L.A. County violated Constitution by putting cross on seal: judge

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

World | Thu Apr 7, 2016 5:46pm EDT

L.A. County violated Constitution by putting cross on seal: judge

LOS ANGELES | BY DAN WHITCOMB

A federal judge has ruled that Los Angeles County violated the U.S. and state constitutions by placing a tiny cross atop a depiction of a California mission on its official seal, despite claims by local leaders that it was done for historical accuracy.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder comes in response to a lawsuit filed by civil liberties activists and others who objected to the inclusion of a religious symbol on a government emblem and marks the latest twist in a six-decade saga that has seen the county seal redesigned three times.

"A reasonable, objective observer aware of this contentious history would likely view the county's recent decision to reintroduce a cross at substantial expense as motivated by a sectarian purpose, despite the county's appeal to considerations of artistic and historical accuracy," Snyder wrote in her 55-page written opinion, which followed a one-day trial last November.

The judge granted a permanent injunction against the county's use of the seal, presumably requiring another make over unless her order is overturned on appeal.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-losangeles-cross-idUSKCN0X42SL

[jonno99]

1. A bit of irony, no? That the city was wrong to have a cross on it's seal,

a city whose name is translated as "The Angels".

[trotsky]

2. Oh, you got them there!

People opposing the mingling of church and state just need to shut the fuck up and accept it, huh? Well as long as it's YOUR church that's mingling with the state, amirite?!?

[jonno99]

3. Well, that goes both ways - doesn't it? Is it reasonable that there should be NO recognition

of heritage/history - simply because it is religious in nature?

iow - Should those who are religious-minded just stfu?

[trotsky]

4. There shouldn't be an endorsement of a particular religion, or religion in general, in government.

Period.

Yes, the religious need to STFU if they are going to use the government to promote their beliefs.

[jonno99]

5. Endorsement? No. Promotion? No. Simple recognition of historical origins (facts)? Yes. nt

[trotsky]

6. I am glad you are enjoying your religious privilege. Feels great, doesn't it?

Your argument is the same as those who wanted to post the 10 commandments in courthouses, so at least you've got that going for you.

[jonno99]

7. Priviledge? You're conflating two disparate issues. You could make the case that posting

the 10 Commandments is an endorsement. Having the seal of a city reflect it's religious origins is not an endorsement.

[trotsky]

8. Actually, I'm completely accurate.

Study the arguments used to justify the posting of the 10 commandments. You'll find that the Christians who support it are saying the same thing as you. "It just reflects the religious origins of our legal system, it's not an endorsement" etc.

[jonno99]

9. I've already agreed that posting "the 10" could be argued as being an endorsement.

What you haven't made the case for is how having a religious symbol on the seal of a city (having a historical religious name), constitutes an endorsement.

[trotsky]

10. That's fine, I'm glad you at least recognize posting the commandments is wrong.

But I'm pointing out to you that your argument is the same as that offered by those who wanted them displayed. "It's historical, it's traditional," etc.

As a non-Christian, seeing a Christian symbol on any government property sends a message to me. You with your religious privilege don't see that - it's just "history" to you, and you want everyone who sees it differently to just shut up and deal with it. The judge ruled it's in violation of the Constitution.

Although perhaps to be fair they should also have an illustration showing the treatment of the native population by your Christian predecessors in the area. If mean, if it's about accurately portraying the history, as you seem to insist.

[jonno99]

11. Becasue one group is wrong to claim "It's historical, it's traditional," etc.,

doesn't mean that every other group is wrong to make that claim.

As a non-Christian, seeing a Christian symbol on any government property sends a message to me.

Again, a seal or flag typically portrays imagery describing historical roots. If your position is that a cross is equivalent to say, the rebel/dixie flag, then I think I understand your position a bit better - though I wouldn't be in agreement.

Btw - if there is a US city that was originally founded by Muslims, and the "city fathers" wanted to include a "star-and-crescent" symbol on their seal (along with whatever other memorable symbols they deemed appropriate), my position would be the same.

[trotsky]

12. Once again, you dance around the subject.

Your "argument" for the city displaying a distinctly Christian symbol on its official government seal is that it's "historical."

That was the same argument advanced by those looking to display the commandments. You claim your case is different. For now at least, the law doesn't. It thinks you are just as wrong as the decalogue fans.

Are you OK with adding a symbol showing what the Christians who "founded" Los Angeles and other California missions did to the native population? I mean, it's about honoring the historical roots, right?

[jonno99]

13. Well, it is different

That was the same argument advanced by those looking to display the commandments.

it is the difference between words & symbols.

Are you OK with adding a symbol showing what the Christians who "founded" Los Angeles and other California missions did to the native population?

Yes

[trotsky]

14. Not to the law right now.

Sorry you don't get that tiny bit of religious privilege granted. Who knows, maybe Christians will win the next appeal. Then you can cheer for your religion to have its symbols promoted, and everyone else reminded what their status is. You know, like Jesus told you to do.

[struggle4progress]

15. So they removed a cross in 2004 under threat of a suit, then added a cross again in 2014?

Morons