Posted on 03/07/2011 7:49:35 AM PST by SmithL
The Supreme Court won't hear an atheist's latest challenge to the U.S. government's references to God.
The court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Michael Newdow, who says government references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Time for the “Not this s*** again” poster. Maybe this guy will be happier when he has to say “In Allah we trust”.
I can’t wait until Nedow’s daughter turns 18, so he can no longer use her as standing for his continual torrent of atheist lawsuits.
IMOW "Better to believe in God...just in case"
Blaise Pascal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
Mind you, there are plenty of refutations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager#Criticism
I first met Pascal while taking hydralics in college....c1980
Looks like poor old Michael Newdow isn’t going to get a book and movie deal afer all.
This guy walked by me no more than three feet away, and I had the same urge you did.
Harold Ickes
Be a crapload of chipping of historical relics in Federal buildings if all references to Christianity are to be removed. This is a thing that will be relegated to the next generation of pigs. Their children will need the material to build their fires, so they don’t have to eat their rats raw.
Newdow must have oodles of cash lying around. He is in court 365 days a year.
It was Pascal. He was writing for the Libertins of the age in which he lived, throwing down the gauntlet, so to speak. It was a challenge: If you bet on God and He doesn’t exist, you’ve lost nothing, but if you don’t bet on God and He does exist, you’ve lost everything.
If he doesn’t like it, he can just stop using US currency.
Better yet, move to a different country! Problem solved!
Unless you pick the wrong God. Unless God rewards skepticism and punishes blind faith. Unless...etc.
Re: rewarding evil - I think Descartes addressed that issue with his “esprit malin”/”mauvais genie”. Just doesn’t hold up. The question was whether Pascal was the one associated with the statement. The answer is yes, he was.
If you are looking to dig into the theological ramifications of the simplicity of his statement, that, of course, is another question altogether and not one I addressed in my post.
I actually wish the court would hear his case.
They won’t hear it because they know that then they have to either get rid of “in God we trust” or reverse the last 50 years of court policies that promotes secularism in the public square. They are too chicken to do either.
Best argument in the world for "LOOSER PAYS"!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
