Today Newsday editorializes on the Huntington crest and Cromwell's lion.
The key sentence in the editorial is, "What's instructive is that town government is so easily captured by the emotional appeal of a vocal few - a tendency that in this case shouldn't bother anyone, but is a poor model for making policy."
I can't disagree with that. However, who determines what is an "emotional appeal of a vocal few" and what is legitimate grievance? I doubt Newsday would use the same argument regarding the NY Saint Patrick's Day Parade, but that is how the whole gays in the parade mess got started. What about the Stars & Bars flying over the S. Carolina State House?
Also, Newsday may not be factually correct in their editorial. They say there's nothing particularly "Cromwellian" about this lion. However, the NY Times report indicates that the lion used in this particular crest was specifically taken from Cromwell's family crest. I don't know how different Cromwell's lion is from the lion generally used to symbolize England.
I would probably agree that this is overblown and the town should not remove the lion, Cromwellian or not. It's representative of the town's heritage. But, if we're going to stop pandering to the "emotional appeals" of the few, we should start with the big things. I would suggest by telling those who want to eliminate the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance to get lost.
