But surely there is more than one principle they operate by. I would think one guiding principle would be to prioritize the issues they are called upon to champion. Is our life in America so wonderful and our liberties so secure that this is the issue that needs their attention?

My opinion is that when this is an issue that has risen to the top of their 'to do' list their work is done and they can devote their lives to other things. To do otherwise is to invite speculation about another agenda. Which, of course, it rightly has.

OverlandSailor,

Since we agree on many other things I would like to understand how Los Angeles amounts to a community that can not afford to fight. They have the 7th or 8th largest GDP in the world. There are plenty of law firms that would do much of the leg work probono like Thomas More. This is not some small little town of 500 or so people.
Add to that there is no deadline that I know of. I haven't heard of anything suggesting that there needs to be such a rush that services would be cut.

ummm... you are probably looking at her cleavage not the cross. But if you notice the cross tucked in there, yes 99.9 percent of the time that person will know the cross to be a symbol of Christianity. Whether the person will think her a devote Christian or merely wearing jewelry is irrelevant.

Irrelevancy is the issue. With actions like this the ACLU is moving toward it. Though they will get a small PR bump for championing such a cause. That tiny cross is no more state sponsored religion than the name of the county itself is. I wonder, by their logic, which city would be preferable to live in to avoid offenses: Leningrad or SAINT Petersburg?

Remove the cleavage from your point, and yes, everyone will see an image representing Christianity. Are you seriously arguing that the Cross does not represent Christiantiy?



Yes, they would. And then that image would be representative of their religion. And the ACLU would fight that. What's the point?



I'll tell you what, I have never heard the term "Los Angeles" and thought about Christianity. Every time I see the cross, that's what comes to mind. Everyone I know thinks that way. Ask anybody you know what "Los Angeles" represents, then ask them what a cross represents.

You find it irrelevant, they don't. I agree with them, you don't. The name "Los Angeles" used to mean something to certain people. It doesn't anymore. Unless we dilute the meaning of the Cross as a religious symbol, the comparison is moot.



You do realize that this is not the only issue the ACLU is addressing right now, don't you? They are tackling many, many issues at any given point in time. It's not like the "attack" on the cross in LA is their crusade, it just happens to be one issue that they are involved with right now.

Los Angeles, like all other cities and towns in California, is facing a ma major unknown in there financial future because the state is in a budget crisis. With the state in such a crisis, funds to municipalities can be easily cut. Furthermore, which such a budget dilemma in the state new taxes, and the raising of other fees are major unknowns to business. Increase costs of doing business can drive companies out of California, like the flood of companies leaving both costs already for the cheaper operating costs of the midwest if not abroad.

On top of that Los Angeles' budget is not in a surplus, so the money for these changes will have to come from somewhere. Just as the money for the legal battle would have had to come from somewhere. Maybe that money would come from private sources, but again it is an unknown.

Again, I personally do not think the symbol belongs there. I just feel that there are bigger problems to worry about in California right now.

What about the little people in Los Angeles who could not afford to fight the city in court when the city originally voted to use everyone's tax dollars to endorse the majority's religion? It sounds like the ACLU is finally standing up for those who have been bullied for years. I, for one, am grateful, because I'm usually in the small minority of people who can't afford to take the city, or the state, or the federal government to court when they vote to use my tax dollars to propagate their religion.

I'd say putting a stop to the bullying cannot be classified as "bullying". But it's all in your perspective.

We all will now. It is the same effect as saying, "Don't think about a blue horse."I doubt if anyone who saw the seal before thought of Christianity. There is something to be said for a civic symbol being accurate historically. Without those missions there would be no Los Angeles as we know it. You may be inspired by that, you may see it as a sign of Native American genocide, but it is, collectively part of who we are. We don't need a symbol purge in this country. We need glasnost.

Regardless of what any of us on AD think, there are people that are legitimately offended by things like this. As an agnostic, personally I have drawn a line, some things bother me, others don't. But, that doesn't mean there aren't a few individuals or even a group that is offended by some of the examples you listed.

The point of this clause is to protect everyone, not just the majority.


It does not make sense if you have an understanding of how case law works. By taking on cases they know they can win, the ACLU builds up a string of cases where their position has been upheld as correct and lawful.

You always have a more compelling case when you can back up your case with not only the law but recent case law. If the ACLU didn't do things this way, many important cases might have been lost.

As an example, and this doesn't necessarily relate to the ACLU, the case for Roe v. Wade was made primarily because there were several smaller cases in previous years that supported the position of Roe. Had those cases not been there, the supreme court might have ruled otherwise.

