L.A. County Surrenders to Political Correctness:

Here is a story I picked up from ProfessorBainbridge.com.

The hyper do-gooders at the ACLU have successfully pressured the County of Los Angeles into changing its seal:

Los Angeles County supervisors on Tuesday ended an emotional debate over the symbolism of the tiny gold cross on the county seal by deciding to remove it rather than defend it against a threatened ACLU lawsuit. ...

"Where does it all end?" lamented Supervisor Don Knabe, who said that changing the county seal would be tantamount to "rewriting history" in a region shaped by Catholic missionaries. "I do not think we should capitulate. As the largest county in America, if we roll over, what's next?"

Another CADRE member noted:

"To top things off, the center of the seal has some Roman pagan goddess (about 100 time larger than the cross) on it. However, the ACLU found nothing wrong with promoting pagan worship."

It seems to me that a potential line of attack against the silliness being foisted upon Los Angeles County by the ACLU is to force them to explain why the small cross in the background of the seal is an endorsement of the Christian religion while the much larger Roman goddess is not an endorsement. You see, the basis for the objection to the cross on the seal of the County of Los Angeles is that it may be viewed as an endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. If that is the basis for the objection, why isn't the placement of the Roman goddess as the central figure in the seal a violation as an establishment of Roman pagan religion by Los Angeles County?

I can only think of a couple of answers to this question. The first reason (which is probably what the ACLU would rely upon) would argue that Roman pagan religions are such a minority view in this country that it would hardly be seen as establishing that religion. The First Amendment, so the argument would go, is to prevent the establishment of a religion held by a majority of the people. But this would be bringing a new factor into Establishment Law jurisprudence. I am not aware of any Supreme Court decision that makes a distinction between religion of the majority and religion of the minority. Rather, the cases are decided upon whether the religious symbol could be seen as an endorsement regardless of whether it is a religious symbol of a majority or minority population in our country.

The second reason, and the real reason to my eyes, is that the ACLU doesn't want all references to religion out of public life. They are happy if religion is mentioned provided that the religion has no impact on the person's political life or made an impact that caused the adherents to vote for beliefs acceptable to the ACLU. If Christianity took the position that it is a purely personal religion and that the tenets of Christianity should not impact how one approaches their voting, then the ACLU and other such organizations could care less if they were honored. Thus, the ACLU is discriminating against certain religions that impact the political lives of their adherents.

Either way, the ACLU has a difficult hill to climb.



Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

Scientifically Documented Miracles

Extraordinary Claims, Ordinary Fallacies, and Evolution