Look closely at the City of Manteca seal.

On it you will see two distinct renderings.

The left one is of a house with two square windows and two trees.

There is also a chimney on the roof given the city seal was designed and adopted in the 1970s long before the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District for all practical purposes banned new wood burning fireplaces.

The second image is a larger building that now is supposed to represent a larger house, a McMansion if you will.

But in reality it was designed to represent a place of worship until it was neutered.

The alteration involves the quiet removal by municipal staff in the 1980s of a cross atop the building.

It was done to avoid putting the city in the crosshairs of efforts at the time that used the courts, if necessary, to make sure all cities in their official actions were religious neutral.

The cross is not a universal symbol employed in all religions.

The larger rendering, though, continues to have lancet windows.

They’re the narrow ones with an arch on top.

A less obtrusive touch, they are still an architectural symbol.

Lancet windows are connected with only a certain religions as part of the architecture for places of worship.

Then there is the issue of the city motto, “The Family City”, adopted at the same time.

The seal was supposed to represent what a family city would have in terms of single family homes and many places of worship.

It clearly was inspired by the “Leave It to Beaver” imagery of America that was prevalent in popular culture in the 1950s.

If one were worried about being all inclusive, you’d think the powers that be at 1001 Center Street would complete the “remodel” of the larger rendering from a house of worship into just a big house.

Yet, the lancet windows are still there.

The City of Manteca in 2014 adopted an official policy regarding the use of the city seal or, as some reference it, the city logo.

It happened after several council members — then Mayor Steve DeBrum and then Councilwoman Debby Moorhead — noticed commercial vehicles with the logo on it.

One was a spitting image of the city seal, and the other was altered.

The concern was to make it off limits to use the city seal to try and misled people that somehow the commercial concern was city authorized or connected with the city.

The city’s seal policy also included rules that when the logo was used that it couldn’t have any elements changed including color.

The policy was adopted by the council.

Then the staff in place at the time several years later, took it upon themselves to offer up a version of the city logo not in the red, white, and blue colors of the American flag but in burgundy, white and blue.

Unlike the church neutering done on the down low by staff without official council authorization, there was apparently no ulterior motive for the switching out flag red for burgundy.

It happened after staff suggested a city “logo” refresh to represent more modern times was in order and a contest was conducted to design a possible replacement.

The was a sentiment among some at the time that the traditional Americana red, white and blue colors were corny and old-fashioned.

It was all part of a broader effort to rebrand Manteca.

It was a silly exercise when you look in the rear view mirror.

The city still does the same thing they did from Day One, which is provide services that people can’t do as individuals such as build and maintain streets, water systems, public safety agencies, and such.

The object, of course, was to make Manteca more appealing to those willing to invest money in business parks and retail.

Somehow red, white, and blue colors that reflected those in the American flag struck those working in concert with a branding consultant the city staff was working with the time as cliche or, dare it be mentioned, somehow not being inclusive.

This is about the time when all things traditional in terms of symbols and colors came under attack from specific, narrow interest groups as either not being inclusive at worst or being passé at best.

A voluntary “vote” saw nearly 1,000 people respond.

It took place after the consult begrudgingly agreed the existing seal should appear on a “ballot” with the top three entries as decided by a committee.

The neutered 1970s era seal beat out the competition 2 to 1.

The council at the time dropped re-branding efforts as far as the municipal seal or logo was concerned.

What brings this up is the suggestion by Councilwoman Regina Lackey to revisit the city’s flag policy.

Lackey is advancing a change that would make only three flags eligible to be flown from flagpoles in city property.

They are the United States flag, the State of California flag, and a City of Manteca flag — if and when one is adopted.

The current policy allows a council member to suggest a flag representing a specific organization be flown in front of the Civic Center for seven days providing four-fifths of the council concurred.

The idea for the flag policy came from the council wanting to steer clear of any fray, legal or otherwise, that could come of allowing the occasional flying of other flags just like a previous council was concerned could happen with the city seal reflecting a fairly specific house or worship.

It followed a desire by staff to make it clear Manteca is inclusive given in the past other flags had been flown at the request of either staff or the public.

Both represent political and litigation minefields.

Lackey’s solution steers the City of Manteca away from getting inadvertently mired in a cultural war or a legal battle by essentially dabbling in an what some might read as an inferred endorsement of specific symbols which, in this case, are flags.

The current flag policy was crafted within the parameters of Supreme Court rulings and would likely insulate the city from ultimately losing a lawsuit involving speech and the proverbial public square.

But it doesn’t make the city immune from fallout from the never ending cultural war.

The best way the city can assure diversity and inclusion is to keep hammering away at its basic task of building a community and making sure it functions for everyone.

Getting caught up in a fracas over flags that is more often than not rooted in perception as well as aggressive advocacy no matter how inconsequential it may seem in terms of where it falls on the political spectrum is counterproductive.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com