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
:mad: 
So can He be subpoenaed?
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 …
So he should have filed suit in Texas, then?
(running away, away)
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.
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.
Pravnik, my favorite part of the order in Mayo v. Satan is this:
I gotta like a judge with a sense of humor. Dan’l Webster is smiling somewhere.
No doubt. Masterfully dry.
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).
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?
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.
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
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.
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 …
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.
[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
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.
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.
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…