First it was me, now it’s God. God is being sued by State Senator Ernie Chambers of Nebraska.
Chambers lawsuit, which was filed on Friday in Douglas County Court, seeks a permanent injunction ordering God to cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats.
The lawsuit admits God goes by all sorts of alias, names, titles and designations and it also recognizes the fact that the defendant is “Omnipresent”.
In the lawsuit Chambers says he’s tried to contact God numerous times, “Plaintiff, despite reasonable efforts to effectuate personal service upon Defendant (“Come out, come out, wherever you are”) has been unable to do so.”
The suit also requests that the court given the “peculiar circumstances” of this case waive personal service. It says being Omniscient, the plaintiff assumes God will have actual knowledge of the action.
The lawsuit accuses God “of making and continuing to make terroristic threats of grave harm to innumerable persons, including constituents of Plaintiff who Plaintiff has the duty to represent.”
It says God has caused, “fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects, and the like.”
The suit also says God has caused, “calamitous catastrophes resulting in the wide-spread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants including innocent babes, infants, children, the aged and infirm without mercy or distinction.”
Chambers also says God “has manifested neither compassion nor remorse, proclaiming that Defendant “will laugh” when calamity comes.
Chambers asks for the court to grant him a summary judgment. He says as an alternative, he wants the judge to set a date for a hearing as “expeditiously” as possible and enter a permanent injunction enjoining God from engaging in the types of deleterious actions and the making of terroristic threats described in the lawsuit.
This may surprise you, but God should call upon me to defend him. After all, I’ll show that God is neither omnipresent nor omniscient, and that those are just vague rumors spread by people who actually don’t know him. I’ll also demonstrate that God is utterly ineffectual, that not only doesn’t have the power to cause those horrible events that harm people, he doesn’t even have the capability to help anyone. And that he doesn’t show compassion or remorse, and contrary to Chambers, won’t laugh … because he is an entirely nonexistent, fictional character.
When the case is dismissed, we will then go on to sue all the priesthoods of Earth for misrepresentation of my innocent and entirely harmless client. We won’t countersue Ernie Chambers, though — I think I like that guy.
(Hat tip to the Lincoln Secular Humanists)
I hear God’s worried. If it all goes bad in court he might end up as Kent Hovind’s cell-mate.
Halle-fuckin’-lujah!!!
Well that sounds a little wacky, although apparently Chambers has made a career of being a little wacky. The one thing Im confused by is the news articles Ive seen (ex: http://www.ketv.com/news/14133442/detail.html) about this state,
But I am unclear as to the relevance of this suit to that one, other than they both seem rather silly. (More information on the suit against the judge at http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=1185765)
We should at least be able to really nail the almighty on the whole polygamy thing…at least in some states….aren’t there 1000’s of brides-of-Christ out there, all living in poverty…??
Douglas County Court ? Doesn’t God deserve better than being sued in a rinky-dink Nebraskan court ? How about taking the case to the International Court in The Hague. I mean, he did send the flood and all….
God won’t show up for the trial. Bush had him shipped off to Gitmo as an enemy combatant after Katrina.
Someone tried this on Satan once.
It got thrown out because they couldn’t figure out a way to serve process.
Odd. It’s putting a nofollow tag at the end of my link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ex_rel._Gerald_Mayo_v._Satan_and_His_Staff
This should work.
Not surprisingly, PZ’s proposed defenses show his ignorance. No God worth His salt would consent to either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, and sovereign immunity would bar any recovery.
Wouldn’t Chambers, as the prosecution, have to demonstrate causality? That might be tough. God, after all, hasn’t directly claimed responsibility for a long time, though some of his followers have claimed it for him. Don’t think that will stand as evidence in court. But you know God, he’ll claim some sort of “universal executive privilege” that gives him immunity. Essential evidence will be covered up for “universal security” reasons. His administration clearly has no respect for the principles of democracy and refuses to be held accountable for his actions. He should be impeached, except that would leave the number two guy in charge, and you know what they say about him: the Prince of Darkness.
Could God create a lawyer so annoying that he himself couldn’t stand him?
Pardon me, “…He Himself…”
Well there goes my inheritance.
