Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

I don't know if you guys heard but LA wants to change their crest to remove a cross and a goddess on it. THIS IS DUMB. why waste time and money dealing with petty things when we can deal with other stuff...grrr, keep our culture and don't waste taxpayer's money.

http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/ktla-me-seal15sep15-lat,0,1600464.story?coll=ktla-news-1

opinions?

By Bumblebee83 (Bumblebee83) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 12:53 am: Edit

again, my friend, just because it is part of our supposed "culture" doesn't make it right. Beyond that a cross is an obvious allusion to one specifc religion and ina city like LA, it;s entirly unacceptable to make people and the city they live in be represented by something they don't believe or agree with.

By Bumblebee83 (Bumblebee83) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 12:58 am: Edit

Ok, now that I've looked at your profile and realized you're female....
It was (still is) tradition in this country for women to stay home and raise children. It is part of our culture that women get lower paying jobs, or just plain get paid less for the same amount of work. Maybe you're young enough that you have yet to experience it....or maybe you never will. But sexism is alive and kicikn' and thats not ok, it;s not fair and it's not right, but it is a traditional MO in this country, and many others.
Now, that cross is the same thing. Christians are good, right? It's the traditional religion of our country. BUT there are thousands, if not millions, of people in LA that are agnostic, aetheist, muslim, jewish, buddhist, whatever. Not fair to them. It's not stupid, it's extremly important actually.

By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Theres a picture of a Roman goddess on the seal too. That offends me because I am do not worship Romans gods. Help! I'm being oppressed!

By Sticksandstones (Sticksandstones) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 05:51 pm: Edit

THIS IS DUMB. Why waste time and bandwidth writing this petty poster rather than discussing actual current events!grr

By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 06:11 pm: Edit

How is this not a current event?

By Tlaktan (Tlaktan) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 06:40 pm: Edit

And yet, we'd waste 3 million dollars on something as stupid as that. I'm not using the culture argument.

By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 07:27 pm: Edit

While I understand the politically correct stuff, I am not sure if this motion is a good move. Do we need to rename the city of Providence, Rhode Island? I believe the money can be better spent.

By the way, doesn't the cross on the crest have some historical significance?

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 07:40 pm: Edit

"Theres a picture of a Roman goddess on the seal too. That offends me because I am do not worship Romans gods. Help! I'm being oppressed!"

LMAO...

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 08:05 pm: Edit

*Yawn*... more Los Angeles crazies... typical Hollyweird

By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 08:59 pm: Edit

The name Los Angeles means "the angels" and comes from a catholic background. It just makes my blood boil when I think of all of those California cities that clearly promote catholicism, like San Diego, San Franscico, Sacramento, and so many more! why haven't we changed them to more neutral and tolerant names!

By Feuler (Feuler) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 10:19 pm: Edit

Haha, Yackitiyack!

Seriously... I agree with the OP. I'm all for greater freedom from religion, but the city seal isn't forcing religion on anyone. It's a historic symbol. It would be different if they were making a seal for the first time.

Just because the demographics and culture of a city change does not mean things like names and symbols have to as well.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 01:13 am: Edit

los angeles is full of hispanics, and most hispanics are Catholic, so it's not like everyone is going to be like "OMG I'M SOOOO OFFENDED!"

i live in LA county

and anyway, it's a TINY LITTLE CROSS! I talked to my atheist friends about this. First off, most have never seen the seal (so it's not like something you see pop up everywhere._) Second off, once they do, they don't see it as offesnsive at all.

You can't deny LA's history--this city was founded by Catholic missionaries! That's all it's purpose in the seal is, a symbol of history.

SHEESH! Stupid ACLU is basically promoting their own religion...it jsut happens to be godless and it's getting shoved down everyone else's throat.

By Bumblebee83 (Bumblebee83) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 02:08 pm: Edit

I liove in LA county too and I'm an aethist and you do to see that seal everywhere, like on every single police car, metermaid, DWP van etc.
I'm not offended by it, and I don't think I'm being oppressed
"Stupid ACLU is basically promoting their own religion...it jsut happens to be godless and it's getting shoved down everyone else's throat."
Hmmm.... so you're upset about ACLU shoving their thoughts into your face but it's ok for other people to do the same thing.

By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 02:35 pm: Edit

No one is shoving religion down anyone's throat, its a symbol of the catholic missionaries who established LA. If the cross is an outrage, why not change the name of all of the spanish-catholic city names in California? And why not take the Roman Goddess off of the seal too? She certainly has religious significance.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 07:53 pm: Edit

I think you can acknowledge the contributions of religion (even a particular religion)to your society without it being a mandate to practice that religion. It's freedom of religion, not the exile of religion.

Why not treat religion like any other sector of society? For instance, there might be something in some city's seal that honors the influence of Africans or Irish, or a certain species of animal that is significant to that city's history. Just because someone might be offended by it is no reason to discontinue it.

It remains true that the Catholic church was a huge influence in the establishment of Los Angeles, and not to acknowledge and honor that influence is just plain petty. And please don't try to rewrite history and claim that the early Catholic settlers or the priests were all evil murderers. I figure that's next.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 11:45 pm: Edit

nicely put chavi!!!

