[spam] Re: And God files a response? (Was: Suing God (honest, it's a lawsuit that ha...

[Will Linden]

   As I noted before, someone already tried to file suit against "Satan and 
his staff" in federal district court in Pennsylvania. This is the one which 
was dismissed on issue of jurisdiction.

    And everyone involved seems to take it for granted which concept of 
"God" applies. For instance, if it turns out to be Vishnu, He might do to 
Mr. Lipkin what He, as Narasimha, did to King Hayanakasipu when asked to 
demonstrate His omnipresence.


At 09:17 AM 9/21/07 -0400, you wrote:

>I'm surprised by God's pleading. It puts a theological issue in front of
>the court, which can dismiss simply on the basis of what the jury said
>when acquitting Thomas Maule of seditious libel charges arising from his
>writing of a theological pamphlet: "...the matter therein contained not
>cognizable before them, they not being a Jury of divines, which this
>case ought to be."
>
>Or perhaps the judge could try to empanel a jury of divines? Perhaps
>summoning to jury duty for voir dire folks who consider themselves
>know-it-alls?
>
>I'm also surprised God didn't file an interpleader, bringing
>Lucifer-Satan into the mix. If the latter being hired a lawyer, we'd
>have a chance to observe a genuine devil's advocate.
>
>And that would make Bobby's amicus brief even more delightful to read.
>I'm looking forward to it.
>
>Jim Maule
>
>
> >>> RJLipkin at aol.com 9/21/2007 7:40:04 AM >>>
>Sorry for inadvertently hitting  "send."
>
>      The  jurisdictional point might be legitimate but surely the
>following
>is not: "It  adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering
>misses an
>important  point.  "I created man and woman with free will and next to
>the
>promise of  immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you,"
>according to
>the response,  as read by Friend." Natural disasters have nothing to do
>with
>"free will."   Rarely, if ever, is free will involved in hurricanes,
>earthquakes, and so forth.  Therefore explaining human suffering by
>appealing to free
>will  fails. Moreover, if millions of people dying in war,
>concentration camps,
>and gulags, and so forth is the price we pay for "free will," whatever
>that
>is anyway, I, for one, might want to return the gift and get my money
>back.
>Now that God has entered the controversy surrounding the suit, I  think
>the suit
>should go forward. Indeed, I intend to submit an amicus  brief . . . .
>
>Somewhere.
>
>Bobby
>
>Robert Justin  Lipkin
>Professor of Law
>Widener University School of  Law
>Delaware
>
>Ratio Juris
>,  Contributor: _  http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_
>(http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/)
>Essentially Contested  America, Editor-In-Chief
>_http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/_
>(http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/)
>
>
>
>************************************** See what's new at
>http://www.aol.com
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.