The Times of Israel, an online newspaper located in Jerusalem, reports Man seeks restraining order against God. They have a comments feature.
We often report about creationists’ litigation, so this case is a bit off-topic for us, but it’s close enough. Here are some excerpts from the news story, with bold font added by us:
An Israeli man has petitioned the Haifa Magistrate’s Court for a restraining order against God, claiming the Almighty has been particularly unkind to him.
Perhaps “unkindness” is a legal claim peculiar to Israeli law. Hey — Wikipedia has an article on Lawsuits against God. There haven’t been many. However, they say:
In the U.S. state of Nebraska, State Senator Ernie Chambers filed a suit in 2008 against God, seeking a permanent injunction against God’s harmful activities, as an effort to publicize the issue of public access to the court system. The suit was dismissed because God could not be properly notified, not having an address.
We’ll ignore that and get back to the suit in Israel. We’re told:
The initiator of the request, a resident of the northern port city [of Haifa], represented himself in court, the Walla news site reported on Wednesday.
No lawyer? The plaintiff must have been confident that he could handle such a formidable opponent by himself. Let’s read on:
A protocol of the hearing noted that God did not turn up for the session, although it did not specify how the court determined the Omnipresent was not in fact there, as opposed to merely exercising the right to remain silent.
Assuming the divine defendant had been properly notified of the suit, his failure to show up in court wouldn’t be fatal to the case. The plaintiff could win by default. We continue:
The petitioner, who was not named in the report, … argued that over a three-year period God, had exhibited a seriously negative attitude toward him, although details of just what divine mischief he had borne the brunt of were not mentioned in the report.
Too bad. Those details would have been interesting. Here’s one more excerpt:
Presiding Judge Ahsan Canaan denied the request, which he said was ludicrous, asserting the applicant needed help not from the court but rather from other sources.
Ludicrous? That seems a bit, ah, judgmental. Perhaps the plaintiff will appeal. We hope so, because has certainly aroused our interest.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.