can I sue god?

[owlofcreamcheese]

can I sue god? I am not sure what for, personally I don't have a case against him, but maybe in the future. defective product or breach of contract maybe, or some crime thats an act of god. doesn't matter what for.

I am fairly sure there is some reason I can not sue God, what about if I'm less monotheistic and want to sue a god, or maybe a house spirit that made my wife sick or something.

what legal grounds would these cases be thrown out on? simply saying the defendent was fictional would be a major major legal precident that would be pretty ugly. being out of the juristiction might work for the christian God (what would prevent a warrent being issued in case he ever steped foot on american soil? if the crime took place in america?). but other religions have gods that come visit and could cause trouble in person.

maybe alot of cases would be thrown out because of the difficulty in showing that god did it? but some things have "acts of god" not covered, and if a court showed that god didn't do it and they didn't have further definition somewhere would that be enough to make them have to pay(if it was a warenty or something)?

[Rabid_Squirrel]

The made a movie about it, The Man Who Sued God. More touchy-feely than factual though

Quite frankly, I don't think sueing is the problem. It's trying to enforce the deity to give you the compensation that's the hard part. I mean, what are you going to do to him?

[moriah]

Try serving Him.

[owlofcreamcheese]

Well yeah, odviously there are practical problems. They are the 'real' reasons it wouldn't be possible. what about ghosts? demons and angels? what are the laws that specificly disallow sueing various supernatural agents. (ghosts at least are 'human' so would have to follow human laws if being nonhuman is the excuse) maybe zombies. how about attempted murder with magic or curseing?

it doesn't seem the court could possibly rule a part of a persons religion to be nonexistant or fake but how does the legal system handle supernatural claims?

[manhattan]

Originally posted by moriah
Try serving Him.

ROFL! Pun of the week!


As it happens, in 1999 one Donald Drusky attempted to sue God in federal court for failing, in his capacity as sovereign ruler of the universe, to prevent Mr. Drusky from losing his job at U.S. Steel. He argued, among other things, that if God failed to appear he (Drusky) would win a default judgment. The judge threw the case out as frivolous. Dunno whether the God part alone would have been frivolous, as the judge also threw out the charges against all 50 states, the TV networks, all Americans, six sessions of congress and a bunch of other folks.

[PatriotX]

What court would have jurisdiction? Presumably, he's sort of an extra-terrestrial. If you could find the correct court, I think that you could sue him.

[owlofcreamcheese]

simonX christian god is pretty far away, but not every religion is like that, at least some have a god or being that could come and kick you in the butt personally.

[Johanna]

I heard this story but I don't know if it's true or not. It looks just odd enough to be true.

Dave Brubeck, the jazz great, owned some land in California, I think it was in Oakland or someplace like that. He donated it to the city as a park. But the city didn't want to pay for its upkeep, so they told him "No thanks." So Dave, undeterred, went ahead and donated the land to God. Made over the deed and everything.

Then a woman's house was damaged by a storm blowing a tree onto it. It was ruled "an act of God." So she put a lien on Brubeck's land!

[Meeko]

Along the same lines, The US Film "Bruce Almighty" tackled a similar plot.

[Diceman]

There's a story that one time when someone tried to sue God, the court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff was unable to prove that God lived within the court's jurisdiction.

I guess it helps that God has an unlisted address

[Northern Piper]

Originally posted by owlofcreamcheese
what legal grounds would these cases be thrown out on? simply saying the defendent was fictional would be a major major legal precident that would be pretty ugly.

1. Sovereign immunity.

2. First Amendment - separation of church and state. (After all, what greater entanglement of government and religion could you imagine?)

[dnooman]

"God" cannot and will not ever be present in a courtroom, nor can "he" be subpeonad, since he is not a recognised person, and has no legal identification, i.e. adress, SSN, birth certificate, DL #.

Suppose you "won" some silly case, what would you gain?


If you do win though, it would set a great precedent for my case verses Santa Claus. Seems he never delivered those Thai hookers as requested. I guess I'll see his jolly ass in court.

[spanna]

God would have to defend himself - where would he find any lawyers in heaven

[brianmelendez]

Originally posted by dnooman
"God" cannot and will not ever be present in a courtroom, nor can "he" be subpeonad, since he is not a recognised person, and has no legal identification, i.e. adress, SSN, birth certificate, DL #.

