“Judge Marlon Polk threw it out stating that [Nebraska state Sen. Ernie] Chambers can’t sue God if he can’t serve papers on him.” (WOWT, Oct. 15; earlier).
I don’t see the problem. Insofar as god exists, she is omniscient, which means that service of process by publication would be more than fair. Insofar as god does not exist, she will not respond and the default judgment entered will be of no effect.
I think Nietzsche would dismiss this suit, too, if he were on the bench; you can’t sue a dead guy (or dead gal). However, one can file a suit, much as a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.
(a) I read the article and I don’t see how my comment indicates that I missed the point. Your unfounded assumptions just make you look silly.
(b) your implicit reference to some other comment (“once again”) is opaque. I have no idea what you are talking about.
(c) The idea that atheism is politically correct is so wrong-headed as to be bewildering. And as you seem to be a connoisseur of my comments, you should know that my views are often not politically correct.
By the way, according to this AP article, in response to the court’s dismissal of his suit, Senator Chambers made precisely the observation that I made, that in light of god’s purported omniscience, she may be considered to have been served. I guess the plaintiff missed the point of his suit too.
The idea that atheism is politically correct is so wrong-headed as to be bewildering.
Bill, who said anything about atheism? My comment on political correctness was on you use of the word she when referring to God. Frankly, I don’t care a whit whether or not you are an atheist. That is your business, not mine.
The article referenced by Walter stated “One of the goals of the lawsuit, according to Chambers, is to make the point that anyone can sue or be sued.” Since as a regular reader of Overlawyered, that point is self evident, I interpreted this statement to mean that he was against the indiscriminate filing of lawsuits. The article referenced by Bill stated “Chambers has said he filed the lawsuit to make the point that everyone should have access to the courts regardless of whether they are rich or poor.” This states just the opposite point of view! Assuming the second article is the correct interpretation, then Mr. Chambers is really as loony as his lawsuit would seem to indicate he is.
8 Comments
I don’t see the problem. Insofar as god exists, she is omniscient, which means that service of process by publication would be more than fair. Insofar as god does not exist, she will not respond and the default judgment entered will be of no effect.
Insofar as god exists, she is omniscient
Once again Bill you missed the point in order to be able to make a politically correct comment. It helps to read the article before you comment on it.
I think Nietzsche would dismiss this suit, too, if he were on the bench; you can’t sue a dead guy (or dead gal). However, one can file a suit, much as a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.
Richard Nieporent,
(a) I read the article and I don’t see how my comment indicates that I missed the point. Your unfounded assumptions just make you look silly.
(b) your implicit reference to some other comment (“once again”) is opaque. I have no idea what you are talking about.
(c) The idea that atheism is politically correct is so wrong-headed as to be bewildering. And as you seem to be a connoisseur of my comments, you should know that my views are often not politically correct.
Richard Nieporent,
By the way, according to this AP article, in response to the court’s dismissal of his suit, Senator Chambers made precisely the observation that I made, that in light of god’s purported omniscience, she may be considered to have been served. I guess the plaintiff missed the point of his suit too.
The idea that atheism is politically correct is so wrong-headed as to be bewildering.
Bill, who said anything about atheism? My comment on political correctness was on you use of the word she when referring to God. Frankly, I don’t care a whit whether or not you are an atheist. That is your business, not mine.
The article referenced by Walter stated “One of the goals of the lawsuit, according to Chambers, is to make the point that anyone can sue or be sued.” Since as a regular reader of Overlawyered, that point is self evident, I interpreted this statement to mean that he was against the indiscriminate filing of lawsuits. The article referenced by Bill stated “Chambers has said he filed the lawsuit to make the point that everyone should have access to the courts regardless of whether they are rich or poor.” This states just the opposite point of view! Assuming the second article is the correct interpretation, then Mr. Chambers is really as loony as his lawsuit would seem to indicate he is.
[…] The court threw out the suit by Nebraska’s most famous liberal lawmaker because of his failure to serve God with a […]