Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/23/2005 10:23:41 AM EDT
http://www.lcsun-news.com/artman/publish/article_19565.shtml

News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lawsuit seeks to remove crosses from city’s logo
By Steve Ramirez
Sep 23, 2005, 12:01 am

A federal lawsuit seeking to stop the city of Las Cruces from using three crosses in its emblem has been filed in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque.
City officials said they will fight to keep the emblem.
The lawsuit was filed late Friday by Paul Weinbaum, on behalf of his daughter, Olivia, and Martin J. Boyd. According to court documents, Weinbaum’s address is just southeast of the Las Cruces city limits, but Boyd lives within the city.
The lawsuit claims the city’s use of the emblem violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by placing religious symbols on public property and by expending public funds to promote religion. The lawsuit also accuses the city of violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by requiring prospective employees to sign job applications that include a religious symbol, and that the city has invaded the privacy of Weinbaum’s and Boyd’s homes with government-sponsored proselytizing.
The lawsuit does not seek any monetary damages from the city. Weinbaum said he just wants the city to quit using the symbol.
“The point here is that this is not for profit whatsoever,” Weinbaum said of the lawsuit. “We want our First Amendment rights back, our full rights as citizens.”
The lawsuit claims the city has violated the First Amendment by forcing the Weinbaums and Boyd to view the “pervasive religious symbols endorsed by the city of Las Cruces and the state of New Mexico,” and that the Weinbaums and Boyd have been made to feel excluded from public participation in government activities.
The plaintiffs also asked for a temporary injunction against the city.
“The city of Las Cruces, New Mexico uses its ‘logo,’ a Latin crosses symbol, consisting of three Latin crosses enclosed in a sunburst, that is closely associated with the Christian religion,” says a portion of the motion for temporary injunction. “Latin crosses in any configuration are recognized throughout the world as Christian symbols.
“This symbol serves no governmental purpose other than to be divisive, to alienate, and disenfranchise Weinbaum, his minor daughter and Boyd.”
The motion for temporary injunction also claims the Las Cruces City Council has never voted on adopting the symbol for official use.
Also, city officials cannot provide any historical documentation to substantiate its claim that the Latin crosses represent the history and people of the city.
Weinbaum said there is no attempt to have the city change its name.
“There is not one place in that lawsuit that says the name of the city should be changed,” Weinbaum said. “There have been other stories in the past that claimed that. But that is not correct, never has been correct, and is not correct now.”
Named as defendants are Las Cruces Mayor William “Bill” Mattiace, and City Councilors Dolores Archuleta, Dolores Connor, Jose Frietze, Ken Miyagishima, Wesley Strain and Steve Trowbridge.
Other defendants include City Manager Terrence Moore, Assistant City Manager Maryann Ustick, Public Information Director Udell Vigil, and Facilities Department Director Brian Denmark.
District Attorney Susana Martinez, Attorney General Patricia Madrid and Gov. Bill Richardson have also been named as defendants.
Mattiace said the city intends to fight the lawsuit.
“We have had to defend ourselves before and we’re ready to do it again,” Mattiace said. “The crosses have a basis for being in our logo. We will hold course and will defend that.”
City Attorney Fermin Rubio said the lawsuit doesn’t raise any new issues from attempts made in 2003 to get the city to stop using the logo. Then, the New Mexico Department of Transportation was going to remove two city logos at the Spruce Street underpass and on north Main Street, at the Interstate 25 interchange.
But Richardson issued an executive order to keep the department from removing those logos.
Richardson spokesman Jon Goldstein said Tuesday the governor’s office had received a copy of the lawsuit. But no additional comment on it would be made until staff members and lawyers for the governor have had an opportunity to review it.
The lawsuit has been assigned to U.S. Magistrate Lourdes Martinez of Las Cruces.
No future court hearings have been scheduled yet. Lawyers for the defendants will have 20 days to submit a formal response to the allegations before a hearing is set.


Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:26:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:28:52 AM EDT
Systematically we are removing any shred of religion from our lives. Nonbelievers cannot abide a single cross or anything that might infringe on their disbelief...
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:30:56 AM EDT
Las Cruces means "The Crosses". Should they change the town name too? This has nothing to do with religion, except to the tard suing.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:32:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Collin:
Las Cruces means "The Crosses". Should they change the town name too? This has nothing to do with religion, except to the tard suing.



They will change the name.

How do you say "the town of liberal retards?" in Spanish?
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:32:53 AM EDT
Follows the same logic as Newspeak
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:33:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 10:33:23 AM EDT by macman37]

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By Collin:
Las Cruces means "The Crosses". Should they change the town name too? This has nothing to do with religion, except to the tard suing.



They will change the name.

How do you say "the town of liberal retards?" in Spanish?



"San Francisco" - but that's taken...
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:34:06 AM EDT

Dumbass - and a waste of court time and resources, since cases like this have strong precedent against them and will NOT succeed.

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:36:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:
Systematically we are removing any shred of religion from our lives. Nonbelievers cannot abide a single cross or anything that might infringe on their disbelief...




Except Islam
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:39:42 AM EDT
I live 35 miles from Las Cruces. They have been trying to do this for a few years now but have been successfully defeated. This whole area of the country is heavily impacted by religious names and is very religious. The people won't put up with it.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:48:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 10:49:33 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By MTUSA:

Originally Posted By macman37:
Systematically we are removing any shred of religion from our lives. Nonbelievers cannot abide a single cross or anything that might infringe on their disbelief...




Except Islam




Not to pick a fight, but are you serious?

There are all sorts of Christian/religious references and images that are commonplace and allowed in U.S. government, like on our money, on public buildings, in Congress, etc. etc. Seems like the main government holidays in the U.S. still include things like Christmas and Easter - and I don't see any public schools giving kids time off for Ramadan or various Muslim holidays (but I DO see schools and universities giving Jewish holidays equal respect as the Christian ones).

I don't remember seeing any Muslim slogans on public university crests, on our currency, or engraved on government buildings lately.

Plus - the suggesting that "we are removing any shred of religion from our lives" is patently ridiculous (at least to my eyes). The only real debate is a very narrow one about religious symbols on public property and especially in government buildings and offices (like town halls and courthouses) - I am not aware of ANY attempts to remove any religious symbols or practice from U.S. society in general. In fact, where I live, it seems like you can't swing a dead cat without a hitting a church or a religious billboard, or a private religious school, etc.


Again - not trying to start a fight - I just think some people wayyy over-react to some atheist or buddhist who doesn't want to have to stand under a poster of Christian religious rules in a court-house where everyone is supposed to be equal before the law - or some Zoroastrian parent who doesn't want their kid be have to sit in a classroom where a government teacher is invoking a Christian God. Those concerns don't seem entirely without merit to me - but don't imply that someone these people have an agenda to try to "destroy" religion or Christianity in general.



Are there a few morons and hostile narrowminded assholes? Sure - and some of them are activist atheists (like the moron in this story), and others are people like Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:49:34 AM EDT
Incredible. This is the stupidest fucking thing I've read all day. These people need to get a life. Oh, and I'm an atheist.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:00:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 11:02:08 AM EDT by Adam_White]

Originally Posted By Collin:
Las Cruces means "The Crosses". Should they change the town name too? This has nothing to do with religion, except to the tard suing.



That's the first thing I thought. it only makes sense for a city called "The Crosses" to have, well, CROSSES on their logo.

Surely, any judge will recognize the historical signifigance of the symbology. Attempting to remove it would be aking to trying to change history.

The idea that city documents featuring the logo is akin to "proselytizing" is beyong absurd.

What's next, going after the Red Cross?

What does this guy think about Corpus Christi!

The city of Zion, IL, just north of where I grew up, was founded by evengelical Christians (that might explain the name). They had a similar problem, only the moonbat went after their city motto, "God Reigns."

