[kellynla]

I understand your point but I just don't know if the "religious" point should be pushed by the Cardinal making an appearance as much as the "history" behind the seal. After all, by pushing the "religious" one falls into the ACLU trap. By promoting the "history" of the cross and the mission in CA would disprove any "religious" connotation of the seal. I know my explanation is not very well stated but it's been a very long day...

[MindFire]

but by using that arguement, i think that's tantamount to conceding to the LIE that all religious symbols are forbidden, and the only reason we're 'begging' the cross to remain is because it has nothing to do with religion but rather symbolizes the 'history' of Los angeles.

I will never take that stance because IMO, that is buying into the big lie (that all religion must be Constitutionally banned).

I see that as grovelling,. like this:
"Please don't take the cross! it has NOTHING to do with Christianity or religon, i swear! it's just a historical reference! i swear i'd never allow anything religious to be on this seal, since that is Unconsittutional! you're right, ACLU, about that! But cant we please keep it for strictly 'historical purposes?' I promise i'll be good and do what you say!"

#$%^& No no no no no, never. That is hogwash!