Judge bans Christian cross..

[humble3d]

Judge bans Christian cross...

 

from Los Angeles County seal...  

 

[Aside: But, if you light that sucker on fire...
we can talk... NO!  WAIT!  THATS'S LOUISIANA! NOT LA] 

 

Los Angeles (AFP) - A federal judge in California has ruled that including a small Christian cross on the official seal of Los Angeles County is unconstitutional, siding with civil liberties advocates.

 

Thursday's decision, following a two-year legal battle, was handed down by US District Judge Christina Snyder, who said that including the religious emblem in the government symbol "places the county's power, prestige and purse behind a single religion, Christianity."

 

The case erupted in 2014 when the county had the cross drawn on top of the San Gabriel Mission which appears in the logo.

 

The move reversed a decision by officials a decade earlier to remove the cross from the seal, amid threats of legal action by various groups opposing the inclusion of the crucifix on the county symbol.

 

The LA county seal appears on flags and official stationery and government buildings across Los Angeles County.

 

Supporters of keeping the cross on the mission in the seal said it is a historically accurate symbol, given California's early settlement by Franciscan missionaries from Spain.

 

They also noted that courts have upheld the constitutionality of the phrases "in God We Trust" on US currency and "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

Thursday's ruling is a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which brought the suit.

 

Hector Villagra, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California and attorney Linda Burrow who represented plaintiffs in the case said in a statement Thursday that they were "heartened" by the ruling.

 

"It recognizes that Los Angeles is a diverse county comprised of adherents of hundreds of faiths as well as non-believers, all of whom are entitled to be treated with equal dignity by their government," they said.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-bans-christian-cross-los-angeles-county-seal-182447666.html

 

[vibranium]

I'd say this is a victory for the lawyers. Waste of time and money.

 

[tiliarou]

This is a victory for secularity (laïcité) and democracy. It is not normal in state based on institutions and secularism to have religious symbols or religious precept applied. I totally understand this decision. I hope that one day, the dollar bill will not mention "in god we trust" and that you will not swear on the bible but on the constitution in court.

[jtmulc]

I'm with President Kennedy on this:

 

Quote

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. -Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960

 

As I Christian, I want a strong barrier between church and state for the same reasons as atheists and Non-Christians: I don't want someone else's beliefs forced upon me or my family.  The people fighting hardest to mingle church and state do not belong to my church.  My church uses the New American Bible, theirs uses the shorter King James Version (or worse, the prosperity Gospel).  My church doesn't teach creationism and accepts that Darwinian evolution is the prevailing scientific theory for life on this planet.  My church believes in the healing power of prayer, but also believes that God works through people, such as doctors and nurses.  My church, in short, is not their church and my religious beliefs are not theirs, and neither I nor anyone else should be subject to them.  We've tried Christian theocracy , it doesn't work out well for any of the participants.

[flash48]

The judge should go back to school to learn the constitution.  To the contrary, the constitution does not have a clause indicating "separation of church and state".  The founding fathers before every meeting had an opening prayer.  This country was founded on the belief of God.

[andy2004]

Belief of God ?? which one.

[2Old2Remember]

Well if you really love God,  (@andy2004 the Creator of this earth and us, like He gave account in Genesis of the old kjv bible  ) then removing the cross shouldn't do anything to you. We should be Worshiping Jesus Christ not the cross. The symbol of true God fearing people should be by the lives that they live. There should be no special symbol other than defending Jesus. The cross and Mary and all these other things that we get caught up with can do nothing for us.

[jtmulc]

14 hours ago, flash48 said:

This country was founded on the belief of God.

 

This country was founded on MANY beliefs of God.  You had Puritans in New England, Quakers in Pennsylvania, Catholics in Maryland, plus Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Deists (and more), none of whom liked or got along with anyone else (except the Quakers) thanks to centuries of bickering and infighting in Europe.  The Founding Fathers wisely saw that to accommodate everyone, they must favor no one.

 

[2Old2Remember]

I have a question though that i don't understand. If i take a glass of water and throw it up, almost immediately it will come down. same with ice. Right? Then how is it that tons of water and ice can form above us for days and not fall? I mean one ice block can bust someone's head. I would hate to think that a whole sheet of that is hovering above me. Someone please explain.

[tiliarou]

18 hours ago, flash48 said:

The judge should go back to school to learn the constitution.  To the contrary, the constitution does not have a clause indicating "separation of church and state".  The founding fathers before every meeting had an opening prayer.  This country was founded on the belief of God.

The constitution have a clause stating that states and institutions should display religious symbols ? No, so the judge can stay where he is.

The founding father didn't mentioned anything about slavery, yet not so long after they died america and europe were the the champions of slavery, and yet the constitution promote freedom for everyone. So we don't care what the founding father believed at this time, we evolve, so does the world, no need to go back to ancient bullshit just because we used to believe them for so long.

