What is OmniNerd?

Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by you, the reader. Through voting and moderation we strive to highlight the nerdiest of what's around and provide content that's a little more thought provoking than other sites.

Submit New Content

Voting Booth

Given only these non-healthy options, which single serving drink is healthiest?

View Results, All Polls
72 votes, 16 comments
0
Nerd-Its
+ -

He likely only wants the court to recognize God

Comment comment by Anonymous on 18 September 2007

No spineless politician or jurist is likely to throw the case out on the basis that there is no God. So there will be a tacit recognition of God, which is probably all that Chambers wants anyway. Just like the case of Kris Kringle in Miracle on 34th Street.

You are a viewing a subset of a larger discussion.
View Full Discussion
Star This to Save in Your Profile Favorite
Thread parent sort order:
Highest Voted : Lowest Voted : Oldest : Newest
Thread verbosity:
Expand All : Minimize Replies to Comments
0 Nerd-Its - +
RE: He likely only wants the court to recognize God by scottb :: NR7

So there will be a tacit recognition of God, which is probably all that Chambers wants anyway.

Actually, he's an atheist, so that's unlikely.

Plus, this isn't the first time the courts have been faced with something like this. Back in 1971, Gerald Mayo sued Satan. The court made a few intellectual wisecracks and dismissed it on the grounds that the plaintiff hadn't provided instructions on how the Marshall's office could serve process on the defendant.

Ernie Chambers might have an easier time of it, though - the defendant in his case is purported to be omniscient and omnipresent. But that's just his fanboys talking. I think the burden of proof of omniscience would fall on the plaintiff.

Posted 18 September 2007, Hide, Parent, Reply