Perhaps people who would take "the story" at face value, without agenda. This is probably the same "reading between the lines" that most with agenda's are guilty of.

Again, most people see it as a symbol of peace and the paying the ultimate price.

Am I wrong?

Red

Amlord:



Speaking for myself on these points the answers would be No, No, No, No, Maybe, but not successfully, IMO.



I know you will not believe me, but I didn't till someone brought up when talking on O'Reilly. And that person only brought it up to cast fear of a slippery slope. I don't think of names, even names with Christian origin as an endorsement of religion, rather they are an endorsement of a person with a Christian religion. Nor do I see names as emblems. Maybe some people will argue this in the future, so what. Let it go to court and let the Judges decide. I, personally won't be for changing a city name.



I can. The cross has no bearing on a mission or a church. How does a cross represent a church or a mission. These are mere buildings. The cross represents the faith of the church and missions. It is a show of respect to the religion of Christianity. Why are people even denying this obvious fact. The cross is not offensive. The cross does not represent any buildings. It is a Christian symbol significant and centered on the belief that their lord Jesus died on the cross for their sins. The cross (as designed on the county seal) is a central emblem and symbol of the Christian faith.



There is no lawsuit as of yet, but I get your point. I do not agree. I seen someone sue someone on peoples court for under ten dollars a long while back. People laughed but the woman one. A lawsuit is frivolous if it has no merit. If you were to reply to one of my comments and say something like "That's just silly" then I go and sue you for 5,000 for libel, that lawsuit has purpose(to get paid ) but it has little to no merit. Now, if it comes to a lawsuit does the case have merit?? Is it reasonable to claim that the cross on a city seal is showing respect to the Christian religion and in violation of the 1st amendment??

Red:



If I were to just tell the story of Jesus from the standpoint of it being fiction but with the Christian background...just a story, like mythology.. I think I would agree it would be a story with the a major theme being sacrifice. Now this in no way credits your assertion about the cross representing sacrifice. In fact, distance your self from the religion, do as you told me "take "the story" at face value, without agenda."

When I was growing up I recall a story of "the little train that could" I have know idea how that story goes, but I know the story is about persistence and never giving up. However, when I cross railroad tracks I don't think of this little train that could. The little train that could may cross my mind when I find myself living a similar theme, but that is it. Now tell me, what person if they were just to hear the story of Christ from the Christian view would start thinking of crosses as symbols of sacrifice. They would more likely see the cross as an instrument of torture and the demise of the Hero(Jesus) and a weapon used by the villains(the romans).

You see it is religion of Christianity that has come to use the the cross in a way that represents sacrifice. Which leads to the second part of your statement. most people in the U.S. are Christian, so yes most people will see the cross as representing sacrifice, in addition to their faith.

I beleive I did droop, that is why I never brought Christianity into it. Beleive it to be Fiction or Fact, that is your right. But if you beleive it to be fiction, then it is you, and the ACLU that choose to be insulted by it.

We can not help what the ACLU, and those the are being represented by them take offense to. These are simply facts. Again, nothing more, nothing less.

It's not about being offended. It's about endorsement of religion, and using taxpayer money to do it.

I am not offended by symbols of religion and faith. At the same time, I don't think that society's collective moneys should be spent endorsing any belief system.

I can only think of two ways for the cross to be interpreted.

A ) A device used for torture and punishment for lawbreakers.

B ) A symbol of christianity.

Clearly the intent of including the cross was as a symbol of christianity.

Griping about the cost makes no sense. If their is a problem with the cost of fixing the illegal seal, the blame lies with the officials, not the ACLU. By blaming the ACLU for taking action, it is implied that if the result of court action is going to cost the city/state too much money, the violation of the Constitution should be ignored and allowed to continue. If the officials had recognized the issue when it was brought up many moons ago, the ACLU would not have to threaten lawsuits in order to get the government to comply with the Constitution.

No, clearly the cross, with it's proximity to the mission, also on the seal, was to

C ) Honor the founders of the City.

Had the City been founded by a group of Rabbi's, the symbol would have been a Jewish one. If it had been founded by a group of Buddest Monks it might have been a praying Budda. If it had been founded by the Hells Angels it might have been a fatboy. NONE of which would have been an ENDORSEMENT, but simply an historic reference to those that founded the community. And all seem appropriate.