I also think you are incorrect in your assessment that the ACLU "bullies" anyone. The ACLU has done a lot of good in its history. It is unfortunate that the only time they make the news is when something like this happens. I think you'd find your civil rights would be much different today if they were not around.

Perhaps CJ you might point my attention to the part of the US Constitution that enumerates the rights of citizens "not to be offended". I can't seem to find that part.

There isn't one Aquilla, but my point was, that some of these issues might never see the inside of a court room if there wasn't someone to complain about them in the first place.

Once someone complains about it, then people take a look at it. If it violates the separation of church and state clause, then people argue it in court.

I would highly doubt that the ACLU was just sitting around one day, you know because they never do anything but bully anyone, and happened to surf onto an LA County webpage and saw the cross in the seal. Clearly someone brought it to their attention, and then they discovered they could in fact make a case. The same thing happened with the Pledge, it has been there for what almost 50 years now? Did the ACLU just not notice something that visible? No, they waited until someone complained about it to make a case.

Going back to what I originally said, it personally doesn't bother me that the cross is in the seal (even though a strong case could be made that it violates the separation of church and state), but it clearly bothered someone.

This isn't a right against offended, it's the right to not have the government recognized an established religion. Official government seal with a cross?=endorsement of an established religious group.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

"Respecting" to me is what the L.A. officials did by accepting the cross on the official state seal. Clearly unconstitutional and wrong.

Cube Jockey is correct, the rights of the majority shouldn't get their way over the minority when it comes to government not favoring in any way, a specific religious sect.

The cross in the Los Angeles County seal is not an endorsement of the Christian religion. Rather, it is a recognition of the historical roots of Los Angeles. Los Angeles county and indeed much of California itself was initially settled by Christian Missionaries - that is a historical fact. Many of our cities, towns, streets and parks are named to to take note of that fact. And that's not a "Christian thing" at all, rather an historical thing. Just as Mulluhand Drive in Los Angeles is named for an engineer named Bob Mulluhand who first brought water to the San Fernando Valley and started the agriculture boom in Southern California. Balboa Park in San Diego is named for Vasco Núñez de Balboa, a Spanish conquistador and here in Los Angeles we have a Balboa Avenue named for him. Does this constitute an endorsement of the Spanish conquistadors, or it is a simple recognition of our historical past? I claim the latter.

Virginia Beach, VA may be next on the ACLU hit list, they have a cross on their seal as well. City of Virgina Beach. This too is a historical reference.


And then of course there is a real problem with the city of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Las Cruces is Spanish for "the crosses". What should they change their name to? 666 perhaps? That make the ACLU happy?

Where is the denial of history going to stop in favor of not offending someone?

This case is not about denying the past. If it was, then why did the ACLU cooperate and agree with the City that they could swap out the Christian Cross (the primary symbol of a major faith) with a depiction of a Spanish Missionary building in its place instead?

What does that do to the "denial of history" argument in this case?

No, this case is about grabbing some cheap headlines by the ACLU, being a "protector" and all of our civil rights. It's called pandering. It's going to be pretty difficult to accurately depict a mission in Los Angeles County that doesn't have a cross on it. Funny thing is they all have one to my knowledge.

So then you would admit this case is not about the denial of history, right?

That isn't the case, in fact you won't even find this case mentioned anywhere on the ACLU webpage, go take a look.

They aren't talking it up so clearly it isn't about headlines, besides most of the things that have been written have been negative publicity. This is really just opponents of the case, looking for some ink to make the ACLU look bad. I have not seen one press release by the ACLU claiming this as a big win for civil rights. If you know of one feel free to point it out.

It is obvious the city didn't have a big problem with it, they caved in and they are refusing pro bono council. I would think that if they considered it a big deal they would have accepted help considering many of them are elected periodically.

The cross in the Los Angeles County seal is not an endorsement of the Christian religion. Rather, it is a recognition of the historical roots of Los Angeles.

Okay, is not a city or state seal an official representation of that city or state? The intent of what they are trying to get across on the seal does not matter as much as what is on it. If California wants to acknowledge history, they should do so in other venues like state parks, rather than on official seals which appear on letterheads, buildings, etc.

Balboa Park in San Diego is named for Vasco Núñez de Balboa, a Spanish conquistador and here in Los Angeles we have a Balboa Avenue named for him. Does this constitute an endorsement of the Spanish conquistadors, or it is a simple recognition of our historical past?

Balboa is a historical figure, not a religious one in any way--depicting him on a state seal or naming streets after him is totally different than doing so by depicting a cross of naming a street: " Our Holy Savior Jesus Christ Boulevard" We are crossing into apples/oranges territory here.

