|
1
Nerd-It
|
|
current event
by Charging God with crimes and the subsequent philosophy is a subject that pops up occasionally in literature. However, fiction turned reality last Friday when Nebraska state Senator Ernie Chambers filed a lawsuit against God. The suit itself seeks an injunction to case all harmful activities such as "fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects, and the like." Furthermore, the suit cites God for causing "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."
Add a Comment (18)
Email This
Message Author
Maybe we'll find out if Bill Gates really does have more money than God
according to sen. chambers, this suit has absolutley nothing to do with GOD or natural disasters, but instead with tort reform...
sen. chambers' position is that new bills are running through their state senate that would limit law suits...chambers does not believe this is constitutionally legal and is hoping to take this case all the way to the supreme court...the only basis of the case is that he believes people should be able to sue anybody for anything and that the government should not interfere with that right...
It seems to me this lawsuit would work against him. Public opinion will only be swayed against the ability of such suits to exist after hearing of the ridiculous nature of this litigation, imo.
Here's an article describing it. They've named Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod, the Chief Priest of the Jews, and the Sanhedrin among the respondents. The claim is that the trial followed the incorrect procedure and was improperly carried out under Roman law instead of Jewish law.
Of course, I think that just means he'd have been stoned to death instead of crucified. Assuming he existed of course.
Heh. To quote the article:
The self-proclaimed agnostic who often criticizes Christians said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit against a judge, filed by a woman who was barred from saying "rape," "victim" and other words in court.
Chambers said the woman's lawsuit is inappropriate because the Nebraska Supreme Court has already considered the case and federal courts follow the decisions of state supreme courts on state matters.
Chambers said his lawsuit is serious but also makes a point: Anybody can sue anybody.
SCREECH!! Back up a sec... he said his lawsuit is serious? Listen, if this dude were a modern-day Job (like the main character from the book linked in the main post, Blameless in Abaddon) and this was his modern-day rail against cosmic injustice from his modern-day dung heap, I'd give him some room.
Anyways, yeah, I'm still not sure what the hell his point is.
Not only that, but according to the article you linked, God's lawyer is in Corpus Christi Texas.
However...The *excuse* for the lawsuit relates back to a woman who was sexually assaulted and her alleged attacker was brought to trial. The Judge in the case not only barred the word 'rape', but 'sexual assault', 'victim', 'sexual assault nurse', and several other terms directly related to a sexual assault. Apparently, the only word left that was allowed to be used to describe the attack was 'sex'. Without the necessary adjectives to describe the crime of a forced sexual encounter, one can only be left to conclude that the sex was consensual. As a result, this case has been tried twice, and both times ended in hung juries.
Even under Nebraska Law, it is 'Sexual Assault'. I suspect that, if you were to read the crime into the record of what the defendant were charged with, that would be 'sex in the first degree'. Personally, I feel that particular judge should not sit on a bench, he's effectively re-writing the law by taking out the teeth by which the law is defined.
Without the necessary adjectives to describe the crime of a forced sexual encounter, one can only be left to conclude that the sex was consensual.
That's not really accurate.
The defense in this case was arguing that the encounter was consensual. The woman claims she was too drunk to have given consent. It wasn't a violent encounter. So the question the court is trying to answer isn't whether the event occurred, but whether they constitute rape. Calling it rape during the trial is prejudicial.
I'm certain the judge would probably have granted the plaintiff a motion enjoining the defense from describing it as "makin' with the love", on similar grounds.
As a result, this case has been tried twice, and both times ended in hung juries.
Here are some comments made by jury members in the first case. They're saying the plaintiff simply didn't make her case, and that she wasn't particularly credible.
Relatively little testimony in this case needed to address the sex act itself, as the relevant details were all stipulated by the defense. Of course, the defense says that afterwards, instead of fleeing the his apartment, Bowen spent an hour lying in bed talking to him. Her friends testified that she didn't appear very drunk to them when she left the bar. It's these kinds of things that instilled the doubt. Letting Bowen get on the stand and say "he raped me" doesn't make the matter any clearer - it's just prejudicial.
When you're trying to decide whether it's rape, then calling it rape is cheating.
Everything I've read about the case, when you strip away the polemics of non-lawyers, suggests the judge's decision was quite reasonable.
