Beniah
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 62
|
Post by Beniah on Jun 11, 2004 18:27:20 GMT -5
Hiiii Every Body!! (Hiii Dr.Nick) Anywho, I just want to see what you all think about the ACLU. Also does everyone know what they are up to now? They are attempting to have the Seal of Los Angeles changed due to a small cross that is on it. The cross is in reference to the Catholic/Christian heritage that the city of Los Angeles has. It's not attempting to force a State/Government run religion on anyone, which WOULD be a violation of the First Amendment, but it's just there to remember the history of the city. Now, me as a Christian, I have particular disgust with the ACLU on their blatant Anti-Christian (they are NOT anti religion, just Christian) attitude. But I feel that even an atheist would have to agree that this is a bit ridiculous. First thing, just monetarily, this is going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to change the seal. Money that in a cash strapped city of LA could be better spent on, oh i don't know, any freaking thing else! And second of all, weather you are a Christian or not, it's historical fact that LA has a Christian heritage and continues to have one to this day! There are many STRONG Latino Catholics, African American Protestants, and all sorts of people of color who are religious. To remove the reminder of that from our city seal would be to "change" history in an obvious attempt by the ACLU to mold the future of the city into what THEY want. They are not only demanding to have it removed but are also insisting that they alone get to pick what replaces it. Forget letting us "peon people" decide what we want on our city seal, let's just have the ACLU dictate everything for us! Yay!!! So anyways, besides venting, I wanted to know what you guys/gals thought about that. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Jun 13, 2004 8:59:42 GMT -5
I posted the article about this case in our Atheist News Archive for anyone interested reading up on the L.A. seal issue. BeniahGood for them. Upholding the seperation of church and state even when it is unpopular is an admirable thing to do. BeniahIf this is true, why was the cross added to the seal only 50 years ago? From the news article: ContraCostaTimesBeniahAnd, as an atheist, I have a particular disgust with religious symbols in the government because they are blatantly anti-atheist. BeniahYes, I agree that the cross on L.A. County's seal is a bit ridiculous. BeniahDidn't it ever occur to you that it cost just as much to add the cross to the seal 50 years ago? I can't help it if the state is going to lose money to fix a mistake. BeniahThen, I'm sure you are just as angry at the people who had the cross added 50 years ago, right? The money used to add the seal could've also been better spent on something else, right? BeniahThis is the same arguement people are using about the entire country. But I find it interesting that so many of our religious symbols appeared about 50 years ago. Is the Christian heritage of the United States or L.A. County only 50 years old? BeniahSo might makes it right, doesn't it? Since the Latino Catholics and African American Protestants probably outnumber the outspoken atheists in L.A. County, non-theists should just shut up, right? BeniahInteresting how the initial change to add the cross to the seal wasn't seen as a radical change of history. BeniahEvidence of this is where? I'm sorry Beniah but, even though you are fustrated with it, your defense of that cross in the L.A. County seal is weak.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Jun 13, 2004 9:30:05 GMT -5
I personally applaud the ACLU for the efforts they have made to remove religious symbols from public places, however, I feel that they are also very accomodating toward religion. I wish that they were more hard-line when it came to the COMPLETE removal of religious artifacts.
I personally don't think that the concept of a God should be allowed as a historical artifact. I don;t think that religious displays (such as the 10 Commandments) should be allowed in any public area, even if it is grouped with other 'historical' statues, etc. The ACLU will accept that some of these monuments are being moved to areas that house other statues.
Often, the pro-10 Commandment people will mention the mural in the Supremem Court which shows Moses with the 10 Commandments as being a historical source of laws. I disagree with this display as well. I - it hasn't been established as a historical fact, and 2) it is from ONE religious culture only - Judaism.
I have no problem with Hammurabi being displayed, he is historical, Moses, on the other hand, is not.
I'm sure that you weren't hoping to have that sort of reply, but I feel that the ACLU and other such organisations are stopping short of the actual goal. By compromising, they are still allowing govenment to have religious content, even if it is deemed ceremonial deism (is there any better phrase to trivialize the concept of a deity?)