[Sylence]

22 hours ago, jtmulc said:

I'm with President Kennedy on this:

 

 

As I Christian, I want a strong barrier between church and state for the same reasons as atheists and Non-Christians: I don't want someone else's beliefs forced upon me or my family.  The people fighting hardest to mingle church and state do not belong to my church.  My church uses the New American Bible, theirs uses the shorter King James Version (or worse, the prosperity Gospel).  My church doesn't teach creationism and accepts that Darwinian evolution is the prevailing scientific theory for life on this planet.  My church believes in the healing power of prayer, but also believes that God works through people, such as doctors and nurses.  My church, in short, is not their church and my religious beliefs are not theirs, and neither I nor anyone else should be subject to them.  We've tried Christian theocracy , it doesn't work out well for any of the participants.

 

Did I just read it right? new Bible? when did the God release the Bible ver 1.1?

how a distorted book is still holly! lol 

[jtmulc]

8 hours ago, saeed_dc said:

Did I just read it right? new Bible? when did the God release the Bible ver 1.1?

how a distorted book is still holly! lol

 

Unlike The Quran, which was written in one language over the course of decades, what we call The Bible is made up of many books written by different authors over the course of many centuries in three different languages (ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek).  Ancient texts are fragmented and can differ from one another.  Also, languages change over time.  Shakespeare's plays, for example, are written in "Modern" English, yet nobody talks like that now and that was a few centuries ago.  The most recent books of The Bible are almost 2,000 years old.  All of this makes translating it very difficult and much thought is given to each word as sometimes there are several interpretations. 

 

Your profile says you live in Iran and you write in conversational English.  I would guess you speak at least some Farsi.  In translating between the two, do you go by what the person literally said, or by what they meant?  It's usually a mixture of both.  Now imagine doing it for books hundreds and thousands of years old where you don't know the author and parts are missing. 

 

tl;dr: Yes, there are over 400 translations of The Bible into English alone, with modern ones being continually revised.

[Sylence]

33 minutes ago, jtmulc said:

 

Unlike The Quran, which was written in one language over the course of decades, what we call The Bible is made up of many books written by different authors over the course of many centuries in three different languages (ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek).  Ancient texts are fragmented and can differ from one another.  Also, languages change over time.  Shakespeare's plays, for example, are written in "Modern" English, yet nobody talks like that now and that was a few centuries ago.  The most recent books of The Bible are almost 2,000 years old.  All of this makes translating it very difficult and much thought is given to each word as sometimes there are several interpretations. 

 

Your profile says you live in Iran and you write in conversational English.  I would guess you speak at least some Farsi.  In translating between the two, do you go by what the person literally said, or by what they meant?  It's usually a mixture of both.  Now imagine doing it for books hundreds and thousands of years old where you don't know the author and parts are missing. 

 

tl;dr: Yes, there are over 400 translations of The Bible into English alone, with modern ones being continually revised.

 

What you're saying is true, but it still does mean that the book is distorted. it's not a story book or some Shakespeare's plays, it should be a holly book away from distortion because it's believed by more than a billion (do you think it's a small number?)

 not like this that some governments or kingdoms order to change it or omit the parts which is against their desires or add even new texts. 

Quran, on the other hand, was revealed and written by humans in Arabic, simply because it was the language of the place it was written in, nothing else. if it had been revealed in UK or Iran it would be originally in English or Persian now. you can go to www.quran.com and see the translation too in a dozen other languages. see that's not my point!

there is no Quran ver 1.1 or new Quran, you never hear someone saying I have a newer Quran than yours, or my version is the most complete one. I hear these phrases a lot about Bible, mostly U.S.

btw there is someone named salman rushdie, well this idiot released a book called satanic verses and in it he tried to distort Quran and wrote his own beliefs. for the same reason he received prizes in some book Expos and that's clearly due to political intentions.  (I also should mention that he hides like a rat and doesn't experience a normal life since then)  

[WALLONN7]

19 minutes ago, saeed_dc said:

( ... ) not like this that some governments or kingdoms order to change it or omit the parts which is against their desires or add even

new texts. ( ... )

 

Toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo late...

[2Old2Remember]

11 hours ago, saeed_dc said:

 

Did I just read it right? new Bible? when did the God release the Bible ver 1.1?

how a distorted book is still holly! lol 

I like your statement. If you read the new versions of the bible you realize that there are a lot of play on words, distorting the original meanings of texts. for example. Genesis 1:5 has " And the evening and the morning were the first day." letting you know that that particular evening and morning was the actual first evening and morning and day on earth.

...but the other translations have something similar to " And there was evening and there was morning , the first day." alluding to there already being evening and morning before, and that this particular one was called the first day (which makes no sense)

 

In modern English you can say one sentence that means something good and sad and ugly at the same time. With the old KJV Bible so deep as it is, why would I want to read a modern English bible which would complicate things even more?