In view of the Supreme Court, ruling that corporations are “persons” , I am beginning to wonder, using the same logic employed in the SC case, if God is a “person” under Law?
This scenerio sounds a bit like "Miracle in 34th Street. You know, where the judge ruled that Santa Claus was real. The SC wouldn’t dare to dethrone skydaddy. too many conservatives on the dais who wouldn’t be willing to declare that their favorite god wasn’t omnipotent. Besides the teabaggers in the House would find some laws that would alter or supersede or uphold state statutes as they’re trying to do with abortion or ID.
Cap’t Jack
If that were the Court’s decision, then all of his/her “representatives” from the various churches would be free to contribute all the money the wanted to for political campaigns, and the separation of church and state would be obsolete. >:-( 
Occam
If that were the Court's decision, then all of his/her "representatives" from the various churches would be free to contribute all the money the wanted to for political campaigns, and the separation of church and state would be obsolete. >:-( :vampire: OccamOh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to perceive......
In view of the Supreme Court, ruling that corporations are "persons" , I am beginning to wonder, using the same logic employed in the SC case, if God is a "person" under Law?Then wouldn't ALL gods be persons? Lois
In view of the Supreme Court, ruling that corporations are "persons" , I am beginning to wonder, using the same logic employed in the SC case, if God is a "person" under Law?Then wouldn't ALL gods be persons? Lois A conundrum for sure. But then calling a corporation a person is a conundrum, IMO.
Laws themselves are based upon the commandments of God.
Laws themselves are based upon the commandments of God.No, they are not.
Then who wrote the first laws?
Then who wrote the first laws?Very easy to do a wiki search on legal history] and click through the various links.
Then who wrote the first laws?A man or a group of men did, most assuredly not God, he has no hands. Who came up with the ideas? Men or a group of men. Why? Because these laws had a common denominator, man.
Yes, they were men. These men were also kings and priests and gods.
Were on the same page.
Yes, they were men. These men were also kings and priests and gods. Were on the same page.Kings and Priests, yes and historically verifiable. Gods? Where is the evidence, other than the declarations by Kings and Priests (men)? At no time in history has there been evidence of a god. We have mythology not history to deal with that.
Member Total Posts: 198 Joined 2013-06-01 Then who wrote the first laws?Hammurabi.
Link: http://ancienthistory.about.com/sitesearch.htm?q=hammurabi&SUName=ancienthistory http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/religionmythology/u/GodsandGoddesses.htmMember Total Posts: 198 Joined 2013-06-01 Then who wrote the first laws?Hammurabi.
In view of the Supreme Court, ruling that corporations are "persons" , I am beginning to wonder, using the same logic employed in the SC case, if God is a "person" under Law?Then wouldn't ALL gods be persons? Lois A conundrum for sure. But then calling a corporation a person is a conundrum, IMO. True. It's also a travesty of justice.
Damn piece of crap phone. Don’t tell me my message didn’t go through then post it anyway. Work right you piece of junk.
Assuming for the moment that God is real and that It is a person under law. Does this mean we can sue God? For say emotional trauma? And, can God be charged under law? For say murder, reckless endangerment, criminal neglect, etc?
A few times recently, I had a discussion with someone who found the idea that corporations considered persons was odd and strange. I learned this in high school back in the eighties and find it odd that people are just now discovering it. The function of a corporation as a person has always existed in the law by at least the 1800s. It is what enables them to exist at all. Before this period, a corporation had to be granted direct powers by the government and was initially meant as a means to gain large investments for special purposes. I believe that the East India Company was one of the first for England.
The idea that anyone can invest in something and yet not lose anything more than their investment created the limited liability concept. Because a corporation doesn’t have to be liable for losses beyond any investment brought in, they needed some means to give it legal responsibility. That is, by defining it as a person, they assure that the entity must abide by the same criminal laws imposed on everyone else. Otherwise, their existence would make them above and beyond the law once they are established.
I don’t see how it could be extended to presume the possibility of a god having this power except within the confines of a non-profit corporation of churches.
I’m not saying, by the way, that I agree with the capacity of powers that corporations are given. I would go even further and make management and investors liable as persons under the law if and when corporations do things criminal. That is, I would make them accountable under conditions of criminal behaviors. At present, this is not the case. The strange mentality of this is meant to attract investors by alleviating any fears of risking beyond anything they initially paid for on a stock. It’s a law that says that they are allowed to profit, but do not have to lose. Even though less people may buy stocks if they learned that they would have to be criminally liable, I still think that it’s time we make them more responsible than they have been so far. And since you can sue in the States, if as an investor, your management or other investors were the culprits to criminal behaviors, you can act with the criminal law behind you, not just business law.
So I say any laws to assure that they behave more as persons under the law has better repercussions for us all.
Oh yeah, if this could happen, I guess it would be wise to make God a person when represented by non-profit corporations too. We could then sue God as its main representative leader by making the very people who believe in him accountable.