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Jun 13, 2004 10:21:59 GMT -5
*echoes auntie and mav*
but also, I find it a bit odd that the ACLU is working on that. It's just a minor little thing, and to me it would make much more sense for them to be working on something bigger, like "under God" or "In God we Trust".
It's a good move, but not a smart one IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Jun 13, 2004 13:53:49 GMT -5
but also, I find it a bit odd that the ACLU is working on that. It's just a minor little thing, and to me it would make much more sense for them to be working on something bigger, like "under God" or "In God we Trust". The ACLU wanted to represent Newdow in the Supreme Court. The ACLU pointed out that Newdow had never stood in the Supreme Court before and should step aside for a more experienced lawyer. Newdow declined their offer stating that an atheist should present his case.
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Jun 13, 2004 21:49:02 GMT -5
I'm all for removing religious symbols from everything but honestly who cares?
|
|
Beniah
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 62
|
Post by Beniah on Jun 14, 2004 11:57:36 GMT -5
Okay Maverick, I see what you are saying. Let me come again a bit stronger then, or at least try to present my case a bit stronger. First of all I don't think "seperation of church and state" would apply here IF we wanted to take the constitution at what is says exactly. Of course we could "read" into it anything we want, but if you honestly looked at what the 1st amendment says, you'd see this is not applicable here. The 1st amendment basically makes it illegal for the Government/State to set up an "offical" religion. It doesn't mean that there can't be "religion" in our government. Also the seal has a goddess on it as well as the cross. So why does the ACLU not make a complaint against the goddess on the seal, if this was a "seperation of church and state" issue? It's pretty obvious that the ACLU has it out for Christianity, not "religion". Second of all you said that it only was put there 50 or so years ago. I know that it might have been put there due to the whole Macarthy Communism thing, we don't need to go into that. Okay fine, granted, that's how it got on there. And if the "government" put it to the vote to see if we wanted to remove it, fine, I'd be okay with that. But for the ACLU to simply bipass the "people" and not only say they want it removed, but ALSO say they want the sole right to dictate what will replace it (they want a mission on it but without the cross, it kind of looks like a Taco Bell) is just wrong. Why doesn't the ACLU want it to go to the people to vote on it?! That's my main beef, that and the fact that it's not a "religious" thing otherwise they'd want the goddess off of it also.
|
|
Beniah
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 62
|
Post by Beniah on Jun 14, 2004 11:59:28 GMT -5
Auntie I have a quick question for you. Have you ever been to Washington DC and to the Library of Congress?
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jun 14, 2004 12:35:18 GMT -5
I'm with Beniah on this one. What difference is one little cross going to make? There are much better things to be doing, like trying to stop the war on drugs and such things. Why worry about a seal?
People put too much importance in pointless things. So the seal has a cross. Is it really worth wasting money on?
I certainly am. They should never have done it. People put far too much importance on such things as seals.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Jun 14, 2004 16:25:04 GMT -5
Beniah
Your case isn't any stronger. You'll see why below.
Beniah
I have looked at what the 1st Amendment says honestly and the seperation of church and state is very much applicable here.
The 1st Amendment says the following:
1st Amendment
For legal purposes, the bold text is seperated into two clauses; the Establishment and Free Excercise Clauses.
1. Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
2. Free Excercise Clause: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Religious symbols in government seals establishes religion and violates the Establishment Clause. L.A. County, by putting a cross on the county seal, is establishing Christianity as the official religion of the county. There is no special interpetation I need to read into to come to that conclusion.
Now, some would say that removing that seal would violate the Free Excercise Clause. But this is a faulty argument. Removing the seal would only revert the county back to a nuetral stance toward religion. It wouldn't prohibit private citizens (or public officals in their private lives) from practicing Christianity.
Beniah
Yes, it does mean that religion can't be in government. The whole purpose of the Establishment Clause is to seperate the church and the state.
Beniah
In my opinion, the danger of turning our government into a theocracy is currently coming from Christians. The majority of the people in this country are Christian and the religious references in our government are overwhelmingly Christian. This being the case, it is appropriate that Christian influences be addressed with more urgency that any other religion.