Virginia Beach, VA may be next on the ACLU hit list, they have a cross on their seal as well. City of Virgina Beach. This too is a historical reference.

And that too, is a violation of religious liberties in the first amendment since it is an offical symbol that for no reason(historical or otherwise)should depict(i.e.-"respect" as our first amendment words it) religious symbols.

Where is the denial of history going to stop in favor of not offending someone?

Once again, the meaning behind an official symbol is secondary to other considerations, namely those which are constitutional. Depicting the past on a state seal is "respecting" whatever is represented. You can respect anything that is of a non-religious nature. For when you do acknowledge religion on an official, state-sanctioned seal, you are endorsing and "respecting" something which teh first amendment states you should not.

At one time, the ACLU actually provided a useful service. It is now a political tool and its purpose is no longer about defending civil liberties. The L.A. seal is a tribute to the history of Los Angeles. Someone attempted to compare this to using a swastika on the seal. This is disingenuous. The cross is a historical symbol of the origins of the city. It was founded around the old Los Angeles mission. Yes. A Christian settlement. If the Nazis founded this city, then we could talk about the legitamacy of using a swastika. The cross is a symbol and can mean many things to many people. As a Jew, I certainly look at the cross as a negative thing, as well as, a positive thing depending on the context it is used. In the case of the L.A. seal, I find its use wholly appropriate. I find the actions of the ACLU distasteful. I will say, that even worse than the actions of the ACLU, though, are the L.A. councilmen (ie. Zev Yaraslovsky) who have kowtowed to this extremist group of lawyers. Let's look at the big picture, though. If we remove the cross from the seal then we are saying, the cross and Christian symbology is inappropriate, even when used for historical purposes. Los Angeles, San Diego (name of a missionary), Santa Barbara (name of a saint), San Francisco (another missionary), and San Juan Capistrano (yet another missionary) are cities whose names will need to be changed. Separation of church and state, right? When did we put the phrase, "In God We Trust" on our currency? It was sometime back in the mid to late 1800's. Let's remove it. God Bless America. Guzuntite. The colors of our U.S. flag may have religious symbolism as they came from the coat of arms of Washington's family. How about the frieze which stands behind the high court? The point is that the symbols are everywhere. They are a historic link to our past. The ACLU is looking to rewrite history or erase it. That is a terrible crime.

Was there a change in the mission statement that I am unaware of? Please check out the ACLU Legislative Update webpage and check some of those topics. I think you'll find that the ACLU is actively at work defending our civil liberties every day and very little of it has to do with politics.

Pretty much what I expected to find in their website. Cries against racial profiling, flag burning, and protecting the rights of cirminals. I think 1973 can be the mark for when the ACLU merely turned into a democratic party tool. It went from the Scopes trial to this:

1995: Lebron v. Amtrak
Extended the First Amendment to corporations created by, and under the control of, the government in the case of an artist who argued successfully that Amtrak had been wrong to reject his billboard display because of its political message.

Let's be honest, though. From its inception, the ACLU has been a group of Communists. It should come as no surprise that they would want to rip out all historical presence of Christianity from this country.

Are the ACLU’s actions in this case and others like it justifiable or is “political correctness” getting out of hand?

"Politically correct" (and what a meaningless all-purpose epithet that is) or not, it's the law and therefore justifiable - otherwise LA county wouldn't be complying with the request. Religious iconography doesn't belong on state seals. As an atheist and resident of LA, I don't want to be confronted with crosses if I have to go to traffic court or wherever - sorry if that seems frivolous to all you Christians out there, but try imagining the situation being reversed. And as for the incredibly obvious reductio ad absurdum portion of the counterargument, yes, if I had my way there wouldn't be "In God We Trust" on American currency, or a floating freemasonic eye above a pyramid, for that matter.

Is the ACLU becoming a bully?

It's easy to level that accusation when your personal beliefs, or lack thereof, are not at issue. If you're in the minority, however, the ACLU provides a much-needed legal counterweight to a lot of (seemingly) minor illegalities that you'd otherwise just have to accept.

So you are basing that on what exactly - the hot topics list that appears at the top of the page? Did you actually take the time to read some of the cases the ACLU is working on right now, because if you did there is no logical way you could come to the conclusion you came to.

