Comments on: WWJD Lawsuit

By: jeffk

jeffk — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:27:20 +0000

I vote for harassment and abuse. If you believe in that stuff – and I’m told people do – then implying that Jesus himself wants your debts collected is definitely abusive.

By: noodleman

noodleman — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:52:51 +0000

I remember the story about Jesus tipping over the tables of money lenders so, I guess, WWJD is not borrow money or use a credit card in the first place but, if you do, you should “render onto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

WWPD is change his name to Paul.

By: kurtis

kurtis — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:47:09 +0000

“Neither a borrower or a lender be.” They should have put WWPD* on their notes. Nothing in the law about quoting the bard, I hope.

* The P is for Polonius.

By: baker

baker — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:48:55 +0000

none of the above. I think it is frivolous.

By: noodleman

noodleman — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:48:23 +0000

I think we need more guilt and shame in our justice system. An atheist wouldn’t necessarily feel guilt or shame, though, if they saw WWJD. Neither would a non-Christian nor, frankly, many Christians (IMHO).

We need to bring back public stocks, too. And scarlet letters. And banishment.

And public executions.

The question is: Does using WWJD constitute harassment, oppression or abuse?