Read this article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20823832/ titled "State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God". What do you think? Would you? Should you?
2007-09-19 00:29:13 · 30 answers · asked by whocrit 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Thanks for the article - it was my best laugh today. Personally, it sounds like he has a pretty good case.
"State Sen. Ernie Chambers sued God last week. Angered by another lawsuit he considers frivolous, Chambers says he’s trying to make the point that anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody."
2007-09-19 00:37:35 · answer #1 · answered by Theresa 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If god exists or doesn't exist the simple notion of actually trying to sue god is just utter nonsense. I would suggest the person seek medical help immediately. I really don't understand who the heck would elect a nut ball like him, I'm sure next he'll crusade victims of Katrina to sue the wind.
No I wouldn't sue God
Should I? No I rather not be smited.
2007-09-19 00:38:39 · answer #2 · answered by Tammy C 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A) He's doing this as a stunt to bring public attention to the idiocy of frivolous lawsuits and what they are REALLY costing the taxpayer.
B) His suit is against God for "acts of God", ie, natural disasters that allow insurance companies to get their butts off the hook for billions of bucks.
C) But you go right ahead, dear. Find a lawyer and file that there lawsuit. Be sure and alert the media. We can always use more humor on the news.
2007-09-19 00:34:33 · answer #3 · answered by Granny Annie 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
1) Personally serving the complaint is impossible. One cannot prove his omniscience, therefore one cannot presume he was served.
2) Jurisdiction is debatable. What conduct has God committed in the forum jurisdiction (where the alleged conduct took place)? Is he a legal resident of the forum? Does he own property in the forum? Has he directed tortious activity toward the forum?
3) Common-law tort principles generally impose no duty to intervene. I am perfectly free to watch someone else's child drown in a public swimming pool, even if I am a champion swimmer. I can even take pictures of the death and sell them to the press. With that in mind, one would have to prove a duty on God's part to take affirmative action to intervene against terrorists.
2007-09-19 00:36:12 · answer #4 · answered by Bill 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hahahaha if only that would work, he's actually right religion has a lot to do with the most recent terrorist's agenda, but you honestly can't sue a deity. I mean theres no merit in that, no reward. It is very humorous though.
2007-09-19 00:35:35 · answer #5 · answered by beautiful tragedy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeh, that guy don't look like much of a fruit loop does he.
What do I think? Would you? should you?
Face facts the real question is Could you?
Could you sue something that does not exsist. Stupid publicity stunt and pointless question.
Why did I even answer?????
2007-09-19 00:35:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Any court officer who allowed this nonsense to be filed should be fired immediately.
To be able to sue Anyone, you have to be able to physically serve them with the papers notifying that person of the suit.
How is he planning on serving papers to God?
Waste of taxpayer money...
2007-09-19 00:44:10 · answer #7 · answered by chocolahoma 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
you're utilising the observe "terrorism" in an odd way which maximum folk does no longer realize. Terrorism is confusing to stipulate, yet is in many situations utilized to violent movements undertaken by utilising politically activist firms devoid of respected sanction from the government. i discover it a problematical term with the aid of existence of guerillas and freedom warring parties (although i'm pacifist myself), with the aid of violence perpetrated formally and unofficially by utilising governments. Governments themselves rule by utilising coercion and worry. that doesn't propose their rule is to no longer our income yet they have no particular ethical authority. I see Hell as an expression of the guidelines of thermodynamics. in case you have been to tell a baby which you will't win, ruin even or pass away the interest (the guidelines of thermodynamics as utilized to actual approaches), that ought to look cruel notwithstanding it would additionally be authentic. Hell is the disordered state one's techniques enters after an prolonged era of selfishness. i might desire to warn a baby that in the event that they persevered alongside the strains they have been pursuing they might boost into intractably unhappy, fairly if those strains harm others. the factor has to come back while they are made attentive to this. I even have run baby's communities in my church. We did no longer point out Hell or something like that as much as the utmost age i supervised, which grew to become into 11. i don't be attentive to what befell after that, yet i doubt it grew to become into stated after that. playstation : Retardican - quoting solely from the OT isn't very convincing.
2016-10-04 23:59:35 · answer #8 · answered by threat 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What happened to the senator? He did not have any idea, project, or iniciative to help the people of his state so he start this case at court to gain publicity???
Glad he is not at my senate.
2007-09-19 00:41:49 · answer #9 · answered by Darth Eugene Vader 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
no he is a moron, it is impossible to sue God. For one he is not human and on this earth and two God is the law. Kind of like Judge Dread was.
2007-09-19 00:34:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