i am a christian. i do not agree with everything( i am pro-gay marriage), but in general i try to follow the ten commandments.

i want to bring up the removal of the cross from the los angeles symbol. the aclu has gotten enough power that now the los angeles symbol will remove the little cross on the right side of the symbol because it offends some non-christian visitors. i just want to say that religion in many cases is history. the city of los angeles was founded by catholic missonaries and thus, there is a small cross on it. it has been like that for 47 YEARS.

waht is troubling is that the centerpiece of the symbol is a pagan Goddess and the aclu hasnt complained about this whatsoever. I think that the aclu has an agenda against christian symbols ANYWHERE, but other religious symbols are ok. i understand if they want all religious articles gone, but to select only one religious symbol on a flag where there are a few is troubling. i just want to know what you all think....



also, in a related topic, how about the judge who allowed muslim prayers to be said in school because it was 'historical'. i bring this up because mnay christian symbols ARE historical.

thank you for your time

it has been like that for 47 YEARS.
I'd agree with you more if it was older then that. But 47 years is nothing, 47 years places the logic that it was another Cold War gimmick. Although, this is not really important. It is not directly affiliating the church, it is just recognizing the influence it had. It's just a symbol. Thus something completely different then god in the pledge. I vote it should stay.

waht is troubling is that the centerpiece of the symbol is a pagan Goddess and the aclu hasnt complained about this whatsoever. I think that the aclu has an agenda against christian symbols ANYWHERE, but other religious symbols are ok. i understand if they want all religious articles gone, but to select only one religious symbol on a flag where there are a few is troubling. i just want to know what you all think....
This, I think, is nothing short of ignorance. I don't know of any Pagans who actually believe in the existance of ancient Roman and Greek gods beyond moral figures. Not to mention the number of people during those times who actually believed the gods were really there also has evidence to be a rather small number. Nothing more than symbols and excelent figures for somebody's story. Ancient gods are extinct, and are nothing more then a moral or politcal symbol, no other meaning. Lady Liberty is not a goddess, just a symbol for liberty. Big difference between the use of ancient gods and the use of modern ones.

also, in a related topic, how about the judge who allowed muslim prayers to be said in school because it was 'historical'.
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen... But then again, was it being lead by the school? Otherwise prayer is fine, by any religion.

Originally posted by Blibblob
it has been like that for 47 YEARS.
I'd agree with you more if it was older then that. But 47 years is nothing, 47 years places the logic that it was another Cold War gimmick. Although, this is not really important. It is not directly affiliating the church, it is just recognizing the influence it had. It's just a symbol. Thus something completely different then god in the pledge. I vote it should stay.

waht is troubling is that the centerpiece of the symbol is a pagan Goddess and the aclu hasnt complained about this whatsoever. I think that the aclu has an agenda against christian symbols ANYWHERE, but other religious symbols are ok. i understand if they want all religious articles gone, but to select only one religious symbol on a flag where there are a few is troubling. i just want to know what you all think....
This, I think, is nothing short of ignorance. I don't know of any Pagans who actually believe in the existance of ancient Roman and Greek gods beyond moral figures. Not to mention the number of people during those times who actually believed the gods were really there also has evidence to be a rather small number. Nothing more than symbols and excelent figures for somebody's story. Ancient gods are extinct, and are nothing more then a moral or politcal symbol, no other meaning. Lady Liberty is not a goddess, just a symbol for liberty. Big difference between the use of ancient gods and the use of modern ones.

also, in a related topic, how about the judge who allowed muslim prayers to be said in school because it was 'historical'.
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen... But then again, was it being lead by the school? Otherwise prayer is fine, by any religion.

witches still follow the godess' and the muslim prayer was being said by a teacher in the classroom outloud to the students. also, even if people dont follow a religion it can still be offensive

Yes it was lead by the school, but also UC Irvine allowed the muslim students union to wear arm bands supporting hamas at graduation, so I guess in our attempt to not look like muslim haters we are doing what we have always done. Over compensate, and of course it is California, the people who freed OJ and the men who beat Reginald Denny on video....
I dont know why Ca. has to always be so PC they look socialistic. But I lived there for 6 years and it is as bad in person.. :D

I have to say that I disagree with a historical representation of a figure or symbol on another symbol being removed. It seems fairly stupid to try to erase history.

However, things like "Under God" and "In God we Trust" don't fall under that.

witches still follow the godess'
If by goddess you mean nature then yes. If by actual existance of a supreme being, then no. Witchcraft is nothing more than working with the forces of nature, and creating coincidences. Not pledging your life to a supreme being and asking for blessings. And I still like how druids were nothing more than scientists and moral teachers.

and the muslim prayer was being said by a teacher in the classroom outloud to the students
Alright, dumbest thing I have ever seen.

