“Imagine a country where the beliefs and philosophies of its founders had to be camouflaged in order to appease latecomers who, rather than accept the fundamentals of the country to which they emigrated, challenged each and every tenet because they found it “offensive.”
Welcome to America.
Back on June 1, 2004, Los Angeles County decided to remove a small cross from the County’s official seal. The decision was reached as a direct result of the ACLU, who sent an intimidating letter demanding the removal of the cross. Why? Because it is a Christian symbol.
This decision set off a firestorm of protest, resulting in a petition filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Michigan, asking the high court to review their challenge to the Los Angeles County’s policy decision to remove a small cross from the County’s official seal because it is a Christian symbol. The cross had been a part of the official seal since 1957.
For the record, the first Europeans to settle in southern California were Spanish missionaries. Los Angeles means “the angels” in Spanish, meaning Los Angeles is the “city of angels.”
According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “This is another example of the ACLU’s plan to purge every symbol of Christianity from the public square. That organization seems to have a particular aversion to crosses. The cross on the LA seal merely represented the history and heritage of LA County; it was not placed on the seal to promote Christianity. Nevertheless, by their unnecessary removal of the cross, the LA County Board of Supervisors chose to offend Christians, rather than to fight the ACLU.”
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Mr. Ernesto Vasquez, a County employee, who objected to the removal of the cross because it showed hostility towards Christians. According to the lawsuit, LA County’s official act ordering the removal of the cross “conveyed an impermissible state-sponsored message of disapproval of, and hostility toward, Christianity in violation of the Establishment Clause.”
Robert Muise, the attorney handling the case, commented, “This case will provide the court with the opportunity to abandon its much maligned Establishment Clause jurisprudence in favor of a standard that is consistent with our Nation’s religious history.” What has that jurisprudence been? According to firstamendmentcenter.org, “Although the Court’s interpretation of the establishment clause is in flux, it is likely that for the foreseeable future a majority of the judges will continue to view government neutrality toward religion as the guiding principle. Neutrality means not favoring one religion over another, not favoring religion over non-religion and vice versa.”
Unfortunately, this is what it’s come down to: having to go to court just to keep our nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage from being swept under the rug or, put another way, to keep the ACLU from favoring non-religion over religion, simply because a small minority is discomfited by the knowledge of that important legacy. There are those who will not stop until the dissolution of all the elements that make our great country worth defending is complete.
And if our heritage – from which the sheer brilliance of our culture emerged, providing greater liberties and opportunities for its citizens than virtually all other countries on earth – keeps getting broken up into little pieces, will anyone want to fight for it any longer?”
To read more click here.