Not to worry; if current trends continue, America’s economic solvency will shortly be exhausted in a flailing spasm of frivolous lawsuits, loss of intellectual capital due to creeping theocracy, and continued deficit spending to finance military occupation of the Sahara desert in search of Penguins of Mass Destruction.
I hope Canada has all its ducks in a row in time to inherit dominance over Western Civilization. And it also probably wouldn’t hurt to get a head start on a really big, really long wall.
One question for Campion: why do you predict a 12(b)(6) dismissal? It seems to me that the claim they describe – a website that endorses one religion over another – is colorable and could be grounds for relief. The question of whther this website does that is a matter grounded in fact. Since the fact of what the website says aren’t up for any serious dispute, I’d think it would be resolved by a Rule 56 judgement.
But I’m not a sharp guy on this civil law stuff. So what am I missing?
Short answer: whether a certain statement is an endorsement of religion is a question of law, it seems to me. A 12(b)(6) motion is a motion decided on the law, that the facts as stated fail to state a claim. Look at it this way: if I am a schoolteacher, and I said, “Christians believe Jesus is the son of God,” whether I (and the government) endorsed a state religion is a question of law, not of fact.
A 12(b)(6) motion, as you know, is the equivalent of a “so what?” motion. It says, “I admit that everything you say I did is true – I actually did it. So what? Under the law, you have no claim.” Generally, on a 12(b)(6) motion, the judge cannot look at anything outside the four corners of the complaint itself (which means that artful pleading can get you around a 12(b)(6)). But if the complaint incorporates by reference a document, like the website, then the judge can consider the website as well as the complaint, when ruling on whether the plaintiff has stated a claim for which relief may be granted.
Which means that, for purposes of the 12(b)(6), the facts won’t be in dispute: it will become, as the blog I linked to above noted, simply a matter for the judge to decide whether government can make a factual statement about religion without violating the First Amendment. In this instance, actually, the question is whether whether government can make factual statements about multiple religions without violating the First Amendment.
It may be that the judge will let them past Rule 12 to get to discovery, which would be a shame in this instance, because that’s where the cost really is.
By the way, this is apparently the offensive, religion-promoting statement:
More from the blog I linked to above. I keep coming back to the notion that this is simply fundraising for the Caldwells, rather than a serious attempt to enforce some right under the First Amendment.
It displays a misunderstanding to say things like “the truth of evolution is uncertain because, after all, it’s just a theory.” It suggests that scientific findings are published in some ascending order of of certainty. The “Law of Gravity” was not first the “Theory of Gravity” before it graduated.
Copernican Theory, the Theory of Relativity, hell even Music Theory - none of these are suspected of being false by using the word “theory.”
That’s not to say that theories cannot be incorrect. Only that using that word to describe a scientific finding does not act as an indicator one way or the other - a theory is a set of explanations…
Now, if someone were to say “some-such is just a hypothesis” then they would be correct to hold off on teaching it in the classroom. However, the hypothesis of evolution has been repeatedly tested, has made predictions that have borne out, and has indeed graduated. If Isaac Newton had discovered it, we would likely be calling it the Law of Evolution.
Now that’s just defeatist talk. It’s high time Canada stood up for itself and moved out of America’s McRib-bloated shadow. Canadians have a richly variegated society which historically combines the best features of British statesmanship, Inuit scrappiness, and whatever it is the French do. How a mixture of all three cultures managed to turn out weaker than skim milk is a mystery for the ages, but I think we can all agree that a more strongly defined Canadian identity is a goal worth striving for. At least the ongoing strategy of exiling lowbrow acting talent to Hollywood seems to be working out well.
And in terms of economic ties, well… it can’t have escaped Canada’s attention that America is making no friends abroad, so now is as good a time as any to prepare for the business opportunities that will be opening up overseas as the United States continues to burn its bridges around the globe. What better way to establish a strong international trade presence than to cultivate an image as America’s sane, reasonable counterpart?
For crying out loud, Canadians have it all over the States, regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not. In terms of natural selection, the wily Canadian must constantly compete with the mighty polar bear, the intelligent and social timber wolf, the savage caribou, and the deceptively wiry harp seal. In humiliating contrast, it turns out that Americans can’t even properly drive the Ivory-billed Woodpecker to extinction.
Yet the creationist mind must also acknowledge the irrefutable logic of Canada’s supremacy, by the simple fact that God saw fit to place Canada above the United States, provided you ignore Alaska, which (let’s face it) even the rest of America does. Clearly the Lord’s intent was for the relationship between Canada and America to be that of sovereign husband and dutiful wife; else why would He have granted Canada the time-honored Biblical ‘male’ position? Indeed, how can one glance at a map and not be inspired, nay aroused at the firm, steady manner in which Ontario thrusts its engorged Toronto against Detroit’s eagerly submissive clitoris? It’s not just me, right?
As one living in the shadow of the Ren Cen, I must point out it is Windsor, not Toronto, that is rubbing the clitoris that is Detroit.
Staying, momentarily, in the biblical theme… Canada is merely biding its time because it is written, “the meek shall inherit the earth.” It’s just a matter of time
One thing I’d like to point out is that Berkeley has not only a legal team, but I believe a law school. It shouldn’t cost them much to research, defend, brief or try the case if need be.
Not to hijack the thread too much, but if you know who the person is, know where she lives and have her telephone number and evidence, why are you not at the police station swearing out a complaint? Yes, on their own the police may put a low priority on identity theft (and I don’t know how true that actually is these days), but generally when I’ve dealt with the police on identity theft matters (from my days at the phone company, dealing with people stealing dial tone), when one presents them with the name, address and phone number of the party, along with supporting evidence, even the most recalcitrant of police officers will roll a squad car over to the address and pick the person up.
Not to continue Hijack (sorry all) but I have filed a complaint at the police station, provided her name, the address she’s using, the telephone number I reached her at, and my own research about who owns the house that items are being shippped to, receipts from CC statements that I did not charge, etc ad nauseum. I am in CA, she is in WI where I used to live over 3 years ago. I don’t know that they won’t do anything, but I’ve been advised to just let it go that nothing will happen. If she was around the corner, you can be sure I would be yelling like crazy for someone to get over there, but because it’s a different state, it has to be handled differently. Or so I am told.
How is the judge to determine the truth of the purported factual statements about religion? Take judicial notice of religious doctrine? It seems to me that some sort of discovery is required, or you’re depending on a judge to have such solid knowledge of the doctrines of various faiths that he can sua sponte decide on the accuracy of these claims.