If Safi had grabbed her off the street, dragged her into an alley, and beaten and raped her, the terms would have been allowed. The defense wouldn't be arguing that it was consensual, and it wouldn't be prejudicial to call it rape - the jury wouldn't be deciding whether it was rape, but whether the obvious rape was committed by this particular defendant.
If Safi had grabbed her off the street, dragged her into an alley, and beaten and raped her, the terms would have been allowed. The defense wouldn't be arguing that it was consensual, and it wouldn't be prejudicial to call it rape - the jury wouldn't be deciding whether it was rape, but whether the obvious rape was committed by this particular defendant.
Ok, I know you're a reasonable man Scott; but I want to make sure this gets clarified for all of the ladies in the audience...
If Safi had slipped Bowen a drug assisted sexual assault drug, such as Rohypnol, GHB, or Ketamine would it still have NOT been a rape? After all, he didn't "grab her off of the street, drag her into an alley and beat" her.
I'll concede that *possibly* in this case she was too drunk to remember saying 'do me baby', but I still think the judge was also prejudicing the case by even barring sexual assault and other phrases. This defendent *has* been in these compromising situations twice before. Both times the women were intoxicated, both cried rape. One was a military court--and with alcohol involved, they're not inclined to convict. The other one was a long period after and the prosecution declined the case. Still, for me, that's enough to doubt his side of the story. To be fair, after reading the article you posted, I doubt both sides.
Regardles--the crime is called 'Sexual Assault'..for the prosecution to be denied to use even the title of the crime is certainly unfair. What do we call it? Non-Consensual Sexual Intercourse? Then the penal code needs to be changed to reflect that.
If Safi had slipped Bowen a drug assisted sexual assault drug, such as Rohypnol, GHB, or Ketamine would it still have NOT been a rape? After all, he didn't "grab her off of the street, drag her into an alley and beat" her.
My point is that the reason the jury was convened was specifically to decide whether the act here constituted rape.
I'm not trying to say he's innocent - not by a long shot. On two prior occasions, very similar incidents have happened. There does appear to be some intent behind what he's done. But it's not rape simply because the defendant says it is.
The purpose of a jury is to decide on the facts of a case. Basically the judge puts certain questions before them to ask for their judgement. Asking them "was this rape a rape?" is a nonsense question. The question before the jury is whether this sex act was a rape, and it's prejudicial to call it that before the jury has decided.
In the example I gave of the violent alley rape, there would be no question before the jury as to whether the sex constituted rape. If it occurred, it was rape. That's the distinction that's relevant here. We don't know whether this was rape, as it's the central question before the court in the entire matter.
There's plenty of reason to doubt both sides in this case, but having the defendant get on the stand and say "rape, rape, rape" is just inflammatory.
for the prosecution to be denied to use even the title of the crime is certainly unfair.
The prosecution wasn't denied it. The ruling was that it couldn't be used in testimony. It's the witnesses who were denied use of the terms, and for good reason - it's not their job to decide it.
SCREECH!! Back up a sec... he said his lawsuit is serious?
I think he meant that the point behind his lawsuit is serious. It's about frivolous suits, after all.
I think these "responses" on behalf of the defendant are probably a bad idea. Claiming immunity from terrestrial laws and disputing the jurisdiction won't really work. Immunity generally only comes through diplomatic relations, and there's no heavenly embassy. Lacking immunity, acting within the state of Nebraska makes one subject to Nebraska law.
The other claim - that blaming the defendant for these things misses some relevant point - is ridiculous. "I did it for your own good" is at best a strategy to mitigate the damages - it'll never prevent the court from issuing the injunction.
Worse, arguing points of law suggest this should go to trial - at which point the defendants are going to have to produce their client.
RSS
He likely only wants the court to recognize God by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 18 September 2007
No spineless politician or jurist is likely to throw the case out on the basis that there is no God. So there will be a tacit recognition of God, which is probably all that Chambers wants anyway. Just like the case of Kris Kringle in Miracle on 34th Street.
RE: He likely only wants the court to recognize God by scottb :: NR7 :: on 18 September 2007
So there will be a tacit recognition of God, which is probably all that Chambers wants anyway.
Actually, he's an atheist, so that's unlikely.
Plus, this isn't the first time the courts have been faced with something like this. Back in 1971, Gerald Mayo sued Satan. The court made a few intellectual wisecracks and dismissed it on the grounds that the plaintiff hadn't provided instructions on how the Marshall's office could serve process on the defendant.
