[conservativephilosopher] New post at The Conservative Philosopher

[conservativephilosopher at lists.powerblogs.com]

Posted by William F. Vallicella:
Civil Liberties and the American Civil Liberties Union

   Civil liberties are precious and must be defended. Thus there can be
   no legitimate objection to the idea of an organization whose stated
   goal is to defend them. But an idea and its execution are two
   different things. The ACLU, however, badly executes the salutary idea
   in question. It is selectivist and extremist in its approach. It would
   be false to say that it defends only politically correct liberties.
   Recently, the ACLU has come to the defense of [1]Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
   But too many of the ACLU's crusades are politically correct and absurd
   to boot. The ACLU is an outfit unworthy of the support of reasonable
   Americans. Don't believe me? Read on.
   Suppose we briefly revisit last year's suit by the ACLU to have a
   small cross removed from the seal of the city of Los Angeles, a seal
   that is on every police car, and plenty of other places besides, and
   the alteration of which will be very costly. This action illustrates
   their agenda as well as anything does. They sued for removal of the
   cross on the ground that it violates the establishment clause of the
   First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This same seal, however,
   prominently displays the Roman goddess, Pomona, a wood-nymph who
   presided over fruit trees. (Trust me, I looked it up in Bullfinch's
   Mythology.)
   Therefore, if there were a good argument for removing the small cross,
   that would also constitute an argument for removing the image of
   Pomona. For if displaying a small cross constitutes an establishment
   of religion, then so does depicting a Roman goddess. There are
   polytheistic religions as well as monotheistic ones. If the idea is to
   remove every vestige of religion from public life, then surely the
   image of Pomona would have to be removed first, dominating as she does
   the seal.
   The ACLU jihadists' anti-Christian agenda is betrayed by their
   inconsistency in this regard. If it is absurd to demand the removal of
   Pomona from the seal -- and surely it is -- then a fortiori it is
   absurd to remove the small cross.
   The fundamental problem, however, is that too many leftists put an
   absurd construal upon the Establishment clause, which reads: "Congress
   shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
   prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." What that means is that
   Congress shall not set up any religion as the state religion
   membership in which would be a condition for holding office, voting,
   etc. What does this have to do with a small cross on a city seal?
   Nothing. In what way does the presence of that small cross establish
   Christianity as the state religion? In no way. It no more establishes
   Christianity as the state religion than the image of Pomona
   establishes Roman polytheism as the state religion.
   The cross is on the seal for mainly historical reasons: the city of
   Los Angeles developed around the Mission of L.A. established by the
   Spanish Catholic priest Junipero Serra. To obliterate the cross would
   be to obliterate a bit of L.A.'s history. 'Los Angeles,' by the way,
   is Spanish for the angels. To be consistent, then, the ACLU types
   would have to agitate for a name change. Would they perhaps prefer
   Cheech and Chong's 'El Lay'? Or would 'LaLaLand' be their preferred
   moniker? And while they are at it, they would have to agitate for a
   name change of the city of Pomona, a few miles east of downtown L.A.,
   and obviously named after that very same Roman goddess. It would be
   easy to go on like this, reducing to absurdity the whole ACLU project
   of eliminating any vestige of religion from public life.
   If you head west from Los Angeles, you arrive at Santa Monica hard by
   the Pacific Ocean. Should the 'Santa' be expunged? Should Santa Monica
   be renamed 'Sandy Monica'? Near San Gabriel is Alhambra, California.
   'Alhambra' was Arabic before it was Spanish. What if that name reminds
   someone of Islam, and, heaven forbid, militant Islam? What if someone,
   hearing 'Alhambra' is put in mind of al-Jazeera, or al-Hayat, or
   al-Zarqawi, the headchopper?
   It is clear that on this issue the ACLU types have no cogent
   arguments. Since it is not fact and reason that motivates them, what
   does? In part it is left-wing animus against religion, Christianity in
   particular, but also the typical leftist hatred of anything that
   actually exists and provably works. They would destroy what it has
   taken generations to build up in the name of a utopian fantasy.
   The Communist roots of the ACLU are [2]not in doubt. To build their
   utopia and usher in 'pie in the future,' Communists thought it
   necessary to destroy religion with its promises of 'pie in the sky.'
   This perhaps explains why the ACLU goes after the tiny cross while
   leaving the image of Pomona in peace. (Logically, they ought to demand
   the removal of both.) No one takes Roman polytheism seriously; not so
   for Christianity. Christianity is a threat to the 'progressive'
   agenda, and must be attacked for this very reason.
   (Crossposted at [3]Maverick Philosopher.)

References

   1. http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1113317102.shtml
   2. http://www.claremont.org/writings/040609palm_kran.html
   3. http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/