If God is omnipresent and omniscient then they only need write it up and consider it served. They could read it at church one Sunday if they like, just for form. Anyway, I think a war crime indictment for genocide would be in order.
Isn’t all the evidence just
heresyheresay?Although the suit is funny, I wouldn’t give a hurrah for Ernie. Nebraskans know him as a loon.
Good ol’ Ernie. Still driving the people of Nebraska up the wall. You’d be hard pressed to find a more colorful character in government anywhere. I didn’t think he could top his crusade to make the football players of the University of Nebraska state employees, but by gosh, he’s really outdone himself.
To bad his case is going to get thrown out on a technicality. You can’t sue a fictional character in a court of law.
Defense counsel wishes to introduce Philip Pullman’s “His Dark Materials” trilogy into evidence and call the author to testify that God is a decrepit senile wreck, unable to stand trial without dissipating.
Exactly with what is God going to pay him? Virgins?
Hmm. Could we get Xians onboard on a charge of perversion and threatening marriage customs? Didn’t mr X force Adam’s and Eve’s sons and daughters to marry each other?
Really, X record is too bad to throw his ass in hell. He doesn’t deserve that, he has never repented and he remains a clear escape risk. X should be thrown out of this universe for good.
Yes, too bad you can’t do this to a fictional character.
Hmm. Could we get Xians onboard on a charge of perversion and threatening marriage customs? Didn’t mr X force Adam’s and Eve’s sons and daughters to marry each other?
Really, X record is too bad to throw his ass in hell. He doesn’t deserve that, he has never repented and he remains a clear escape risk. X should be thrown out of this universe for good.
Yes, too bad you can’t do this to a fictional character.
“Too bad his case is going to get thrown out on a technicality. You can’t sue a fictional character in a court of law.”
How is that bad; wouldn’t the court have to first declare God to be a fictional character?
It seems very strange that he objects to the case against the judge.
If you cannot use the word Rape in a case where a person is accused of rape, what is next?
“So what did the man do to you?”
Witness:”Well he robbed me of my purse”
Judge:”Sorry we are trying this case to decide if defendant is guilty, you may not assume it, please rephrase”
Witness:”Well he jumped out, pointed a gun at me and took my money against my will”
Judge:”Sorry by saying ‘took my money’ you are prejudicing the case against the defendant, please rephrase, or I will hold you in contempt”
Witness:”OK. He told me to give him my purse, after I did it, he shot me with the gun”
Judge:”That’s it, case dismissed. Witness will be taken into custody for contempt of court, defendant can not get a fair trial if the witness keeps describing defendant pursuing illegal activities”
He’s doing this to highlight frivolous lawsuits. Like most Republicans, he’s searching for a way to limit peoples’ rights to sue. As someone mentioned, a woman who was raped was barred from using the words “rape” and “victim” during the trial, and she went on to sue the judge on First Amendment grounds. The bit I heard on the radio is that Chambers is trying to get across to people that “not everything should be settled in court”. But he’s got his head up his ass if he doesn’t think “rape” and “victim” don’t belong in a sexual assault trial.
It’s really not funny when you look at his motives.
He’s doing this to highlight frivolous lawsuits. Like most Republicans, he’s searching for a way to limit peoples’ rights to sue. As someone mentioned, a woman who was raped was barred from using the words “rape” and “victim” during the trial, and she went on to sue the judge on First Amendment grounds. The bit I heard on the radio is that Chambers is trying to get across to people that “not everything should be settled in court”. But he’s got his head up his ass if he doesn’t think “rape” and “victim” don’t belong in a sexual assault trial.
It’s really not funny when you look at his motives.
Heh! Are you forgetting that Jebus went to court?
That is totally frickin’ awesome!
“To bad his case is going to get thrown out on a technicality. You can’t sue a fictional character in a court of law.”
And that is precisely the point of th suit. If the courts throw it out for that reason then they have set a precedent that god does not exist.
Oh, really! D’you think he means things like, say, the curricula and materials used for public school science education?
Unfortunately for God, he has no sovereign status under United States law, whatever grandiose claims may have been made on his behalf.
