Welcome to the ACLU Post Series. This originally began as a throw-down between blog author Zombiedeathkoala and frequent commenter Citizen F, but the challenge has since been expanded to include anybody who wishes to contribute cases, action items, or other relevant pieces of evidence.
The topic is, "Has the ACLU infringed upon the rights of Christian citizens, and/or citizens who celebrate Christmas?" The topic is NOT, "Is the ACLU anti-Christian." I did not clarify that point until after Citizen F had already submitted his argument for this section, so don't anybody hold that against him, but from here on out if you're looking for discussion about how much the ACLU hates Christians then you can go lurk around the World Net Daily message boards.
And awaaaay we go...
ACLU Post Series, Part 1: The Case Of The Dinky Cross
In 2004, the ACLU said that they would sue Los Angeles county unless the LA County Supervisors removed a small cross depicted in the background of the County's official seal.
Point
Contributed by Citizen F
The question is whether this is an example of how the ACLU is anti-Christian, not whether the ACLU infringed on any rights. The ACLU did not oppose religious symbols in county seals, they opposed Christian religious symbols in county seals. Further, the cross on the seal did not indicate an endorsement of Christianity, only an acknowledgement of the role of Christianity and in the development of the county. That Christian symbol held no more religious conotation than the statue of Pomona, which is the prominent figure in the seal, and the presence of that statue was not challenged.
Now to the question of whether the ACLU infringed on Christian rights. I would say that they did argue that the courts should infringe upon Christian rights and, in addition, the rights of the citizens of the county (be they Christian or otherwise). It should be the right of a county to display any historically significant symbol on their seal that they see fit. The recognition of the Confederate flag in the Florida state flag is certainly controversial, and to many offensive, but the courts should not infringe upon the free speech rights of the legislative body of that state. That body feels the Confederacy is an important piece of Floridian history and that it should be recognized. Similarly, a county should be able to exihibit any symbol on a seal that they feel to be historically significant, even if that symbol is offensive to some. The fact that the ACLU asked the courts to deny the free speech rights of the county simply because the symbol represented a religion is even more reprehensible. It infringes upon our religious freedom if we selectively eliminate the historical significance of only certian religions from our lessons. If we are allowed to deny a county the right to display a cross in a seal for historical reasons, we are allowed to deny a teacher the right to mention Christianity in history class. Free speech regarding religious history and religious persecution is vital to our understanding of the value of religious freedom.
Counterpoint
Zombiedeathkoala
I read about this case when it first came around, and I found it stupid from the get-go. Mainly because the goddess Pomona was figured prominently in the foreground, with the Christian cross being just a dinky little wisp by her elbow, and I don't especially mind seeing Christianity portrayed as a trivial accessory of ancient mythology. But, setting aside my own preferences, I still don't see how anybody's rights were infringed upon by the ACLU's efforts to get the cross removed.
In the older version of the LA County Supervisor’s seal, there were some oil derricks in the background to represent the oil fields that were discovered on Signal Hill. The oil derricks were removed from the seal at the same time the cross was removed. Is this an example of oppression of the oil industry, or a violation of the free speech of oil derrick workers? Pomona herself was replaced by the image of a Native American woman, and Pomona was a much larger and more significant figure in the earlier version of the seal, so shouldn't our concern be for the poor Pagans? They haven't even got a federal holiday to comfort themselves with.
Some Christians argued that this wasn't a matter of religion, it was a matter of "history," yet none of them were pushing to have the original seal restored. Christian columnists wept over how the cross had been a part of the seal "for nearly half a century," but that seal (adopted in 1957) replaced one that had been used for 70 years (since 1887). The original seal featured a bunch of grapes, yet nobody was weeping for the grape-lovers and viticulturists whose icon was so cruelly stripped away after seven decades.
To the best of my knowledge, counties within the US are empowered to design and redesign their own seals, and citizens are perfectly within their rights to contribute to the process by submitting and campaigning for alternative designs. The Christians who pushed to have Pomona removed from the seal were totally within their rights to do so. If an anti-woman club wanted to push for removal of the Native American woman currently in the foreground, then they would not be violating women's rights by doing so. If a vegitarian group doesn't like the cow featured in the LA County seal (which is there to represent the cow-eating industries), they should feel free to push for a redesign of the seal. If I moved to LA County and lobbied to have the stars removed from the seal because my invisible friend Harvey told me that the film industry is evil, I wouldn't be violating the rights of movie stars or film aficionados. There is no "right" to have your preferred icons displayed in an official government seal, and freedom of speech certainly doesn't extend to a guarantee that your particular speech will be enshrined in public displays.
Long story short? I think the ACLU gave stupid reasons for wanting the cross gone, and I think they really showed their arse in the way they went about it, but their actions did not infringe on the rights of Christian citizens. If Christianity could be drawn in to the "history" of the LA County seal in 1957, I see no reason why it couldn't be drawn right out again in 2004.
