"Prager suggests strongly that the signs not be overtly Christian – his point is that this is more about history (the history of California) than it is about religion per say or Christianity in particular."
While i certainly understand Pragers point, (and that was the same tactic used by Campaign for California Families when they had that anti-gay marriage rally.. not to 'focus' too much on religion, as the media would then try to pigeonhole the 'only opposition' as 'pesky religious types')/
In reality we have every right to focus on religion and Christianity in particular. heck, the aclu is lucky it's not a crucifix on the seal! LOL. since the 'missions' were Catholic.
By cowering down and being 'afraid' to mention Christianity, that misses the point. the fact is, its irrelevent whether this has to do with history or not. because the aclu FALSE arguement about 'separation of church and state' is a myth. the Constitution forbids Congress from establishing a religion.; or preventing the free exersize thereof.
what this does is limit congress. the Congress or the aclu have no authority to meddle or dictate what a city or county has on its seal. even if it IS BLATANTLY CHRISTIAN. so no, i won't 'cower down' and pretend this aint about Christianity. The truth is I was going to attend this meeting long before i heard Prager was going to be there. His presence is irrelevent to me.
The truth is, when these conservative groups cower down and are 'intimidted' & 'afraid' to mention religion or Judeo-Christian principles and instead claim theyre just 'degending history', what they are doing is CONCEDING to the aclu's false arguements, as if they have a shred of validity.
Neither The ACLU or their arguements have any validity whatsoever. The ACLU is a communist front group; that is why they were originally established; and their goal, among other things, is to remove all signs of God from all public life.
Of course we do, but the question is what is effective. I realize that, for Christians, there is a difference – and the ACLU is (in my opinion, deliberately,) misinterpreting the establishment clause – but if this were not about the Cross, but about the oil derricks on the seal, or some other aspect of the seal that would be wrong as well. It would not be as blatantly offensive to Christians as the removal of the Cross is to Christians but I would argue that it should be.
As a Christian I don’t care what the L.A. County board of supervisors thinks about the Cross. The Cross, to me, symbolizes the fact that God became man and of His own volition died on that Cross for my sins, and the sins of the members of the L.A. County board of supervisors for that mater. I realize that – at this time – the reason (the main reason) that the ACLU is pushing to remove the Cross is, because it is a cross. But give them an inch and they will take a mile.
There were in Christian missions in California, that is an historic fact. Removing the Cross from the seal will not alter my faith, removing the Cross will not alter history; but, removing the Cross will alter something that was – at least in part – designed to remind us of the history of the origins of California.
By cowering down and being 'afraid' to mention Christianity, that misses the point.
I really do not think so. The idea is to win. I certainly am not advocating denying the Christian symbolism of the Cross. And, again, I acknowledge that the ACLU’s interest was sparked because it was a Cross. But this is about truth, not faith.
I understand your anger but I think the more people who oppose this revision of history the better. They can’t affect my faith – religions tend to do better when oppressed, if we want to save souls perhaps we should let them have there way – but if tyranny were ever to exist, in this country, it would have to start with the denial of history.
That is why I think it is a good to keep overt religion out of this