I think, actually, his best legal strategy *would* be to disclaim all the claims made in his name (in the Bible and elsewhere), since he then can’t be legally linked to anything whatsoever. (Then he also isn’t legally required to admit to being omnipresent – establishing jurisdiction over him as a resident of Nebraska and other places – or omniscient – eliminating the need for service of process.) He didn’t actually claim responsibility for any of those acts of mass destruction, genocide, threats, etc. – someone else attributed responsibility to him, but there’s no proof of any of those allegations.
That would be pretty much ironclad – the plaintiff would have to prove that God actually *was* responsible for those alleged acts of God, which is a pretty tall order. But it may be the entire purpose of the lawsuit to maneuver God into disclaiming people who alleged they were speaking with his authorization.
P.S. They left out the allegation that God has indefinitely detained a large number of people in a location colloquially known as “Hell”, where they are alleged to be tortured and held without recourse to counsel or appeal based on an unreviewable decision to designate them “sinners”, with no standards of evidence or due process whatsoever. Also difficult to substantiate, but again, maneuvering him into denying it might have some value in its own right.
I’m with Chris; any amusement I might feel about this ridiculous lawsuit is mitigated by the complete misogyny of his motivations.
Feministing on this subject.
Exactly. This is not an attempt to prove or disprove god; it’s an attempt to undermine the right to seek redress in civil court — which, lest we forget, is the only way that the Goldman family could drag that murderous psychopath OJ Simpson* to justice.
What else, after this, is likely to be deemed “frivolous”? To dar too many people the existence of a god is inarguable; how silly might it seem, by that standard, that some “pro-homosexual” or “victim’s rights” or “pro-tur’rist” agitators want to overturn vicious, inhuman rulings?
As Chris points out, this isn’t really funny.
====
* Whose true colors are definitely showing again; hence the reference.
Let me remind everyone that, although funny, this case will unequivocally further enrage theists in this country against atheism even though this case wasn’t brought about by an atheist nor is it even the point of the case. We may see humor and even truth in the case, but it will most likely unfairly backfire on to atheists.
Hmmm, wait a sec…
It’d be funny as hell if the courts decided to take it seriously.
Chambers already had his fifteen minutes of legal fame when he tried and failed to get the Nebraska legislature to stop legislative prayer. Brennan’s dissent is, unsurprisingly, quite good.
Chris and Warren:
He’s not a Republican, he’s a Democrat. The republicans get a pass in this one.
If I understand the background, Chambers is making the correct analogy. You don’t sue a judge for a decision he makes during a trial; you appeal his decision to the higher court. It is absurd to allow the lawsuit against the judge. During the trial, the judge is God. Suing God makes as much sense as suing a judge; if anything, it makes more sense, because you have no other remedies against God’s errors.
Do you have nothing better to do that troll?
Huh. AP/MSNBC seems to have the story wrong-
“Angered by another lawsuit he considers frivolous, Chambers says he’s trying to make the point that anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody.”
Is he angered by another lawsuit, and suing to make the point that nobody should be disallowed from suing? Nice wording, AP/MSNBC. Way to mislead the people.
Unfortunately for God, he has no sovereign status under United States law, whatever grandiose claims may have been made on his behalf.
Except for the bit about the Supreme Court stating that the USA is a “Christian nation.” Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 (1892). Besides, for Ernie’s claim to make even a little bit of sense, sovereign status needs to be conceded.
Let me remind everyone that, although funny, this case will unequivocally further enrage theists in this country against atheism even though this case wasn’t brought about by an atheist nor is it even the point of the case.
Actually, it appears that ol’ Ernie is both a progressive and an atheist. It may shock the crowd here that kooks come in all flavors.
http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2006/march/chambers.php
This suit is a time-wasting, court-clogging sideshow. From my POV it’s pointless since it presupposes that such a being as God exists. If such a being did exist, with the attributes generally ascribed to it, any court judgement would be unenforceable.
Everything I’ve read indicates that Sen. Chambers is doing this to grandstand to his constituency about the ease of filing clearly frivolous lawsuits. This is a cause which is near and dear to conservatives.
Several technical points:
Moopheus (#10): This is a civil action (lawsuit), not a criminal action (prosecution for a crime). Hence, Chambers is the plaintiff, not the prosecutor.
