| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
26 Aug 2007 02:17:39 AM |
| Object: |
Judge orders trials in church suits |
After all of the lies and deception, some justice, maybe?
---
Judge orders trials in church suits
By ALLISON HOFFMAN, Associated Press WriterSat Aug 25, 4:55 AM ET
When the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego filed for bankruptcy in
February, abruptly halting multiple sex-abuse lawsuits on the eve of
trial, Michael Bang thought his chance for a day in court was gone.
On Friday, a federal bankruptcy judge revived hope for Bang, ruling that
42 cases be sent back to state courts for immediate jury trials.
"Doing that in February really reaffirmed to me how significant the
cover-up is," said Bang, a 46-year-old Atlanta man who says he spent
years of his boyhood as a sex slave to a reverend monsignor. "They want
to do anything they can within the legal system to stop it, but all it's
done is made me more committed to telling the truth."
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Louise DeCarl Adler's ruling was a victory for
Bang and about 150 other people who claim they were sexually abused by
priests as children.
Five trials out of about 127 filed against the diocese were scheduled to
begin last spring in state court in San Diego. Lawyers for the
plaintiffs argued that re-activating those trials was the only way to
get the diocese to settle after more than three years of fruitless
negotiations in state and federal courts.
"This just ratchets up the pressure on everyone to get the cases
settled," said Irwin Zalkin, who represents 54 alleged victims.
"Everyone understands it could go any way in a jury trial."
The San Diego diocese has offered about $94 million to settle the claims
as part of its bankruptcy reorganization plan. Plaintiffs' attorneys are
seeking a settlement of about $200 million.
The judge rejected the diocese's argument that she could return trials
to state court only under "exceptional circumstances," saying she had
broader discretion.
Even if the church were correct, "clearly this tsunami of child sex
abuse cases against the Roman Catholic clergy would qualify as
'exceptional,'" Adler wrote.
Plaintiffs whose cases were not among those remanded nonetheless
welcomed the renewed possibility of trial.
"My hope is that they don't settle and we go to trial," said Diane
Williams, a 49-year-old mother who says she was raped as a girl by a
monsignor at a church-run orphanage. "I think these things need to get
out, but I don't think the diocese will let that happen."
Lawyers for the diocese told the judge Thursday that the fastest way to
resolve the claims was for a federal district judge to determine a fair
payment instead of letting juries consider the sex-abuse cases one by
one.
"We had hoped that the judge would agree with us that the process the
bankruptcy court had set in place was the most expeditious way to get
these cases settled," said Susan Boswell, an attorney representing the
diocese. "She obviously didn't agree with us."
Adler's ruling puts the cases back under the jurisdiction of state
courts. She will decide the order in which to release each of the 42
cases for trial, likely beginning with those that were already close to
being heard last spring, said Ryan DiMaria, an attorney representing a
man whose case was supposed to be the second in line.
Trials could begin in as little as 60 days, plaintiffs' attorneys said.
The Los Angeles Archdiocese settled 508 cases for $660 million in July,
two days before jury selection was scheduled to begin in the first of 15
trials involving 172 abuse claimants.
The Orange County diocese agreed to settle 90 claims for $100 million in
2004 after a judge promised to set trial dates and begin the discovery
process if settlement talks collapsed. Bishop Tod D. Brown later said he
couldn't risk a trial in a state where a jury once awarded $30 million
to two people who claimed they were sexually abused by clergy.
Attorneys for the San Diego diocese have argued that jury trials would
slow progress toward a settlement and may give unfair priority to the
claims of plaintiffs whose cases went to trial first.
With nearly 1 million Catholics and holdings throughout San Diego
County, the diocese is by far the largest and wealthiest of the five
U.S. dioceses to have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection under
the shadow of civil claims over sexual abuse.
Dioceses in Spokane, Wash., Portland, Ore., and Tucson, Ariz., have
already emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The Davenport,
Iowa, diocese, which faces claims from more than 150 people, is still in
proceedings.
---
http://tinyurl.com/2qj3kg
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
27 Aug 2007 02:07:15 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:17:39 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Lawyers for the diocese told the judge Thursday that the fastest way to
resolve the claims was for a federal district judge to determine a fair
payment instead of letting juries consider the sex-abuse cases one by
one.