I have yet to see how this symbol equates to an endorsement, nor have I heard anyone deny that the mission was founded as a Christian mission. Thus, both have historical significance

Red,
I won't deny that they are honoring the founders, but they do so by honoring the founders religion and beliefs. There is no significant history of the cross in Los Angeles outside of its Christian foundation. Are you saying that the cross does not repressent Christianity?? There has got to be a way to honor the the founders besides displaying a symbol of their faith on the seal.

Also, there is no image of a mission on the seal. Actually the image you believe to be a mission is the Hollywood Bowl I originally thought it to be something similar myself till I read the representations you provided in a earlier post.

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

The ACLU has an agenda and I believe they are taking their interpretation of the first amendment to extremes. They could spend their time on things a little more important. That being said, removing the cross from a city seal does not forbid the worship of Jesus Christ. In the long run, no matter what the ACLU does, they can't stop anyone from worshiping Jesus Christ.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Of course they have an agenda. It is to keep a vigilant eye on any and all transgressions of the Bill of Rights, and fight to counter those transgressions wherever possible. In your statement, you seem to imply that their agenda is somehow intrinsically caught up in what some refer to as "secular humanism." This is not, however, the case. The ACLU has no desire to rid the country of religious folk - as can be easily demonstrated by going to their website and seeing that there are more than a few cases in which they fight for peoples' right to practice their religion - not the other way around.

For example:


And this, from their "Religious Liberty" page:


Doesn't sound like their agenda is about getting rid of religion...

You said "no matter what the ACLU does, they can't stop anyone from worshiping Jesus Christ." It doesn't sound like they are trying to do that at all.

Here's a few more for good measure:

Droop:



The question is, how do we honor them? How about placing a symbol of the reason they came to that place? Is that inappropriate? Would they have came, at that particular time, to that particular place had they not been members who used that symbol?

Again, I think it makes an Historical statement as to who they were. Do you not agree?

There may indeed be another way, to answer your questioning, but again I say why spend the millions upon millions required when "the symbol" has significant historical value? I have yet to see how the LA city embem is "an endorsement" of the Christian faith? I do see how it says that a Christian Mission was first established at this place. Thats the fact!

Religous symbols have no place on municipal emblems. It should be removed no matter what the cost.

The "Separation of Church and State"; although a recent debate in the confines of US history, is important as to not show that a particular religous viewpoint is the "officially sanctioned" viewpoint of the government, be it local, state, or federal.

I would be equally against a hindu, muslim, or buddist religious symbol being on the emblem of any municipal governing body. The emblem is supposed to represent the views of all within the city of Los Angeles, not an isolated few.

History and tradition is no excuse to alienate those with different belief systems.

If you "feel" alienated by history, then again, it is YOU, not the emblem that is to blame.

History is FACT, and the fact is that a religious outpost was established in what is now LA. You can't change that, you can't argue that. It simply is.

Again, where is the City, by displaying an Historic reference on it's emblem, promoting one religious point of view over another?

Changing historical fact, because a few "feel" alienated, as well as spending the multi-million dollars it would take to do this is just flat wrong.

Actually quark, I was siding with the ACLU in my post, although I guess I didn't do a very good job. I don't believe our government buildings should display any symbols that appear to endorse any religion. I don't believe the state should appear to accomodate any religion, period.

That being said, it seems the only ACLU cases that make the news (and thus my comment about taking this issue to extremes and that they could be doing better things with their time) are those which involve removing Christian religious symbols, so it certainly gives the impression of having an anti-Christian agenda.

I also think there may be a double standard, quark.

I don't usually watch Bill O'Reilly because, in my opinion, he is a flamer, but last week I didn't get the channel changed in time and listened to the "Talking Points" segment of his show. He said the following:



Another example:



Can you imagine what would happen if schools required students to "become Christian" or recite "Christian prayer" as part of their history class?

The Muslim call to Prayer in Detriot is another issue that I'm concerned about only because it appears the city is accomodating a religion by changing their noise ordinance, something the ACLU supports.



The saving grace (no pun intended) in this case is that the new ordinance is all encompassing. But, the fact remains, a city ordinance was changed to accomodate religion.

The source of the quote below is extremely biased, but makes a very valid point in my opinion.



If their agenda is "to keep a vigilant eye on any and all transgressions of the Bill of Rights, and fight to counter those transgressions wherever possible" then why aren't they doing something with regard to the examples above?

My first guess is that this is a problem with the media, not the ACLU. It is also surely true that instances in this country in which the Christian religion or its symbols is being endorsed or otherwise wrongly displayed by government bodies, vastly outnumber instances where symbols from other religions are so used.



