Reply
Fri 21 Sep, 2007 10:00 am
A legislator who filed a lawsuit against God has gotten something he might not have expected: a response. One of two court filings from "God" came Wednesday under otherworldly circumstances, according to John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha.
"This one miraculously appeared on the counter. It just all of a sudden was here -- poof!" Friend said.
State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God last week, seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty for making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."
Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic who often criticizes Christians, said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit he considers frivolous. He said he's trying to makes the point that anybody can sue anybody.
Not so, says "God." His response argues that the defendant is immune from some earthly laws and the court lacks jurisdiction.
It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point. "I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you," according to the response, as read by Friend.
There was no contact information on the filing, although St. Michael the Archangel is listed as a witness, Friend said.
A second response from "God" disputing Chambers' allegations lists a phone number for a Corpus Christi law office. A message left for that office was not immediately returned Thursday.
I don't think you can sue God whatever your beliefs.
If you are an agnostic, like this man, then how you can sue something that does not exist?
If you believe in God, then you cannot sue because just how God responded - God is not responsible as He has given man free will.
I'm waiting for Satan to file an amicus curiae brief.
i wouldn't bother, but agnostics could easily file a class action suit with believers. technically, "agnostic" doesn't imply that god "doesn't exist," it implies that you haven't decided if he exists, or that it's impossible to know.
under the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," which we tout but don't really have, it would be thrown out without the involvement of believers- "if you can't prove he exists, you must acquit!"
however, i'm pretty sure that with the war on terrorism, which doesn't require someone to have a trial- let alone be proven guilty- we could detain god eternally if we "suspected" him of aiding terrorists, which there is certainly "evidence" for in (certain interpretations of) the koran- just like with iraq, it seems to depend on how you examine the evidence.
in fact, we could do the very same with osama, if we could find him, but our resources are spread thin enough that it will be interesting to see which one is located first.
tinygiraffe wrote:i wouldn't bother, but agnostics could easily file a class action suit with believers. technically, "agnostic" doesn't imply that god "doesn't exist," it implies that you haven't decided if he exists, or that it's impossible to know.
under the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," which we tout but don't really have, it would be thrown out without the involvement of believers- "if you can't prove he exists, you must acquit!"
however, i'm pretty sure that with the war on terrorism, which doesn't require someone to have a trial- let alone be proven guilty- we could detain god eternally if we "suspected" him of aiding terrorists, which there is certainly "evidence" for in (certain interpretations of) the koran- just like with iraq, it seems to depend on how you examine the evidence.
in fact, we could do the very same with osama, if we could find him, but our resources are spread thin enough that it will be interesting to see which one is located first.
But if you don't believe in God - then how would God be able to show up at court - how could you find someone/thing that does not exist to give him his court order - and if you could win - how could a non-existent being be able to pay up?
well, it's a point of comparison more than anything else. i'm just saying we would possibly have grounds detain him. finding him is another matter, hence the comparison.
but you're still confusing agnostic with atheist- if he's agnostic, and they locate god, he may lose his agnosticism and decide that god is knowable.
but the really good thing is that since we don't have to prove he's guilty, we can just grab someone with a long white beard and say we got him
belief doesn't really matter, all that matters is being patriotic enough.
So that is where Gus has been, off avoiding lawsuits..
does he bear some resemblance to gandolf the white?
tinygiraffe wrote:well, it's a point of comparison more than anything else. i'm just saying we would possibly have grounds detain him. finding him is another matter, hence the comparison.
but you're still confusing agnostic with atheist- if he's agnostic, and they locate god, he may lose his agnosticism and decide that god is knowable.
but the really good thing is that since we don't have to prove he's guilty, we can just grab someone with a long white beard and say we got him
belief doesn't really matter, all that matters is being patriotic enough.
This all reminds me of that movie what the devil is the name of it? The one where Santa Claus is brought to court and wins.
The question is moot. Lawyers have proven, time without end, that they will sue anyone and everyone, for anything, if they feel there is some money in it.
Suing God? Sure, but I don't think you will find any "Pro Bono" takers for the job.
Halfback
know this thread is a bit out of date now....
There's an Australian film called "the man who sued g-d", starring Billy Connolly.
Basically main character's baot gets blown up by lightening. Insurance company won't pay because it's an "act of g-d". Man decides to sue g-d but because g-d isn't "on earth", he decides to sue g-ds representatives (which in the film are the anglican church, catholic church, and the main jewish synagoges).
He points out that either the churchs etc will have to pay for the act of g-d(because they're g-d's representatives); or that they'll have to conceed that g-d doesn't exist and make the insurance company pay (because then there's no such thing as "act of g-d". He also points out that since churches have taken money for g-d, every church member should then sue them for misrepresentation.
Despite it seeming quite rediculous, it's actually a very good watch!!!
ffydownunder wrote:know this thread is a bit out of date now....
There's an Australian film called "the man who sued g-d", starring Billy Connolly.
Basically main character's baot gets blown up by lightening. Insurance company won't pay because it's an "act of g-d". Man decides to sue g-d but because g-d isn't "on earth", he decides to sue g-ds representatives (which in the film are the anglican church, catholic church, and the main jewish synagoges).
He points out that either the churchs etc will have to pay for the act of g-d(because they're g-d's representatives); or that they'll have to conceed that g-d doesn't exist and make the insurance company pay (because then there's no such thing as "act of g-d". He also points out that since churches have taken money for g-d, every church member should then sue them for misrepresentation.
Despite it seeming quite rediculous, it's actually a very good watch!!!
It does give this an interesting twist. Is this a comedy?
yes and no.
there's no doubt there's bits in it that are funny, but it brings up some pretty serious issues as well (especially for people affected by bushfires who lose everything and then have insurance companies say "sorry, not paying - act of g-d!")
How did the posts get all re-ordered?
Divine intervention, perhaps.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace