The Guy Who Sued God to Prove a Point

Ernie Chambers isn’t crazy. He just had something to say about religion and the court system.

Ernie Chambers has spent most of his life fighting for disenfranchised groups. In 1980, he played a role in ending South African apartheid by pushing American organizations to divest from South Africa, namely by selling their Kruggerrands; in 1986, he promoted the idea of making university athletes state employees to protect them against exploitation; in 1993, he helped introduce a bill to stop LBGT discrimination. These are just a few among many other examples from a life filled with both activism and controversy.

He is also the longest-serving senator in the state of Nebraska and was for most of his tenure the only open atheist in a state legislature in the country. As an atheist, he has fought hard to reduce the influence religion has on government. For example, in 1980, he took umbrage with the fact that a prayer was said at the opening of each meeting of the legislature. So he sued in federal court, the case going all the way to the Supreme Court in 1983. Chambers claimed that the prayer itself and using tax payer money to pay for a chaplain violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits the government from “respecting an establishment of religion.” This stops the creation of an official religion as well as forbids the government from favoring one religion over another. The court ruled that having a prayer by a chaplain was allowed because of the country’s unique history but that using government funds to pay for it violated the Constitution.

This was just the beginning though. In 2007, he sued God himself.

State Senator Ernie Chambers vs. God

Chambers filed the lawsuit in Douglas Country, Nebraska, seeking a permanent injunction against God for “certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats.” In particular, he wanted the court to stop God from causing “fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornados, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects, and the like.” He also went after God’s “chroniclers,” his followers who “inspire fear, dread, anxiety, terror and uncertainty, in order to coerce obedience.”

Chambers alleged that suing God is not an act of futility, as God is omniscient and omnipresent, meaning he was well aware of the lawsuit and was able to appear in court, at least in some form. In fact, Chambers claimed to have tried to notify God by the unusual method of saying “Come out, come out, wherever you are.” However, the judge disagreed. He claimed that God had no listed address and therefore couldn’t be served a summons to appear in court. In October 2008, the lawsuit was tossed.

What Was the Point?

Chambers never expected to win his lawsuit, but he had a point to make, a few points actually.

First, he was standing up against a discriminatory justice system. A Nebraska judge had just issued a ruling banning the words “rape” and “victim” in a sexual assault case and dismissed the suit because the victim was unable to produce sufficient evidence. Chambers believed this was a violation of the state constitution, which according to him stipulates that “the courthouse doors be open, so you cannot prohibit the filing of suit. Anyone can sue anyone they choose, even God.” So Chambers’ filed his lawsuit to exercise and draw attention to his right to access what should be an open and fair legal system, no matter how absurd the case may seem.

Second, Chambers was protesting the presence of religion in court. His lawsuit forced the court to admit the existence of God, and that if he truly is omniscient and omnipresent, then he could be sued like anyone else. Chambers said “The court itself acknowledges the existence of God. Since God knows everything, God has notice of this lawsuit.” Therefore, when the judge said that God could not be notified, he was saying God could not be omniscient and omnipresent or perhaps even real. Chambers’ point was that the court system demonstrates a clear hypocrisy: either God exists, is both omniscient and omnipresent, and can be sued or God can’t be sued because he’s not real, omniscient, or omnipresent.

Third, he wanted to protest radical religious beliefs. As an atheist, he thought it was absurd to believe that God caused natural disasters. His lawsuit tried to show that if God is real and causes such widespread damage, then, like any other real entity, could be held liable. By extension, then, if the court claims that God can’t be held responsible, then God must not be real. Again, Chambers’ point was that the court’s radical religious stance was inconsistent: either God is real, causing natural disasters, and could be sued or God can’t be sued because he is either not real or not causing natural disasters.

Fourth, he was pushing back against religion-based conflicts. Besides targeting God, his lawsuit targeted those fighting for what they believed was his will because they “appear to be hopelessly alienated, fractious, separated from, and antagonistic towards one another.” His lawsuit was filed to demonstrate the hypocrisy that if a person believes that God causes natural disasters and they willingly act as his agent, then he or she is also at fault and can be held responsible.

While Chambers’ makes some logically sound points, there was never any chance a court could proceed with the case. Imagine if God actually lost and had to pay damages. Any semblance of logic would have crumbled into dust.