just a random cross by itself, I do think this will be allowed to stay on the emblem. And I don't personally object to it, though I am in no sense a Christian.

Consider that there was no cross. Would the earth stop spinning? Or no ethical values thereafter?

The value of adding a cross is for...?

Opposed to that concept?

Perhaps there had been one at some time in the past? I wouldn't know. But at the time the current seal was adopted, there was no cross. According to this article.

But I think there are bigger fish to fry in life.

to REMOVE it would be to deny the historical fact that christianity played an important role in the history of European settlement of our community, for good or bad.

Why do you want to censor history?

It seems kind of weird for them to not be objecting to including the mission on the seal, but just the cross.

After all, who can contradict religious science?

since the cross is an integral part of the building the entire building should be replaced with whatever the citizens decide.

Maybe some UCLA student will research during what years there actually was some type of cross on the mission. Was it always simple or ornate, etc. Then maybe we can decide which image of the mission is the historically accurate one to put on the seal. My vote is for an 18th Century rendition whatever that may look like.