Incidentally, the city responded with an ingenious solution. Their motto is now, "In God We Trust." If such a motto was akin to the establishement of a religion, the moonbat would then have to take it up with the Feds, and they have much deeper pockets than the city!
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:33:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By MTUSA:

Originally Posted By macman37:
Systematically we are removing any shred of religion from our lives. Nonbelievers cannot abide a single cross or anything that might infringe on their disbelief...




Except Islam




Not to pick a fight, but are you serious?

There are all sorts of Christian/religious references and images that are commonplace and allowed in U.S. government, like on our money, on public buildings, in Congress, etc. etc. Seems like the main government holidays in the U.S. still include things like Christmas and Easter - and I don't see any public schools giving kids time off for Ramadan or various Muslim holidays (but I DO see schools and universities giving Jewish holidays equal respect as the Christian ones).

I don't remember seeing any Muslim slogans on public university crests, on our currency, or engraved on government buildings lately.

Plus - the suggesting that "we are removing any shred of religion from our lives" is patently ridiculous (at least to my eyes). The only real debate is a very narrow one about religious symbols on public property and especially in government buildings and offices (like town halls and courthouses) - I am not aware of ANY attempts to remove any religious symbols or practice from U.S. society in general. In fact, where I live, it seems like you can't swing a dead cat without a hitting a church or a religious billboard, or a private religious school, etc.


Again - not trying to start a fight - I just think some people wayyy over-react to some atheist or buddhist who doesn't want to have to stand under a poster of Christian religious rules in a court-house where everyone is supposed to be equal before the law - or some Zoroastrian parent who doesn't want their kid be have to sit in a classroom where a government teacher is invoking a Christian God. Those concerns don't seem entirely without merit to me - but don't imply that someone these people have an agenda to try to "destroy" religion or Christianity in general.



Are there a few morons and hostile narrowminded assholes? Sure - and some of them are activist atheists (like the moron in this story), and others are people like Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson.



Well for my part... People are doing their best to have every reference to a Christian God removed from everything they can. Deny it!

And honestly - just who's overreacting? Me, who is speaking out about what I see as a shame, or the activist a-holes who are taking the government to court - may I remind you that the defense is coming at taxpayer expense - for having the Ten Commandments in their courthouse? Or this Las Cruces thing? Or any of MANY other things that unbelievers have done?
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:42:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 11:43:04 AM EDT by BenDover]
Well a five-pointed star is a symbol of wiccan and pagan religions called a pentacle.

I am going to sue the US Gov to have all stars removed from all government buildings, flags, etc...

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:49:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 11:50:38 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By MTUSA:

Originally Posted By macman37:
Systematically we are removing any shred of religion from our lives. Nonbelievers cannot abide a single cross or anything that might infringe on their disbelief...




Except Islam




Not to pick a fight, but are you serious?

There are all sorts of Christian/religious references and images that are commonplace and allowed in U.S. government, like on our money, on public buildings, in Congress, etc. etc. Seems like the main government holidays in the U.S. still include things like Christmas and Easter - and I don't see any public schools giving kids time off for Ramadan or various Muslim holidays (but I DO see schools and universities giving Jewish holidays equal respect as the Christian ones).

I don't remember seeing any Muslim slogans on public university crests, on our currency, or engraved on government buildings lately.

Plus - the suggesting that "we are removing any shred of religion from our lives" is patently ridiculous (at least to my eyes). The only real debate is a very narrow one about religious symbols on public property and especially in government buildings and offices (like town halls and courthouses) - I am not aware of ANY attempts to remove any religious symbols or practice from U.S. society in general. In fact, where I live, it seems like you can't swing a dead cat without a hitting a church or a religious billboard, or a private religious school, etc.


Again - not trying to start a fight - I just think some people wayyy over-react to some atheist or buddhist who doesn't want to have to stand under a poster of Christian religious rules in a court-house where everyone is supposed to be equal before the law - or some Zoroastrian parent who doesn't want their kid be have to sit in a classroom where a government teacher is invoking a Christian God. Those concerns don't seem entirely without merit to me - but don't imply that someone these people have an agenda to try to "destroy" religion or Christianity in general.