I have been a lawyer for a dozen years and have never run across the concept of a "recognized person." Certainly an individual who lacks "legal identification, i.e. adress, SSN, birth certificate, DL #"--for example, a homeless person--is a "person" in the law's eyes, subject to subpoena and other legal process, and capable of suing and being sued.

God is a different question. There are various legal arguments why God is not amenable to suit, and indeed is probably not a "person" in the law's eyes. But the lack of "ad[d]ress, SSN, birth certificate, DL #" is not the reason.

By the way, the Jewish celebration of Yom Kippur includes a service--beginning with the "Kol Nidre" prayer--that invokes a courtroom in which the divine is present. And in the film Oh! God, starring George Burns in the title role, God appears in the courtroom as a witness for the defense.

[Dogface]

Originally posted by brianmelendez
I have been a lawyer for a dozen years and have never run across the concept of a "recognized person." Certainly an individual who lacks "legal identification, i.e. adress, SSN, birth certificate, DL #"--for example, a homeless person--is a "person" in the law's eyes, subject to subpoena and other legal process, and capable of suing and being sued.

You've never run across some of those "Freemen/militia" nutjobs, then. This is exactly the sort of bizarre argument they love to make.

[cainxinth]

This is America... you can sue anyone

[RedNaxela]

brianmelendez, a nitpick: the Kol Nidrei prayer itself deals with personal vows and oaths that we may make during the coming year, and has nothing (directly) to do with calling G-d to justice. Perhaps you're thinking of the story of Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, one of the early Chassidic leaders (18th century), who one year, before starting Kol Nidrei, summoned G-d to court to answer for His treatment of the Jewish people (see here and here).

[brianmelendez]

Originally posted by RedNaxela
brianmelendez, a nitpick: the Kol Nidrei prayer itself deals with personal vows and oaths that we may make during the coming year, and has nothing (directly) to do with calling G-d to justice. Perhaps you're thinking of the story of Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, one of the early Chassidic leaders (18th century), who one year, before starting Kol Nidrei, summoned G-d to court to answer for His treatment of the Jewish people (see here and here).

I understand that God is not a "litigant" in the Kol Nidre service. But God is the party to whom an unwisely made vow, from which the one praying seeks relief, was made. I based my statement about "a courtroom in which the divine is present" on this excerpt from Francine Klagsbrun, Jewish Days:

For a little while on the eve of the Day of Atonement, synagogues throughout the world assume the characteristics of a courtroom. Congregants gather in the sanctuary before sunset to enact a two-part legal ceremony that begins the holiday. The ark is opened and the cantor stands on the bimah, the podium, flanked on either side by a distinguished member of the congregation holding a Torah scroll. The three together recreate a bet din, a religious tribunal empowered to make legal decisions. The proceedings get under way in daylight because Jewish courts do not meet at night.

The cantor opens the first part of the ceremony with a declaration: "By authority of the court on high and by authority of the court below, with divine consent and with the consent of the congregation, we hereby declare it permitted to pray with those who have transgressed." . . . .

The second part of the legal ceremony is longer, more familiar, resonant with the emotions of centuries of history. The words are simple: Kol Nidrei—"All vows," it begins, and goes on to nullify the vows each person will make and not keep from this Yom Kippur to the next, and by implication those made and unkept during the past year. The vows annulled are not those contracted with another person; in Jewish law, abrogating such oaths requires the consent of both parties. These are the vows people make to themselves or to God, ethical obligations undertaken unwittingly or personal promises an individual may be unable to carry out. . . .

On a spiritual level, the Kol Nidrei courtroom setting creates the atmosphere for all that will follow. In the heavens on high, a court of a different order is in session, popular belief holds. On this day, final decrees are being passed on the fate of each person. The holiday greeting no longer speaks of being inscribed in the book of life but of being sealed into it, ending the Days of Awe with a sense of fulfillment. The court on earth parallels the heavenly one. Words spoken unthinkingly and pledges made in haste take on heightened significance now. They need to be rendered null and void, as each person faces the final reckoning with as clean a slate as possible.