OK, lousy judge. Given that the only place I can read about this is on a FOXNews link to the talking point which first stated it, I will have to wait and see what develops. However, it has nothing to do with the ACLU. I'm sure anyone with an agenda (like Bill O'Reilly) could find any number of occurences like this, and then say, "where's the ACLU now? Why aren't they taking this case?" Of course, while the ACLU is a very large organization, with many many chapters, they cannot take on every case in the country. This case, as presented, is a straw man, because we have no idea what will happen - maybe the ACLU will get involved with it.



As part of a history class? I don't think it would be a problem at all. I think it's a great idea, in fact, and I don't see it as a religious liberty issue at all. See, the assumption which Bill is making (and the person who wrote it up on 'Blessed Cause') is that this court decision makes it OK to only do this with Islam. It doesn't actually say that at all. Presumably, if someone decided to have a class module in which they simulated becoming monks in a 15th century Fransiscan monastery, they could do that, too. It's obvious to this reader that 'blessed cause' is against this because they think good Christians should not have to learn about and (even in pretend) say prayers to some foreign god. (ie: this is coercion of every child who has the religious freedom to abstain from practices of other nations and their gods.)



The call to prayer issue is being totally misunderstood by people who come into this whole arena with the preconception that the ACLU is part of some heathen cabal out to destroy the Christian faith. This is an issue of religious liberty. In spite of the way that slanted reporting would make it seem, the government is not broadcasting the call to prayer.

Your quoted source says:

That is such a completely sorry comparison. Apples and oranges. Public display of the ten commandments? In a courthouse. hmmm. pretty clear. Jesus' name in student prayers? Public school. Also pretty clear. "Under God" in the pledge? The pledge is obviously endorsed by the government. Again, pretty clear. Allowing religious organizations to practice their religion, in exception to a city sound ordinance? Absolutely clear. This is what the Constitution is all about! This isn't the city government ringing church bells, or broadcasting the call to prayer - it's the city government allowing others to practice their faith - as it should be.

Well, the cross is gone...

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,20...2191164,00.html



Now, this is the part that gets me...



So the cross goes, but the pagan godess stays...

Now it's not like the seal endorsed Christianity as one would argue later in the article. But, to push for it's removal, and leave the godess on there? It's utter hypocracy. Now I know I haven't said much, but to make it short and sweet... the history that Los Angeles County and the Catholic church shared is important to many in the area. It should be, check that, should of been kept. And the fact that they kept the godess is blatant hypocracy.

Well, I'm not sure that it's a done deal quite yet. There's still the matter of a second lawsuit that's been filed to prevent the county from changing the seal and there is a move afoot to put the issue on the ballot. I've seen a couple of unscientific polls that suggest something like a 90% majority of the people of the county are in favor of keeping the cross. So, we'll see. Politics is a funny beast sometimes.

I guess, technically this is a religious icon in a public seal, therefore it should be taken out...Yeah, that's right, I'm saying the ACLU is semi-justified. I'll explain the rest in the answer to question number two.

No, the ACLU is a joke! Of all the problems that this country has with regards to civil liberties, the ACLU chooses this to have a fit about? Are you kidding me?! The ACLU is a disgrace, in theory the ACLU is a great idea, but frankly, the ACLU just wants publicity, they really don't seem to care about anything else, it's a tiny cross for God's sake. Protest about the Patriot Act, or other gov't abuses, not a tiny cross on a county seal.

CP

As was posted earlier CP- in fact, they ARE fighting the patriot act, and they must indeed pick and choose what cases to fight- I have no idea why they chose this one, but court is expensive, so there must be some legal tenent that they are trying to defend/explain etc. Sometimes small things in the law turn into big precedent later- the Miranda rights issue comes to mind, as this was a fairly small case in the scheme of things that turned into a major decision.

It was not too long ago there was a post on this board where the ACLU was defending some Christian cause. There was a black ACLU lawyer defending a KKK member in Texas (in fact, he lost his job with the NAACP over this case) .

I have nothing but respect for the ACLU- they are about the only true defenders of freedom left in this country. Yes, they take up unpopular causes, like this one, but, as Larry Flynt said in his own case "Hey, if the constitution protects a scumbag like me, it protects everyone"

Nice rant.

You mean they can't do both: protest the Patriot Act and protest about the use of religious icons in government seals? Sounds like a one-trick pony.

Which, of course, isn't the truth. According to the ACLU web site, they handle over 6000 cases yearly and have 300 chapters nationwide (and now one in Puerto Rico!). How about their suit against the use of tax dollars being used to fund religious-based abstention-only programs in Louisiana:



It's great that you accept that the ACLU is right in this action. But check out their web site on all the other ways they are fighting for our rights. 6000 cases a year....