By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 01:34 am: Edit

"And please don't try to rewrite history and claim that the early Catholic settlers or the priests were all evil murderers."

History doesn't need to be rewritten. It is historical fact that Catholic missionaries came to California, enslaved much of the indigenous people, actively destroyed Native American culture, and left millions of dead in their wake. Despite their oath of chastity, the Catholic priests even raped Native American women, and introduced "firewater" to degrade the natives' society even further. Is this the rich history you want to commemorate on the city seal?

I personally wouldn't mind seeing LA eliminate the cross from their city seal. It's history isn't that great and it's offensive to people of other religions.

By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 01:50 am: Edit

Unfortunately, NO ONE's history is perfect. Were the Catholic missionaries all wonderful all the time to the natives? No way. Are they a great part of the history that founded California (and LA in particular)? Yes. Again, why not change all the names of the cities in CA to more neurtal tolerant names that have NO history at all, and while we're at it take the Roman goddess off of the seal too since she certainly has religious significance. And the Romans certainly do not have a 100 % happy flowery past either. And we may as well give Minerva the boot from the state seal too because she represents that Roman religion, which I do not practice. Consistency?

By Bumblebee83 (Bumblebee83) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 05:11 pm: Edit

They are taking off the godess and replacing her with a Native American woman I believe.
Stanford, I agree with you completely

By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 01:25 am: Edit

Really? hmmmm....What about Minerva on the state seal? should she go too? What would you recommend? How is naming entire cities(and counties) of California after religious entities any different then putting a historical religious symbol on a seal for one county in California?

By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 10:16 pm: Edit

?

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 11:07 pm: Edit

Yackityack,

Unfortunately, no one will answer your query because it is impossible to extricate religion as a part of our culture/history and pointless to try. Why can't religion simply be viewed as a product of human culture (which it is...duh), rather than an odious, maladaptive trait to be done away with at all costs. (Because they won't admit that this is exactly how they view it, they'd rather cloack it as a desire not to offend or something similar, when it is obviously a form of intolerance.)

By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 01:44 am: Edit

^^^word.

By Bumblebee83 (Bumblebee83) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 03:18 pm: Edit

Actually, I agree with you. Most people say that they are trying not to offend. I, on the other hand, just really don't like religions in general and I think the world would be a happier place if they didn't exist. I'm not intolerant, do whatever you want in your own life, but I don't think I should have to accept your religion or it's symbols, characters whatever as a part of my life.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 03:33 pm: Edit

"...but I don't think I should have to accept your religion or it's symbols, characters whatever as a part of my life."

Some people would say that about homosexuality. Have a problem with that? What if someone says that the Gay Pride Parade traversing Main Street is having homosexuality as "a part of their life"? You see how it is intolerance?

By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 12:51 pm: Edit

The world isn't going to be a better place because a cross gets taken off of the LA county seal, or if we change the name Los Angeles to something without religous significance, or if a Roman goddess becomes some other historical non-religious symbol, IMO.

By R_Crumb (R_Crumb) on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 11:50 pm: Edit

I thought you were talking about Louisiana at first.
If you are going to rename hispanic Catholic names of cities, then why not rename East Coast cities that have become ethnic, but which have retained their WASPy names?
NYC, often refered to simply as "New York", which is also the the name of the largest state north of the Carolinas, was called Niue Amsterdam (under the Dutch), until it was named for the Duke of York (who had nothing to do with
the place) when the English took it over. Wilmington Delaware was named for English nobility in a similar manner (started as "Fort
Christina" under the Sweedes, it became "Altea" under the Dutch, and after the English had it became "Willington" and later got it's
present name, at about the same time as Wilmington NC, probably later). Boston Massachusetts was called "Shawmut" under the Native Americans and started out as "Trimontaine" (meaning three mountains/hills) under the English, but was soon given it's current name after the hometown in England of many puritans.

By Taffy (Taffy) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 12:07 am: Edit

i hate how theres always somebody to cry about something, and then we think that because one person is crying we have to wipe their tears. reminds me of how the San Diego State University mascot is an Aztec, and they had some cool mascot suit, but out of the 30,000 students, ONE PERSON complained that it was offensive to native americans... so now they have some pansyassed mascot who goes through the crowds and educates people about native americans...

By R_Crumb (R_Crumb) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 01:07 pm: Edit

If the USA was carved up, and the religious right, as well as the anti-religious left, each got their own countries -people would be alot happier.

By Taffy (Taffy) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 03:01 pm: Edit

^ this isnt israel..

By Mexbruin (Mexbruin) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 03:46 pm: Edit

LETS VOTE!

By R_Crumb (R_Crumb) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 11:59 pm: Edit

Sorry Taffy, but some ideological groups make other ideological groups sick. Certain groups of people should have their own countries where they can think the way they want without some other group of people riding their viewpoints/philosophies on things and trying to change them to be more like themselves.

There's nothing wrong with having a country run by the religious right and another run by the anti-religious left. Control group A and control group B. Leave them alone (to an extent) for a few generations and then maybe we can see who's society worked out better.


And besides
Isreal is a tiny country (if you are referring to the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights etc.) while the USA takes up a huge chunk of the Earth's land area, and can afford to be carved up a few times.