Comments on: American Atheists Spokesperson Has a Rough Time Explaining Kentucky Lawsuit

By: David Silverman

David Silverman — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:04:44 +0000

Thank you Hemant for writing this piece.

Last year, the FFRF lost a case because it was determined by the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs did not have standing as mere taxpaying citizens. The result is that in order to sue to the government for breaking Church/State law, damages MUST be claimed.

I agree, it’s ridiculous, but not nearly so much as the fact that the Division of Homeland Security is responsible for publicizing that it cannot protect its citizenry without God’s help (mind you, God in particular, and not Allah).

“Our god can beat up your god” is the last thing they say before war begins or escalates.

We’ll do what we have to, and settle VERY reasonably if the phrase and the responsibility is removed.

By: Scott LIchtenstein

Scott LIchtenstein — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:10:11 +0000

“mental pain and anguish” is common legalese included in almost every civil complaint seeking non-economic damages (ie, pain and suffering). Guy’s lawyer probably just had it in his computer and included it for good measure.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 01:19:24 +0000

Sometimes, I think Christians are infiltrating the ranks of atheist organizations and doing ridiculous and stupid things in order to portray real atheists as stupid and irrational. That’s not paranoid is it?

By: Alice

Alice — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:53:51 +0000

I don’t see how this is hard to explain. I am not so much disturbed that my safety might be in the hands of fanatics, traitors, or fools, but I am disturbed that they seem to be passing on responsibilities that governments have to a God who didn’t seem to protect anyone from Katrina (for example). We can’t rely on God, even if he did exist. We should be able to rely on our elected officials and the soundness of our law, however.

By: mikespeir

mikespeir — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:57:55 +0000

Dang. Back into the closet for a while.

By: EvilPoet

EvilPoet — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:45:28 +0000

The end of the lawsuit reads: “plaintiffs pray and demand” – *gasp* I’m shocked I tell you! Shocked! Since when do Atheists pray? /snark

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:45:51 +0000

I believe, with the law, no one actually has to have any sort of mental anguish in order for them to win. It was required for a lawsuit that would otherwise stand on its own merit otherwise.

By: Walker

Walker — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:44:23 +0000

I think he handled it well, under the circumstances, although Silverman did seem to brush off Shuster's question about whether anyone is actually suffering from sleep disorders, mental anguish etc. The necessity of claiming damages when bringing suit against the state notwithstanding, who are these "disturbed" people? Any constitutional lawyers want to chime in?

By: Aj

Aj — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:36:39 +0000

While he tries to explain why the “mental anguish” bit is in the lawsuit, the subtext shrieks that they just made up that part so the case could legally be heard in court. Whether it’s true or not, it’s clear that even he doesn’t take that bit seriously. And if he doesn’t, why should anyone else?

He explained it perfectly well, more times than he should have had to, it is there because it has to me. I’m not a lawyer, but this was my understanding. It’s not a new concept, it’s not a big deal that other groups have to answer for.