from Unexplained-Mysteries.com

Legal case against God dismissed

A US judge has thrown out a case against God, ruling that because the defendant has no address, legal papers cannot be served. The suit was launched by Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers, who said he might appeal against the ruling. He sought a permanent injunction to prevent the "death, destruction and terrorisation" caused by God. Judge Marlon Polk said in his ruling that a plaintiff must have access to the defendant for a case to proceed. "Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice," Judge Polk wrote in his ruling. Mr Chambers sued God last year. He said God had threatened him and the people of Nebraska and had inflicted "widespread death, destruction and terrorisation of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants". The court, Mr Chambers said, had acknowledged the existence of God and "a consequence of that acknowledgement is a recognition of God's omniscience".

"Since God knows everything," he reasoned, "God has notice of this lawsuit." Mr Chambers, a state senator for 38 years, said he filed the suit to make the point that "anyone can sue anyone else, even God".

Yahooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

Congratulations, President-Elect Obama!

Johnny Olson, tell him what he's won.

Bob, the first prize in our Showcase Showdown is the National Debt, valued at 10 trillion dollars!
And no debt is complete without costly wars. You've won two! Yes, Barack, you'll be the envy of all the world leaders with quagmires in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

and so on

I was going to add more-economy, global warming, nearly half the country against him, etc. But I don't feel like making myself depressed. I'm trying to enjoy this.

My penpal

I wrote to Donna Brazile again. My emailed message to her was basically what I wrote below (no, not the stuff about napkins and James Garner). I was much nicer this time, but also more direct. I said:
I was upset by the fact that a respected national figure such as yourself would further the notion that atheists are pariahs and that elected officials and aspirants to elected office should avoid association with people who believe in a secular society.

Imagine if, instead of atheists, the group backing Kay Hagan had been Rainbow/Push, GLAAD, the Catholic League, or NOW. I believe the entire tone of your exchange with Wolf Blitzer and Bill Bennett would have been different.

She replied:

I said no such thing.Please do not put words in my mouth.

I feel like a basketball coach complaining to a referee. I think she blew the call, and she says she got it right. But maybe, thanks to my working the refs, one of those calls will go our way.

Thanks, Brian. That link to the youtube video has provided me with a lot of entertainment.

Questions I'm Pondering On Election Eve

* Am I still allowed to be a liberal if I always thought Studs Terkel was annoying?
* Why doesn't someone invent a restaurant napkin dispenser that reliably dispenses only 1 napkin at a time, rather than 25 napkins that all cling together?
* Wouldn't it have been cool if James Garner had campaigned for McCain?
* Or even cooler if he'd made a "the real Maverick supports Obama" commercial?
* If gay marriage is outlawed, will only gay outlaws get married? (I think I plagiarized that, but I can't remember from where so I can't attribute it.)

Response

Darn. No proof. I was sure this was it.

Here's the response:

Thanks Kevin,

Perhaps the only proof that convinces me of a "living God" is myself. But, I trust your own views are just as strong.

Take care,

Donna working tonight to prove she is just human.

The sarcastic and still very angry part of me wants to correspond again. I'd like to point out that on national television she contributed to the notion that atheists should be pariahs, and that our elected leaders and aspiring elected leaders should not associate with atheists, or even suffer the insinuation that they associate with atheists. In support of her argument she said there was evidence. This evidence is, of course, non-existent.

Her televised comments were incredibly harmful, and she apparently does not know the definition of 'evidence'.

Still, I appreciate the quick response. I'll probably email her back and give her my opinion, but I'll wait until I'm a little less angry. Hers was a friendly and (canned) dignified response, so I'll wait until I am in a mood to extend the same courtesy.

Hey, if it works for them...

Awaiting the scoop of the century...

Brian, I've been thinking a lot about that ridiculous video.

While watching the Blue-White game, I sent the following email to Donna Brazile at Georgetown University.

Dear Professor Brazile,

I recently viewed video of your conversation with Wolf Blitzer and Bill Bennett. I was fascinated by your comment that there was clearly strong evidence of God's existence.

I was astounded. How could I have missed this? I read the newspaper regularly, watch the 10:00 news most nights, and listen to NPR news reports every day. And yet I've somehow missed any coverage of this evidence (I know, NPR has a reputation as Godless heathens, but I really do not think they would have swept this under the rug).

Could you please let me know what this evidence is? I'd really appreciate it. I hate to ask, because I know you are a very busy woman, but it does seem pretty important.

I would have asked Mr. Bennett, but I was afraid he might not check his email while he's gambling.

Thank you,

Kevin

P.S. Is there any word on which direction He/She leans on the whole religion thing? Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Other?