Thursday, April 07, 2016

Federal Judge Declares Cross In Los Angeles County Seal "Unconstitutional"

by JASmius

Such a little thing.  It's like those "find the tiny little Coffee-Net News guy" bits in the Coffee Net News that are designed, near as I can tell, to give readers eyestrain and maybe even astigmatism.  And L.A. County didn't add the little teeny-tiny cross to the depicted mission in the seal to "establish Christianity" or "shove religion down atheists' throats" or "impose Christian values" or any of the other hideously tiresome rote attacks of the godless against the Brethren - seriously, how likely does anybody believe that would be in Los Angeles County? - but simply for historical accuracy.  Believe it or not, at one time there were actually Christians living in what is now L.A. County, and when L.A. was founded 235 years ago, that Christian mission was one of the first entities established there.  Los Angeles does mean "City of Angels," after all.

But it's not enough that America, or this little slice of it, be de-Christianized in the present and future; no, it must be de-Christianized in the past as well, totalitarianly erased from history like it never existed.  And so an ACLU that one would think would have better things to do until you realized that they really don't, hauled L.A. County into court, and the rest was more predictable than smog:

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 [extrem]ists 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 fifty-five-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.

And if L.A. County had replaced the mission with a mosque and put the (I'm guessing) Original American woman in a burqa, would we even be having this scintillating discussion?  Because I'm going to go out on a limb and say no.

Christianity must be banned, it must be expunged from history, and atheist sensibilities declared sacrosanct and even sacred.  The only thing I can really compare this to is last summer's confederate battle flag scrum and the Left's jihad to erase that symbol of a significant time in American history and its accompanying lessons from history, and for the same reason: it offended the special snowflake sensibilities of leftwingnut extremists who demand that everything be brought into subjection to and compliance with what they think, what they believe, their "values"....effectively, shoving their "values" down OUR throats.  Rather like the cannibals invading the missionary village, and not to evangelize.

I doubt L.A. County will appeal the ruling, (1) because they don't care about what the symbol really means as the First Amendment issue at stake; all they're bothered by is the cost of a third redesign of the seal, and (2) what would be the point?  It'd go the the Ninth Circuit, which would uphold Judge Snyder's misdecision, and from there to the deadlocked SCOTUS, where Justice Kennedy would probably swing to the Dark Side again even if Justice Scalia still lived.  It kind of begs the question of why they added the little teeny-tiny cross to begin with, since they had to know it was going to attract a suit like this, and how the federal judge was likely to rule.  I find it difficult in the extreme to believe they did so on any kind of principle, which I wouldn't generally associate with the "cause" of historical accuracy.

Of course, if you look more closely at the demarcating lines on the seal, you'll discover that they form a cross a lot bigger than the one to which the ACLU objected.  So that's some solace, anyway.

And most likely the subject of the next lawsuit, no doubt.

No comments: