 | | Newdow in the News (again) —John Neal
|
| | | Little rules I live by... #13 13. "If you can't even get the 9th circuit to go along with your (URL) kooky agenda>, then you are really kooky." Oh where is the cacaphony of criticism from the Creedless? :-) JOHN (18 years ago, 13-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Newdow in the News (again) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Well, I guess I just wonder why Christians don't get upset at this widespread violation of the 2nd Commandment. I mean, if the phrase is "secular in nature and in use," then that's a pretty serious dilution of the Big Guy's name, isn't it? And (...) (18 years ago, 13-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Newdow in the News (again) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) But your interesting angle only answers the question, because it is not the intention of Christians to turn the US into a theocracy, Dave! Look, this nation was founded by people who sought religious freedom, to be free to worship their God in (...) (18 years ago, 13-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Newdow in the News (again) —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Although my faith in God has been waining lately, I like this justification of the phrase. The notion of higher law (or natural law) has been around for quite some time (and inspired many of the founding fathers). However, I'm pretty sure that (...) (18 years ago, 14-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Newdow in the News (again) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hey Lenny, For myself, my faith in God has never been stronger. That said, my faith in anything 'religious' or 'church'ish, or 'biblical' has never been lower--I'm adamantly opposed to 'pushing' religiousity down everyone's throats. And when (...) (18 years ago, 14-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Newdow in the News (again) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: ***snip of quite a rant!*** (...) That reminds me of recent studies showing that so-called "abstinence pledges" or "virginity pledges" are often every bit the sham that one might expect. The majority (...) (18 years ago, 14-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Newdow in the News (again) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | (...) yo did say you missed the 'good ol' days'... :) I'm just fed up with sitting around whilst these bullies behind the pulpit hit us over the heads with what we should be doing (or shouldn't be doing) and saying they preach the word of 'the God (...) (18 years ago, 14-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Newdow in the News (again) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm down with that, but here's the problem. The same current-day (and vocal, and generally unopposed in public) fundamentalists who complained about the so-called War on Christmas wouldn't see it that way, and since they control at least two (...) (18 years ago, 14-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Newdow in the News (again) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) I would question your characterization of two of our governmental branches being under control of fundamentalists. They may be under conservative control, but that doesn't mean that they will kowtow to the fundamental right. I am not in favor (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Newdow in the News (again) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) And slave-owners, and people who unleashed biological warfare upon the indigenous population and ignored every treaty with them besides. Why don't we commemorate these cornerstones of our history as well? (...) Newdow may or may not be a jerk, (...) (18 years ago, 19-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Newdow in the News (again) —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | "Judge Frank Damrell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California held in his opinion that "In God We Trust" is secular in nature and use, and its appearance on coins and currency does not show government coercion on behalf of (...) (18 years ago, 14-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Newdow in the News (again) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) I really wish that when terms related to religion (esp. "god") are used, that the standard the courts used was not "oh, that term is secular" but "if a someone is claiming the term is religious and serves to establish religion that the (...) (18 years ago, 14-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Newdow in the News (again) —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) It is acknowledging the religious history of this country without necessarily endorsing it. We are a nation of religious people. So what? It's not forcing you to do anything or believe anything. If there is no force or coercion behind the (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Newdow in the News (again) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Ding! I think I see the problem. It's a mistake to frame this as an issue of whether any person's rights are or are not compromised by the presence of a religious invocation on US currency. Instead, the issue should be identified as the (...) (18 years ago, 19-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