"We had hoped that the judge would agree with us that the process the
bankruptcy court had set in place was the most expeditious way to get
these cases settled," said Susan Boswell, an attorney representing the
diocese. "She obviously didn't agree with us."
But can you just imagine the Church's reaction if the judge ruled that
the $200 million claim was a fair settlement, and that's the amount
the diocese has to pay? I doubt they'd consider that having "a
federal district judge ... determine a fair payment" was "the fastest
way to resolve the claims" in that case. They'd probably scream that
the judge would have sent the case back to the lower courts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
27 Aug 2007 05:58:09 PM |
|
|
In article <q086d395anee61sof4feg6fhve96p4cifs@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:17:39 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Lawyers for the diocese told the judge Thursday that the fastest way to
resolve the claims was for a federal district judge to determine a fair
payment instead of letting juries consider the sex-abuse cases one by
one.
"We had hoped that the judge would agree with us that the process the
bankruptcy court had set in place was the most expeditious way to get
these cases settled," said Susan Boswell, an attorney representing the
diocese. "She obviously didn't agree with us."
But can you just imagine the Church's reaction if the judge ruled that
the $200 million claim was a fair settlement, and that's the amount
the diocese has to pay? I doubt they'd consider that having "a
federal district judge ... determine a fair payment" was "the fastest
way to resolve the claims" in that case. They'd probably scream that
the judge would have sent the case back to the lower courts.
Yes. They are trying every trick in the book to weasel out of a
settlement. Some of it is just plain fraud like hiding assets. If this
were a business instead of a church, the CEO and a a number of others
would be in jail for obstruction of justice, at least.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
27 Aug 2007 10:08:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:58:09 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <q086d395anee61sof4feg6fhve96p4cifs@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:17:39 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Lawyers for the diocese told the judge Thursday that the fastest way to
resolve the claims was for a federal district judge to determine a fair
payment instead of letting juries consider the sex-abuse cases one by
one.
"We had hoped that the judge would agree with us that the process the
bankruptcy court had set in place was the most expeditious way to get
these cases settled," said Susan Boswell, an attorney representing the
diocese. "She obviously didn't agree with us."
But can you just imagine the Church's reaction if the judge ruled that
the $200 million claim was a fair settlement, and that's the amount
the diocese has to pay? I doubt they'd consider that having "a
federal district judge ... determine a fair payment" was "the fastest
way to resolve the claims" in that case. They'd probably scream that
the judge would have sent the case back to the lower courts.
Yes. They are trying every trick in the book to weasel out of a
settlement. Some of it is just plain fraud like hiding assets. If this
were a business instead of a church, the CEO and a a number of others
would be in jail for obstruction of justice, at least.
If this were a business, the assets of the parent corporation would be
in jeopardy. They should just freeze the assets of the RCC in the
US, until the various "VPs" put at least $100 billion or so in escrow.
That's only a drop in the corporate financial bucket.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
28 Aug 2007 12:06:45 AM |
|
|
In article <kb47d3dk51v3pnggpde98u13np95vnvkad@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:58:09 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <q086d395anee61sof4feg6fhve96p4cifs@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:17:39 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Lawyers for the diocese told the judge Thursday that the fastest way to
resolve the claims was for a federal district judge to determine a fair
payment instead of letting juries consider the sex-abuse cases one by
one.
"We had hoped that the judge would agree with us that the process the
bankruptcy court had set in place was the most expeditious way to get
these cases settled," said Susan Boswell, an attorney representing the
diocese. "She obviously didn't agree with us."
But can you just imagine the Church's reaction if the judge ruled that
the $200 million claim was a fair settlement, and that's the amount
the diocese has to pay? I doubt they'd consider that having "a
federal district judge ... determine a fair payment" was "the fastest
way to resolve the claims" in that case. They'd probably scream that
the judge would have sent the case back to the lower courts.
Yes. They are trying every trick in the book to weasel out of a
settlement. Some of it is just plain fraud like hiding assets. If this
were a business instead of a church, the CEO and a a number of others
would be in jail for obstruction of justice, at least.
If this were a business, the assets of the parent corporation would be
in jeopardy. They should just freeze the assets of the RCC in the
US, until the various "VPs" put at least $100 billion or so in escrow.
That's only a drop in the corporate financial bucket.
