In the spirit of this thread, let’s not forget about Santa Cruz!
The capital is Sacramento. Let’s just change it to Arnold. Oh, wait, there’s already an Arnold (up past Angels Camp). How about Schwarsenegger City?
Sorry, John, but that’s gotta be the most one-sided simulpost in board history :D.
Daniel
D’oh! And this is my state, even! Well, you see, I was totally distracted by the oppression I get here in San Leandro. Yeah, every day. Also, I was thinking that it sounds so much better in Spanish. If you named your kid Leander, he’d get beat up at school.
Yeah, and I misspelled Schwarzenegger… 
The only way you’d know it was a mission is if there was a big cross on it. That type of architecture is so common here they call it Mission style. Ooh, I’m also oppressed because a lot of the tract houses on my street have Spanish tile roofs, and that reminds me of missions, and that reminds me of the horrible atrocities commited against Native Americans here.
Not to mention forcing California’s 4th graders to construct a mission for their school project…
Oh, da Horra! :eek:
Hope the good folks in Des Moines, Iowa don’t hear about this!
Though I don’t know how interested they would be in Pomona, considering she’s a Roman deity.
Regarding the cross on the seal, I think it’s pretty clear that it’s there to commemerate the city’s origins as a mission. I think the ACLU is wasting it’s time on this one.
Personally (non-christian speaking), I am not offended by it. It’s just a symbol; not like having the 10 Commandments on a court house.
As an Angelino, I don’t think that this is even an issue, nor has it ever been an issue. Virtually everyone who lives here recognizes the importants that Spanish missions played in our cultural heritage. For IPU’s sake, 90% of the names of things around here are old Spanish missions and cities.
Here is an interesting interpretation: The swastika. The swastika has been used for thousands of years, from India to natives of the Americas. Once adopted by the Nazi cause, does this mean that the native Americans and Indians and everyone else can’t use the swastika symbol?
The cross on the LA County seal symbolizes something other than Christianity. It symbolizes the Catholic missions, which are a historical part.
And for the record, I don’t think the seal is ugly. A lot of sh*t goes on in LA, and I’m amazed they represented most of it on the seal!
Speak for yourself! Hellenic religions are still recognized by large parts of the modern pagan community. While most do recognize the mythology as metaphorical, not literal, the practices aren’t all the way dead yet. You are free to refer to your opinion as all religion as mythology, but don’t piss on the ones you just don’t know about.
Well, the Founding Fathers didn’t see fit to change the name of Providence, Rhode Island, so I don’t think they would object to the naming of Los Angeles or a tiny cross on its seal.
What I find ironic is the completley different response this article got in the link provided. Everyone was against the ACLU in a big way, and seemed ready to storm the headquarters. Here in the good 'ol SDMB, there has been more of an honest debate, but the folks here have taken mostly the opposite opinion. This is why I enjoy reading this board so much. Even though I don’t agree with most of what the people here say, they are very good at presenting their argument.
Now about this little cross business, I don’t see an issue. We have to remember that like it or not, religion is large part of this country’s history. We can’t ignore that, even if it upsets some folks. If there was a city here in the US that was founded on muslim beliefs, it wouldn’t bother me if they had one of their symbols on the city seal. I woudn’t feel oppressed to live there either. Lastly, people should keep in mind that the constitution says “Freedom of Religion”, not “Freedom FROM Religion”.
I just wonder, if we changed the “tiny cross” to “a tiny cross with a tiny red slash through it,” would the folks defending the cross find it offensive?
(I personally think the ACLU could have picked a better fight to deal with, myself)
If it got approved 30 odd years ago, I’d say that it would be a bit late, no? I’m certainly not defending ‘the cross’ here…I’m saying this is a silly fight IMHO. Its simply stupid, and I think the ACLU is only going for the publicity. Personally, I just don’t see what the big deal is for people…WHY does it bother you so much, especially folks here who KNOW its a symbol of the past and the effect missions had on the city. This is hardly comparable to putting the ten commandments in stone outside a courthouse…
-XT
Why in the world would the ACLU want or need any more publicity than they already have?
I suppose when they defend the rights of the KKK to march they’re just doing that for some publicity too?
I read recently about the ACLU defending some religious group, I believe a Christian one, for their right to worship or protest or something… DAMN… I wish I could remember where I saw that. It was on the Web within the last week. Any one notice something like that? A little help?
Anyway… that’s the great thing about the ACLU. They’ll defend ANYONE AT ALL-- regardless of race, creed, religion, food group or favorite color–whose civil rights are being threatened.
And to think that it’s considered an insult in this country to be a “card-carrying member of the ACLU”.
Knuckle-dragging chucklehads are all around us. Beware.
If the ACLU (et. al.) really has a problem with the symbols on the seal, and want to change them, then there is no reason that a city name should be able to contain “Angel” or “Saint” or any other religious reference. What? It would be too expensive, or hard, to change a city name? Well, you opened the can of worms, deal with it.
If the symbols are actually historical references for the city, then I don’t see any reason to change anything.
I think the whole thing is completely, and utterly trite.
LilShieste
The court will sidestep and say that the seal is the historical story of the origins of LA. Thus it is constitutional.
Actually, the constitution says neither of those phrases - what it does say is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” which is widely restated (but not in the Constitution, itself) as “Freedom of Religion.” (And there is no real way to have freedom of my own religion without freedom from other religions & so the argument goes.)
rjung, I wouldn’t find it offensive either way. However, I don’t see the historical significance of “a tiny cross with a red slash through it.” In the case of the county of Los Angeles, missions played a large role in the history of the area - calling attention to that does not seem out of line. (Conversely, in my county, a cross would be wildly out of place, and putting one on the county seal would be entirely indefensible).
Dammit, I knew I screwed that one up. Thanks for setting me straight, amarinth.
And of course, it also doesn’t say “Separation of church and state”, either. 
From the other message board:
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! Of course, “most people” know that amongst the residents of Los Angeles County (the people who might actually see the Seal on a regular basis) there are no Spanish speakers who might see it as “The Angels”.
:rolleyes: