|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2011 - 3:44PM
#81
|
|
|
Pointless, I'd say, since I'd bet that this case and a good many like it are dismissed as ridiculous wastes of the court's time.
As has been mentioned, virtually every religious sect that stays active has far more easily acquired remedies than a trip halfway around the world.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2011 - 3:27PM
#80
|
|
|
Hence, my follow up question:
What is the general sentiment here on putting a cap on the amount you can ask for religious reparations at all, regardless of denomination? That would come with its own host of controversies but at least could be applied equally to Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, etc...
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2011 - 3:04PM
#79
|
|
|
Should the restaurant pay these people some reasonable amount since they were assured the samosas were vegetarian? Perhaps.
I expect that these individuals' attorney will be hardpressed to prove that any actual harm other than their feeling betrayed occurred.
After all, this could have been an unfortunate error.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2011 - 3:02PM
#78
|
|
|
Perhaps they could have a 55 gallon drum of Ganges water shipped over to Edison, and when they are done with it, it could be poured into the Atlantic, purifying the entire eastern seabord. I would happily contribute to the cost.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2011 - 3:01PM
#77
|
|
|
I just looked at the Hindu forum and the answers to the question I asked about the subject of this thread pretty much agrees with the posts that regard this as a frivolous lawsuit that does not have merit. One poster said that it was not neccessary to go India to be purified. He said that in Hindu Temples there is water that is from the Ganges and that "purification" can be performed by sprinkling this water on the people. I doubt that this will come to trial. I doubt even more that if it did and the people filing the lawsuit won that they would get the damages they requested. However "weirder" things have happened in jury trials.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2011 - 2:28PM
#76
|
|
|
As I said, I'm with Ken: No reasonable Hindu would consider doing something so hazardous. However, it's not commonly the business of governments to protect adults from the consequences of their misplaced beliefs.
Been thinking about this alot, actually. I also don't like the idea of government intervention where people's personal lives are concerned-- in fact, I think what bothers me is the idea of the government getting to decide which religious beliefs are "reasonable" and which are "unreasonable" in legal cases. It's a very murky issue since pretty much everyone's religious beliefs are going to sound weird to someone.
The weirdness isn't the issue. The issue is whether somebody has to pay you a large sum of money to allow you to indulge your weirdness.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2011 - 2:06PM
#75
|
|
|
As I said, I'm with Ken: No reasonable Hindu would consider doing something so hazardous. However, it's not commonly the business of governments to protect adults from the consequences of their misplaced beliefs.
Been thinking about this alot, actually. I also don't like the idea of government intervention where people's personal lives are concerned-- in fact, I think what bothers me is the idea of the government getting to decide which religious beliefs are "reasonable" and which are "unreasonable" in legal cases. It's a very murky issue since pretty much everyone's religious beliefs are going to sound weird to someone. What I'm worried about, essentially, is that the group might be facing more scrutiny than they would if their religion wasn't a minority in the U.S. What is the general sentiment here on putting a cap on the amount you can ask for religious reparations at all, regardless of denomination? That would come with its own host of controversies but at least could be applied equally to Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, etc...
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2011 - 3:34PM
#74
|
|
|
St. John or not, I've been assured that being saved guarantees a slot in heaven.
Perhaps that was these individuals' misunderstanding, but I've heard that from more than one fundamentalist.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2011 - 10:30AM
#73
|
|
|
Yes, well, suing for an expenses-paid trip to bathe in and drink from the world's most polluted river simply isn't sensible. Ranks with fundamentalist Christians who insist that technically someone who's been saved but willfully commits murder will nevertheless go to heaven. As I said, I'm with Ken: No reasonable Hindu would consider doing something so hazardous. However, it's not commonly the business of governments to protect adults from the consequences of their misplaced beliefs.
Huh?
St John wrote that no murderer will inherit the kingdom of heaven. That is a sin that will have to be repented of and forgiven.
For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.
St. Thomas Aquinas
If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2011 - 6:14AM
#72
|
|
|
Yes, well, suing for an expenses-paid trip to bathe in and drink from the world's most polluted river simply isn't sensible. Ranks with fundamentalist Christians who insist that technically someone who's been saved but willfully commits murder will nevertheless go to heaven.
As I said, I'm with Ken: No reasonable Hindu would consider doing something so hazardous.
However, it's not commonly the business of governments to protect adults from the consequences of their misplaced beliefs.
|
|
|
