It never ceases to amaze us how our judicial system is used for a myriad of things -- so many things that we are amazed that the courts have time to mete out justice.
Case in point: in neighboring Nebraska, state senator Ernie Chambers is seeking an injunction against God from committing acts of violence such as earthquakes and tornadoes.
That's right, Chambers, a professed atheist, is suing God.
Relevant? Chambers thinks so. He is suing God to make a point that anyone should be able to sue anyone. The Nebraska Unicameral has discussed passing limits on frivolous lawsuits, and this frivolous lawsuit is Chambers' method of proving his point.
Or proving the point of those he is seeking to stop.
The courts, given the power under our Constitution to interpret the laws, have, in many landmark cases made new laws with their interpretations. Others have used the courts for nuisance lawsuits, hoping to cash in on an injury or slight. Nearly everyone on some level agrees that the current system is broken, but no one knows exactly how to fix it.
You have to give Sen. Chambers an "A" for originality and for putting the court in a very awkward situation. Last week, he argued before Douglas County District Judge Marlon Polk that God does exist. His supporting evidence included: the U.S. government's practice of including the words "In God We Trust'' on currency, the invocation of God in oaths during court hearings and the prayers offered by chaplains before legislative bodies.
"If there is a ruling against the existence of God,'' Chambers said, "it will be by the court and not by me.''
Judge Polk said he will endeavor to have a ruling on the motion "as soon as is practical.''
We realize that suing God is frivolous, impractical, ungrateful and sacrilegious. We understand why Chambers went to this extreme to prove his point, but we doubt he has strengthened his argument.