows that you have no idea what you are talking about on the subject of separation of church and state.
Hm. I usually support the ACLU on these things, but I don’t think a change is necessary here. The seal website says: “The cross represents the influence of the church and the missions of California.” I don’t see a problem with that. Of course, if the explanation seemed like BS, there would be a problem, but it makes sense to me.
What about being attacked by a believer like myself? Or is it too difficult a concept to understand that someone of your faith or belief system would actually be support a full separation of church and state? Why do you want the same organization that runs the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to also evangelicize your religion?!?
