PC Ignorance Reigns

An article appeared in the news noting that a California Federal Judge ruled against the County of Los Angeles relative to a new county seal the county had adopted.

An annotated picture of the new seal is shown below. The annotations are important to this discussion.

Legal action was taken due to a small cross depicted on the seal. The cross sits atop a depiction of a mission. Missions were established up and down the west coast of California by the Catholic Church during the years of 1769 through 1823. There were 21 missions in total built. They were situated approximately 20 miles from each other. This was due to the fact that 20 miles was about the limit one could travel in one day.

The depiction of a mission on the county seal was meant to recognize the history of their importance to the founding of California.

The federal judge ruling against the county's seal offered the opinion that a display of a cross ran afoul of the "Establishment Clause" in our Constitution. The entirety of the Establishment Clause, a portion of the 1st Amendment, is offered in the above picture of the seal in question.

The Establishment Clause clearly and simply states that CONGRESS may not prohibit the exercise of religion, any religion, nor take action to establish a religion, any religion - even considering the 14th Amendment's applicability.

It says nothing (nor does anything else in the Constitution say even one word) about how a state or city - much less a county - government may view or act relative to a depiction of a religion's historical importance, any religion. And, let's not forget the "make no law..prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." part.

As much as some liberals/progressives would like to believe the US Constitution provides them freedom FROM religion, it does just the opposite. It establishes that everyone is free to exercise their beliefs - or, have none at all.

Shall we soon expect these same people to demand and bring suit to have "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río de Porciúncula" - or, Los Angeles' real name, change its name as well? After all, how religious are angels?

And another thing. Did this "judge" receive his education on the US Constitution from WalMart? Or, as I suspect, did he go to Harvard? From what I've seen of late, there's hardly a difference in Constitutional education between the two.

To provide a bit of expansion on my above comment, it seems apparent that the "judge" in this case (and all those who judge alike) seem not to be aware of, have no understanding of, or choose to ignore what is called "The Lemon Test".

The "Lemon Test" has been used by the Supreme Court to adjudicate issues involving The Establishment Clause. Basically it offers 3 distinct "tests":

A Government (any US government) action violates the Establishment Clause unless it:

1. Has a significant secular (i.e., non-religious) legislative purpose,

2. Does not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and

3. Does not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Look again at the seal.

The "little cross" is surrounded by secular depictions, thus obviating a "religious purpose" - especially a legislative one.

The seal's primary effect is clearly not to advance or inhibit a religion.

The seal hardly fosters excessive government/religion entanglement.

The seal answers positively all 3 "UNLESS" tests of the "Lemon Rule".

The Political Correctness movement among a goodly number of people in the Nation will be the downfall of our civilization. Is this an exaggeration? I think not! Anytime people are not free to express themselves without undue ridicule or without government intervention, freedoms are lost. This Nation's culture was founded on individual freedoms. Our Constitution was crafted with this in mind.

As we watch our government erode our freedoms little by little, we should question what unintended consequences may be the result. And, I don't think we'll like the answers.