The name "San Francisco" clearly endorses Catholicism.
So does every city name containing "San," "Santa," etc., or cities like "Corpus Cristi" (meaning "the body of Christ").
And what about religion-derived street names? Geez. There must be thousands.
Pennsylvania was named for William Penn, a Quaker. That state's name clearly endorses religion.
Holy cow, we're practically a theocracy! Why are you militant atheists allowing the government to endorse religion like this???
2006-11-13 07:59:22 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I live in So. Cal. - there's also:
San Diego
San Juan Capistrano
Santa Ana
Santa Paula
Los Angeles (Our Lady, Queen of the Angels)
San Bernardino
Santa Clarita
Santa Clara
San Jose
Sacramento (!!! - our capitol)
Santa Barbara
Santa Monica
San Fernando
San Marino
San Luis Obisbo
San Juan Bautista
San Gabriel
Santa Ines
San Miguel
Carmel
....and that's just off the top of my head
2006-11-13 08:13:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The names of the cities do not carry any religious meaning. They only carry a historical meaning in that the city was once associated with the religion.
The names are already given, and don't carry a religious connotation even with their actual meaning. As long as the government is not applying religion to the government, or forcing it on the people, that is fine. Think of having those names as learning from past mistakes, so that we do not mix religion and reality(government) again.
As for
"Pennsylvania was named for William Penn, a Quaker. That state's name clearly endorses religion."
Wrong. The state was named for the man, not his religious affiliation.
2006-11-13 08:08:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nice try. Separation of Church and State means that the government can't ENDORSE religion, not that it's forbidden. If it was, 90% of the personal names in the US would have to be changed. Now if people in San Francisco had to BE Catholic, or if they were given tax breaks etc for being Catholic, THAT would be a violation.
Simply giving something a name that references a particular religion is not an endorsement of it.
2006-11-13 08:08:17 · answer #3 · answered by triviatm 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
These names like San Francisco have historic and intrinsic value to them. It is no longer a mission by the Spaniards set up to convert natives. There are literally thousands of places in the USA named after some religious denominator. We are not endorsing religion, rather then just maintain the original name set by the founders.
2006-11-13 08:24:24 · answer #4 · answered by Professor Bradley 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
those cities have been named in the 1700s and 1800s so they are historic references to figures in the cultural and social existence on the time which grew to become into very lots motivated by ability of religion. I dont consider changing any of those historic names. I dont like military highway being stated as Caesar Chavez St. because of the fact it obliterates the historic rationalization for the call. there's a reason streets are named after significant figures yet they might desire to not be altered for any present day politically maximum suitable reason.
2016-10-22 00:50:22 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Zion Illinois went through that logic with the ACLU and won. I don;t recall the rationale, but the name has historical significance and to arbitrarily change names due to the current values (or lack thereof) is irrational.
The separation of church and state is a good idea, in moderation. The concept does not have to mean a zealous movement toward an agnostic or atheistic state...even though the zealots want it that way.
We still trust in God as a nation, but don;t dictate how...it's been that way for hundreds of years, and if you don;t like it, you are free to leave anytime.
2006-11-13 08:04:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Argh... that's dumb. The name of a city is not endorsing the PRACTICE of religion. It is just a name. If a city was named something like, Jesus Died For Your Sins, South Dakota... that would probably be endorsing the practice of religion.
2006-11-13 08:05:03 · answer #7 · answered by Existence 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Separation of church and state doesn't mean the state can not reference anything related to the church... It mean the state will not enforce a religion (or lack of religion) and a specific religion will not rule the state. That they shall not be the same thing.
Why do most people think separation means to be completely divorced from and have absolutely no contact ever? It simply means to be unconnected.
2006-11-13 08:16:17 · answer #8 · answered by Shanna J 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
thats a good question, and why are Christians allowing people like you to take all of their rights away. there are way more important things going on in the world right now than people worrying about the names of streets. lets instead worry about the economy, children, and the morals of our country!!!
2006-11-13 08:05:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you want to be real technical about it, every state constitution would have to be repealed since they mention God. Most of our treaties and founding documents would have to be disgarded (Declaration of Independence, Louisiana Purchase, the peace treaty between US and Brition that ended the Revolutionary War, etc) since they all have a reference to God.
2006-11-13 08:04:59 · answer #10 · answered by Tim 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