LOS ANGELES, TOO MUCH GOD

IN LOS ANGELES, TOO MUCH GOD
Wed Oct 31, 7:57 PM ET

Question for today: Constitutionally speaking, how much God is too much God? We may get one more ambivalent answer if the Supreme Court takes the pending case of Ernesto Vasquez against Los Angeles County.

The petitioner identifies himself simply as "a devout Christian." He has sued the Board of Supervisors for voting in 2004 to abandon the county's official seal because it contained a cross. He believes the change "conveys a message of disapproval and hostility toward Christianity and sends a clear message to Christians that they are outsiders, not full members of the Los Angeles community."

This is the story:

In 1957, Los Angeles County adopted a new official seal to replace its old seal of 1887. The new model contained images of:

the goddess Pomona standing on the Pacific shore, holding in her arms a cornucopia of oranges, lemons, grapes and avocados;

an engineer's triangle and caliper;

the Spanish galleon that Juan Cabrillo sailed into San Pedro Harbor in 1542;

a tuna;

Pearlette, a champion cow;

the Hollywood Bowl;

two stars symbolizing the motion picture industry;

oil derricks;

and finally, barely visible, a small cross, representing the early missions in California.

Some critics might regard the design as a little too much of a muchness. Less is more! The American Civil Liberties Union gazed upon the clutter and saw only the little cross. In the eyes of the ACLU that made the seal unthinkable, unbearable, and unconstitutional besides. It trampled upon the sensibilities of every visiting or resident atheist. The cross had to go!

Thus it went. Three years ago, under threat of expensive litigation, Los Angeles County revised its official seal. Out went Pomona, the cross and the derricks. In came (1) an Indian woman holding a basket, and (2) a Spanish mission. The changes that offended Ernesto Vasquez were enough to calm the raging libertarians. U.S. District Judge S. James Otero threw out the Vasquez suit. Six months ago, a panel of the 9th Circuit, speaking through Judge Richard R. Clifton, affirmed. We will soon learn if the Supremes will plunge again into the thicket of First Amendment law.

To refresh everyone's memory: The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

We simple folk, untutored in the rites of First Amendment law, have a serious problem understanding what the amendment permits and what the amendment forbids. Anomalies abound. The Founding Fathers evidently didn't understand that "no law" means "no law." They had no sooner adopted the amendment before they passed a law providing chaplains for the houses of Congress. They created courts in which witnesses must swear to tell the truth "so help me God." Our elected leaders formally seek divine assistance.

The case law is beyond a layman's comprehension. Under the tax code we may deduct contributions to religious bodies. Establishments of religion pay no taxes on their real estate. Public funds finance the police who facilitate parochial funerals.

From the very beginning, our public life has been deeply, inextricably, linked to religion. How did the Founding Fathers sign the Constitution? They signed it "in the Year of Our Lord 1787."

Contradictions abound in our own time. If Congress can make "no law" respecting an establishment of religion, how come our coins and currency bear a message every child can understand? They affirm "In God We Trust." We unsophisticated folk need help.

We will get no help from Judge Clifton's opinion in the case at hand. He appeared to be impressed by the argument that some residents of Los Angeles were suffering unbearable "spiritual harm" whenever they laid eyes upon the old city seal. We imagine the pre-ACLU days when a police car, bearing the city seal, passes near a passel of atheists. Even in the company of a cow and a fish, the cross offends them gravely. The atheists faint, they palpitate, they turn their eyes! The psychic harm is unbearable, insufferable, unconscionable! It is "the unwelcome direct contact with a religious display," to quote Judge Clifton, that does them constitutionally in.

If the high court declines to take this case, the seal of the City of Los Angeles will lose its little cross for good. Henceforth it will bear the image of an old Catholic mission instead. Ain't constitutional law just wonderful?
-=--=-=-====-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=

ACLU=(Anti Christ Liberals Union)
Duane