Search and Siezure - In other words violations of the 4th amendment.
Internet Censorship - In other words defending the 1st amendment.
The Death Penalty - The ACLU has been waging a battle against the death penalty for a long time.
National Security - The ACLU is leading the charge against the portions of the Patriot Act that violate our constitutional rights.
Privacy Issues - The ACLU has committed itself to cases that protect the privacy of our medical records, protect consumers and protect us from government surveilance.
Racial Equality - The ACLU has always taken on cases where racial equality is an issue and continues to do so today.
Religious Liberty - The ACLU protects the free exercise of religion although as this thread shows (and people have cited already) most concentrate on the cases of separation of church and state.
Reproductive rights - One of the major battles the ACLU constantly fights is the battle over women's reproductive rights.

I have only listed about a 1/3rd of the various issues the ACLU is working right now to uphold our Constitutional rights, and you searched through the archives to find one case where you thought the case was trivial - excellent work but you missed the much larger picture in an attempt to make your argument.

The ACLU defends the constitution and often times that means that a group you may support loses that battle. People tend to remember those cases, but they don't remember the cases that help the groups they support.

If you'd like to make an argument saying the ACLU is irrelevant feel free to do so, but you had better be prepared to back that up with some pretty heavy hitting evidence. One trivial case out of thousands does not make an argument.

Hard hitting evidence? Look, it is a communist organization. I initially looked at its hot topics list, but , hey that is the ACLU's own list. Those are the cases they thought are "hot". So be it.

Countrockula, you are an atheist, and would like to see the removal of all religious inconography becuase it makes you feel uncomfortable. You asked how others would feel if the situation was reversed. It would seem, that if we take your efforts to their natural conclusion, that is exactly how the situation would exist. Unfortunately, for your positon, this country does not have a tradition or history of atheism. While their are street names for people who have contributed in a non-religious fashion such as Sepulveda Blvd., streets such as Los Angeles Street point to a period in your city's history during which the Spanish missionaries created pueblos which dotted the Califnornia landscape. Those missions sprang up from San Diego to San Francisco. They didn't occur due to a group of godless nomads. If they had, no doubt, the names and iconography would be different. Likewise, your claims of the inappropriate use of religious symbols, would also be justified.

As it stands now, your desire to see the cross removed is akin to historical revisionism. You would like to pretend that Chritianity had no part in our history. In fact, Christianity is the history of California. There is hardly a more appropriate symbol than the cross to place on the seal of the city of Los Angeles.

To bring everything around full circle. The ACLU has attempted to reduce the U.S. to a godless state. It is one thing to protect the rights of the non-religious and to allow all religions to exist. It is quite another to seek the destruction of our country's history and denying any ties that this country has to Christianity. As I noted earlier, religious iconography is prevalent in all aspects of American culture. How do you rightfully separate the two without altering history?

P.S. As hard as this may seem to believe, I am not a Christian.

Your argument doesn't hold water for several reasons.

1) If "we take my efforts to their natural conclusion," there would be absolutely no relationship between the government and religion, which is exactly the way it's supposed to be now, only sometimes times it's not. Your logic is incorrect here, because the non-endorsement of religion does not equal endorsement of atheism. It equals a lack of religious endorsement. The lack of a cross on the state seal is not the equivalent of saying there is no God, but the depicted crucifix is certainly suggestive of: a) God, and B) a Christian one.

2) This doesn't have anything to do with historical revisionism - the current state seal wasn't adopted until 1957, likewise with the Pledge of Allegiance which was amended around the same time to include the "Under God" section. America and Los Angeles got through the frontier era, Civil War, and WW's I and II just fine without those particular references to God - before the Kiwanis Club or whoever decided The Man Upstairs wasn't getting enough props.

3) It doesn't matter who founded what, the constitution forbids the state sanctioning of religious belief. Crucifixes are the preeminent icon of Christianity. If there were any way the city council could wriggle out of this, I'm sure they would, but they can't, end of story.

Ibelsd, the year is 2004, not 1954. Running around decrying everything you don't like to be communist doesn't work in the general public, and it certainly won't work among the generally-more-educated sort who hang out here at AD. I fail to see how protecting the Constitution is communist.



That's a lovely ad hominem fallacy you've committed there. Almost a textbook example. "Because Countrockula is an atheist (I don't remember him saying so, but I could be wrong) that means that he wants to see the removal of all religious 'inconography' because it makes him feel uncomfortable." First of all, you are not an atheist, so you have no clue in hell what makes an atheist "uncomfortable." Many of the things that make atheists uncomfortable are things that make theists uncomfortable as well. Like, oh, say, the pilot who proselytized to his captive audience in mid-flight, sending many passengers into hysterics because they thought he wanted to be a christian martyr. All atheists have in common is a lack of belief in a god. They can still be religious - i.e. buddhists. Someone who hated religion would be called an anti-theist.