Itsjustanalias (#15): I think you mean “hearsay” — this is indirect evidence based on what someone heard another say, even though the first person did not witness the events himself. Hearsay is generally inadmissible.
I think you mean “hearsay” — this is indirect evidence based on what someone heard another say, even though the first person did not witness the events himself.
It was a pun, Tony. To think that just a few minutes ago we believers were accused of being the humorless ones….
Hearsay is generally inadmissible.
While inadmissibility is the default position, since hearsay exceptions have largely swallowed the rule, I think it’s fairer to say that hearsy is generally admissible under one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Damon writes:
Could God create a lawyer so annoying that he himself couldn’t stand him?
I think that you win. Best post!
Your seriously cherry picking here and overlooking the fact that the US is in no way shape or form a Christian nation as per the founders albeit it is the majority(although shrinking annually) at this time.
Why is it that as soon as I saw this news, I knew it would already be on your site.
Pretty funny though….
Regardless of his intent, this could be a good thing if a few God-fearing, Internet-deprived, farmgirls and farmboys are led to think things over and ask some tough questions of their own. Merold Westphal, a Christian philosopher, has suggested that Christians should take up atheism for Lent. That sounds like a great idea.
I gotta say, I like the cut of this man’s jib.
wait wait wait…is this REAL?!
Dr. Ray Stantz: “Gozer the Gozerian… good evening. As a duly designated representative of the City, County and State of New York, I order you to cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place of origin or to the nearest convenient parallel dimension.”
Didn’t work then; won’t work now…
— CV
Ernie Chambers is not a Republican he’s not even a Democrat, nor is he a loon. A lot of people have made a lot of assumptions about this without looking into the facts.
Do a little bit more research people. Chambers knows the law very well. He’s kept the legislature in Nebraska from doing a lot of very stupid things in the past 30 odd years.
Do a little research before you pass judgement.
phat
Whose going to pay PZ’s bill for this case, I wonder?
At first I thought that was a piece from the onion or bbspot, then I looked at the url.
Holy
Shit
Truth is, God does have a lot to answer for…
Phat, I thought Chambers is a Dem. No? What is he? Ind?
Chambers is still registered non-partisan. He always has been.
phat
I think the guy is a real douchebag for pulling this shit.
First, the Bowen lawsuit shouldn’t be written off for being frivolous. Banning the words rape and sexual assault from a rape trial is ludicrous; this is even though, from what I’ve read of the case, the accused rapist probably isn’t guilty of a criminal offense. Admittedly, a civil suit probably isn’t the correct legal remedy. But, if Chambers felt that strongly about the suit, he should of advised her on the correct means of redress. Using her suit as a springboard for a publicity stunt is way out of bounds.
Secondly, we may be getting a good laugh out of this now; but, the suit is going to get dismissed as grandstanding if it even gets that far. That means that the only actual fall out from this stunt is to give the religious right another example of an atheist attack on religion. We’ll be hearing about the atheist who sued God for a long time to come.
Should the judge in the Bowen case then refuse her motion to not allow the defendant to use the word “sex”?
phat
“Should the judge in the Bowen case then refuse her motion to not allow the defendant to use the word “sex”? ”
Pretty much irrelevant. Had he granted her motion it wouldn’t have made the banning of “rape” and “sexual assault” any less outrageous. If your point is that both sides played legal games, that’s pretty much a given. Only the judge bears responsibility for his decision; this one set one hell of a dangerous precedent.
From all I’ve heard about him Ernie Chambers is usually one of the good guys. Regardless of the legal merits of her civil suit, attempting to paint Bowen as a kook was completely uncalled for. Picking her suit as a springboard for complaining about frivolous lawsuits makes him look like a misogynistic asshole. It’s possible he wasn’t all that familiar with the case, but he still should have used better judgement.
Dangerous precedent? Using the terms “rape” or “sex” when defining an act is clearly prejudicial in front of a jury. The defendant’s attorney has a responsibility to eliminate any possibility of that sort of prejudicial testimony occurring. He got the judge to see his point. It’s dangerous if you don’t consider the rights of a defendant in a jury trial important.
