http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1142867/posts
I have no problems with the ACLU but that is going overboard about a tiny little Cross IMHO.
I probably should have put this in “Great Debates”.
A big one would be, and who gets to decide what’s big and tiny?
Yes, it is.
A tiny star of David, tiny crescent, or tiny Buddha would be offensive as well.
And what does the size of the symbol have to do with anything?
No offense to the Los Angelenos out there, but that is one ugly seal!
START, frankly I don’t understand why your debate would be the size of the cross. If it’s visible as a cross, it’s a cross. Its sole purpose on the seal is to be visible as a cross.
On the other hand, if your question was whether the historic role of the church in the history of Los Angeles makes it appropriate, I would find that to be more of a debate.*
- I know next to nothing about the history of Los Angeles, so I won’t get involved in that one.
If the cross were on a corporate trademark or somebody’s family seal, I’d have no problem with it. It isn’t, though. It’s on the seal of a governmental body. It’s displayed in courtrooms, and in the county police station. It is an LA County endorsement of a particular religion. It might as well say, “Abandon hope, all ye Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims. If you ain’t Christian, you don’t rate.” That’s why it’s unconstitutional. Our country was founded by folks who had seen religious persecution by government in Europe, and they were careful not to perpetuate it here. Separation of church and state was written into some of the earliest colonial governments long before the USA was the USA.
Actually some groups came not only to escape persecution, but to be able to persecute those who did not agree with them.
Founded as a Mission by Catholic friars, like virtually every major pre-1800s town in the Southwest. Full original name: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula, “The Town of Our Lady of Porciúncula, Queen of the Angels.”
So darned right there is a historic link. However…
…If the point was to evoke historic origins, It’s damn pathetic that the cross is put in the same frame as a schematic of the Hollywood Bowl and two stars. I say that pretty much defeats any notion that they are exalting Christianity, since they have classed it with showbiz, and were I a Church leader I’d ask for the cross to be taken off the seal until they design something with some measure of dignity or historic sense where it would properly fit.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to put religious symbols on government items, but frankly I think there are more important things worth worrying about.
I’m offended by Greek goddesses. They should take that part out, too. I have a right to NOT be offended, ever.
And I can just see the vegans screaming about the tuna fish …
I’d like to see it gone too… Yeah, a “tiny Cross” is that offensive to me…
BTW, also in GD: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=259410
I was also going to mention the goddess Pomona, but Abbie beat me to it. If followers of different religions would just ignore each other, and just concentrated on their own and those looking for religion, then things wouldn’t be as bad. Tolerance and priorities - two decent, seemingly neglected concepts.
And JRDelirious already mentioned Los Angeles’ full name. I’m waiting for someone to demand changing that. If they took out everything in the full name that might “offend” someone, then one of the most well-known cities in the U.S. would simply be known as “The Town”. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Where I live, any tensions between people tend to be over language - i.e. English versus French. I’m waiting for someone to demand that the city change its currently English name back to its former French name. Or, at least change the name of the main thoroughfare - which happens to be the anglicized version of the city’s former name.
Anyhoo…
If they wanted to add a crescent, a buddha, a Star of David, and a multitude of other symbols to the seal to make it represenative of all religions, it would be one thing but to have only the cross on it isolates Christianity as a religion and gives it endorsement over all others which, like it or not, is unconstitutional.
And just in case the people talking about the goddesses aren’t posting tongue in cheek, you do realize that as a mythology, it is not a religion, right?
Politics, religion and the ACLU?
Putting my lead-lined gloves on and moving this to Great Debates ASAP.
Just as a thought experiment…
I can think of two prominent places in which Los Angeles displays religious sectarianism.
The less prominent place is in the city’s seal, depicting a crucifix.
The more prominent place is in the city’s name, referring to religious/mythological creatures.
If there is a legitimate argument to be made against the crucifix on the city’s seal, is there not an equally legitimate argument to be made that the city should be forced to change its name to a nonsectarian one?
Why or why not?
Daniel
Playing devil’s advocate here, what’s the difference? How would the worship of Pomona not be a religion, and how would Pomona’s picture on the seal not be a religious image?
And this would differ from Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, et. al., how, exactly?
But historically, like it or not, it was founded on a Catholic mission. In this case, it seems to be a recognition of history (“There were monks here once”) rather than a promoting of religion (“LA is Christian”).
Because Greek Mythology is no longer recognized as a current religion. I know I’m walking on thin ice, for all I know there could be millions of people that still regularly worship Zeus, but it seems to me that nobody really takes Greek gods seriously anymore.