Posted on 02/17/2003 5:19:53 PM PST by FryingPan101
LAS CRUCES -- The city of Las Cruces has been asked to stop using its logo, which a group says is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
The logo has three crosses inside a symbol of the sun. "Cruces" is Spanish for "crosses."
The southern New Mexico chapter of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State contends the logo violates the separation of church and state under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Jesse Chavez, chapter president, said that "the present logo is divisive, symbolizing an affiliation with a particular religion, that excludes those not so affiliated."
"There is no justification for the city to adopt a logo that has this effect on its residents," he said in a letter earlier this month to Jim Ericson, city manager.
Ericson said in a letter to Chavez that the city believes the logo "clearly reflects the city's historical and cultural heritage and in no way promotes any specific religion or religion in general."
Fermin Rubio, city attorney, said the logo is constitutional.
"Based on the history of the name Las Cruces and the context in which the crosses are used in the city's logo, the establishment clause of the United States Constitution is not violated," Rubio said in a letter to Chavez.
"The inclusion of three crosses in the center of the sun does not promote religion," Rubio said.
"The three crosses are used to identify the name of the city and are used in the context of the original of the name of the city, the Place of the Crosses," he said.
The Las Cruces City Council met in closed session Feb. 3 to discuss the matter.
Harry Connelly, deputy city attorney, said he is not aware of any formal legal action that has been taken, but city attorneys perceived Chavez's letter as a threat of litigation.
Bob Johnson, executive director of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, said Thursday he would write a letter to city officials, telling them the closed session might have violated the New Mexico Open Meetings Act.
"If you get a letter from lawyer saying we're going to sue you, that's a threat," he said.
"Or if a lawsuit has been filed, then of course, that's pending litigation."
LOL! Well, that is, I would be laughing if the whole thing weren't so pathetic. How have we come to this?
>>SNIP<<
Bob Johnson, executive director of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, said Thursday he would write a letter to city officials, telling them the closed session might have violated the New Mexico Open Meetings Act.
Closed sessions of City Councils and commissions with respect to litigation, pending or no, is routine. All that is required is to notice the closed session with a general description of the subject matter. (Dope.)
This PC cr*p stuff is so crazy.
Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with you. Here is his view about Church and State:
Our sister States of Pennsylvania and New York have long subsisted without any (religious) establishment at all. ... Religion is well supported; of various kinds indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order; or if a sect arises whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reason laughs it out of doors, without suffering the State to be troubled by it.
Either we have lost the ability to reason or we have lost the ability to laugh goofy religious claims out of town. Either way, Jefferson believes having that ability is a central part of the separation of church and state prescription.
So in order to please all the juannie come latelys the Christians (who founded the whole concept of America) should do away with their symbols, prayer...basically with their GOD in order that the atheists "feel" more comfortable....and of course they would "feel" more comfortable if America was a communist country... But the stupid bastardoes wont leave and found a country of their own... they wanna stay here and chase the "founding fathers" right out of their own country... Cant imagine these guys having participated in the American Revolution as anything more than British agents
I think "New Sodom" would be more appropriate by far.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.