They should go after that too, but it seems that the church leaders in
San Diego, and probably other places are clearly engaging in illegal
activity and should be arrested. Of course, the shouts of "Religious
Persecution" would be almost deafening.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
28 Aug 2007 12:45:48 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:06:45 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
They should go after that too, but it seems that the church leaders in
San Diego, and probably other places are clearly engaging in illegal
activity and should be arrested. Of course, the shouts of "Religious
Persecution" would be almost deafening.
Of course. The right of free practice applies to even "illegal"
religious activities, since the government can't pass laws that make
religious activities illegal. Unless it's the disgusting practices of
that false religion over there, which should immediately be outlawed,
under penalty of something pretty bad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
28 Aug 2007 01:43:12 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:2nn8d35836la3u6psqjo045lf9peilh7in@4ax.com:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:06:45 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
They should go after that too, but it seems that the church leaders in
San Diego, and probably other places are clearly engaging in illegal
activity and should be arrested. Of course, the shouts of "Religious
Persecution" would be almost deafening.
Of course. The right of free practice applies to even "illegal"
religious activities, since the government can't pass laws that make
religious activities illegal. Unless it's the disgusting practices of
that false religion over there, which should immediately be outlawed,
under penalty of something pretty bad.
Unless of course the activities in question are illegal for reasons
having nothing to do with religion. You can't legally perform ritual
human sacrifice, even if it is part of your religion.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"To abjure violence it is necessary to have no experience of it.” -
George Orwell
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
28 Aug 2007 05:54:31 PM |
|
|
In article <2nn8d35836la3u6psqjo045lf9peilh7in@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:06:45 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
They should go after that too, but it seems that the church leaders in
San Diego, and probably other places are clearly engaging in illegal
activity and should be arrested. Of course, the shouts of "Religious
Persecution" would be almost deafening.
Of course. The right of free practice applies to even "illegal"
religious activities, since the government can't pass laws that make
religious activities illegal. Unless it's the disgusting practices of
that false religion over there, which should immediately be outlawed,
under penalty of something pretty bad.
Right. As has been stated many times before, freedom of expression means
freedom to practice "MY" religion, not yours.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
28 Aug 2007 02:46:31 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:08:59 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:58:09 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <q086d395anee61sof4feg6fhve96p4cifs@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:17:39 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Lawyers for the diocese told the judge Thursday that the fastest way to
resolve the claims was for a federal district judge to determine a fair
payment instead of letting juries consider the sex-abuse cases one by
one.
"We had hoped that the judge would agree with us that the process the
bankruptcy court had set in place was the most expeditious way to get
these cases settled," said Susan Boswell, an attorney representing the
diocese. "She obviously didn't agree with us."
But can you just imagine the Church's reaction if the judge ruled that
the $200 million claim was a fair settlement, and that's the amount
the diocese has to pay? I doubt they'd consider that having "a
federal district judge ... determine a fair payment" was "the fastest
way to resolve the claims" in that case. They'd probably scream that
the judge would have sent the case back to the lower courts.
Yes. They are trying every trick in the book to weasel out of a
settlement. Some of it is just plain fraud like hiding assets. If this
were a business instead of a church, the CEO and a a number of others
would be in jail for obstruction of justice, at least.
If this were a business, the assets of the parent corporation would be
in jeopardy. They should just freeze the assets of the RCC in the
US, until the various "VPs" put at least $100 billion or so in escrow.
That's only a drop in the corporate financial bucket.
There are billions upon billions of dollars worth of treasure that the
Catlix own, much of it in Vatican City that could be sold.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
28 Aug 2007 12:48:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:16:31 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
There are billions upon billions of dollars worth of treasure that the
Catlix own, much of it in Vatican City that could be sold.
Or given back to its owners.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
28 Aug 2007 09:20:55 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:48:08 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:16:31 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
There are billions upon billions of dollars worth of treasure that the
Catlix own, much of it in Vatican City that could be sold.
Or given back to its owners.
Most of whom it was stolen from are now dead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
29 Aug 2007 11:47:16 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:50:55 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:48:08 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:16:31 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
There are billions upon billions of dollars worth of treasure that the
Catlix own, much of it in Vatican City that could be sold.
Or given back to its owners.
Most of whom it was stolen from are now dead.
Many of them left descendants. Many of those have sued for return,
but the RCC has so many stones still not even in place on the wall
that, by the time anyone gets anything, the species will have split
again.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
27 Aug 2007 09:15:48 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:58:09 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <q086d395anee61sof4feg6fhve96p4cifs@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:17:39 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Lawyers for the diocese told the judge Thursday that the fastest way to
resolve the claims was for a federal district judge to determine a fair
payment instead of letting juries consider the sex-abuse cases one by
one.