Ernie Chambers might have an easier time of it, though - the defendant in his case is purported to be omniscient and omnipresent. But that's just his fanboys talking. I think the burden of proof of omniscience would fall on the plaintiff.
Nebraskan Paradise by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 19 September 2007
Nebraska must be a paradise on Earth, with laws so perfect that the state legislature has nothing better to do so one of it's senators can engage in frivolous lawsuits trying to make some lame-ass point. "I'm going to sue a god that doesn't exist, I'm so clever ho-HO!" What next, is he going to sue Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too? Remember a long time ago we had a discussion about why people were "bigoted" against out-spoken atheists? (Points to Ernie Chambers, shakes head.) You guys need to get together and find new spokes-people. Possible a hot super-model with a penchant for losing articles of clothing.
RE: Nebraskan Paradise by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 19 September 2007
Possible a hot super-model with a penchant for losing articles of clothing.
Hear Hear!
It's kind of a similar complaint with the older (though still applicable to most current) hybrid/electric cars. Why did they have to make them so fugly? It's no wonder nobody bought them except hippies.
RE: Nebraskan Paradise by scottb :: NR7 :: on 19 September 2007
His lawsuit isn't any kind of atheist cause, either. Chambers isn't any kind of atheism activist. His main issues seem to be connected with civil rights and curbing what he sees as governmental stupidity. "Atheist" is just what he puts down when asked his religion.
Do you read the articles, or does the word "atheist" just shut off your brain? The article's first paragraph says he's trying to make a point about frivolous lawsuits. I, frankly, don't quite get what that point is, but it has nothing to do with theology.
Chambers is something of a character, but he seems to be a pretty effective one - he's been re-elected to the Nebraska state senate so many times (he's on his 10th term) that some claim the new term limit law in Nebraska was crafted specifically to push him out. His colleagues don't seem to much like him, but clearly his constituents do.
You guys need to get together and find new spokes-people. Possible a hot super-model with a penchant for losing articles of clothing.
We've got 'em. How about Angela Jolie? Or if you want even more articles of clothing lost, Asia Carrera.
RE: Nebraskan Paradise by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 19 September 2007
Do you read the articles, or does the word "atheist" just shut off your brain?
Hey, you're the one who pointed out that he was an atheist, and made it seem like he was making an atheist point and no, I didn't read the links, but I was going for teh funny anyway, with a gratuitous reference to hot naked chicks thrown in because, alas, O-Nerd lacks gratuitous references to hot naked chicks. Whatever his point is, it's still lame. And no, the word atheist doesn't shut off my brain, but strangely enough, the phrase "hot naked chicks" does.
RE: Nebraskan Paradise by scottb :: NR7 :: on 19 September 2007
Hey, you're the one who pointed out that he was an atheist, and made it seem like he was making an atheist point
Hm. I pointed out he was an atheist in response to the claim that he was trying to get some kind of official recognition for the gods.
The atheist points were all mine.
I think his point's pretty lame, too. I can't see the relevance between his suit and the one he claims it's in reference to. This all started because of a Nebraska rape case in which the judge granted a motion by the defense to disallow the terms "rape", "sexual assault", "victim", "assailant", and "sexual assault kit" in the courtroom on the grounds that they were prejudicial.
The complainant, Terry Bowen, then sued the Judge over the ruling. It's this suit that motivated Chambers to file his own, as a form of protest. Here's probably the clearest form in which I could find his argument, but I still don't really follow the logic.
Bowen's suit against Judge Cheuvront is entirely frivolous. It's the wrong venue in which to seek redress. You don't sue a judge for a decision, you appeal it to a higher court. When you run out of higher courts, it's game over. Bowen and her attorney may face sanctions for even bringing the suit.
alas, O-Nerd lacks gratuitous references to hot naked chicks
Well, it is for nerds, after all - what do nerds know about hot naked chicks. There was that whole business about Jessica Alba's walk. Personally, I'm waiting for the O-nerd V3 site to move into production so we can re-address that topic with pictures and video, which are so critical to a proper analysis of it.
Putting the O in OmniNerd by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 21 September 2007
O-Nerd lacks gratuitous references to hot naked chicks.
Nobody ever supports the cause to put the O-Face into OmniNerd ... everyone wants to go the "academic" route instead of the pornstar route. No vision. No dreams.