I posted about this in the past and received a lot of flack. But when has opposition ever stopped me, huh? It turns out that someone is suing the federal appeals court of San Francisco because, on the city seal, there is :: Begin Mock Horror :: an image of what can be viewed as the Ten Commandments. :: End Mock Horror ::
I think we all need to take a moment to reflect on how this news has changed the course of history, and our lives, forever. You can read the article, by the Associated Press, by clicking here.
Here is a picture of the seal that is apparently forcing religion down the throats of all of us unsuspecting viewers:
Did you see the ghastly visage of Christian oppression and control? No? Take another look:
You must be in as much shock as I am. Okay, all joking aside, for now. What gives? You mean to tell me that in the city of San Francisco there are not any more important issues requiring attention or lawsuits, that Pleasanton attorney Ryan Donlon feels the need to do this? I don’t even live in the city and I know there are bigger issues that someone with his lambition should focus on. Like the homeless, the battered, the hungry, etc.
Here’s my favorite part of the article:
Cathy Catterson, the court’s clerk, said the seal highlights a woman, known as “the Majesty of the Law” who is reading a large book. At her feet is a tablet with 10 unreadable lines on it, what Donlon believes is the Ten Commandments.
This is just as ludicris, in my opinion, as when the ACLU threatened to sue L.A. county over their seal which was also apparently offending the masses. As I’ve said before, I fail to see how having the Ten Commandments posted outside of a court house makes people feel oppressed or labeled. Life’s simply too short to get pissed off over every little thing you see that you don’t like.
Many have cited reasons for these lawsuits by these images infringing upon First Amendment rights. Nowhere in the first amendment does it mention separation of church and state. That phrase originated in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Southern Baptist church because they heard rumors that the United States was going to make the “Congregationalists” (I think it was them) the official religion of the country. So he wrote a letter to the Baptist people to let them know that the U.S. would never put in place one particular religion as the official religion. So the first amendment does not say that church and state will always be kept 100% separate, but says that everyone is free to worship how and whom they choose and will not face persecution for it. Don’t belive me? Read the First Amentment for yourself:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Having something the same shape as the Hollywood-ized Ten Commandments on an official seal, does not in any way bring hardship upon someone or persecute them for any opposing views. If someone gets that upset about a tiny, tiny image that resembles something religious, they’re living in the wrong country. Freedom of Speech comes bundled with the Freedom of Being Offended. It’s a two way street and unfortunately most people don’t realize it.
6 comments ↓
If someone gets that upset about a tiny, tiny image that resembles something religious, they’re living in the wrong country. Freedom of Speech comes bundled with the Freedom of Being Offended.
Bullshit. Freedom of speech in no way implies that an official government statement should endorse a particular religion. And your mocking description of the image does not diminish the fact that it’s a religous symbol. It doesn’t “resemble” something religious. Ask 100 people on the stree what that is: It’s the 10 Commandments. And on a court seal, no less. This isn’t about being offended. Private citizens can spout religion from the rooftops as far as I’m concerned.
The fact that there are more important issues to deal with is not wasted, but it has no bearing whatsoever on whether this wrong is worth fighting against. And, yes, I think it is worth fighting against. Religion has no place in government, and a tradition of religious entanglement with the state is not a sufficient reason to continue it.
I fail to see how having the Ten Commandments posted outside of a court house makes people feel oppressed or labeled.
It’s not the statue that matters: it’s the institutionalized religiousity that runs so deep in our culture that you don’t seem to realize it’s there. I have serious doubts that I could ever receive a fair trial from a judge who considers the basis for law to be beliefs I don’t share. As it is, atheists are basically useless as witnesses. The moment they wave away the Bible to be sworn in, and omit “So help me God,” 11 out of 12 of the jury members have already decided against them.
Read the First Amentment for yourself
I did. I seem to recall something about petitioning the government for… something or other. What were you complaining about, again?
In all honesty, when I first saw the seal, it looked like loaves of bread. In any case, on with the rebuttal!
And your mocking description of the image does not diminish the fact that it’s a religous symbol.
