|
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has voted to remove a
small cross from its official seal after “negotiating” with the
American Civil Liberties Union to, you guessed it, avoid a
separation of church and state suit.
If you are wondering what it is like to negotiate with
the ACLU, it takes about five minutes and sounds something like
this: “We don’t have real jobs. People with more money than sense
give it to us to sue people like you. People like you have streets
to repair, schools to run, and police and fire departments to pay.
Do exactly what we want, now, or we will tie you up in court until
Judgment Day, or at least until every school, firehouse, and police
station in the county has to be shut down to pay your legal bills.”
Federal courts have ordered the removal of crosses in
similar cases in Ohio, Illinois, and New Mexico. In the great state
of Texas, where folks are less inclined to be held hostage by this
kind of twaddle, a federal court ruled that a cross on the Austin
city seal simply reflected the city’s history, and was surrounded by
several secular symbols to boot.
This would seem to bode well for the Los Angeles seal,
to which the cross was added in 1957 to commemorate the Catholic
missions that were the origin of both the city and county. Yet
county supervisors folded like wet cardboard, led by Supervisor
Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, who tried to get the cross removed herself
in 1994.
The cross is so small I suspect most Angelinos didn’t
know it was there until the ACLU threatened to sue. Joining it on
the seal (which can be viewed at my website, Brentmorrison.com) are
several small diamond shapes, a group of oil derricks, a ship, a
fish, a cow, mountains, water, stars, drafting tools, and a
rainbow. The central symbol is a large haloed figure, presumably an
angel.
Which raises another question. Somehow the presence of
one small cross has obscured the fact that “Los Angeles” is Spanish
for “the angels,” an obvious religious reference. While very few
people know the county’s seal includes a cross, everyone in the free
world has heard of Los Angeles. If a microscopic cross establishes
a religion, I’m not sure how one could argue that naming the
nation’s second largest city after angels does not.
It is clear that the city and county of Los Angeles must
be renamed. I wouldn’t want it said that I gripe about things
without offering solutions, so in the public interest I’d like to
suggest a few possibilities:
“Los Asphalteles.” This option is descriptive, still
sounds sort of Spanish, and wouldn’t make all those “I love L.A.”
bumper stickers obsolete.
“Drive-by Shooterville.” A nice homey feel, conjuring
up images of Hooterville from the old “Green Acres” television
series. It has the additional benefit of serving as a legal
disclaimer, which might help avoid lawsuits from visitors who don’t
know what they’re getting into when they wander into the area.
“Looneytown.” This name would honor the area’s
entertainment industry, sounding similar to Warner Brothers’ “Looney
Tunes” animation studio but different enough to avoid another suit.
Also descriptive.
“North Mexico.” Serves as a tribute to the growing
Latino presence without mentioning why they originally came there,
which was to establish missions with all those dangerous crosses.
This might trigger a suit by the state of New Mexico, but since
they’ve managed to avoid legal action by old Mexico it’s probably
OK.
But the best new name might be “Disney’s Urban Jungle
Adventure.” It is also the ultimate solution: Turn the whole mess
over to Mickey. The county would not only be clean and safe within
weeks, it’d be a lot less Goofy.
|