I think a lot of you are under the mistaken assumption this is the only battle the ACLU is waging right now, that they have nothing better to do so they'll make an issue out of this.

That is patently false. You would expect this to be the biggest headline on their home page with all the coverage the media is giving this. In fact, if you look at their homepage or their legislative update page you will not even find this case there. What you will find is a whole host of other important issues the ACLU is working on right now, religious freedoms being a very small part of that.

The only press the ACLU ever gets it seems is bad press. No one cares when they do something good for the country, but people sure pay attention when they latch on to something trivial like this. Not to mention the fact that according to their principles and mission statement, they are well within their bounds and one cannot accuse them of being vindictive. Additionally, the county of LA has had a huge outpouring of support, and offers for free legal representation. Did they take it? No, they simply changed the seal, seems to me they consider it a big deal either.

Merci beaucoup.
No, I mean, why not focus on the big problems, instead of a pointless crusade such as this one?I know they handle a lot of cases, I've been to their sites on numerous occasions, I've actually considered joining up...But then I realized that they aren't really doing much for this country, on the whole, not saying they aren't doing anything, just that what they do isn't that noteworthy.Good for them, I support them 50% of the time, it's just the other 50% that is filled with pointless cases.

CP

Is it a question of time (faith/worship/people v. mythology/history/heroes).

Does Pomona have a clergy? Does she come with centers of worship and powerful lobbyists trying to acknowledge her divinity on money and a daily pledge in schools; grant her public exposure at every opportunity; actively impress her edicts on the masses?

Is the Texas GOP prepared to declare the Judeo/Christian god another figurehead in the mythological timeline and admit there is no such "God-ordained" imperative restricting marriage between a man and a woman? The truth is threading references to the Judeo-Christian god is a GOP tactic with no basis on personal belief?

When Jehovah, Jesus Christ, and Allah are reduced to fairy tales, stripped of mortal supporters capable of effecting the lives of nonbelievers through the government they can stay on the seal.

1.)I don't believe that it has gotten out of hand. This is something that needs correcting because the seal is the official, state recognized symbol. If the state wants to celebrate their early heritage, they could host celebrations of Spanish missionaries and native groups, or put that on official brochures. Those would be legitimate, recognizing events of the religious settlers of early California. However, when you put the cross on the state seal, you are basically saying: "The state of California represents....." Government is not to promote religion, but when the offical seal has a cross on it, how can you argue that it does not put the cross on a pedostal?? The argument that the cost of replacing the seal is too great to change is of secondary importance. They should have tried to anticipate this problem. A problem does not cease to become a problem when the remedying of that given problem becomes expensive.

2.)The ACLU is no more of a bully than the Coral Ridge ministries or other groups that seek to influence government. What these groups do is a legitimate action through recognized, legal venues. It's only bullying when you have people assaulting others over their beliefs. The ACLU is not the German Nazi pary of 1934.

True, but they sure do a good imitation of it. Please tell me what other religion has been attacked by ACLU? I'm sure they have done gone in the past, but I think they have outlived their usefulness. Just my opinon, and I'm entitled to it.


BTW, I thought it was the seal of LA not the state of California.

Hmm, well I'd refer you to their Legislative Update page which specifically discusses religion.

I think you'll find that they protect religious freedom, not try to destroy it. Here are some of the headlines:



Hmmm, sounds like they are definitely anti-religion to me

Edited to add missing thought: This reminds me of when Guiliani got his knickers all in a bunch over the elephant poop madonna. I wrote a letter to the editor saying if his faith was so weak that a painting could affect it so deeply, then maybe he should reexamine his faith.

While I still feel the whole whoop-de-doo over the cross on the LA County seal is a frivolous waste of money, the issue has now lit the fuse of the religious folks, and they’re mad as blue blazes. The article Titus referenced has some more ominous legal rumblings:

Just dandy; it's not enough that the ACLU filed the silly suit to begin with, then the county rolls over and agrees to change the seal at its own cost to avoid the cost of the lawsuit, and now this bunch is willing to waste even more money suing the ACLU!!

Sheesh, as if all the rest weren’t enough, now the artist’s family is threatening to sue!! But wait, there's more!

It's a sue-fest!!! What's next; the dairy industry suing over the representation of Herefords over Guernseys?? Fisherman wanting the trout to have equal representation as the tuna?