Originally posted by Lithorien
I have to say that I disagree with a historical representation of a figure or symbol on another symbol being removed. It seems fairly stupid to try to erase history.

However, things like "Under God" and "In God we Trust" don't fall under that.

well the country as a whole should vote on that. i know what the outcome would be

Originally posted by Blibblob
witches still follow the godess'
If by goddess you mean nature then yes. If by actual existance of a supreme being, then no. Witchcraft is nothing more than working with the forces of nature, and creating coincidences. Not pledging your life to a supreme being and asking for blessings. And I still like how druids were nothing more than scientists and moral teachers.

and the muslim prayer was being said by a teacher in the classroom outloud to the students
Alright, dumbest thing I have ever seen.

people get offended by everything. if there is a little cross or star of david big deal. also, i belive that 47 years is histroy. that is quite long for a city to have a symbol like that

Originally posted by no moore please
well the country as a whole should vote on that. i know what the outcome would be

Which is why we have the Constutition, isn't it?

well the country as a whole should vote on that. i know what the outcome would be
Yes, let's let the stupid people decide. If we let the stupid people decide we would still have slavery and we would still be a part of Britain. Exactly why a democracy wouldn't work, exactly why this is a republic.

Originally posted by Blibblob
well the country as a whole should vote on that. i know what the outcome would be
Yes, let's let the stupid people decide. If we let the stupid people decide we would still have slavery and we would still be a part of Britain. Exactly why a democracy wouldn't work, exactly why this is a republic.
Well I dont agree on still being a part of the UK but I do see what you are saying. But we stupid people are the ones who should be represented in the laws made by congress.
Now I am not saying that we should allow religion to make laws or govern the creation of laws, so dont co nuclear on me ;) .

Originally posted by Blibblob
well the country as a whole should vote on that. i know what the outcome would be
Yes, let's let the stupid people decide. If we let the stupid people decide we would still have slavery and we would still be a part of Britain. Exactly why a democracy wouldn't work, exactly why this is a republic.

it was a joke, jerry. i wouldnt go as far as the slavery

I would. On both accounts. The majority of the people before the Declaration of Independence didn't want it, and especially not a war. And there were still quite a few after it. The revolution began with little support. As for slavery, it to, there were still a lot of people in the north who wanted it, even after it was outlawed and the vast majority of the south. If majority ruled we would be completely fucked. As we all know, a lot of people in the US are illiterate, a lot more undereducated and a lot who were just born stupid. B_V, the people should be represented. The word would be represented, not ruling, not absolute. "Moral" is not always true. Especially in the hands of religion.

Originally posted by Blibblob
I would. On both accounts. The majority of the people before the Declaration of Independence didn't want it, and especially not a war. And there were still quite a few after it. The revolution began with little support. As for slavery, it to, there were still a lot of people in the north who wanted it, even after it was outlawed and the vast majority of the south. If majority ruled we would be completely fucked. As we all know, a lot of people in the US are illiterate, a lot more undereducated and a lot who were just born stupid. B_V, the people should be represented. The word would be represented, not ruling, not absolute. "Moral" is not always true. Especially in the hands of religion.

did you know that when they did the declarartion of independence they were thinking of abolishing slavery, but the sotuhern colonies said it was necessary to get the country going (a.k.a lame excuse). so actually the leaders of country who represented the north never wanted slavery

also jerry i was joking. most leaders are good.....but there are some bad ones like kofi anaan

Originally posted by Blibblob
I would. On both accounts. The majority of the people before the Declaration of Independence didn't want it, and especially not a war. And there were still quite a few after it. The revolution began with little support. As for slavery, it to, there were still a lot of people in the north who wanted it, even after it was outlawed and the vast majority of the south. If majority ruled we would be completely fucked. As we all know, a lot of people in the US are illiterate, a lot more undereducated and a lot who were just born stupid. B_V, the people should be represented. The word would be represented, not ruling, not absolute. "Moral" is not always true. Especially in the hands of religion.
Blib I said I agreed that we should be represented, There only a few times I think we should have direct input, besides election, I would like to see a system that if a President is impeached then the voters should be allowed to recall the President and of course replace the removed official.

so actually the leaders of country who represented the north never wanted slavery
I know that. Well, it's mostly true. They just treated their slaves like servants, instead of slaves. Since most of them were servants and only had a few years of a contract.

but there are some bad ones like kofi anaan
And Bush, and Kerry, and Reagan, and Nixon, and Jeb, and, hmm, who else...

Originally posted by Blibblob
so actually the leaders of country who represented the north never wanted slavery
I know that. Well, it's mostly true. They just treated their slaves like servants, instead of slaves. Since most of them were servants and only had a few years of a contract.

but there are some bad ones like kofi anaan
And Bush, and Kerry, and Reagan, and Nixon, and Jeb, and, hmm, who else...

reagan wasnt bad.....the other ones are horrible like kofi. he lets genocides happen

Anyone know if the ACLU has ever asked the city of St. Paul to change its name to just "Paul?"

