ACLU and stepping over the line..

[danzig]

ACLU has filed a lawsuit vs city of Tijeras, New Mexico to force it to modify its town seal. The seal consist of a Native American Zia symbol, a conquistador sword and helm, a rosery and a cross. The ALCU wants the cross and only the cross removed. The symbol is clearly a culture one based on the areas history and culture and not inherently religious so Im left wondering where do we draw the line. Does 'public' life mean we have to free ourself of every image, symbol etc that is religiously based even when it represents a historic/cultural theme?

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/n....aspx?cid=3531 with a picture of the symbol, the ALCU seems bent on removal of anything remotely Christian, you could argue the Zia symbol itself is a religious symbol as well so why focus on what is basically the smallest part of the symbol for removal? It seems ALCU never questions what harm does something cause and its context when it files lawsuits and instead does exactly what religious conserative do and live in a world of black and white and absolutes. Of course last year the ALCU forced Los Angeles county to remove a christian mission symbol from its seal, the county evidently in a moment of enlightment decided to also remove the pagan goddess Pomona from it as well..even though the ALCU made no mention of it in its suit. The new symbol removes the cross from the missions as if the missions werent religious based at the time. So basically where is the line draw between historic/cultural imaginary that do have elements of religion in them and 'state sponsored' endorsement of religion and is the ALCU repeatly stepping over that line. Isnt it more harmful to pretend christian missions had no impact in south west then to include them in a symbol representing the cities's history? More importantly why does ALCU seem to be so caught up on this issue?

[First Crusader]

The ACLU accusation that this violates the first amendment is completely false. Showing a piece of history in the state seal doesn't infringe anybody's freedom of religion.

This same argument used by the ACLU against the cross could also be used against the sword: showing a weapon infringes on Quakers' freedom of religion.

[Last Roman]

now, im a liberal, but after hearing of all the crap the ACLU has tried to pull lately, i really wonder if there is a we could get rid of them

[First Crusader]

now, im a liberal, but after hearing of all the crap the ACLU has tried to pull lately, i really wonder if there is a we could get rid of them

If the ACLU was a right-wing group, I would be embarrassed too.

[Tom Paine]

There is a line. Symbolism of this sort: hello, its not like anyone's saying "Worship God or die". In fact most seals have some sort of religious mor political reference on them thanks to historic context, and removing them all would be simply pointless.

On the other hand some regulation is necessary; I'd rather not see the laws replaced by the morals of the religious right. Maybe we need to rebalance secularism and religion.

[First Crusader]

On the other hand some regulation is necessary; I'd rather not see the laws replaced by the morals of the religious right. Maybe we need to rebalance secularism and religion.

I am not sure what you are talking about here. There is no need to fear about "the laws being replaced by the morals of the religious right" any more than we need to fear "the laws being replaced by the morals of the atheist left". We need to keep a balance, but there is no need to get excited about impending tyranny.

[Tom Paine]

I am not sure what you are talking about here. There is no need to fear about "the laws being replaced by the morals of the religious right" any more than we need to fear "the laws being replaced by the morals of the atheist left". We need to keep a balance, but there is no need to get excited about impending tyranny.

Oh I'm not, I'm just pointing out that in accomodating either side we need to remember not to accomodate too much.

[First Crusader]

Oh I'm not, I'm just pointing out that in accomodating either side we need to remember not to accomodate too much.

Very true. That is why we have two political parties instead of just one.

[danzig]

There is a line. Symbolism of this sort: hello, its not like anyone's saying "Worship God or die". In fact most seals have some sort of religious mor political reference on them thanks to historic context, and removing them all would be simply pointless.

On the other hand some regulation is necessary; I'd rather not see the laws replaced by the morals of the religious right. Maybe we need to rebalance secularism and religion.

Well that is my point, the ALCU seems incapable of telling the difference which is just as bad as jesus freaks. You cant talk about history or have images based on history without also broaching religious themes. That isnt 'state sponsorship' of religion that is simply knowledging our past. The ALCU however seems to be on a mission to wipe this out, they have threatened lawsuits against numerous cities/states etc thru the past few years and they never lose because it simply cost too much to fight them in court so goverment officals give in as they did in Los Angeles. A group who's goal is to protect my liberties isnt exactly doing their job if they deem this as a threat to them, its stupid and its petty.

Oh I'm not, I'm just pointing out that in accomodating either side we need to remember not to accomodate too much.

Unfortunately one side is getting a pass in this though and that is the problem. There is a difference between a school board trying to sneak ID into science classes and issues like this but yet ALCU is wants to 'protect' us from the non threatening and reasonable and not take on the tougher, more important fight. Like cheer my city no longer has a cross on its state leaderhead whew what a relief of course my kid is being taught that an invisible man created them in biology class but atleast I dont have to see that nasty old cross mind you one I have to really look closely at to notice on my tax form!

[First Crusader]

The ACLU Crusade against crosses during Christmas is silly too. The government should recognize ALL religious holidays, not just the PC ones.

[Tom Paine]

The ACLU Crusade against crosses during Christmas is silly too. The government should recognize ALL religious holidays, not just the PC ones.

Maybe it should recognise none and let the people themselves choose which they want to display? Sounds easier to me.

[danzig]

Maybe it should recognise none and let the people themselves choose which they want to display? Sounds easier to me.

Then you'd have the bulk of population all calling in sick on Christmas since like it or not most of the country is christian, the unfortunate side effect is you get 'false' holidays (think Steinfield's Festives!) that demand they be viewed as equal...something I see Kwanza as.

[First Crusader]

Maybe it should recognise none and let the people themselves choose which they want to display? Sounds easier to me.

Funny, I thought decorating public places and funding parades was the GOVERNMENT'S job.

[Tom Paine]

Funny, I thought decorating public places and funding parades was the GOVERNMENT'S job.

True, but decoration of any private place is the private owners job; and in the case of Christmas, get your local government to also put up Hannukah decorations...
danzig: But how do you choose which celebrations are legit? An extreme orthodox Catholic would argue for all the saints' various days...

[First Crusader]

True, but decoration of any private place is the private owners job; and in the case of Christmas, get your local government to also put up Hannukah decorations...
danzig: But how do you choose which celebrations are legit? An extreme orthodox Catholic would argue for all the saints' various days...

I was talking about PUBLIC decorations.

Just have all of the MAJOR holidays. Obscure orthodox celebrations are not necessary unless the local population has a large number of Orthodox Christians.

[Tom Paine]

Its a total lack instead, as egalitarian as a mixture

[First Crusader]

Its a total lack instead, as egalitarian as a mixture

Whatever. My point still stands, as I have no idea what you are trying to say

[Kanaric]

ACLU still does good so they shouldn't be removed. This is just the result of everyone trying to be a safety nazi so nobody is even the lightest bit offended by the most idiotic things. IMO ACLU isn't the problem, easily offended people are. If they are members of ACLU or are complaining to the ACLU to attack these people.

IMO if your this easily offended they should show you on comedy shows and be laughed at and considered the village idiot.

[danzig]

ACLU still does good so they shouldn't be removed. This is just the result of everyone trying to be a safety nazi so nobody is even the lightest bit offended by the most idiotic things. IMO ACLU isn't the problem, easily offended people are. If they are members of ACLU or are complaining to the ACLU to attack these people.

They are too to blame because they take the cases, for instance they declined to take two cases recently one involving a young boy who had a picture refused/failed for a project the school did on how to help the enviroment, students had to draw a picture on ways to help the enviroment and he drew a picture of jesus. The other case was a student prevented from reading a bible during recess. Now I have no clue if these cases have merit and my honestly my first reaction is no they dont that they are bs cases but even if they dont they have *as much* merit as these cases the ACLU are taking on so there definately seems to be some issues within the ACLU. So why take some idiots cases but not others? Often the threat of an ACLU lawsuit is enough for them to win because its just too expensive to fight it out with them and they know that. Its an abuse of influence and power imo.

[Last Roman]

They are too to blame because they take the cases, for instance they declined to take two cases recently one involving a young boy who had a picture refused/failed for a project the school did on how to help the enviroment, students had to draw a picture on ways to help the enviroment and he drew a picture of jesus. The other case was a student prevented from reading a bible during recess. Now I have no clue if these cases have merit and my honestly my first reaction is no they dont that they are bs cases but even if they dont they have *as much* merit as these cases the ACLU are taking on so there definately seems to be some issues within the ACLU. So why take some idiots cases but not others? Often the threat of an ACLU lawsuit is enough for them to win because its just too expensive to fight it out with them and they know that. Its an abuse of influence and power imo.

also a good point, geez now im not sure what to think