All this over a cross that largely went unnoticed for 47 years. Regardless of all the good the ACLU does, does anyone really think this messy situation is going to resolve itself peacefully and without huge cost?

Not too long ago, I posed a question on AD about the ACLU and it's perceived anti-religious nature. If you click back to old topics, I'm sure you'll find it. The case I used was one in which the ACLU helped a girl who inscribed a Bible verse in a yearbook. The school district lost. The ACLU has represented Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, Buddhits, and Christians in a variety of cases.

Well, they do. They are currently fighting the USA PATRIOT Act, CAPPS II, national I.D. cards, among others. All are definite threats to our liberty, but how much press do these get? Last time I saw a mention about any of them in my local paper, they were stuck on the last page of the "local news" section; they had a one-paragraph article. The ACLU has to take the big cases with the smaller ones, and what we may think are small cases right now become major cases later on. Keep in mind the only other group that appears before the U.S. Supreme Court more than the ACLU is the U.S. Justice Department. Pretty impressive if you ask me. This isn't a pointless crusade; the ACLU took it as a matter of principle. I would hold it against the ACLU if they didn't take this case.



They do an incredible amount for this country, and what the ACLU is doing now and what they have done in the past has set a stunning amount of precedent. The things they do may not seem noteworthy to you (and obviously not to the press), but I suppose that's all in the eye of the beholder.

Just a few of the noteworthy things the ACLU has done:
1920- Filed suit against the illegal Palmer raids
1925- Secured the services of Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Monkey Trial
1933- Fought and had the Customs service ban on Ulysses lifted
1939- Had the rabidly anti-union laws of Jersey City mayor Frank Hague overturned
1942- Stood almost alone in denouncing the government's detention of Japaneses Americans
1954- The ACLU joined the legal battle that would later become Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas
1981- The ACLU filed suit against an Arkansas law requiring creationism be taught
1997- The ACLU won in the Supreme Court and has the Communications Decency Act of 1996 struck down in ACLU vs. Reno
2003- The ACLU filed suit along with a group from Knoxville, Tennessee to have parts of the USA PATRIOT Act declared unconstitutional

Edited to add "lifted" to the 1933 timeline entry

You all seem to be answering the question

by listing the ACLU's attempts to help Christianity or other religions. The question is a negative not an affirmative one, and I'd like to know. What public or government displays of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. have been actively fought by the ACLU? Where do they stand on states requiring non-veiled photos for driving licenses ?
or clothed people in swimming pools, for instance?
edited to add:
requiring children to pray to Allah in public schools?
Islam Required in California Elementary Schools
WorldNet Daily ^ | December 13, 2003

California Board of Education requires teaching Islam to 7th graders. Byron Union School District requires 12 year olds to wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Quran, pray to Allah and play jihad games. US Distric Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled praying to Allah is not indocrinating students in Islam. this is the same court the said "Under God" Pledge violates the Constitution. Schools prohibit christian studens from reading the Bible, praying, displaying th Ten Commandments and even mentioning the word "God".

And the plot thickens:

Yeah...i thought this was pathetic. Requiring children to "pray to Allah" and "memorize the Quran" is just sad. What if a Catholic or Jewish kid doesn't want to do this? They get an "F" and then the parents fo trhe child sues because they were made to do things that are not really legal.

The ACLU and the 9th circuit are bringing this country down and it's very sad. Christianity is being threatened, not by Osama and his gang of thugs, but by the ACLU.

Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves

Hmm, which founding fathers is that GA? My understanding of American History is that the founders of our country were largely deists. (source)

While I do find the Islam exercise you reference a little suspect at first glance, I wonder if it was performed more in an excercise of cultural diversity as opposed to religious indoctrination? Helping a child understand Kwanzaa isn't the same as forcing them to celebrate it. It was also made clear to the children that this was roleplaying and the parents were given the ability to opt out of participating. I hardly call this an assault on Christianity or some attempt at indoctrinating 7th graders to Islam.

Doc

All true, but what would be the ACLU stance on this activity if it were Christian 'role playing' ?

The ACLU would pounce on the school in a second if it was a Christian activity. You see, the ACLU apparently doesn't like Christianity. It was so evident during the month of December. There was an incident where a nativity scene was not allowed in a school but jewish decorations were allowed

This country is in so much trouble

Wow. Put out a supposition, make up an answer you like and then use it to pummel that which you don't agree with. Not a very effective way to go about making your case.

Especially since the quoted source turns out to be bogus.

