| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"nobody" |
| Date: |
15 Jan 2005 04:16:00 PM |
| Object: |
A joke |
Mr Newdow, that is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4176725.stm
.
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: A joke |
15 Jan 2005 09:11:31 PM |
|
|
"nobody" <nobody@here.com> wrote in message
news:9ngiu0ttqigp1nh0stpe8fpfhvmbhctme0@4ax.com...
Mr Newdow, that is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4176725.stm
<PLONK!>
Now, you really are nobody.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: A joke |
15 Jan 2005 10:40:35 PM |
|
|
nobody <nobody@here.com> wrote in news:9ngiu0ttqigp1nh0stpe8fpfhvmbhctme0@
4ax.com:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4176725.stm
Twenty-five years ago, no court would have heard this.
Seventy-five years ago, he wouldn't have been allowed in court because he
would not swear on a Bible. 150 years ago, he would have been tarred and
feathered. 300 years ago, he would have been executed. Your side is
loosing ground.
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: A joke |
16 Jan 2005 04:08:08 AM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
nobody <nobody@here.com> wrote in news:9ngiu0ttqigp1nh0stpe8fpfhvmbhctme0@
4ax.com:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4176725.stm
Twenty-five years ago, no court would have heard this.
Seventy-five years ago, he wouldn't have been allowed in court because he
would not swear on a Bible. 150 years ago, he would have been tarred and
feathered. 300 years ago, he would have been executed. Your side is
loosing ground.
As I understand it, the court only found that there wasn't grounds for
an injunction to stop the prayers in emergency fashion, but the suit is
not over.
Glenn Arnold
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: A joke |
16 Jan 2005 03:48:16 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jan 2005 22:40:35 GMT, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
nobody <nobody@here.com> wrote
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4176725.stm
Twenty-five years ago, no court would have heard this.
Seventy-five years ago, he wouldn't have been allowed in court because he
would not swear on a Bible. 150 years ago, he would have been tarred and
feathered. 300 years ago, he would have been executed.
Thanks to Newdow, of course.
Your side is loosing ground.
My side? What side would that be? One needs to pick his battles wisely
instead of rabidly seeking notorious publicity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: A joke |
16 Jan 2005 02:14:20 AM |
|
|
nobody wrote:
Mr Newdow, that is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4176725.stm
nobody should pay attention.
Both court rulings seem perfectly valid to me but the one where he was ruled
to not have custody is *very* interesting.
Perhaps the court didn't want to rule in his favor but the only *legal* way
out was the custody question.
It is fairly common in this area, or it was 25 years ago to grant marriage
annulments for the most trivial of reasons. My ex-wife(?) was granted one on
grounds of fraud because my birth certificate has Douglass Michael as my
first and second name. I put down Michael Douglass on the license. (She got
a pension back if she was never married.)
Perhaps the next person with a similar complaint and custody will force the
courts to side with the plaintiff.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
