Subject:
|
Re: Newdow in the News (again)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:12:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2023 times
|
| |
|
|
Tom Stangl, VFAQman wrote:
> "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 monotheism."
>
> I wonder if he was able to complete that opinion with a straight face?
>
> Secular? What a CROCK.
>
> Note - I agree that the phrase should go. Secular it AIN'T. Twist
> your "logic" any way you want, but it's not secular, it's religious,
> and it's holding up one religion (monotheism) over another
> (polytheism, atheism).
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 government would be required to demonstrate the language is the
only possible language that can convey a legitimate governmental purpose."
With such a standard, I think it would be hard to sustain "one nation under
god" in the Pledge of Allegiance (the pledge otherwise presumably serving a
governmental need - I certainly could support some sort of pledge as part of
gaining citizenship, and as such, probably it's even ok in schools). "In God
We Trust" serves no legitimate governmental purpose on coinage. It's simply
a motto. And it's a religious motto. And as such has no place on our
government issued currency (now if a bank wants to put "In God We Trust" on
all the checks they issue their customers, that's different).
Now if there was a quote from the Declaration of Independance on a dollar
bill or something, and it included the religious language from the
Declaration, I suppose that would be ok, because it's directly quoting a
document (and one that predates the Constitution).
But I don't see this change as at all likely, because the US is sufficiently
religious that most people are not offended by these statements. And without
someone showing direct provable harm (I think there is harm, but it's
insidious and hard to prove), the court just isn't going to grant relief.
And we all should be saddened by that.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Newdow in the News (again)
|
| "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)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