Whether whispered or broadcast, a lie is just a lie

Perhaps folks need to do some research on the ACLU web site to get the answers to where they stand on things instead of just making up the answers they can only imagine about them.

There's a couple of things wrong with your statement. While I realize this is not a thread in which to discuss the ACLU on a more general level, I want to clear this up. I have an observation, followed by a question for you, GoAmerica:

1. The ACLU is not some monolithic entity which reflects the ideology of a single person. The ACLU is a widely spread community of lawyers and activists. Their membership includes Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Rastafarians, and just about anything else you can name. In Virginia, the minister of my church, along with an Episcopalian priest and a rabbi, with the help of the ACLU, sued the county about a nativity scene which the county allowed to be placed in front of their county administrative building. These men were suing to disallow it. They were arguing, not from a stance of disliking religion (pretty obvious, since they were clergymen themselves), but from the stance that if the county allows the creche, they must then make the area a public forum, which means any and all groups could put things there. These religious men recognized that there must be a clear separation in order for religious liberty to flourish.

2. If what you say is true, why does the ACLU defend as many Christians as they do?

I realize that the county seal issue seems petty. I'm not a lawyer, but it does strike me that sometimes issues which concern a point of law can seem to be about very trivial things, even when the case might eventually become a precedent. The real question here isn't whether anyone is 'offended' by the cross on the seal - which is something opponents of the ACLU often like to use to describe this. I daresay that gives the lawyers in the ACLU very little credit in the brains department. The real issue with the seal is about a point of law, one which strikes this lay person as similar to the case I described about the creche.

You ought to check out the constitutional debate thread, I started a discussion about the ACLU and christianity. I don't agree with your assertion, and here's are some specific reasons why.

ACLU fights public park over denying a reverend the right to do baptisms in public parks:


http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/Relig...?ID=15897&c=141

The ACLU is helping a christian minister to have the right to use a public park to do baptisms. Anti-christian leanings?

Not only that, but the ACLU defended a Christian valedictorian who put a Bible verse in the yearbook, which was summarily censored by the public school. Once again, the ACLU defended a CHRISTIAN student and beat the PUBLIC school in this case.



http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/Student...?ID=15680&c=159

You don't hear these cases on the 700 club or the Coral Ridge Ministry program, instead, you get "anti-christian" lawsuit coverage(which is brought in part by Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other christians who feel slighted) that is distorted and twisted to make the ACLU look bad.

I am curious, what is the ratio of cases the ACLU is for and against religious issues?

I depends on what you define as "for" and "against;" the ACLU is for religious freedom, and against Government establishment or infringement.

2 reasons for my attempt to resurrect this thread.

1 - I spoke to a Congressional candidate in California about it over the weekend.
2 - I learned that the ACLU collects court fees on cases that they win because they sue related to civil rights. I had always thought that the ACLU were primarily funded by contributions and maybe they are. But, in addition to the costs to the court system incurred, they force the courts to pay them legal fees for their time. For example, the ACLU collected nearly $1 million for suing the Boy Scouts in San Diego BSA vs. ACLU

So, now I'm offended all over again. I had no idea that they were collecting legal fees in all of these cases. This means that, whatever their mission is and whether I agree or not, I am helping to pay for this unelected body to continue their work. That is a scam in my opinion. If they were conducting their cause pro-bono, I would feel much better about the ACLU.

For example, the ACLU in Utah had a scavenger hunt to find another Ten Commandments to sue over? What the heck is this about? archived column
another source
I'm sure that the act passed in 1976 was intended to encourage people who were actually discriminated against, not this type of Constitutional debate in the courts.
The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1988(, a district court has discretion to award a reasonable attorney fee to a prevailing party in a civil rights action.

Sounds like you should take your greivances up with your senator and representatives. You cannot fault the ACLU for using a law that is currently on the books. What they are doing isn't even exploiting the law, they are following it to the letter. If anything you should be faulting the person that wrote the law.

If you read that Boy Scouts Case you linked, you'll find that they were actually discriminated against.

The same thing it was about in Alabama, separation of Church and State. They won their case there, so they stand a good chance in Utah. I would hardly call it a "witch hunt".


Actually, you didn't pay for anything, because the LA case never went to court. So again, you should take up your greivances with the law makers, not the ACLU.

Oh, I'm taking my case up with the lawmakers all right. That was the point of the conversation with the candidate. This is exactly the kind of issue that can fire up the public against their out-of-touch representatives. Removing a cross from the county seal is just a symptom of the misplaced priorities in California.



