Sunday Wry Mouth: On Suing God To Make a Statement
Got wind of this li'l cutie, a state Senator, to boot:
[Nebraska Senator Ernie] Chambers had sued God in September 2007, seeking a permanent injunction
to prevent God from committing acts of violence such as earthquakes and
tornadoes.
Why? Well, Chambers, is NOT some atheistic jerk, running the usual smarmy shell game. Note the thrust of his suit before reacting the wrong way; the Independent is reputed to explain:...he argued that [Judge Marlon] Polk should take judicial notice of the
existence of God. The senator cited the facts that U.S. currency says
"In God We Trust," God is invoked during oaths in court hearings, and
chaplains offer prayers before legislative bodies. ...
Although the case may seem superfluous and even scandalous to others,
Chambers has said his point is to focus on the question of whether
certain lawsuits should be prohibited.
"Nobody should stand at the courthouse door to predetermine who has access to the courts... My point is that anyone can sue anyone else, even God."
"Nobody should stand at the courthouse door to predetermine who has access to the courts... My point is that anyone can sue anyone else, even God."
So, okay. I think the judge (not surprisingly) gets the reason to dismiss the suit wrong:
You can't sue God if you can't serve the papers on him, a Douglas County District Court judge has ruled in Omaha.
Judge Marlon Polk threw out Nebraska Sen. Ernie Chambers' lawsuit against the Almighty, saying there was no evidence that the defendant had been served.
Judge Marlon Polk threw out Nebraska Sen. Ernie Chambers' lawsuit against the Almighty, saying there was no evidence that the defendant had been served.
Chambers' riposte shows a deeper understanding of the situation:
"If God is omnipresent," Chambers said in that August hearing, "then he is here in Douglas County and in this courtroom."
The judge shouldn't be arguing that God cannot be served notice, which is not an irrefutable position. Rather, I propose the judge's position should be more fundamental; although — in a country that has smudged over it's Judeo-Christian foundations — the basic position might not be one that would spring to mind for many judges these days:
Upon what basis is Chambers asserting that earthquakes and tornadoes are acts that should be prevented?
One can't really argue the standpoint that the pain, destruction and terror caused by such Acts of God are "bad," unless one is arguing from theologically-based definitions of good and evil (this would be the fatal weakness in the usual atheistic "The God That Can't Exist is Bad" arguments). Even then, one would have to present an argument or two that one knew better than God how to run a universe, and that one could see deeply into the nature of the cosmos, deeply enough to see that preventing earthquakes and tornadoes and such would improve the system, and that such things aren't somehow inherent to the "best" system, that chosen by the designer of the cosmos.
***
In any case, Chambers makes his point in an interestingly sharp manner — the case has to be judged "frivolous" by a judge, not some courthouse clerk or paralegal.
Is that a point one supports, or assails?
The senator said today that he is considering an appeal of Polk's ruling.
"It is a thoughtful, well-written opinion," Chambers said. "However, like any prudent litigator, I want to study it in detail before I determine what my next course of action will be."
;o/
I liked this story better when it was 'Miracle on 34th Street'
Anyway, Chambers' objective was not to force a recognition of God, or even to allow lawsuits seeking to conflate religion and government.
His purpose was to demonstrate that one cannot deem a lawsuit 'frivolous' on its face. (Which works agin' those anti-trial-lawyerin' tort-reformin' guardians we've seen so much of since 1994.)
And I don't think a judge could dismiss a suit based on whether HE had questions about its underlying premise (are tornados bad?). I'm sure any suit could be dismissed by such logic (A cup full of boiling coffee in your lap is not necessarily bad: that injury took a motor vehicle off the road for a measurable period of time, and for that time made the streets a small increment safer and less congested - a public benefit!)
Anyway, strikes me as kind of a contrived exercise no matter what the goal.
Reply to this
"His purpose was to demonstrate that one cannot deem a lawsuit 'frivolous' on its face. "
See bold, large print, above. ;o/ We're on the same side on this one.
Reply to this