After many court sessions, an LA judge says that it is unconstitutional to place the cross on the seal of Los Angeles County. Back in 2014, a small advocacy group said that they would want the cross placed above the San Gabriel Mission, because of it being a symbol of California’s history, but the judge had said that it was still unconstitutional. The judge now says that any religious symbol placed on the seal would be a demonstration of religious favoritism that is not constitutionally welcome.
The court has now released a 55-page paper explaining their decision. It explains that the cross carries a prestige of authority and approval with it that shows the people that it’s an extension of the government’s outlooks.
It makes sense that the government would have to deny the use of any religious symbol on a government created seal. Otherwise it would make it seem like the official religion of the state, and it would directly come in conflict with the First Amendment, which says that the government will make no law respecting a religion or establishment of any kind.
Some would argue that the nation was founded on the Christian religion. Our founding fathers ran from England to escape religious oppression but adhered somewhat to their roots. California’s state seal and others like it around the nation show historical events and buildings that are meaningful to that state. And this is where the current state of the case lies.
I think that the courts should respect history. Cabrillo’s expeditions left Spanish missions along the entire coast of California; 21 missions were established before the Americans even got that far west, and when they did, they were altered by the Spanish missions. They offered shelter and food to the poor, and helped the communities around them. When I was a kid, I even visited these missions, because the California school system deemed them important enough to put in their curriculum.
So no, I don’t think that the state of California should have a cross in their seal because it’s the “official religion of the state,” but rather because it is part of our state’s history, and it should be respected as such.