I agree, the goddess on the seal should also be fair game. But until the religion which believes in that goddess starts heavily imposing its beliefs on me through government, I'm not worried about it.
The funny things is that a more legitimate case for religious references could be made on behalf of the believers of the Greek gods and goddess than on behalf of Christians. While Christians claim that their religion is the foundation of law, the historical roots of democracy come from Greece.
Beniah
It's a cross. What other religious denomination uses the cross to impose its beliefs on others? In this case, targeting Christianity for this church/state violation is appropriate.
Beniah
The reason why it was put in is not important. Whether it was fear of godless Communism or any other political system, the point is that the references are not historical.
Beniah
Again, might makes right? Since non-Christians are a minority, they should just shut up?
Beniah
I am not accepting or rejecting this claim. But again, where is the evidence for that the ACLU wants to decide what design goes on the seal?
|
|
Franc28
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 144
|
Post by Franc28 on Jun 14, 2004 16:48:51 GMT -5
That is a dangerous thing to say. If you argue consistently like that, you'll end up taking an objective-constructivist position against one of the statists' dogmas, democracy. And we all know that abandoning that dogma would lead to the end of the world.
|
|
Beniah
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 62
|
Post by Beniah on Jun 14, 2004 18:15:55 GMT -5
Well for the most part we are now just in a disagreement in opinions but I would like to address one thing you said. BeniahI have looked at what the 1st Amendment says honestly and the seperation of church and state is very much applicable here. 1. Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," 2. Free Excercise Clause: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Religious symbols in government seals establishes religion and violates the Establishment Clause. L.A. County, by putting a cross on the county seal, is establishing Christianity as the official religion of the county. There is no special interpetation I need to read into to come to that conclusion. Wow. I have to really disagree with this statement here. First of all "establishing" an official religion would be a whole heck of a lot more than simply having a small cross on the city seal. LA County by having a small cross on the seal is NOT establishing "Christianity" as an official religion. For many reasons, this is not true, but the main one I'll use is the fact that there is this HUGE goddess on the seal also. Using the logic that a small cross on the seal is "establishing" Christianity as an "official" religion, what does the VERY large goddess on the seal mean? Wouldn't that mean that the county is establishing her followers as the "official" religion? I don't really think so, and the same thing is true for the small cross. And if having a cross on the seal makes Christianity the official religions, why are all other religions in LA County not outlawed? I'm sure there are many Mosques in LA County. The cross does NOT establish an official religion. Again, it's simply addressing the historical past of the county of LA, even if it was put on there only 50 years ago. Seems like that is reading a little much into the 1st amendment. Establishing an official religion would be something like England did (i.e The Church of England) when we founded this country. That's what the founding fathers were talking about, not having a small cross on the city seal. If you don't believe me, you should check out such buildings as the Library of Congress in D.C. They are FILLED with all kinds of religious symbols, statues, monuments, etc. A small cross on the city seal is nothing compared to that. And that is the Library of Congress, the same people who the 1st amendment is addressing, not city council members, who the ACLU is addressing.
|
|
Ginnsu
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by Ginnsu on Jun 24, 2004 13:20:13 GMT -5
Vote on L.A. County seal's cross upheld before angry crowd By Troy Anderson LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS ... ..."Stop the ACLU Nazis."... I respect anybodies right to state there opinion for whatever reason, but compairing the Amercan Civil Liberties Union to Nazi's? This contradiction in terms irks me to no end. The Nazi's goal was to removed equality rights, while the ACLU works to uphold them by making sure the entire community is represented and not just the majority. Sorry, a little off topic, but I just had to take note of that one quote from a sign.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Jun 26, 2004 23:45:03 GMT -5
Auntie I have a quick question for you. Have you ever been to Washington DC and to the Library of Congress? Sorry for the delay in answering ... Yes, I have been to Washington, D.C., no, I have not been to the Library of Congress. (FYI - I'm not an American) Beniah, why are you so passionate about having a cross on the county seal? According to Adherents.com, 12.8% of the population in LA County don't consider themselves religious, then there is also representation for various other, non-Christian religions. Regardless of the reason for placing the cross there, don't those individuals have the right to have a county seal that represents them as well?
|
|