Comments on: If you can’t beat ‘em, sue ‘em http://www.frcblog.com/2007/09/if-you-cant-beat-em-sue-em/ The Blog of Family Research Council Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:28:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Patricia http://www.frcblog.com/2007/09/if-you-cant-beat-em-sue-em/comment-page-1/#comment-597 Patricia Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:31:07 +0000 http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=337#comment-597 He is omniscient and knows better than you He is omniscient and knows better than you

]]> By: Suricou Raven http://www.frcblog.com/2007/09/if-you-cant-beat-em-sue-em/comment-page-1/#comment-596 Suricou Raven Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:41:01 +0000 http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=337#comment-596 Well, the legal term is "Acts of God." In addition, after any major disaster, there will be a significent number of people declaring that it was God's punishment on the country hit for something-or-other. The exact something depends on who is doing the declaring, though homosexuality seems to be a common reason given. Example: After the tsunami, Robertson declared it was God's punishment for Muslims being muslim. After Katrina, Robertson declared it was God's punishment for tolerating homosexuals during the mardi gras celebrations. After both incidents, Phelps claimed it was God's punishment for tolerating homosexuality. Finally, if God has omnipotence, He must be able to prevent the disasters - so, even if He didn't cause them, it is only through His inaction that they may happen. That doesn't make his inaction illegal in the case of natural disasters, but it becomes very illegal when extended to terrorist attacks. Well, the legal term is “Acts of God.” In addition, after any major disaster, there will be a significent number of people declaring that it was God’s punishment on the country hit for something-or-other. The exact something depends on who is doing the declaring, though homosexuality seems to be a common reason given.

Example: After the tsunami, Robertson declared it was God’s punishment for Muslims being muslim. After Katrina, Robertson declared it was God’s punishment for tolerating homosexuals during the mardi gras celebrations. After both incidents, Phelps claimed it was God’s punishment for tolerating homosexuality.

Finally, if God has omnipotence, He must be able to prevent the disasters – so, even if He didn’t cause them, it is only through His inaction that they may happen. That doesn’t make his inaction illegal in the case of natural disasters, but it becomes very illegal when extended to terrorist attacks.

]]> By: Patricia http://www.frcblog.com/2007/09/if-you-cant-beat-em-sue-em/comment-page-1/#comment-595 Patricia Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:54:53 +0000 http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=337#comment-595 Where does he get the idea that God causes earthquakes or any natural disasters? Where does he get the idea that God causes earthquakes or any natural disasters?

]]> By: Suricou Raven http://www.frcblog.com/2007/09/if-you-cant-beat-em-sue-em/comment-page-1/#comment-594 Suricou Raven Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:52:43 +0000 http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=337#comment-594 Partial story. There is a serious point: The suit is being filed in protest to a series of bills that are trying to reduce or eliminate the power of the courts. Chambers is trying to make the point that the constitution says *everyone* should have the right to make use of the courts, for any purpose on which they have good standing for their case, and that the legislative branch would be exceeding its authority if it were to pass a law that forbade the courts from hearing a particular class of suit (See the Freedom of Religion Act, which makes it very hard for people to sue for violation of the establishment cause, thus making a first-ammendment princible unenforceable) or if it placed a deliberate obstical in the way of legal action (Eg, if it classified vital evidence as a state secret, as happened in the illegal wiretapping incidents) in order to influence the outcome of a case. Partial story. There is a serious point: The suit is being filed in protest to a series of bills that are trying to reduce or eliminate the power of the courts. Chambers is trying to make the point that the constitution says *everyone* should have the right to make use of the courts, for any purpose on which they have good standing for their case, and that the legislative branch would be exceeding its authority if it were to pass a law that forbade the courts from hearing a particular class of suit (See the Freedom of Religion Act, which makes it very hard for people to sue for violation of the establishment cause, thus making a first-ammendment princible unenforceable) or if it placed a deliberate obstical in the way of legal action (Eg, if it classified vital evidence as a state secret, as happened in the illegal wiretapping incidents) in order to influence the outcome of a case.

]]>