I didn't call it a witch hunt, the Utah ACLU called it a scavenger hunt. Apparently, if the Ten Commandments is posted in the middle of the woods, it is discriminating against people and they don't even know it. Violating their civil rights. And the ACLU will defend those poor people whose rights have been violated, and collect a handsome fee courtesy of the taxpayers.

I feel like I have said this a hundred times now, the ACLU operates on principles. By definition a principle cannot be changed based on circumstances, either you believe in something or you don't. There is no other alternative.

Secondly, since the ACLU operates in the legal realm, it cannot let infractions slide when it comes to civil rights (no matter how trivial one might think they are). If they let something slide that people consider trivial, then all of a sudden in an important case down the road some lawyer from the other side is going to cite that trivial case as a reason why the ACLU is wrong. Trivial cases are how case law is built and you can't stop fighting the battle if you hope to defend civil rights.

Would you feel the same way if a prosecutor let a good citizen go free because he murdered a criminal? Oh we don't need to prosecute him for murder, he was a good man and his vicitim was scum.

Finally, your assumption that they collect a fee so they can get rich is patently false. Nor is this fee meant to "punish" the community. Without collecting these fees, many civil rights prosecutions would be impossible because they typically become very expensive legal cases.

Here is an example of where fees were collected as well. This time the case was about women being admitted into the citadel. Still disagree with the fees? The ACLU doesn't hide this fact either, the fees collected are published for almost every final decision on their website. The fact that you didn't know about it doesn't make it some kind of conspiracy.

I love your point of view, but you do realize that you have tenuously compared letting a murderer go free with a plaque containing the Ten Commandments among some trees in the woods? Having a scavenger hunt for Ten Commandment displays is just 'having a go' to further their own agenda, and perhaps even designed specifically to collect the fees. It has nothing to do with civil rights.

While there has indeed been spirited debate here, no one here can convince me that a tiny cross on the county seal of a county named "The Angels" violates the following. LA ain't Congress, and a cross on a seal ain't 'establishment of religion.'




Yes, I still disagree with the fees, even though I supported their stance vs. the Citadel. I didn't say that it was a conspiracy, I said that it made me hopping mad. This fee thing was the tipping point for me of any goodwill toward the ACLU for much of the good things that they do. Not only are they clogging the courts with frivolous lawsuits, costing LA money to remove their seal, and contributing to an anti-religious environment in our country, but they are also charging for the privilege.

Even if you agree with most of what they do, having an unelected body charge the government to re-write the Bill of Rights, like some sort of Constitution consultancy is obscene. There must be a better way to handle this stuff.

So then we should probably make them remove the cow on the seal to avoid offending vegetarians. And that shark has to go because of all the people that fear sharks. Then of course the oil rig must be removed because it is an offensive image to the global warming folks. Can't keep the sailing ship as it is a reminder of the slave trading days when Africans where brought he on such evil ships. Of course the stars have to go because there are people who believe astrology is evil and the rainbow has to go because it suggests Irish favoritism. Then of course the womans "halo" has to go as it is religiously offensive, and she has to go too because her style of dress is reminiscent of the days when women were oppressed in America. And of course there is that offensive blue field with the red and white stripes. The allude to an American flag which as we all know can be offensive to some.

Where does it stop? The seal would be just a circle with "LA" in in, wait no, can't have that. It would be suggest singing and would be offensive to those who can't carry a tune.

And if the ACLU is really trying to stand on principle then why do they not fight to remove all the religious imagery from the supreme court building? or fight to stop congress from starting each day with a prayer? What about in god we trust on money?

Seems to be they choose the fights they know they could bully into an easy win through extorsion.

And for the record I personally do not believe in ANY organized religion.

The ACLU has been a bully for some time; this is more of the same -- and it's working. OTOH it's just a symbol. I don't see why it would cost a staggering amount to change it. Let the new symbol be a random splash of paint with "Approved by the ACLU" stamped on it!

I regularly hear the question, how would you feel if there were a star-and-crescent symbol, a menorah, or the wheel of life on public property. The surprising thing is that I hear this from college professors, whose job it is to provide knowledge and culture, not hide it. I would love to have these symbols of religions I don't know well, made more prominent.

I have heard of a city in Montana where someone smashed the lone window in town that had a menorah during Hanukkah season. Soon most of the houses in the area had menorahs too, for solidarity. I would. And if I were a woman in France, I'd wear a head scarf. And if I were designing a new city seal, I'd put a symbol of a religion I don't follow on it (if I could do it in integrity with city history).

