I like cases like this, when the courts have brief moments of clarity and a little common sense! Interesting information about the logo for Austin, TX too. Never knew that.
My Spanish isn’t that good (one can only pick up so much from hearing one’s kids watch "Dora the Explorer"), but doesn’t "Las Cruces" mean something like "The Crosses"?
If you’re offended by the appearance of a cross, don’t live in a town called "The Crosses"! Or "Saint Anywhere", or "San Anywhere", or ....
Real quick thoughts.
I think these cases provide an opportunity for the Society to engage in public education. First, why doesn’t the city have a proper coat of arms? Or maybe it does, but views it as dated. Or doesn’t and doesn’t feel it needs one. Also, the lawsuit was not over Austin’s logo, but over the city’s coat of arms, which also forms the basis for an unofficial seal. The paper used incorrect terminology. The appellate court needs to be educated that while some coats of arms have symbols that mean something to the assumer, many coats of arms have no meaning at all, and some symbols are chosen for their beauty not their meaning.
For the record, Austin was not founded by any Catholic missionaries. It began as a village called Waterloo founded by Judge Edwin Waller. Because of internal politics during the Republic era, Mirabeau B. Lamar, the 2d President of the Republic of Texas, was looking to move the republic’s capital from the town named after the hero of San Jacinto. Lamar decided that Waterloo would make a fine capital for Texas; what would make it even better would be to rename it after the Father of Texas, who had died by that point.
Since none of the other principal officers seem to be monitoring the forum these days, I have moved all of the political content of this thread to the board of officers section of the forum, for the president, vice-president, and secretary to consider what to do with it. I am also locking the thread, and caution everyone, myself included, to stay on the subject of heraldry.