Are there a few morons and hostile narrowminded assholes? Sure - and some of them are activist atheists (like the moron in this story), and others are people like Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson.



Well for my part... People are doing their best to have every reference to a Christian God removed from everything they can. Deny it!



Of course I can deny it, since it is obvious.

Are the the occasional deluded assholes like this guy? Of course there are (and they exist on BOTH SIDES of this issue).

But in general, I do not see large-scale movements to have "In God We Trust" removed from our currency, or to have Christmas or Easter removed as federal holiday, or to have religious sayings that are engraved on monumnets and government buildings removed. ALL of those are referecens to a Christian God, and I don't see all the unbelievers frantically trying to get rid of them.

Unless you can show me WHICH people are "doing their best" to have all of those things removed, then I believe my denial is supported.

If you are defining "... from everything they can" - as meaning from all places where technically - by the consitution they should not have been in the first place, then I guess you are correct. Examples like a judge putting up a huge monumnet with Christian religious rules in a courthouse certainly fall into that category, and that guy was as out of line as this atheist idiot who is suing Las Cruces.




And honestly - just who's overreacting? Me, who is speaking out about what I see as a shame, or the activist a-holes who are taking the government to court - may I remind you that the defense is coming at taxpayer expense - for having the Ten Commandments in their courthouse? Or this Las Cruces thing? Or any of MANY other things that unbelievers have done?



Sorry - I was unclear.

I didn't mean you personally, necessarily - but just that some people seem to be freaking out over how religion and Christianity is some "under attack" in the U.S. when in REALITY, religion and Christianity seem to be STRONGER than ever, in the U.S.

After all - it is NOT these "unbelievers" who are trying to take religion OUT of science textbooks in Kansas (and other places), it is CHRISTIANS who are trying to SHOVE IT INTO science textbooks.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:02:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
snip
Of course I can deny it, since it is obvious.

Are the the occasional deluded assholes like this guy? Of course there are (and they exist on BOTH SIDES of this issue).

But in general, I do not see large-scale movements to have "In God We Trust" removed from our currency, or to have Christmas or Easter removed as federal holiday, or to have religious sayings that are engraved on monumnets and government buildings removed. ALL of those are referecens to a Christian God, and I don't see all the unbelievers frantically trying to get rid of them.

Unless you can show me WHICH people are "doing their best" to have all of those things removed, then I believe my denial is supported.




I just googled "removing God from currency" and got a pile o'links to blogs, petitions and articles... It's out there. You are correct, there are lunatic fringes to both sides.

My personal problem with this chipping away at Christian symbols and references from parts of our lives is that we are risking our blessing from God in doing so. Morality is at a low I doubt has been seen since Sodom and Gomorrah.


If you are defining "... from everything they can" - as meaning from all places where technically - by the consitution they should not have been in the first place, then I guess you are correct. Examples like a judge putting up a huge monumnet with Christian religious rules in a courthouse certainly fall into that category, and that guy was as out of line as this atheist idiot who is suing Las Cruces.




And honestly - just who's overreacting? Me, who is speaking out about what I see as a shame, or the activist a-holes who are taking the government to court - may I remind you that the defense is coming at taxpayer expense - for having the Ten Commandments in their courthouse? Or this Las Cruces thing? Or any of MANY other things that unbelievers have done?



Sorry - I was unclear.

I didn't mean you personally, necessarily - but just that some people seem to be freaking out over how religion and Christianity is some "under attack" in the U.S. when in REALITY, religion and Christianity seem to be STRONGER than ever, in the U.S.

After all - it is NOT these "unbelievers" who are trying to take religion OUT of science textbooks in Kansas (and other places), it is CHRISTIANS who are trying to SHOVE IT INTO science textbooks.



I disagree that Christianity is stronger than ever.

Perhaps believers are trying to put some kind of "Intelligent Design" back into schoolbooks. At least to offset the years upon years of subtraction of anything religious.
Top Top