[pravnik]

I don't know about God, but at least one person has tried to sue the Devil, in United States ex rel Mayo v. Satan and His Staff. Mayo was a prisoner who alleged that Satan had "on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of the plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in plaintiff's path and has caused plaintiff's downfall." The court made a few musings in dicta on whether it was proper to sue the Devil under Section 1983 as an agent of the government or whether the case should be treated as a class action, but ultimately dismissed the complaint because the plaintiff had not included with his paupers affidavit instructions on how the U.S. Marshal was to serve the defendant.

[cj finn]

FYI

I remembered a case we discussed in law school in a civil procedure course. Here is a synopsis:

A lawyer in Georgia actually filed a lawsuit against Satan, claiming the chief demon had placed obstacles in the path of his client causing him to fail in life. The judge dismissed the complaint not for lack of merit, but for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the defendant resided in Hell and not in the Peach State.

As somebody suggested, God would be hard to serve. But perhaps you could server him/her/it by publication. You might also have to bring the case in federal court rather than in state court, alleging diversity of the parties and damages that exceed $50000 or whatever the monetary limit is these days.

Have fun.

CJ

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Don't you remember what happened when the little girl in Bloom County tried to sue Santa Claus for the harmful effect of his war toys? *shudder*

[green_bladder]

Originally posted by spanna
God would have to defend himself - where would he find any lawyers in heaven

So can He be subpoenaed?

[Steve Wright]

God is, traditionally, omnipresent. Presumably, therefore, He can be sued in any jurisdiction where He does business (which is to say, anywhere), and serving Him is not a practical problem, since He will automatically be present in court when the case is heard.

It's getting Him to answer specific questions that's the hard part. That, and getting Him to respect the court's authority ...

[Nametag]

A lawyer in Georgia actually filed a lawsuit against Satan, claiming the chief demon had placed obstacles in the path of his client causing him to fail in life. The judge dismissed the complaint not for lack of merit, but for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the defendant resided in Hell and not in the Peach State.

So he should have filed suit in Texas, then?

(running away, away)

[Chronos]

Is there any legal reqirement on serving notice, other than that the defendant be made aware of the suit against the defendant? Because in that case, any method at all could be used to serve notice against an omniscient being. Even the intent to serve notice by itself could be considered as notice.

Likewise for jurisdiction and an omnipresent being: Don't the United States severally and collectively have jurisdiction over any person within their borders? If God is everywhere, then logically God is within the borders of the state and nation. True, God is also in places outside of the jurisdiction of any Earthly court, but is that relevant?

Finally, is the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove the existance of the defendant? I imagine that there has to be some non-supernatural precedent for this one. If that burden of proof does exist, then it would probably be sufficient grounds to throw the case out, since regardless of whether God exists, it's rather difficult to prove.

[pravnik]

The mundane reality is, of course, that a court will generally dismiss a suit against a supernatural being or for clearly outrageous complaints out of hand with only a cursory explanation, if any at all. Courts get to deal with looneys filing suit against Martians and the Virgin Mary all the time, and feel no special compulsion to take them seriously. Unfair, perhaps, but unlikley to change until the lunatics band together and petition Congress.

Occasionally, as in the Mayo case above, a judge will answer such a complaint in lofty and serious (albeit toungue in cheek) language for the amusement of themselves and the legal community, with the added benefit of placating the looney who feels that at least he was taken seriously. My favorite was a case where a man filed suit in federal court against the state of Massachusetts for broadcasting mind control beams into his brain. The judge declined jurisdiction, since the illegal broadcasting of radio waves was a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the FCC administrative court. However, the court did helpfully suggest that the plaintiff might prevent further injury by grounding himself with a chain of paper clips hanging from his pants leg, complete with a footnote to an academic treatise on electrical grounding.

[paperbackwriter]

Pravnik, my favorite part of the order in Mayo v. Satan is this:

While the official records disclose no case where this defendant has appeared as defendant there is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff.

I gotta like a judge with a sense of humor. Dan'l Webster is smiling somewhere.

[pravnik]

No doubt. Masterfully dry.

[Saltire]

I once knew a man of 'constitutionalist' bent who decided to sign over his house to God, on the assumption that the place would then be tax-free. He wrote up a quit-claim deed ceding the residence and land to God. He also stopped paying his bills, as it was no longer his responsibility (in his mind).

