(by Tracy Baker)
First, I should state that I do find some of the actions of the ACLU acceptable -- as long as they stick to their namesake. That is, defending the Civil Liberties (e.g. constitutional rights) of individual Americans against the government that would infringe on those rights. Of course if they only did this, they'd be called conservatives, eh?
However, when they start sticking their liberal noses in issues other than these, I cannot condone their actions. In an articles by the Los Angeles Times (and other sources):
(http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2169384,00.html)
It is reported that the ACLU sued the county of Los Angeles to have a little cross removed from the county's seal because it is an "impermissible endorsement of Christianity."
Excuse me?
The cross is there because the city and county of Los Angeles came into being because of the Spanish mission that was founded there. In fact, every 4th grade student in the state of California knows this because they're required to do a report on the California Spanish missions! (Oops, I shouldn't say that too loudly, or the ACLU will make them stop that practice, too.)
So, the cross, along with a mission building, a fish, a cow, the Goddess Pomona as well as other things make up the seal -- each signifying a portion of L.A. county's history. Yes, the cross represents a historical aspect of the seal, not a religious one.
Oh! Did I mention the Goddess Pomonoa? Why yes I did. And, no, the ACLU did not ask for that religious icon to be removed. Strange. I guess its pick-and-choose which religious icons are okay and which aren't season...
A judge in this state did rule that the teaching of Islam (part of the CA school core curriculum, including the recitation of Musilim prayers and re-enactments of Jihads) does not violate the separation of church and state because it is being done for "educational purposes". So, take this cross issue in this context, and it too, doesn't violate the church-and-state issue since it is part of the seal in a historical context.
Take a look and see for yourself:
So, the county has decided to remove it -- because they didn't want to spend the money defending the case in court. Nevermind that there are other organzations out there that would have defended the case at no cost to the county -- if they had but asked.
Also, in other news the ACLU sued the city of Las Cruces, New Mexico (The Crosses) to have them change their name -- again because of the "religious" connotations. Luckily, they lost. Otherwise, we may be faced with the prospect of changing the name of every site city, county, etc. that has a "San", "Santa", "St." or "Ste." in its name because each one of these means saint -- a Christian, specifically Catholic, designation.
Everyone, including the ACLU, likes to bandy about the words, "separation of church and state". I'd like to point out, however, that this does not mean a separation of church from state. For instance, your currency still has "In God we trust" printed on it. We still say, "So help me God" when testifying in court (although any person who objects to this particular phrasing can choose to say something otherwise). I mean heck, our government officials still attend the churches, synagogues, temples and altars of their choice, don't they? If there was true separation of church and state, one could easily argue that any and all government employees (never mind just the ones who were elected -- we'd have to include even the janitors) would have to disassociate themselves completely with any religion. Maybe this sounds extreme, but I mean really, was the first thing you noticed on the L.A. County seal really the Christian cross -- or was it the Goddess Pomona?
What separation of church and state really means is that there will be no state-run church in this country, unlike the Anglican Church in England. I am not suggesting that we do have a state-run religion. Au contraire! I think it very healthy that we do not. I think our country benefits greatly from having Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindis, Atheists and you-name-it here. Such a mixture of religions makes for a healthier society – as long as everyone is free to practice their faith. And this is something the constitution guarantees.
The fact cannot be denied, however, that this country was founded with Judeo/Christian values. To move away from these values means changing the very core of who we are as a country. These are the values that teach us to be kind to others, respect for all things and perhaps even most importantly, to do what is right and have the conviction to go through with it. I would suggest to you that if more people in this country would remember and practice this particular ethos in the their daily lives, the country would be so much better off than it is now – particularly from a societal point-of-view.
I welcome those who would argue with my opinion and even those who disagree with me, because that's free speech and I'm a complete believer in constitutional rights. I strongly believe, however, that those people and organizations that would undermine our religious/cultural heritage in an effort to create some irreligious society are simply creating a situation where this great country is doomed. I think that by going down this road we're setting ourselves up to be conquered from forces stronger than us because they'll still have a conviction in something greater than themselves.
This is why I believe the ACLU is a very dangerous, and insidious, organization. They should really re-examine what they’re doing and the reasons why they’re doing it. Perhaps they’d best be served by protecting the individual’s constitutional rights against the loss of such rights by the government.