And here we delve straight into a strawman. You've declared countrockula an atheist, and then set up his "position" for him according to your own opinions of how atheists feel and what they think.

The strawman continues with you literally putting arguments into countrockula's mouth and then refuting the arguments like he had actually made them.



I will be the first to admit that Christianity does have a part in America's history.
So does racism.
So does slavery.
So does genocide.
Just because something is "part of a history" does not make it something to be honored.



No offense, but you sound like a paranoid hysterical schizophrenic here. "They're trying to remove god from our country! They're trying to make America into a communist nation! They're trying to reduce the U.S. into a "godless" state (whatever that means - we ARE a godless state - democracy, not theocracy) Tell you what. Go to the Nizkor Project, make yourself familiar with logical fallacies, arm yerself with knowledge, [self-edited to remove personal attack - but man, was it funny] and then come back and debate.

By what definition ibelsd? Unless you consider the bill of rights to be a communist document (in which case I'm not sure how to even respond to that), then the ACLU is not a communist organization. The definition of communism from Merriam-Webster.com is as follows:

How is the ACLU advocating the elimination of private property, advocating a system where all goods are owned by a common entity, arguing anything to do with economics, or pushing for a totalitarian state? Answer: they aren't.


Once again, you are completely incorrect about the ACLU's intentions. The ACLU seeks to uphold two principles with regards to religion:
1) Protection of the free exercise of religion
2) Upholding the principle that the government should make no law establishing religion and upholding separation of church and state.

These are both constitutional principles written in by our founding fathers (who were religious men) and included as the first amendment (and therefore the most important one).

Furthermore you are completely ignoring the many cases the ACLU has taken protecting religion and focusing on the ones that you believe harm religion by abridging the government's involvement in it. I suppose you didn't read this page covering Religious Freedom cases the ACLU is taking on. These cases all have to do with defending people's rights to religion, therefore your claim that they are pushing for a godless state is unfounded.

Edited for spelling.

Suzy, Countrockula expressed his uncomfortbaleness for the seal due to his atheism. I didn't create a strawman. His quote."As an atheist and resident of LA, I don't want to be confronted with crosses if I have to go to traffic court or wherever - sorry if that seems frivolous to all you Christians out there, but try imagining the situation being reversed," is what I referred to.

The link between Communism and a godless state is precisely Marxist. The ACLU was founded in 1920 by two members of the Communist party. A duck is a duck in 1920 and still a duck in 2004. Although, hopefully, it is a dead duck.

No one has answered me as to whether we need to change the names of various streets, cities, and counties which exist all over California. I am sure they exist in other states as well. There is a difference between promoting religion and acknowledging history. The crosses used on the L.A. seal, promote the city's history. I am simply not in favor of hiding the history of this region, even if it means a few people feel a little uncomfortable. Of couse, talk about setting up a straw man.

Finally, Suzy, if I am not an atheist, than what am I? I have never announced my religious beliefs. I have mentioned I am Jewish, but understand, that is a cultural definition in my eyes, not neccessarily a religious one.

Sorry, I thought went a ways towards answering the "history of the region" aspect of your argument. But to take it further and make it sufficiently explicit, there is a self-evident difference between the place I live being called "Los Angeles," (which, incidentally, does not refer to a particular religion) and a crucifix being depicted on the county seal. LA was named by settlers, hundreds of years ago, and at this point in time, regardless of its literal definition, "Los Angeles" is understood by residents as mere nomenclature. The crucifix was put on the county seal fifty years ago, and is easily changed - the name of the city is not. These are obvious differences and if you claim to not see them, you're being disingenuous. Additionally, your hanging an entire argument on the absurdity of changing LA's name is not a sign of rhetorical robustness.

So by weilding the "Communist Organization" sword, you are somehow implying that by actively working to defend freedom to exercise religion, the ACLU is actively working towards the commuist goal of the destruction of religion? If not, than what the heck was the point of bringing it up?! You use it like a slur, CJ and Suzy are pointing out that to do so is fear-mongering, and avoiding intellectual engagement of the argument here.

Speaking of which, let me take the liberty of addressing your question:



This is another fallicious argument called the Slippery Slope. Has the ACLU declared it's intent to change the name of any government street, perhaps even the NAME of LA itself? Argue the actual case on it's own merits, not by assuming A will lead to B. This kind of logic reeks of fanaticism and fear.