What part of it is religious? Tell me that. Show me where it is proven and specified that those things are in fact the Ten Commandments, and then I’ll grant you that this is a lawsuit over something other than one person’s theory.
As it is, atheists are basically useless as witnesses. The moment they wave away the Bible to be sworn in, and omit “So help me God,” 11 out of 12 of the jury members have already decided against them.
Is this speculation or fact?
I seem to recall something about petitioning the government for… something or other. What were you complaining about, again?
You mean the part that says “and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”?
Well, a “redress”, according to the dictionary means ” Satisfaction for wrong or injury”. I doubt that the image in the likeness of society’s opinion of what the Ten Commandments looked like caused anyone injury. And them having an image in the likeness of society’s opinion of what the Ten Commandments looked like (while it is someone’s assumption that it is in fact the Ten Commandments) doesn’t mean you were wronged or that you are owed something.
I find it hard to believe that this lawyer, who is practicing law, and who has made it up to this point in his/her life is all of a sudden injured and wronged by that image being on the seal. And I question anyone’s logical thought process who says otherwise because they are thinking with emotions rather than thinking rationally. That image in no way injured or wronged someone. Were you directly injured or wronged from the day of your birth until yesterday, when you saw that seal, as a result of what is in that image? No. You may not like it now, but that is vastly different from injury and being wronged.
My whole point with these issues, which seem to always be over looked when people go for the jugular, is that in a semi perfect world where there is nothing else to focus on, then these types of lawsuits wouldn’t seem as asinine. However, we do not live in a world that is even close to being perfect and given the state of things in San Francisco, this seems like such a paltry thing to get your (not you Ian, but “your” in general) knickers in a bunch over. Especially for a lawyer… they should know better, they see the types of things people sue over and know that there are more important things at hand. Like REAL injury and wrongs.
Is this speculation or fact?
Well, the 11 out of 12 was hyperbole, but I have been told by lawyer friends that it’s very common to make prior arrangements so that an atheist can swear on a black book of some sort that looks similar to the Bible. Prejudice against atheists in court is very real.
I find it hard to believe that this lawyer, who is practicing law, and who has made it up to this point in his/her life is all of a sudden injured and wronged by that image being on the seal.
A minor tweak: I find it hard to believe that this child, who is going to school, and who has made it up to this point in her life is all of a sudden injured and wronged by the fact that all her schoolmates are black.
You don’t have to be “all of a sudden” injured by something. When you believe something is illegal, you can sue to correct it. Even if it’s been that way for a hundred years.
they see the types of things people sue over and know that there are more important things at hand. Like REAL injury and wrongs.
Again, the fact that there are many battles worth fighting does not have anything to do with whether this one is worth fighting. You can argue that the seal is constitutionally valid (SCOTUS would agree with you), but you can’t argue that, if it’s unconstitutional, it’s only a little bit unconstitutional, and we probably shouldn’t bother fixing it.
In regards to your Athiests in court statement, I wasn’t trying to be a smart-ass, I just haven’t ever heard that before.
Again, I don’t mean to be a smart-ass, but I don’t understand what having all Black schoolmates has to do with this situation. It can technically be argued that the seal is unconstitutional but I don’t understand what being Black has to do with this. If someone decides that they’re wronged by being surrounded by Blacks, that’s not unconstitutional. That’s just that person being dumb. Or perhaps I’ve missed your point entirely =\
You can argue that the seal is constitutionally valid (SCOTUS would agree with you), but you can’t argue that, if it’s unconstitutional, it’s only a little bit unconstitutional, and we probably shouldn’t bother fixing it.
I agree, that IF something is unconstitutional, that it simply is and that there’s no middle ground. However, again, all emotion aside, the First Amendment does not say “all religious symbols will not be publically displayed”. It says that if one feels so inclined they can petition to have “it” (whatever “it” may be) un-done/reveresed based upon injury/being wronged. In this case, and I acknowledge the fact that not everyong worships a faith or the same faith, having something that has not even been decisivly proven to be the Ten Commandments generate a lawsuit does not seem to fit into the stipulations provided by that Amendment. And therefore to me seems petty. And as I’ve said before, I would hold the same viewpoint if the image in question was a lotus flower symbolizing the Buddhist faith, a Star of David, the Cresant Moon & Star of Islam, etc.