"We had hoped that the judge would agree with us that the process the
bankruptcy court had set in place was the most expeditious way to get
these cases settled," said Susan Boswell, an attorney representing the
diocese. "She obviously didn't agree with us."
But can you just imagine the Church's reaction if the judge ruled that
the $200 million claim was a fair settlement, and that's the amount
the diocese has to pay? I doubt they'd consider that having "a
federal district judge ... determine a fair payment" was "the fastest
way to resolve the claims" in that case. They'd probably scream that
the judge would have sent the case back to the lower courts.
Yes. They are trying every trick in the book to weasel out of a
settlement. Some of it is just plain fraud like hiding assets. If this
were a business instead of a church, the CEO and a a number of others
would be in jail for obstruction of justice, at least.
It *IS* a business.
With very special historical, judicial, and administrative privileges.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
28 Aug 2007 12:10:27 AM |
|
|
In article <9917d3dcgdib4jf7pjr9jg2adtm1i9rf2u@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:58:09 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <q086d395anee61sof4feg6fhve96p4cifs@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:17:39 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Lawyers for the diocese told the judge Thursday that the fastest way to
resolve the claims was for a federal district judge to determine a fair
payment instead of letting juries consider the sex-abuse cases one by
one.
"We had hoped that the judge would agree with us that the process the
bankruptcy court had set in place was the most expeditious way to get
these cases settled," said Susan Boswell, an attorney representing the
diocese. "She obviously didn't agree with us."
But can you just imagine the Church's reaction if the judge ruled that
the $200 million claim was a fair settlement, and that's the amount
the diocese has to pay? I doubt they'd consider that having "a
federal district judge ... determine a fair payment" was "the fastest
way to resolve the claims" in that case. They'd probably scream that
the judge would have sent the case back to the lower courts.
Yes. They are trying every trick in the book to weasel out of a
settlement. Some of it is just plain fraud like hiding assets. If this
were a business instead of a church, the CEO and a a number of others
would be in jail for obstruction of justice, at least.
It *IS* a business.
With very special historical, judicial, and administrative privileges.
Obviously, but they always hide behind this "freedom of (religious)
expression" clause in our Constitution, which was never intended for
such purposes. And of course the theocrats in our misadministration
would fight prosecution too.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
28 Aug 2007 02:45:03 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:10:27 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <9917d3dcgdib4jf7pjr9jg2adtm1i9rf2u@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:58:09 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <q086d395anee61sof4feg6fhve96p4cifs@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:17:39 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Lawyers for the diocese told the judge Thursday that the fastest way to
resolve the claims was for a federal district judge to determine a fair
payment instead of letting juries consider the sex-abuse cases one by
one.
"We had hoped that the judge would agree with us that the process the
bankruptcy court had set in place was the most expeditious way to get
these cases settled," said Susan Boswell, an attorney representing the
diocese. "She obviously didn't agree with us."
But can you just imagine the Church's reaction if the judge ruled that
the $200 million claim was a fair settlement, and that's the amount
the diocese has to pay? I doubt they'd consider that having "a
federal district judge ... determine a fair payment" was "the fastest
way to resolve the claims" in that case. They'd probably scream that
the judge would have sent the case back to the lower courts.
Yes. They are trying every trick in the book to weasel out of a
settlement. Some of it is just plain fraud like hiding assets. If this
were a business instead of a church, the CEO and a a number of others
would be in jail for obstruction of justice, at least.
It *IS* a business.
With very special historical, judicial, and administrative privileges.
Obviously, but they always hide behind this "freedom of (religious)
expression" clause in our Constitution, which was never intended for
such purposes. And of course the theocrats in our misadministration
would fight prosecution too.
Despite its apparent strength in the US, I judge it to be rapidly
crumbling.
Dawkins may well be correct to compare it to the civil rights
movements of the 60s.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
28 Aug 2007 05:52:31 PM |
|
|
In article <fhk7d3prnpl7vbgeis76b0cmr3gln4qfn1@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:10:27 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <9917d3dcgdib4jf7pjr9jg2adtm1i9rf2u@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:58:09 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <q086d395anee61sof4feg6fhve96p4cifs@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:17:39 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Lawyers for the diocese told the judge Thursday that the fastest way
to
resolve the claims was for a federal district judge to determine a
fair
payment instead of letting juries consider the sex-abuse cases one by
one.