Calling the lawsuit frivolous is based on the idea that judges are generally considered immune from this type of lawsuit. The woman’s attorney should know that and she will likely face sanctions if the court throws her suit out.
Anyway, Chambers in not a misogynist and anyone who might say that certainly isn’t looking at all of the facts.
Frankly, I’m not completely sure what Chambers is up to, the press reports have been contradictory and badly written.
phat
“Dangerous precedent? Using the terms “rape” or “sex” when defining an act is clearly prejudicial in front of a jury. ”
It is dangerous when the charges actually are rape and sexual assault, and the jury has absolutely no clue that certain words, such as rape and sexual assault kit, are being censored.
The matter on hand isn’t “harming the defendant”. We don’t see judges banning words like murder, robbery, and embezzlement do we? The heart of this matter is how our legal system handles rape prosecutions.
We don’t usually allow witnesses to use certain terms that are prejudicial when testifying. The opposing side can get all sorts of testimony from the record. It happens all the time.
There are ways to describe what happened without those terms being used. That’s when in becomes evidence.
The prosecution, in summation, can say whatever he wants, as he’s not presenting evidence.
phat
You do realize that this is about testimony, right?
phat
So I wrote a letter. I addressed it to Chief Justice Warren Burger and the French fries.
This guy is my hero.
If the jury was going to be informed of what was going on your argument would have some validity. Changing the rules without notice simply isn’t kosher. Jurors expect the accuser in a rape case to say she was raped. If she doesn’t, it’s going to raise a red flag. Without another explanation, the only conclusion they can come to is that she isn’t sure about whether or not she actually was raped.
In this particular case, it would have been essentially impossible to get a conviction if Bowen weren’t able to say she felt she was raped. While I don’t believe a conviction was warranted, judges aren’t supposed to rig trials to favor one side.
Denny Crane.
Informing the jury beforehand would be just as prejudicial. This is about giving evidence in testimony. If what happened matches the definition of rape, than it’s rape, no matter what particular term is used to describe it.
Rape isn’t even mentioned in the statute, as far as I know.
If, in a murder trial, a witness said “this person murdered my wife” the defense would have a right to strike that testimony. If the witness said something like, “this person stabbed my wife,” and then another witness said that the person’s wife died from a stab wound then the prosecutor can claim in ending arguments that the defendant is a murderer.
phat
JustAnOutsider: Are you aware that you are advocating the right-wing position on the issue? Here’s a guy who agrees with you. As I am reading his commentary, the lovely ad I see next to it says “Sign up to get Ann Coulter’s FREE Weekly Email Alerts”.
Being raped is not a fact that a witness can report, just like an eyewitness cannot testify that the killing he or she saw was a murder. There is obviously room for different opinions about how prejudicial a testimony may be, but excluding those words is at least not entirely unreasonable. The same can not be said for suing the judge for making such a decision.
JustAnOutsider: Are you aware that you are advocating the right-wing position on the issue? Here’s a guy who agrees with you. As I am reading his commentary, the lovely ad I see next to it says “Sign up to get Ann Coulter’s FREE Weekly Email Alerts”.
Being raped is not a fact that a witness can report, just like an eyewitness cannot testify that the killing he or she saw was a murder. There is obviously room for different opinions about how prejudicial a testimony may be, but excluding those words is at least not entirely unreasonable. The same can not be said for suing the judge for making such a decision.
JustAnOutsider: Are you aware that you are advocating the right-wing position on the issue? Here’s a guy who agrees with you. As I am reading his commentary, the lovely ad I see next to it says “Sign up to get Ann Coulter’s FREE Weekly Email Alerts”.
Being raped is not a fact that a witness can report, just like an eyewitness cannot testify that the killing he or she saw was a murder. There is obviously room for different opinions about how prejudicial a testimony may be, but excluding those words is at least not entirely unreasonable. The same can not be said for suing the judge for making such a decision.
My posts tend to form trinities today, which is a proof that ScienceBlogs was intelligently designed by a superior being.
Actually, no, I wasn’t aware that there were right-wingers who agreed me. The only people I was aware of who agreed with me were liberals. As a general rule of thumb, I don’t check to see what the partisan line is on an issue before forming an opinion.