Now, I still think it was increadibly trivial (and not to start that debate again), but when the ACLU was trying to sue L.A. county, that could at least be proven without a doubt to be over an official seal containing a number of religious symbols. This one, however, leaves a good deal to be interpreted by each person. What looked like loaves of bread to me, may look like a religious symbol to you, or may look like “some sort of old school thing” which someone pointed out to me earlier today.
I guess I’m just jaded in thinking that there should always be priorities in life. I think this is, in the big scheme of things, a petty thing to get so upset over that one needs to start a legal process over it. I know there’s no law saying these seals can’t change but the work, energy and money involved, I feel, should be spent making the city better rather than making people mad over something.
When this is all said and done, San Francisco will still be San Francisco and nobody will be better off then they were before. Nobody that’s hungry will have been fed. Nobody will have been helped ease their addictions. Nobody will have helped the search for a cure to AIDS or cancer. These to me are the bigger, more important issues which should take priority. Unfortunately, not everyone feels the same way.
I don’t understand what having all Black schoolmates has to do with this situation.
Sorry, I didn’t explain well. I was comparing this situation to Brown v. Board of Education. Not because they are especially similar, but because I think your arguments against this case are equally applicable to Brown and that a comparison will show why they’re not good arguments. Here are your main arguments, paraphrased.
1. There are more important things to worry about.
Well, I can’t think that where a little girl in Kansas goes to school was ever really a critical problem facing our nation. In fact, it was a fool’s errand in the first place, because by the time the case was decided, Linda Brown was too old to go to the school she won a right to, and they knew that would be the case going in. However, instituionalized racism was, and this was an effort to break some of that. I feel the same way about institutionalized religion.
2. The Constitution doesn’t prohibit it.
I challenge you to either show me where the Constitution mentions racial segregation in public schools, declare that Brown v Board was bad law, or stop quoting the actual text of the First Amendment and claiming that it doesn’t apply to this case.
3. No one is directly “wronged” by it.
For this one, I’ll just quote your reply above: “If someone decides that they’re wronged by being surrounded by Blacks, that’s not unconstitutional. That’s just that person being dumb.”
And a few other comments:
This one, however, leaves a good deal to be interpreted by each person. What looked like loaves of bread to me, may look like a religious symbol to you, or may look like “some sort of old school thing” which someone pointed out to me earlier today.
Yeah, but this is a really easy question for the court to resolve, in one of two ways. First, they could simply ask the artist what it is. Second, they could apply the porn test: Does the average person see it as a religious symbol? If so, it’s a religious symbol. Your argument above is probably a good reason why this guy won’t win, but it’s not sufficient reason to make the case have no merit at all.
I know there’s no law saying these seals can’t change but the work, energy and money involved, I feel, should be spent making the city better rather than making people mad over something.
It’s unreasonable to decide for someone else what is important to them. It’s really easy to see that something doesn’t affect you, and assume that it doesn’t affect anyone. This is important. Not because the seal actually matters, but for the principle. And there are so many worse things someone could channel their time into. Actual destructive things. This guy is at least trying to work for beneficial social change.
2. The Constitution doesn’t prohibit it.
I challenge you to either show me where the Constitution mentions racial segregation in public schools, declare that Brown v Board was bad law, or stop quoting the actual text of the First Amendment and claiming that it doesn’t apply to this case.
One problem: I wasn’t talking about racism or race issues except to try to understand what you meant when you brough race issues into this discussion. Not once did I, or have I, said Brown v Board was a bad law or that the Constitution “mentions racial segregation in public schools.”
That’s you putting words in my mouth and challenging me to prove something I never said.
Since 90% of what I’ve said has been ignored, and you have chosen to bring superfluous matters into this discussion, I am hereby excersing my First Amendment rights by declaring this discussion dead.