Israeli Man Sues God

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.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

6 responses to “Israeli Man Sues God

  1. All I can say is about time!

  2. “God could not be properly notified”, Now there is a legal precedent, guess I’ll just cancel the prayer meetings.

  3. “the court determined the Omnipresent was not in fact there, as opposed to merely exercising the right to remain silent.” It’s obvious that Omnisilent should be added to the list of characteristics of the sky fairy.

  4. Ludicrous? Blasphemy, I say? As concerns the outrageous claim that a specific address could not be established for our LORD, is he not present in every church? Is not every place of worship of his holiness HIS house, not ours? Of course it is, by gum!

    And to dismiss such claims is actually to dismiss his omnipotence, which is even MORE blasphemy! Why, just refer to the Book of Job! Has there ever been a more unfortunate man in all history? I think NOT! The LORD, and only the LORD can befall a man such indignities, only to complete thr circle of sadism by rewarding him for his unwavering servitude.

    Therefore, if this man from Haifa hath not been rewarded for the divine injustices lovingly visited upon him by the LORD, it is clerk he hath not yet expressed gratitude for his losses and terrible misfortune. Indeed, to fail in this regard is more blasphemy still!

    Repent, you filth! Repent!

  5. Interesting. There are always some litigants ready to make similar claims, but they are usually stopped in their tracks at an earlier point, because of difficulties in serving the court papers on the defendant. In the Langevin case (, where the plaintiff claimed ownership of the inner planets and several moons of Jupiter, local procedures allowed him to proceed without this step (as there was no registered owner for the property in question); however, his claim was rejected, and (in view of his long history of futile actions) he was declared a vexatious litigant.

  6. Dave Luckett

    There was a movie, made in Australia, that I suppose never showed in the US (art houses, maybe) starred Billy Connolly, called “The Man who Sued God”. It was good. Unlike the man in Israel, he sued God through those who advertised themselves as God’s authorised agents on Earth, ie, the Churches, the rabbis, the imams, etcetera. They, after all, administered property – real property – that they said belonged to God, and which had real market value.

    What I thought were hilarious scenes where the clergy of different denominations and religions met to try to find a defense to the suit, but not one that involved renouncing their claims, even though they thought each other’s claims were hogwash.