Ridiculous line of reasoning. The cross isn't offensive, and I thought that had been pointed out. The problem is with the endorsement of religion. When anybody looks at a cross, I guarantee they think of Christianity. Besides, the Constitution doesn't say the government can't endorse meat eating or scare people that are afraid of sharks.

I'm not religious by any stretch of the imagination, and I personally don't have a problem with crosses and other religious symbols when I see them. I do have a problem with our government placing religious icons on official documents and government owned buildings.




Well, you have to start somewhere. Don't you think it's possible that by winning small battles like this to help establish precedent it will make future battles over other, larger issues easier to win?

Most of the time we ignore the free exercise there of. However, the separation of church and state could be a legitimate argument here. My point was that we take these things to the point of absurdity. The issue of people being offended by things is what is ridiculous, not the reasoning which is what I was illustrating. Companies have been threatened with lawsuits because employees keep a bible on there desk, Kids have be barred from graduation ceremonies because they insisted on thanking God in there valedictorian speech, etc, etc.

The second part, Is frequently disregarded.

This case is basically legitimate when it comes to the separation of church and state. However, how many people are harmed by a little cross that I bet few people even noticed on the seal before this story, verses the people who will be harmed when various county services have to be cut to pay to redesign and reproduce the seal on every badge, every piece of letterhead, every official vehicle, business card, and official booklet/ handout? Not to mention the rather expensive larger shields that adorn the county properties. Someone asked for a link showing exact costs. Well, I couldn't find one, but common sense tells you it will be expensive, and LA is already in the red.

Which does more harm to the community as a whole?




Now who is being ridiculous? They have been at this for decades, bullying communities all over the nation. Does it not make more sense to take on the largest, most egregious violations of the separation of church and state to set a precedent for all the smaller cases? Wouldn't any community they approached about such issues immediately knuckle under if the US Supreme Court already lost the case about it's own religious icons on it's building?

When people call the ACLU bully, I always wonder. Who are they bullying?? The poor little government or the much larger masses of Christians. Hearing it is like hearing the neighborhood bully crying foul because someone finally has punched him back. There is God on our money, God in our Pledge, God on this seal, God is in the Courts, House, Senate and Presidency. Exactly how is the ACLU bullying by saying... "No more"
No one is advocating that someone should not be able make a family seal or arm that depicts religious symbols and hang it outside their house, or that if you want to go home and say the pledge with the words "under God" that you can't. No one is saying that elected officials and those they appoint cannot be devote Christians. If they take "In God we trust" off of money, no one will advocate that someone can't take a Sharpie and scribble away on their money. So what is that ACLU is doing that has got posters calling them bullies? Oh that's right, they are telling people that the government should be secular. This isn't a case of bullying, this is a case of the bullies being told to stop.

It is a simple test: If you believe it is totally O.K. to say the pledge with the words "under God", but would flip out at the idea of your kids being directed to say "one nation under Allah...", then you are the true bully.( Yes I know this will never happen so people can take me up and say "I'd be fine with it")

The ACLU is telling the city to take off the cross. The city is doing it because it would likely cost more to fight in court, and though they may win the odds are not in their favor. Telling you (people upset about the ACLU attacking religous symbols) that you can not use the government as a tool of your religious expression is not bullying.

They are bullying by going after communities on these issues who can not afford to fight them in court. Even when these communities win the cost of the court battles are usually too much to bear. The ACLU avoid the real battles.

If the ACLU was truly seeking to fight religious establishment in government then they should take on the big cases like the ten commandments on the front of the supreme court building of congress starting each day with a prayer, etc.

They don't take these cases because the opposition has the financial resources to fight them all the way.

That is what a Bully is. A bully only picks on those he/she can easily beat, and avoids the fights where the outcome is uncertain.

As for "One Nation Under God" in the pledge.... It doesn't belong there. It was added in the 50's as part of the fight against the "Godless Communists". If it had been in the original text them I would feel that it belonged there simply out of tradition. Since congress voted to add it, it was clearly a congressional act that falls under the heading of establishment, after all, establishment was their intent.

I agree that the cross should not be on the LA seal, I just feel that the costs to the community to change it outweigh the benefit to the community. How many services will have to be cut back to pay for the changes? How many will be hurt by that?

That seems an unprovable statement. If one is at a bar and sees a women wearing a low-cut blouse sporting a cross does one assume their devotion to Christ, or is it just a decoration? Perhaps the cross is meant to symbolize state sponsored capital punishment and that is the offense. If Christ died today wouldn't millions be wearing gold syringes?