 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