In my mind there is a huge difference between a cross appearing on the county seal and the name of a city, state, or town named after a fantasy creature (Angel) or a historical figure "Saint Monica." Now if the town of say Venice decided to put the Mother Mary on all, or even one, of their street signs, than that would be a problem and a violation of the Seperation of Church and State.

Do you believe in the Seperation of Church and State? Should a Muslim Public School teacher be able to force your child to read out of the Koran every day? Or how about an Atheist Public Teacher tell Kindergarteners there's no such thing as God?

Religion has no place in our government, or intruding into our laws (Blue Laws for instance which hold bias towards the Christain Sabbath instead of the Muslim and Jewish Sabbath.)

And you still haven't proven how anything they have done in recent history is in any way "communist". In fact by your own admission you thought they were a valuable entity up until 1973 or so. If you insist on declaring the ACLU to be a bunch of communists then you are going to have to come up with a better argument.

Cube Jockey. I really don't have to come up with a better arguement. If you can deny the founders of the ACLU were commuists, fine. If you wish to deny a link between Marxism, statism, and absense of religion, fine. I think Marx made it pretty clear where he stands. I think the ACLU has made it pretty clear where they stand. I don't think the two are very different.

It is very cavalier to for some to say that the cross is a great symbol of religion while the name, "The Angels," is not. Do atheists believe in angels? Do atheists believe in saints. I never said the ACLU would fight to get the names changed. I did say, that there is little difference between a cross placed on the city seal and a name which refers to a Christian figure. Both are historically relevant to the creation of the city.

I think my favorite was someone calling my arguments tantomount to fear mongering and then claiming I was making a slippery slope arguement. They then went on to wonder if it would be ok for Islamic teachers to force children to read from the Koran. It would take more than a slippery slope to reach that end. Throw in a few moguls, a half pipe, and wide river and maybe we could get to your conclusion. It is a cross people.

I am not a Christian, but I respect history. I respect a people's right to express themselves. The government of Los Angeles has never tried to convert me. The city has never imposed any restrictions upon me for my lack of Christian beliefs. Isn't that the essense of freedom? Is not this what the founders had in mind? Not to remove all links with this country's past when religion is involved. Not to deny all link to the past as new means of expression are created. It is so hip to say let's celebrate where everyone comes from. Fine. Then start with Los Angeles and the fact that is used to be a Christian mission. Celebrate its history and allow that city to do the same. Crosses, names, colors, are all symbols. They carry the meaning you give them. Will removing the cross from the seal give you more freedom to practice your own beliefs? Will it deny others from practicing theirs? Yet, what is the great harm in letting it represent the past?

1st Amendment:



The depiction of the cross on the California state seal violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. There is no arguing this. Debatably, the depiction of Pomona is a violation, too, although I think it would be harder to convincingly argue that Pomona qualifies as obvious religious iconography on the same level as a crucifix. Regardless, the crucifix is a completely unambiguous reference to Christianity, and as such, a violation of the 1st amendment. Thousands of Chinese laborers built the railroads in California along with much of the rest of the country, but if there was a Buddha depicted on the seal it would also be a 1st amendment violation. You can make slippery slope arguments and appeals about the historical value of the state seal (created in 1957) until you're blue in the face, but you're on the losing side of this argument - along with the LA county board of supervisors, which is why they gave in to the ACLU.

I never denied the founders believed in communism, I simply denied that the ACLU is a communist organization. So let's review your arguement about why it is a communist organization. You started with this statement.

I then asked you by what definition that it was a communist organization and provided a definition of communism to review. Your response was as follows:

So we have two things going on here:
1) You are insisting that the ACLU is a communist organization because it was founded by two members of the communist party over 80 years ago.
2) Secondly you are suggesting that the characteristic that makes it communist is that it is striving for a "godless" state.

So, with that in mind, my responses to your points as laid out above:
1) Just because the organization was founded by communists over 80 years ago does not make it a communist organization. I'm sure that the KKK was founded by good god-fearing christians, does that make it a Christian organization ibelsd? An organization is defined by its actions and not by the political beliefs of its founding members (who happen to be long since dead). If you insist on claiming that the ACLU is a communist organization you are going to have to prove that the actions they are taking today in 2004 are somehow communist according to the definition I supplied a few posts back. If you have a different definition of communism than the one I provided from meriam-webster.com then please provide that as well.

2) First, the United States government was intended to be a secular government and not a theocracy. One only has to examine the reasons why people settled in the United States in the first place to determine the reasons for setting the government up that way. As it relates to religion, the founding fathers held two principles dear:
- People should have the freedom to worship any religion as they saw fit
- The government should not make any laws concerning the establishment of religion and it should be separated from religion so that the two didn't become intertwined.