The bottom line here is that the judge changed the rules behind the jury’s back. Waving that off by claiming that it would have prejudiced the jury simply isn’t good enough. Failure to give the jury what they expect is bound to be far more prejudicial. Without an explanation for why the accuser doesn’t use the word rape, the jury is almost certainly going to take it as a sign of doubt on the part of the accuser.
Honestly, I think it’s the alliteration that does it for me…
The bottom line here is that the judge changed the rules behind the jury’s back.
As the old saying goes, that’s not even wrong…
Seems a lot of people are speaking very authoritatively about Ernie Chambers without knowing what or who they’re talking about.
The bottom line here is that the judge changed the rules behind the jury’s back.
Um, the bottom line is that the judge and attorneys in every case decide what the jury sees in all criminal cases decided by a jury. If you consider that to be “behind the back” of the jury than you don’t quite understand the rules of how jury trials work.
What a jury “expects” to hear and what they actually hear in a jury trial aren’t likely to be the same thing in any case. It’s not like TV. If any defense attorney did not object to any witness claiming that say, “he slandered me” I wouldn’t want that attorney to defend me in any case.
I would expect readers of this blog to understand the concept of evidence. Trials are very much akin to peer review of scientific papers, thus the phrase, “jury of your peers.”
The prosecution is charged with giving evidence and the defense is allowed to challenge terms that are de facto opinion. A witness, including the victim, are expected to give evidence. Even an expert witness is supposed to back up their assertions with facts and specific claims that can be backed up by research and such.
Juries are instructed to make their decision based on these very narrow rules. And any assertion made on the witness stand is supposed to be based on these rules.
It may seem odd that a judge would make this decision before a witness testifies. But it strikes me as being especially diligent on the part of the judge to have made this decision.
If there is a civil case to be made in this whole thing the victim should be filing suit with the police who allowed the container of her urine sample to be broken en route to the toxicology lab. If I were her attorney, I’d be going after that.
There may be a mandamus case (or something like this) to be argued in this, but it’s not likely to go anywhere. I would assume that the plaintiff would have to come up with a particular history of bias or some such to get anywhere with this. But that’s just a wild guess. Really, it’s a pretty much inviolable rule that judges can’t be held civilly accountable for their decisions.
And this is all based upon the idea that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. If you’re not willing to accept that as important than I don’t think you accept the foundation of criminal law in this country.
phat
“And this is all based upon the idea that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.”
No, it isn’t. You might like the sound of this claim but it simply isn’t true. All of what you write is based on assuming up front that the judge’s decision is correct. Whether or not the judge’s decision ensured a fair trial for the defendant or one rigged in his favor is the heart of the disagreement.
At this point I suppose I should insert the obligatory assurance that I understand the rules of evidence; I simply don’t share your unwavering faith in the Doctrine of Judicial Infallibility. On the other hand, you seem to be under the bizarre impression that the only way to influence a jury is to allow inappropriate terms. You completely fail to grasp (or at least refuse to acknowledge) that it’s also possible to prejudice a jury by banning words that they are expecting to hear. Not allowing a rape victim to use the word rape while testifying is going to instill doubt in the jury’s minds that goes far beyond simple presumption of innocence.
JAO to phat: All of what you write is based on assuming up front that the judge’s decision is correct.
Wow, what a profound lack of reading comprehension and logic!
What is scary is that JAO is almost certainly smarter than an average person… smarter than an average juror…
I think maybe I’ll probably give up on this one.
This really shouldn’t be this difficult.
Ah well.
phat
Trust me; I feel the same way.
Apparently “God” has responded, according to Yahoo News:
‘God’ apparently responds to lawsuit
The best part, though, is the picture of Sen Chambers. Who knew he had a Renaissance-style halo?
This just seems like something else. It seems to me, that if God exists he wouldn’t be put on a human trial. Who are we to point a finger at the creator of the universe. Where were we when he created the earth? Where were we when he mapped out its dimensions? Was it us that stopped the sea from over taking all the land? No, God answers to no one, God does not exist as if he needs a thing. It is by grace that we are here and it is by Jesus Christ that we are saved.
Zach K:
If.