It turned out that since he was a senior citizen and his house was bought with the assistance of a government program, he hadn't been paying property tax or sales tax on the place anyhow. It was also determined that since the house was now owned by an individual that didn't qualify for the same status, that the property would now be taxed (churches may be exempt, but they aren't technically owned by God). Of course, the mortgage was foreclosed against God (the deadbeat wasn't making the payments) and the guy who'd signed it over was asked to leave by the police.

Of course, none of this was decided in court. The mortgage agency made the decision about taxing it on its own (not sure if they even bothered to talk to a lawyer, let alone a judge), and the police handled the eviction without paying the least attention to who may have owned the place pre-foreclosure (they just knew this guy had no valid right to remain).

[Rodrigo]

In a country with no legal religion like the US you may find the problem that even the word G-d itslef would have different meaning if the judge was an Atheist or a Mormon or a Catholic or a Wiccan. you might need to be a bit more specific.

Can G-d sue us for being lousy children and general messing up?

[brianmelendez]

Originally posted by Rodrigo
Can G-d sue us for being lousy children and general messing up?

To paraphrase Dr. Leonard McCoy:

What does God need with a lawsuit?

[Knorf]

Originally posted by brianmelendez
To paraphrase Dr. Leonard McCoy:

What does God need with a lawsuit?

If you're referring to the line "What does God need with a starship?", then you're paraphrasing Admiral James T. Kirk. The only good moment in that movie, IMHO.

Knorf

P.S. Was Kirk still an Admiral? Or had he been demoted? I forget.

[Knorf]

Originally posted by owlofcreamcheese
can I sue god?

Can one sue abstract social constructions?

Can I sue racism? Poverty?

I'd like to take 'Unrequited Love' to court! That jerk has been screwing me over for years.

Knorf

[Hoopy Frood]

Originally posted by Knorf

P.S. Was Kirk still an Admiral? Or had he been demoted? I forget.

He had been demoted back to Captain in the fourth movie as a result of his stealing the enterprise in the third movie (and subsequently destroying it) to go "Search for Spock."

I'm still trying to figure out how spocks jet powered boots were able to reverse themselves when he catches Kirk upside-down in midair in the beginning.

[Ponder Stibbons]

It's bad enough we're having a supposedly serious factual discussion about God and lawsuits, but did you have to bring Star Trek into it? Those are the worst kind of religious arguments ...

[spogga]

Given that The Holy See is supposed to be Gods representative on Earth and is in contact with Him would it not therefore be possible to sue God via the Pope?

Just asking is all.

[Knorf]

Originally posted by Hoopy Frood
I'm still trying to figure out how spocks jet powered boots were able to reverse themselves when he catches Kirk upside-down in midair in the beginning.

[hijack]
Once you figure that out, explain to me how ANYBODY was deceived into thinking the Enterprise fired on the Chancellor Gorkon's ship, when it was General's Chang's ship sitting cloaked really, really close to the Enterprise that fired the shots. How could it not have been obvious to all that something odd was going on, not involving Kirk firing on the hapless ambassador?
[/hijack]

Anyone have any other social contructs we could sue in lieu of God?

Knorf

[Shade]

How does the law define who you can sue? Is it inclusive or exclusive? I would have guessed it was basically (1) humans and (2) corporations , but I've no idea how accurate that is.

[yabob]

The idea has been used by SF satirist James Morrow in "Blameless in Abaddon", which features a suit brought against God for historical injustices. It's the sequel to "Towing Jehovah", in which God has died - literally - leaving behind a 2 mile long corpse, and followed by "The Eternal Footman", the three usually being refered to as the "Godhead Trilogy". Some of the most well crafted, intelligently blasphemous and blackly vicious satire you can get your hands on. Highly reccomended.

[owlofcreamcheese]

knorf ...

great, you don't belive in god. thats a great personal choice for you... but it doesn't seem the fact you think its made up holds legal water. if the united states of america declared god legally fictional it would be a MAJOR thing. one of the biggest decisions in the history of america... probobly.

because of that its NOT the same as sueing another social construct. the united state's government should not legally endorce ANY religious view...

