I thought something looked wrong in that post…
Carry on.
I think most of us conclude the ACLU’s attack on the dangerous LA seal is nonsense. When I was in college I had a few teachers that were active in the ACLU and had a great respect for them. While I still respect my teachers, the ACLU has lost the vaulted place it once held for me. I still like the idea and think we need them, but can’t they understand the difference between things harmful and things merely bothersome. I guess not.
Love
Just one example of hypocrisy:
Numbers 11
33 But while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed, the anger of the LORD burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague.
So you want the ACLU to only protect our rights from being violated only when “you” think the violation is only bothersome and not harmful? How about we draw the line at a place a little more objective. Not having our rights violated at all?
I thought those were Taco Bells.
Anyway, how is showing a mission that much different from showing a cross? An image of a building used for religious purposes is still a reference to the religion. And a picture of a mission would necessarily be bigger than what they have now. I think they should just leave it alone; I don’t see the cross as any more an endorsement of religion as the name Los Angeles.
The Bible is not, repeat, is not the word of God. All religions love the members of their own religion, or they are supposed to. True there are hypocrites. and there are those who don’t understand. Christianity is/was based on the teachings of Jesus. He taught “love one another.”
It is a matter of priority, time, money, etc., just don’t sweat the small stuff.
Your rights have not been violated, this case really has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. In my lifetime, I have never seen any real case of church involvement in the government of our country. Probably the strongest case could be made when preachers ask their congregations to vote for a certain man or law. This happens all the time and is protected by free speech.
If these attacks continue on symbolism to the extent they are noticed and anger the religious population they will become self-defeating, and the good folks will change the laws so they can display their symbols how they want. Just a reminder.
I would not care if they are removed or not. Symbols are just that symbols, not the real thing. Some day we may have generic money and such. Something that would not offend any minority, but I doubt it. Again, it is a matter of priorities.
Love
It probably seems that way because it is mainly some branches of Christianity that try to violate Separation of Church and State. That isn’t always true though. Once a Jewish community in Illinois wanted to keep Nazis from marching in their community. (We can understand that!) But the ACLU backed the rights of the Nazis.
It might surprise you to learn that there are many Christians involved with and supporting the ACLU. I first learned about it almost forty years ago from my minister who was a member.
Why do you want to fight someone who tries to protect civil liberties? That seems strange.
It’s not that “one person is offended.” It has to do with the Constitution of our country – which is constantly being interpreted. That cross happens to be on a GOVERNMENT seal. Relgious symbols aren’t supposed to be. But historical symbols are generally thought to be appropriate. I think that the ACLU could have spent their time more wisely, but I’m not the one to make those decisions.
Thanks for your judgment, Vanilla. Some of us are the same nutcases whose opinions you ask for from time to time.
My apologies for the lack of off-set on the quotations from Vanilla. I hope that my post was not too confusing.
Exactly.
This is a stupid and petty act on the part of the ACLU.
When I heard this story, I knew that the crosses on the seal had to be in reference to California’s history. I knew it wasn’t an endorsement of religion. I never paid attention to the LA seal before, but it immediately was obvious to me, as someone who grew up in L.A. It will undoubtedly (or at least hopefully) be obvious to everyone else who is familiar with LA’s history as well.
We were taught all this stuff in school. All about who Father Junipero Serra was, we went on field trips to the Missions, the whole thing. I’m guessing that schools are still teaching California history and taking kids on field trips to the missions. Should that stop too?
It’s just stupid. It’s petty. It’s about California’s history, that’s all. Am I correct in assuming that if this goes through (which it looks like it will) that L.A. will have to change umpteen different things that have the seal on them? (Like stationery, etc. etc.?) What a hassle.
You’re not from Stow, Ohio by any chance?
They did the same thing to my hometown too, jerks.
I will not donate to them anymore, they should stick to helping people who need help, not trying to second-guess someone who might be offended in the future.
How many cities have they suceeded in intimidating into changing their seals anyway? Nice scorecard guys. :rolleyes:
The Bible NOT the word of God?
Cite, sir?
Also, I heard it most defiitely is Not allowed for a pastor to tell anyone who to vote for!
True. But a pastor *can * tell you to vote strictly pro-life, pro-choice, pro-guns, pro-spaghetti, pro-whatever, and then direct you to where you can find out which candidates endorse said beliefs.
Get out your Bible, look in the Table of Contents to see the names of the books and who wrote them.
A preacher has the same right of free speech as all of us. I believe there is a law that separates churches from political orgs. If all a preacher does is preach about politics the church could lose their non-tax status. Otherwise a preacher can say as he wants, as allowed by his congregation.
Love
exactly.
Usually its for the one who is against abortion.
Even if they did say vote for so-and-so, who there is going to complain?
Almost everyone in the church agrees (except me)
I’d complain directly to the pastor after services, and inform him that the next time it happens, you’re going to the IRS and the ACLU. Ask him if deliberately violating his tax-exempt status is worth the bazillion dollars of property taxes the church will have to assume.
That’s just sad - it’s so easy to comply, and saying “vote for the pro-life guy” instead of “vote for Jack Smith” makes virtually no difference to the audience.
well, no one has ever said vote for soandso in any church I’ve been in.
But a former pastor said that ayone who voted for Gore(this was in 2000) was responsible for all dead aborted babies.
I dunno if I was exempt there, I had voted for Nader.
I doubt either the IRS or the ACLU would help you.
But it is common for the televangelists to try to influence votes.
Love
Why do you say that? I’d imagine either of those groups would be extremely interested to hear that a local church is violating their tax-exempt status. Local taxpayers would be as well. We give enormous benefits to organizations in exchange for a handful of guidelines they must follow. That happens to be one of them.
The ACLU is forcing no one to do anything. They are simply asking the city to do what they are suppose to do.
Waste millions of dollars and thousands of manhours changing their logos to please a few fundamentalist atheists who don’t even live here?
And it is county, not city. The City of Los Angeles is a festering sh*thole.
Zagadka Not everybody calling for strict seperation of church and state is an atheist. Read my first post to this thread.
I want G-d in my heart and in my life. I don’t want Him on my money, or on any official symbol of government.