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Anyone know if the ACLU has ever asked the city of St. Paul to change its name to just "Paul?"


lol. very, very good.

You know that was a good point and considering the guys arguing this are from St. Pete Florida I am surprised they didnt think of it........

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
You know that was a good point and considering the guys arguing this are from St. Pete Florida I am surprised they didnt think of it........

it is kind of sad. we were named after that crummy city in russia because we are like half way across the EARTH. also, when our anniversary is like 200, st.pete, russia is like 600. something like that. it is the same

Lionel I found this article and it is concerning. I am hoping it is not true.




LOS ANGELES - With their victory in Los Angeles County in eliminating the tiny Christian Spanish cross on the county's seal, the ACLU said today that they will now seek to change the Christian names of every California. He said the ACLU will attempt to convince the California State Senate and Assembly to legislate name changes voluntarily or face a massive suit in federal court.

Many cities and towns in California were given Christian names by the Catholic Spaniards before the state became Mexican territory. Spanish friars established a series of missions along "El Camino Real" from northern to southern Alta California and into Baja California. Each mission was given names such as "La Mision de San Francisco", "La Mision de Santa Barbara", and "La Mision de San Diego" . San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and San Diego were all Catholic Saints. The names stayed and adopted first by the Mexican government and later by the state government after the Mexican-American War that ended in 1848. Now the Jews want to undue the history of the region. It is not known if the Jews will also seek to change the name of the state's capital. Sacramento, in Spanish, means "sacrament".


I can only hope this was written as tongue in cheek.....

LOS ANGELES - With their victory in Los Angeles County in eliminating the tiny Christian Spanish cross on the county's seal, the ACLU said today that they will now seek to change the Christian names of every California. He said the ACLU will attempt to convince the California State Senate and Assembly to legislate name changes voluntarily or face a massive suit in federal court.
*Falls on the floor in a fit of laughter* Oh man, if this passes, we should officially declare California not part of the United States and blow up the fault and send it off into the Pacific.

it is kind of sad. we were named after that crummy city in russia because we are like half way across the EARTH. also, when our anniversary is like 200, st.pete, russia is like 600. something like that. it is the same
Living here, I've only met one Russian.

where did you get that from B_V? i cant tell becauise it seems like something those ati-christians would do

Originally posted by no moore please
where did you get that from B_V? i cant tell becauise it seems like something those ati-christians would do

First, that article is completely false. It's from a site called "Renze.com", which is about as believeable as Bill Clinton on a trial stand.

Secondly, no moore, not all "Anti-Christians" think that. Hell, I'd be against it, and I'm fairly "Anti-Christian". Depending on the defination.

So.. take that as you will.

Originally posted by Lithorien
First, that article is completely false. It's from a site called "Renze.com", which is about as believeable as Bill Clinton on a trial stand.

Secondly, no moore, not all "Anti-Christians" think that. Hell, I'd be against it, and I'm fairly "Anti-Christian". Depending on the defination.

So.. take that as you will.

well if you follow what the aclu does and doesnt go against it is clear that they have an agenda to take all christian history away. thanks for telling me where the article is from

Not where I found it, I saw it on a site defending the Seal of THe County of Los Angeles and am still checking into its validity.... I believe it was tongue in cheek as I said in my post..... I will post the site name as soon as I find it again and any evidence either supporting it or not.

I dont see how they could even attempt this but will find out.

This site is where I linked to the article, I believe... It is in my history and the only one that deals with the ACLU and LA

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/newspage.asp?story=1838

Maybe not so outrageous after all....
This Article is from The Daily Herald in Salt Lake City....


ACLU fights against rights Americans cherish

The Daily Herald

In the '40s and '50s, the ACLU would be labeled as a subversive organization and rightly so.

It claims to uphold the Constitution but threatens to sue cities for having a cross in their city emblems, as it has done in Redlands, Calif. They also tried to make Las Cruces change their name because Las Cruces means the cross.

In Salt Lake City, it tried to take the right of the owner of the Main Street Plaza away under the guise of freedom of speech. Under the Constitution, property owners have a right to do what they want on their property.

Where are a group of lawyers who are organized to protect people who are living an honest, law-abiding life but who can't pay lawyers to protect themselves or cities with the same problem.

Are we so sidetracked by making money and becoming famous that we are neglecting our freedoms?

Let us look for organizations that support our freedoms and contribute money to them so they can use their resources to help us protect our freedoms under the Constitution and read the Constitution and know what those freedoms are.

Martha R. Davis

here is the site
Daily Herald (http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=23078)