Therefore, the United States is essentially a "godless" state ibelsd because it does not endorse any religion and mixing religion and government violates the constitution.

Second, the ACLU upholds the constitution with respect to both aspects of that founding principle. As I have stated numerous times on this thread people often focus on the separation of church and state aspect of the ACLU's work a denigrate them for it. This case is a perfect example of that. Most people tend to ignore the other half of the ACLU's work which is making sure people can freely exercise their religious beliefs. There are several links to recent cases in the link I provided in my previous post and I can provide more if you so desire. You might also review the thread and take a look at some of the cases other posters have provided.

The point here is that the ACLU doesn't hold Marxist principles with respect to religion because if they did, then they would not permit the free exercise of religion, they would only focus on stomping religion out of the government wherever they could.

Now brining this whole thing back to the "it was part of California's history" argument - check out this LA Times Article (mirrored) or the original (reg req'd).

That last sentence is all that is really necessary to establish that the symbol is a violation of separation of church and state and it also explains why LA county caved in so quickly rather than go through a legal battle - they know they'd lose and have to change it anyway.

So, part of history or not, the intentions behind putting the cross in there are important.

They gave in to the ACLU because they didnt have the money to battle the ACLU in court.

The first amendment does not mention anywhere in its writing the intention of separating 'church and state.' That is just an interpretation that some people have. What it does is make sure that the government does not favor any religion over another. The purpose was to protect those who were religiously persecuted in such states as Mass. and Rhode Island.

Look through the Constitution and show me where the words 'separation of church and state' are present. I bet you will have a hard time. I am not favoring religion here because i am not a religious person...but the whole 'separation' notion has really grown out of hand in today's thinking.

What I want to know, is for those that are for removing the cross in the seal. Is it worth the money to change all the seals in all state govt buildings, documents, police and rescue vehicles, and other areas where the seal exists, over using those funds which could be used for something that matters like education or social programs?

Again, from the 1st amendment to the Constitution:



Does it use the phrase "separation of church and state?" No. Is it implied, yes, because the only other way for the government to not establish or favor a given religion is to represent all religions equally; in the state seal case, to depict along with the crucifix, Buddha, Ganesh, the star of David, etc. This will not happen, so the crucifix goes. Arguing whether "seperation of church and state" appears as such in the Constitution is pure semantics.



The LA county BoS gave in because they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on. The ACLU wouldn't have threatened legal action if they knew they didn't have a strong case.



They spent the money to do the wrong thing in 1956, and they can spend the money to do the right thing now.

I don't think you can boil the question down that way sleeper. One could just as easily ask - shouldn't the government have spent money on education and social programs instead of making streets and buildings handicapped accessible?

We'd all like the government to spend its money wisely, but when there is a wrong to be corrected you can't rationalize it away by saying "we shouldn't correct this because the money needs to be spent on some other government service".

This whole thing will be a little bit of a pain point in the short term, but in the long run it really won't effect the distribution of government services. If the government officials in 1957 were actually following the constitution then we might not have this problem in the first place.

Furthermore, I see no reason why LA county couldn't have negotiated with the ACLU a little bit. If I were running the county I probably would have said fine, we'll change the seal and make sure it meets your approval, but we'd like to phase the implementation in to spread out the cost. I really don't think they would have been opposed to that as long as the timeline was clearly defined and they met those goals. But I never accused politicians of being very smart or business savvy.

It is not semantics. It doesn't say 'separation of church and state ' anywhere in that document. If it was implied....it would have been said. How can anyone know what the Founding Fathers implied? The only way to know what they wanted is by reading what they actually wrote. Cant the argument of equal validity be made that taking away the seal is prohibitng the 'free exercise thereof'?



...No... They gave in because they didnt have the money to battle them in court.

EDIT:


Um...i dont think one can ask that question as easily. We are talking about an insignificant seal here that isnt hurting anyone. The comparison you gave just makes no sense in this matter.

That is your judgement leder and is not representative of everyone's opinion. There would have had to be someone who filed a complaint in order for this case to come into the spotlight - the ACLU doesn't just surf the internet looking for government sites that aren't in compliance with the 1st amendment. Because you think it doesn't hurt anyone does not make it so.

The intent of the first amendment is unambiguous - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." I don't see how it could be much more clear, but you're free to pretend you have no idea how it applies to the state seal. The argument of equal validity cannot be made in this instance because it was the government that created the seal in the first place. You, Dennis Prager, and anyone else, however, are totally free to create your own state seals that are festooned with crucifixes, crowns of thorns, etc.



