And long overdue :-)
A politician in the US is protesting at frivolous law suits in the US courts by launching one himself in which he is suing God. The suit (pdf) seeks an injunction against God to stop him and his followers making terrorist threats. It has been filed in a Nebraska district court by Ernie Chambers, a Senator in the state Senate …
Good work by the Senator. His suit also seems to highlight the absurd notion of a "god" (and believing in one) anyway.
However, as "god" (by any stretch of a sane and logic-based mind) does not exist, and it is (man-made) religions who perpetuate the myth of "god" and have caused so much damage to humanity and and the planet on which we live, perhaps the senator should have aimed his suit at the major religions?
So, assuming that the legal system in it's somewhat dubious wisdom, finds the defendant guilty as charged... what exactly are they going to do? God behind bars? Or maybe order Him to do a few hundred hours of community service?
Of course, seeing as He DID make the world in 7 days (that's 168 hours of hard graft), and presumably He has partaken in other miraculous actions over the last few millenia, I would guess He has already served his sentence...
Perhaps the prosecution could call His wayward brother to the stand, maybe Satan's perspective on things might address the balance...
They found that as there is no definate proof of a God's existence, it is not a substantial entity which can be declared as a defendant in a court case.
I find this is more of a Black Adder moment...
"Prosecution moves that as this is an obvious open-and-shut case, we bring a seperate case against the Defence council for wasting the court's time."
"Quite right, Darling, Defence council is hereby fined £50 for turning up!"
Chambers said he was so outraged at Bowen's frivolous law suit.
The man is an idiot, it's not unreasonable for Tory to be a little peeved that in a rape case she was barred (as the complainant) from using the words rape or sexual assault.
Her law suit seems quite reasonable, so all Chambers has done is made himself look like a tit.
Do you people actually know what this Chambers man is doing? He is trying to make a name for himself, boasting upon himself, and questioning God. This is sin, and some of you are supporting him and saying that it would be "awsome" if the case actually went through. I urge those of you that are supporting Chambers to read the scripture and repent of your sins. Jesus is coming back soon. Chambers shouldn't be suing God, he should be suing the Devil, for he is the one that has created all of these evil acts of terrorism and national disasters.
In the love of Christ,
Too bad that this is what it takes to make a statement about our counties legal system. It's unfortunate and a waist of time, effort and money, there couldn't be another way to make a statement about what needs to be revised in our legal system? Something that would produce results not just internet chatter. I don't think the answer to frivilous lawsuits is to issue a frivilous law suit. Mabey this will spark logical action towards improving our legal system, or people will laugh at this and dismiss it. For change, we need a more practical course of action.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Reminds me of an old joke..
An IT journalist dies and winds up in heaven.
St.Peter is giving him the new-arrivals' tour.
"Hang on,", says the journo, "is that Steve Jobs over there? When did he die?"
"Shhh.", says St. Peter, "That's God. He just likes to think he's Steve Jobs".
He's a good guy, does a good job representing his constituents, and agree with him or not, you can never say that he doesn't make a person think. He's had a long, productive career thwacking beehives, metaphorically speaking.
The problem is, when a legislator and lawyer takes steps to address frivolous lawsuits, he may be viewed as the guy that will force lawyers to have to make a decent living. Pity, that.
Personally, I think that God would just laugh this one off -- but I'm not ready to face Him personally at the moment for a more direct inquiry.
I'm not at all sure this case will succeed, simply because Ernie Chambers has already publically professed to be an atheist; so, by his own admission, there is no respondent and therefore no case. To make it stand up will take some serious doublethink. (Of course, one could borrow from advanced mathematics where we often pretend on one side of an equation that some small quantity is zero and on the other side we pretend that it isn't zero ..... but I'm not at all sure that certain parts of the USA, i.e. those parts where people sincerely believe in the literal existence of god, don't regard anything other than finite, positive integers with deep suspicion.)
For what it's worth, I think the decision not to allow the use of the words "rape" or "victim" in the Bowen case was actually quite a sensible one, and entirely consistent with the quaint, old-fashioned principle that a defendant should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Sexual offence trials (in the USA and the UK) are very one-sided affairs. A false accusation of rape does not damage the accused's life, and the lives of those around him, one iota less than an actual rape damages the victim's life and the lives of those around the victim. Yet a woman who maliciously and falsely accuses a man of rape generally gets off scot-free and can hide behind a cloak of anonymity; while he and his family are permanently blighted, having already been tried and condemned by the mainstream media. Alleged sexual offenders aren't so much "guilty until proven innocent", as "guilty even despite proven innocent".
So far there is only one other comment I saw posting on the actual nature of this case, so I'll join them.
This man is an idiot. From the article explanation, the "frivolous" lawsuit is the result of the judge in a sexual assault lawsuit barring the use of the words "rape" and "victim". That's a travesty of justice, and the judge should be disbarred for that. What's next? Bar the words "theft", "steal", "stole", and "victim" from a robbery trial? How about barring "murder" and "victim" from a murder trial? Perhaps that judge should be murdered, and then the police can refer to him as "the person on the receiving end of a non-state-sponsored death sentence".
As for anonymous "Please... in love of christ"... I respect your right to believe in your choice of religion. Please respect MY right to not believe in your choice of religion. Neither one of us knows the truth, since we are both lacking evidence (you lack the evidence of the existence of your god, and I cannot possibly prove the non-existence of something). But at least I'm intelligent enough to admit that I don't know the truth. That's the problem with religion -- stupid sheeple doing what they're told without questioning. I seem to recall a group out of Germany doing to same...