11 Comments:
If the ACLU lobbied the county to remove the cross because Christianity is stupid or because it wasn't historically significant, or because they thought the cross was offensive, I would feel they did nothing wrong. They said they would ask the courts to force the county to remove the cross. Convincing the county that the cross is a bad idea is one thing, using the courts to remove it is another thing entirely. The ACLU did not convince the county that the cross shouldn't be there, they denied the county the right to decide whether the cross should be there.
CF
No wonder you want to talk about the ACLU being anti-Christian instead of whether they've actually violated rights. You don't even understand the concept of rights that aren't subject to majority whim. Or much else.
Aleks,
Would you care to provide a position supported by facts or evidence? It's easy to make wild claims, but it's much more difficult to use evidence and facts to make your point. Do you have an opinion on whether the ACLU has violated Christian rights or the rights of those who wish to celebrate Christmas? What support do you have for your position?
CF
The ACLU is "anti-Christian" and you lecture me about how easy it is to make "wild claims"? Well, I'm not the "wolf". Here's the facts and evidence to support my claim "Convincing the county that the cross is a bad idea is one thing, using the courts to remove it is another thing entirely. The ACLU did not convince the county that the cross shouldn't be there, they denied the county the right to decide whether the cross should be there." CF, this thread.
As for whether the ACLU is violating "Christian rights", present some evidence that they have done so and I will either accept your position or provide counter-evidence. At the moment your shrieking at the wind doesn't convince me, and I have no interest in trying to prove a negative. I did see O'Reilly talking about it last December, but he was as short of facts as you are, preferring the same victimized hysteria to deliver the same point, though you'll probably call that a "coincidence". Anyway, I quit the ACLU years ago.
Aleks said (to CF): "As for whether the ACLU is violating "Christian rights", present some evidence that they have done so and I will either accept your position or provide counter-evidence."
That's what is SUPPOSED to be happening in this post series. That was the whole point.
I decided to give the "con" position the benefit of the doubt. I decided to believe that they must have information that I do not have, and thus that their position is not totally pulled from their asses. Though I am somewhat disgruntled by the poor showing thus far, I am still willing to re-evaluate my position if compelling evidence is presented.
ZDK,
Telling someone you will sue them if they sing religious songs may seem OK to you. I understand that because you have mentioned the hostility you feel directed toward you by religious people. I believe that it is wrong. I believe that the Constitution grants us the right to free speech, particularly regarding religion. Saying "You can't sing that song because it's religious" is denying free speech, in my opinion. Do you disagree with me? If so, why?
CF
Aleks,
I already presented evidence that the ACLU had used the threat of litigation to infringe upon the free speech rights of the citizens of LA County. Read the original post of this thread to find my evidence and arguments. Now, are you going to keep your promise to present counter-evidence?
CF
==I already presented evidence that the ACLU had used the threat of litigation to infringe upon the free speech rights of the citizens of LA County. Read the original post of this thread to find my evidence and arguments. Now, are you going to keep your promise to present counter-evidence?==
I read it and responded to it. The ACLU did not, as you claim, attack the free speech rights of the citizens of LA county. You can argue that they attacked the county's free speech rights if you like, but you have not shown any "evidence" that private citizens were kept from expressing views, religious or otherwise.
In fact since I had already responded to that, why did you claim I've been avoiding giving a position? I'm not implying motive, just asking for it.
Aleks,
Why do you say I didn't present evidence? Do you believe the ACLU did not get involved in the "tiny cross" case? If not, why do you believe that what I presented was not evidence?
CF
CF:
Knock it off. Your stupid straw man bullshit is boring the crap out of me. You can read as well as I can, and you know damn well that Aleks said "you have not shown any "evidence" that private citizens were kept from expressing views, religious or otherwise." Whether or not you presented evidence that the ACLU was "involved" in the tiny cross case is beside the point.
ZDK,
I know what Aleks said, but it isn't true. If he believes that the ACLU did not intervene, I can look for sources that show they did. If he believes they did intervene, but that the intervention didn't constitute an infringement on free speech rights, an can argue that point. If he cedes the former, I certainly at least presented evidence of the latter (even if the point isn't yet proven). So if he is willing to cede the former, I am prepared to debate him after I here his counter argument as to why my evidence and argument are faulty. I cannot debate the wind. I have to hear some reason why my evidence is not evidence in order to strengthen my argument. Sorry if that bores you. I really don't see what the problem is. He just has to make his point so that I can counter it. I don't know why my evidence and argument are insufficient so I can't bolster them with additional facts. When he makes that clarification, I'll gladly add that additional evidence.
CF
Post a Comment
<< Home