Well, jeez, if you can get the LA county BoS to do anything, regardless of its merit, just because they're short of funds, I guess I'll just get them to reduce the full-time work week to 20 hours and raise the speed limit to 80 mph by threatening legal action. That'll work, right?

Then perhaps you could provide an example on how someone is 'hurt' by the seal.

And i have to disagree with you in the highlighted part of your argument. I do believe that the ACLU does that. Call me bias or whatever but i just do not see how people can be so sensitive as to be offended by a seal that was not imposed on anyone. Its not like city officials carried aroudn the seal and held it up in the face of civilians pointing to the cross (which would be quite funny). But if there are...there are and i must say it is pretty pathetic.

EDIT:



And there is no law respecting the establishment of religion...there is just some dopey picture. And again... i am not religious. I just believe that the 'separation of church and state' notion has been blown greatly out of proportion to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers.



Actually you would be challenging the state who has a lot more money . The LA county BoS didnt have the money to fight such an insignifcant fight. As made clear...they have more important issues they need to use the money for. It just wasnt worth it even if they believe that the seal should stay.

Putting a crucifix on the state seal carries with it the implication that Christianity is favored in California. It appears in courtrooms and government offices. I agree it's not the most important issue out there, but arguing against the ACLU's case on the grounds of triviality is not the same as arguing against it on its merits. And we can go back and forth forever about why the BoS agreed to change the seal, but personally I believe they would have fought if they thought they could have won, since, I believe, the majority of LA county resident were opposed to changing the seal.

Trust me leder, I have tried to locate the person that filed the original complaint but none of the news articles written have covered that, they simply state "the ACLU is doing this...". If this case made it to trial then we would be able to determine where the original complaint came from, but since it didn't I can't help you there.

As to the second part of your statement, I think you are not being intellectually honest with yourself if you really believe that. I (and others) have linked and posted numerous times the different cases the ACLU has taken in the past and is currently working. The vast majority of these cases are pretty large and important to civil rights in general. Therefore your suggestion that these lawyers are sitting around with nothing better to do is patently false.

This case (and actually it was never even a case) was very minor and probably would not have even made their webpage as an "accomplishment" had it gone to court. It has been blown completely out of proportion by the media and everyone else AND given that it is settled and it is a done deal I am really surprised we are wasting the effort to debate this.

I merely jumped back in to respond to the comment that the ACLU was a "communist" organization, my position on the correctness of the decision to pursue this case has not changed. If you'd like to know my position please take a look through the thread at my replies.

One person files a complaint, and the entire LA county should change all of their seals...
Why should the complaint of an individual cause so much money to be spent.

It sounds like the ACLU wants this country to move to a minority rules type of system rather than the democratic representative government we have now.

You keep bringing up the inordinate expense of this - any stats to back that up? Additionally, and as previously stated, it was the county's mistake in the first place; it's now incumbent on the county to fix it.



The ACLU wants LA County to abide by the first amendment to the Constitution, nothing more.

My stats are common sense. Cost for redesigning the Seal. Producing the new seal for all areas in which it is needed, affixing the new seal(on public buildings, police cars, rescue vehicles, fire trucks), police uniforms will have to remove old patches and replace new ones, man hours it will take to replace and create the new seal. And countless other areas...

I call that common sense.

Really? Well, I'd say if you're going to predicate your entire argument on the overwhelming cost of the production and distribution of new seals, you should have some data to back up your opinion. Clearly it won't be free, but will it be worth following the letter of the law and therefore dodging an ACLU lawsuit? The BoS certainly seemed to think so. I'd hope the County looked into the cost/benefit aspect of the case, because saying it's too expensive with no figures to support the claim - I'd call that intellectual laziness.

No it's actually people who can't get their feelings off their shoulders and be 'offended' by a little cross on a seal. To be honest I could really care less what LA does with its seal anyway. But I chuckle each time I see the ACLU suing because somebody is offended. The next thing you know offending somebody will be a crime.

I agree with you Sleeper that this is a little bit trivial, but as I have said in previous posts on this thread the ACLU takes cases based on constitutional principles. When you take cases based on a principled stance then the determination of minor vs. major infraction doesn't play into the equation. The only thing that is important is whether the principle was violated or not. It isn't a principle if you attach subjectivity.

The ACLU defends the constitution in general and specifically the "separation of church and state" principle.

What I find funny is how everyone intensely focuses on the ACLU when they tell some government entity to remove a religious symbol or something to that effect and they completely ignore them when they are out there fighting for your other constitutional rights, including freedom of religion.