[Really Not All That Bright]

The United States do recognise God as extant, separation of church and state or no- he's mentioned on our money.

You don't have to worry about jurisdiction, either. You can sue anyone in a US court provided you can show the judge that whatever injury you're suing over happened on US soil.

So sue away.

[Derleth]

owlofcreamcheese: Would it be a huge decision? Imagine that the plaintiff didn't have the resources to go through with an appeal, and that the local paper's court beat journalist was tied up with delivering feature stories on a complex murder case. I can easily imagine the decision sitting in a file cabinet manned by underpaid civil servants, lacking any reason to be drug out as precedent.

And since when is atheism a religious doctrine?

[Derleth]

dutchboy: Citing a phrase on American currency in court is flimsy. The judge would have to stifle a laugh, probably, and would dryly tell you to place your dollar in your pocket and come back when you have real evidence that the US government accepts God's existence.

[Princhester]

Originally posted by Shade
How does the law define who you can sue? Is it inclusive or exclusive? I would have guessed it was basically (1) humans and (2) corporations , but I've no idea how accurate that is.

This nails it, in my opinion. You an only sue persons (real and legally created ie corporations).

You can no more sue God than trees, cats or ideas.

[Chronos]

And since when is atheism a religious doctrine?

Theism is the belief, despite lack of conclusive evidence, that God exists. Atheism is the belief, despite lack of conclusive evidence, that God does not exist. Either is exactly as much a religious belief as the other.

[The Scrivener]

Would there be a stronger claim for jurisdiction in Israel? Or would they have to rebuilt the Temple and Tabernacle first?

If God was served with papers and appeared in court, would he swear on the Bible or affirm in His own name? Suppose He scoffed at the Bible offered, citing its inaccuracies, and was pressed to affirm instead? Would functional designations like "Lord of Hosts" or "God, thy Father" do, or would He have to state His name -- His holy, secret name? If He refused to divulge His secret name, He could be held in contempt of court, no?

If the anti-lawerly supposition that "there are no lawyers in Heaven" is true, would God have to make do with a court-appointed lawyer or represent Himself? Being omniscient, He could probably do a good job the latter. But as the saying goes, "anybody who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer," and being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, God could never be anybody's fool. Ergo, God could not represent Himself; or if He did, it might put Himself and/or all creation at risk of non-existence by unholy paradox [see Adams, Douglas and Smith, Kevin].

If a judgement was returned against God, could plaintiff collect? Does God have any money or property? God is believed by many to have some wealth, although not necessarily filthy lucre per se, or any currency that is understood to be an instrument of the Devil. Perhaps God had a little money left over from his one known stint of lawful employment [carpentry] which he practiced as a young man. Said funds, constituted in silver coin and compounded annually for almost 2000 years, could today be a sizable sum indeed. However, even if God has money, His holdings are widely believed to be less than that of those affluent people who are said to be "richer than God".

God is believed to be the sole owner and proprietor of "Heaven," which is believed to gaudily decorated with innumerable quantities of gold and precious jewels, and probably a prodigious amount of frankincense and myrrh, as well. Perhaps a successful plaintiff would have to resort to filing a lien against Heaven.

Should God balk, file numerous trivial appeals, or otherwise stall on payment, the plaintiff might turn over the matter to a collection agency. Alternately, the plaintiff might negotiate a terms of an arbitrated settlement with God, for an amount acceptable to both parties. God might well claim penury, however.

Said terms would be, ahem, "pennies from Heaven".

[jimjett]

Could one not sue a God and churches as co-defendants?

[Annie-Xmas]

Gives a whole new dimension to the term "Judgement Day."

[Dogface]

Originally posted by spogga
Given that The Holy See is supposed to be Gods representative on Earth and is in contact with Him would it not therefore be possible to sue God via the Pope?

Not in a US court. If a US court were to rule that the Pope of Rome had unique status as specific "representative" of God, said court would then be ruling on the status of a specific religion in violation of principles attached to the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is true that the First Amendment only specificaly restricts Congress from establishing a religion, but in general it would probably be considered highly questionable even in the current US Supreme Court for a judge to establish (in the Constitutional sense) a religion.

[Northern Piper]

Plus, the Holy See is a foreign soverign, and could claim soverign immunity in the U.S. courts.