"We had hoped that the judge would agree with us that the process the
bankruptcy court had set in place was the most expeditious way to get
these cases settled," said Susan Boswell, an attorney representing the
diocese. "She obviously didn't agree with us."
But can you just imagine the Church's reaction if the judge ruled that
the $200 million claim was a fair settlement, and that's the amount
the diocese has to pay? I doubt they'd consider that having "a
federal district judge ... determine a fair payment" was "the fastest
way to resolve the claims" in that case. They'd probably scream that
the judge would have sent the case back to the lower courts.
Yes. They are trying every trick in the book to weasel out of a
settlement. Some of it is just plain fraud like hiding assets. If this
were a business instead of a church, the CEO and a a number of others
would be in jail for obstruction of justice, at least.
It *IS* a business.
With very special historical, judicial, and administrative privileges.
Obviously, but they always hide behind this "freedom of (religious)
expression" clause in our Constitution, which was never intended for
such purposes. And of course the theocrats in our misadministration
would fight prosecution too.
Despite its apparent strength in the US, I judge it to be rapidly
crumbling.
Dawkins may well be correct to compare it to the civil rights
movements of the 60s.
Politics, especially in this country is a pendulum. It seems to swing
from one extreme to the other. I think there are some signs that it
might be slowly swinging back to the left again. Too slow for me.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
28 Aug 2007 12:47:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:10:27 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Obviously, but they always hide behind this "freedom of (religious)
expression" clause in our Constitution, which was never intended for
such purposes. And of course the theocrats in our misadministration
would fight prosecution too.
Or Bush would just order the defendants to ignore the summons because
of executive privilege. (I wonder if EP prevents the law from
prosecuting him.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
28 Aug 2007 05:48:09 PM |
|
|
In article <crn8d3t5v25ernhbddgs047cfq4hhoh81f@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:10:27 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Obviously, but they always hide behind this "freedom of (religious)
expression" clause in our Constitution, which was never intended for
such purposes. And of course the theocrats in our misadministration
would fight prosecution too.
Or Bush would just order the defendants to ignore the summons because
of executive privilege. (I wonder if EP prevents the law from
prosecuting him.)
No one is above the law, except Bush, Cheney, ex-AG Gonzales, Rove, et
al.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
29 Aug 2007 11:45:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:48:09 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <crn8d3t5v25ernhbddgs047cfq4hhoh81f@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:10:27 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Obviously, but they always hide behind this "freedom of (religious)
expression" clause in our Constitution, which was never intended for
such purposes. And of course the theocrats in our misadministration
would fight prosecution too.
Or Bush would just order the defendants to ignore the summons because
of executive privilege. (I wonder if EP prevents the law from
prosecuting him.)
No one is above the law, except Bush, Cheney, ex-AG Gonzales, Rove, et
al.
And anyone else who might have information damaging to US
secur^H^H^Hthe misadministration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
30 Aug 2007 01:42:12 AM |
|
|
In article <1k8bd3hsqigk79ha12a47rt8qh3vagg525@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:48:09 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <crn8d3t5v25ernhbddgs047cfq4hhoh81f@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:10:27 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Obviously, but they always hide behind this "freedom of (religious)
expression" clause in our Constitution, which was never intended for
such purposes. And of course the theocrats in our misadministration
would fight prosecution too.
Or Bush would just order the defendants to ignore the summons because
of executive privilege. (I wonder if EP prevents the law from
prosecuting him.)
No one is above the law, except Bush, Cheney, ex-AG Gonzales, Rove, et
al.
And anyone else who might have information damaging to US
secur^H^H^Hthe misadministration.
Yep. Unless they're among the 'disappeared'.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
27 Aug 2007 10:09:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:45:48 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
It *IS* a business.
With very special historical, judicial, and administrative privileges.
It COULD be considered branches of a sovereign government. It
shouldn't be, but it could be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge orders trials in church suits |
28 Aug 2007 02:43:21 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:09:42 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:45:48 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
It *IS* a business.
With very special historical, judicial, and administrative privileges.
It COULD be considered branches of a sovereign government. It
shouldn't be, but it could be.
It was, once, the only government of half the world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
