In Theory: Judge rules against cross on county seal
A federal judge ruled Thursday, April 7 in favor of plaintiffs who had argued that a depiction of the Christian cross on the Los Angeles County seal was unconstitutional.
In a 55-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder sided with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and a group of religious leaders and scholars who sued, saying it unconstitutionally favored Christianity over other religions, the Los Angeles Times reported.
MORE: Read past In Theory discussions>>
The cross, Snyder wrote, “carries with it an aura of prestige, authority, and approval. By singling out the cross for addition to the seal, the county necessarily lends its prestige and approval to a depiction of one faith’s sectarian imagery.
“The county also provides a platform for broadcasting that imagery on county buildings, vehicles, flags, and stationary.… Permitting such a change and the associated expenditure of public funds places the county’s power, prestige, and purse behind a single religion, Christianity, without making any such benefit available on an equal basis to those with secular objectives or alternative sectarian views.”
The Board of Supervisors reinstated the cross, which is depicted on top of the San Gabriel Mission along with other county symbols, in 2014.
Q: What are your thoughts on the cross’ placement on the county seal?
--
While I usually go along with the ACLU’s point of view, this time I don’t, and I think the cross ought to remain on the county seal.
While I agree that having the cross on the seal does seem as if one single religion is being favored over all the others, I also have to go along with history, and we can’t wipe out what happened.
Christian Catholic Spanish crusaders did settle California, and there is no way to change that fact. Yes, they may have treated the Native Americans poorly, and yes, the cross on the seal is a reminder of some unfortunate things in the past — but that is our history and we need to own it.
Besides, aren’t there more important issues these days into which we should be pouring our money than what a stupid seal looks like? I understand, I think, the point of view of those who would remove the cross from the seal — but it’s also our history, and maybe we should be forced to think about our sordid past every time we look at the county seal.
Rev. Skip Lindeman,
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge
--
To be blunt, this whole issue has been inflamed by a group of people who hate God and are deathly afraid of anything that reminds them of him or the influence his people make in the world.
Spanish missions were established in California between 1769 and 1833, bringing with them the beginnings of modern Californian culture. The actual mission buildings, which thanks to restoration still stand, are some of the oldest structures in our state. They are the most visited of our historic monuments.
The representation of a Spanish mission building on a county seal, accurately illustrated with a cross on the top, is not a state establishment or endorsement of the Christian faith. It is a very appropriate symbol of a movement that shaped the California we live in today.
To actually remove the cross from the mission building on the seal would be a gross act of historical revisionism, a distortion of the historical record for the sake of antireligious zealots who wish to “dumb down” the American public by erasing the record of the actual motives and actions of those who came before us. Catholic missions are an indisputable part or our state’s history. Graphically redepicting them as secular institutions is an outright lie.
Some people attempt to deny, distort and conceal the truth, but the truth will never go away. Jesus Christ is the truth personified. His word, the Bible, is the truth indelibly recorded. “The church of the living God [is] the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). Proverbs 21:28 warns that “A false witness will perish, but the man who listens to the truth will speak forever.”
The original seal of Los Angeles County was a simple drawing of a bunch of grapes. If Judge Snyder’s ruling stands I believe we should change the entire graphic to a simple drawing of a bunch of nuts.
Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank
--
I am not a big fan of the seal’s design to begin with, as I think the icons are too busy and not readily identifiable. I never knew that the cow represented a prize bovine named “Pearlette,” and I can’t find much information beyond that tidbit concerning the inclusion of the image. One wonders if this doesn’t alienate our city’s vegans and vegetarians by promoting beef as a food source, though. Do they find it offensive? Perhaps it should be removed.
There’s likewise a tuna fish depicted opposite the cow, and with the over-fishing of bluefin, I’d think that people should object to that as well. Does it also promote pescatarianism over other eating philosophies?
The depiction of the Hollywood Bowl might just as well be gay-pride rainbow, as it doesn’t resemble the famed amphitheater much, and perhaps that would be reason enough to remove it for secretly endorsing one controversial lifestyle over the norm. But then, this is the second gayest city in California and ninth nationwide, so such a symbol might be apropos.
Join the conversation on Facebook >>
And while I was rather happy to see the goddess Pomona previously replaced with a native human, I think the far-less-than-idealized image doesn’t inspire anyone or engender Angeleno pride. Maybe it too is offensive like the many Indian mascots of America’s vintage sports teams.
But then there’s the cross. The cross is “the” symbol of Christianity, to be sure, but wasn’t the entire missions period motivated by the substance behind that symbol? At least, it was supposed to have been. Do not our fourth-grade children make mission models in every school throughout the LAUSD? I think they still do, and while I’m not Roman Catholic, even I can see that for the icon to make any sense, it needs a cross symbol to make it meaningful. Otherwise, we’re left with what looks like a storage shed, or maybe a migrant sweatshop. I don’t know.
And the very name of our city betrays a cross-inspired founding which is enough to credit the symbol with that part of our history. “Los Angeles” translates to “The Angels.” It’s short for the fuller moniker that includes “City of our Lady, queen of the Angels…” It’s a reference to Mary, the earthly mother of Christ (who’s purpose was the cross). In other words, the cross is part and parcel of our founding, and if you remove it, you diminish what made us. Ask yourself why it’s the cross rather than some other symbol that is at the “crux” of this controversy. Why perish the cross? I believe Scripture illuminates the issue: “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who [themselves] are perishing” (1Co 1:18 NIV).
Rev. Bryan Griem
Tujunga
--
My thoughts can be summarized in two words — Establishment Clause. The founders of this country wisely provided for separation of church and state in our Constitution. A cross, or a star of David, or a crescent moon and star are all equally unconstitutional, separately or together, on a seal or other government feature here in the U.S.
There is an argument that the cross should be allowed as an accurate representation of the San Gabriel mission. First, I recall reading somewhere that the original mission building had no cross, which was added later.
Second, if we are going for historical accuracy, the cross is far from a complete picture of the coming of Christianity to California. Telling the whole truth should include, for example, depictions of Indians having their culture destroyed and being enslaved by occupying foreigners.
Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose
--
If there’s another religion that’s had an equivalent or greater influence in California to that of Christianity, then sure, they should have their symbol on the seal too. But, definitely, a mission should still be on there, for historical reasons. And yes, if you’re going to depict a mission, it should be shown with its cross on top, or really, it’s just an image of a large building.
If you didn’t portray a mission at all, you’d be missing vital pieces of California history — not only the religious influence of the missions, but the fullness of the church’s role in Spanish colonization, which dominated centuries of life in this state. You’d be overlooking the missionaries’ introduction of European fruits like grapes and oranges, which became vital to the state’s agriculture; the spread of the Spanish language; and the decimation of native cultures by nonnative diseases, plants and overgrazing herds — all key chapters in state history.
So yup, show a mission on the state seal, with its cross on top. Suck it up, ACLU; you can’t eliminate the church from the history of the world.
But you know what I wish? That these decisions were made in the first place on a far more level playing field, instead of being decided one special-interest lawsuit at a time, and after the fact.
Take a look at the state seal: Where’s the symbol for the Chinese immigrants, the Gold Rush, the wine industry, the tech industry, Haight-Ashbury, Disneyland, garlic, Brussels sprouts, sequoias, coyotes, surfer dudes …? It’s only a matter of time before California will spend money on the next group’s lawsuit for equal inclusion. Maybe we should spend a little more time on equal inclusion in the first place.
The Rev. Amy Pringle
St. George’s Episcopal Church
La Cañada Flintridge