Most of the things Christians and Jews complain about Muslims believing are in Leviticus (a book within the Bible and Torah) as mandatory religious rules and requirements for followers of Jehovah/JHWF. You will not find a Bible or Torah without Leviticus in it.
It is amazing, how much of it makes mandatory xenophobia, racism, sexism, slavery, and genocide on a par with what Hitler failed to achieve, for true fundamentalist believers who take this supposedly divinely inspired book as the truth.
But the Bible and Torah are legal even in those countries (like Canada) that hold hate literature as illegal.
The Bible and Torah are legal simply because they were supposedly divinely inspired.
In its totality, these books are the most hate-filled hate-advocating document going, and charitable Christians and Jews need to give it a good cleaning-out.
They need to give it a good cleaning-out to distance their God from the nutty abuse by religious fundamentalists.
There will be some of Bible and Torah left after such a cleaning, and that part that is left could make a positive contribution to the world.
If the defense against Chamber's law suit is that there is no God, that requires an admission that the Bible and Torah (and all other religious books) are not divinely inspired.
With that admission, we (in Canada) could ban this Hate Literature until the xenophobic, racist and sexist hate is edited out.
The only shame is that the inspiration of this brilliant law suit was faulty and that it was brought as a joke.
How can anyone, let alone a state senator, joke about genocide and slavery?
"Jesus is coming back soon."
The only Jesus coming back soon is the illegal Mexican working at the farm next door here. He's out to buy diesel for the tractors but should be back later in the afternoon.
"But the Bible and Torah are legal even in those countries (like Canada) that hold hate literature as illegal."
Even if it is fiction!? ;-)
In Kenia a Christian congregation has started court action against the Roman Empire, because of a supposed mistrial in Jesus' case. According to them Jesus did not violate Roman, but Jewish law and therefore would have needed to be prosecuted under the latter. This means that Jesus should not have died on the cross, which was a punishment under Roman law, but through stoning.
As defendants are named Emperor Tiberius, as the state's highest representant of authority, Pontius Pilatus, Roman prefect of the province, the Jewish High Priest and Council of Elders, several Rabbis and of course Herodes, King of Judaea, Galilaea and Samaria.
As the above won't be available, the subpoenas have been served to the Italian and Israeli ambassadors in Kenia.
The article mentions that Ernie Chambers is in the state senate for Nebraska. This is technically incorrect since there is no state senate in Nebraska, there is only a state legislature. Nebraska is the only state left in the US with a unicameral, no house of representatives and senate, only a single legislature.
And yes, I am kinda embarassed to have this guy in my state legislature, thankfully, he doesn't represent the part of the state I live in
Despite all of the hoopla over God in government the United States' official motto is "E Pluribus Unum" or "One from Many".
The "In God We Trust" junk was added by religious zealots who felt insecure, and it got worse during the Communist scare of the 1950's.
BTW: the "One Nation <<Under God>> Indivisible" line in the Pledge of Allegience was not written with "Under God", that was added in the 1950's also.
DX in Philadelphia
.. wouldnt happen to be a lawyer as well would he ??
The american justice( sorry.. legal.. need to learn the strikethrough command ) system exists as a trough for an exclusive club to feed from, with scraps thrown to anyone else foolish or desperate enough toss anything in to it.
By bringing this case, senator whatsisname is consuming money that could be used for something of real value. Instead he is feeding lawyers.
Don't insurance companies have something called an act of god well if god can be used as an escape clause as something to swear by (bible). Then by God exists for the legal system of the US and therefore can be sued and his houses repossessed his funds, which BTW are huge, can be frozen and his employees jailed for complicity. I am tired of this having your cake and eating it crap it's either fantasy or it's real but it can't be both so the gummint needs to choose one.
but was that a fair trial? did he have the right to appeal? and did he have a lawyer?
Posted Friday 21st September 2007 12:42 GMT
Of course, many are of the opinion that God has already been put on trial and was crucified after being found guilty."
Can anyone possible proof God exists? And even so, which one?
"Act of God" is just what western legal systems allow greedy insurance companies to abuse the system and rip people off.
However, to think about it, as the way how "Act of God" can be used in legal systems, God must be responsible for the damages, and would be indeed guilty of charge.
Uh, just because something was changed 50+ years ago doesn't make it not there now.
The USA was formed by uniting some areas of land run by different groups. That was a change made at a point in the history of USA too, so should we say that doesn't count because it was done by some government back ages ago to fix a specific problem at the time?
I see a few comments supporting the lawsuit by Bowen believing the judges decision was wrong, but banning words like 'rape' from trials is common - and rightly so.
In "A tale told by an idiot," Chris refers to the judges decision as a 'travesty of justice.' This is nonsense. Refering to the woman as a victim implies that the defendant is guilty, as does refering to their encounter as a rape. And your mention of murder trials? Should we introduce the defendant as 'the Murderer'? I suppose if we could just assume a verdict then it would save us the cost of actually holding trials.
It is impossible to expect people to be completely rational and unbiased in a case involving alleged sexual assault, and the media is well aware of the public outrage these cases generate, giving publicity to allegations without any regard for the reputations they might ruin. The decision to ban the use of words like 'rape' was clearly an attempt by the judge to afford the defendant some measure of the principle: 'innocent until proven guilty.'
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020