Ernie Chambers, Nebraska's Leading Hellraiser, Sues God
| Tue Sep. 18, 2007 8:17 AM PDT
In early 2006, Mother Jones profiled Nebraska state lawmaker Ernie Chambers, the sole black member of Nebraska's unicameral legislature and one heck of a cool dude. Sara Catania wrote at the time:
He wears sweatshirts and jeans amid a forest of suits and ties; his gray beard contrasts with the clean chins of most of his brethren. He's been described as "left of San Francisco" in a state that for decades has been tightly tucked under the blanket of conservative Republicanism....
Because of Chambers, the Legislature routinely backs bills its members wouldn't otherwise have dreamed of supporting. He cajoled his colleagues into abolishing corporal punishment in schools, correcting the state pension system so that women would be treated equally with men, and backing a switch from at-large municipal elections to district-based voting so that nonwhites would have a chance to serve. Under his sway, Nebraska led the nation in the 1980s in divesting in companies that did business with apartheid-era South Africa.
I can't do Ernie Chambers justice in block quote form — read Sara's article in full for a better picture of the man.
Here's why I bring him up: he's suing God. For real.
Chambers lawsuit, which was filed on Friday in Douglas County Court, seeks a permanent injunction ordering God to cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats.
The lawsuit admits God goes by all sorts of alias, names, titles and designations and it also recognizes the fact that the defendant is omnipresent.
In the lawsuit, Chambers said he's tried to contact God numerous times...
[The lawsuit] says God has caused "fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like."
The suit also says God has caused "calamitous catastrophes resulting in the wide-spread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants including innocent babes, infants, children, the aged and infirm without mercy or distinction."
Chambers also says God "has manifested neither compassion nor remorse, proclaiming that defendant will laugh" when calamity comes.
Chambers is reportedly making a point about frivolous lawsuits, but I think he's making a point about being awesome.
Update: Looks like Ernie Chambers reeeally chose the wrong situation to make his point, whatever it is. Read below to see the comments of Lundy, TheSoyMilkConspiracy, and elm.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
This is more than making a point whether the senator knows it or not. There are other ways to make his point other than profaning the name of G-d. It is written, thou shalt not tempt the Lord your God. It is also written, G-d is not one who should be tempted nor will he tempt you to sin. As it is written in the Book of ecclesiastes Chap 12, Verse 13-14, Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter. Fear G-d and keep his commandments. For this is the whole duty of Man. For G-d shall bring every work into judgement, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil.
Great Move, all for it! As to whom to call to answer the summons, why not the "representatives" of God? The promoters of his name and beneficiaries on his behalf. And when found guilty they should be made to pay hefty reparations from their loaded tax-free coffins. It is the least they can do for the benefit of man-kind!
More background on his lawsuit :
Chambers said he decided to file the lawsuit after a suit was filed in early September in federal court against Lancaster County Judge Jeffre Cheuvront. He's the judge who was hearing a sexual assault case in which the plaintiff wants to use the words rape and victim during her testimony.
So, I hate to disagree since I love MoJo, but no, not awesome. Condescending, belittling, offensive... just a few things that come to mind. A victim not being able to use the word rape, is like a theft victim not being able to use the word robbed.
God judges the heart. When Ernie Chambers stands before the Almighty, his knee will bow and his tongue will confess that JESUS CHRIST is LORD. God also has a sense of humor and knows where Ernie Chambers is coming from, whether it is right or wrong. I leave that up to the LORD Himself who will judge every idle word. One thing for sure, everything that Ernie is suing for is the result of man's rebellion and sin against God. Obedience to HIS Word brings forth Good fruit, disobedience brings forth bad fruit. This case will be struck because of the higher and unchanging law of sowing and reaping. Man has sown evil, therefore he reaps evil. The wonderful thing God did, was provide all of us a way out of our selfishness and ignorance by giving us HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST, in whom there is NO SIN, and thus, NO CONDEMNATION to us who believe and receive HIS Blood bought sacrifice. Praise the LORD HE has sworn on HIMSELF to redeem us, and accomplished it on the cross. Amen. May the Lord bless Ernie Chambers and truly reveal HIMSELF to him in a mighty way. God bless you Ernie, JESUS loves you and so do I.
Ok TM, you're on.
I've been a representative of God's for over 30 years now.
Let's see. Let's discuss the freedom of choice first.
Humanity was given a choice to either trust God, or not.
They chose not to.
As such, God honored their choice, and has ever since.
All of the calamity, and hardship, pain, etc... ever since is directly attributable to the freedom that God gave to humanity.
Then, let's talk about God giving up his only Son to give humanity yet another choice.
They-- humanity-- spit on him, humiliated him, and then murdered him because htey didn't like what he had to say.
Each time that God has sought to bring humanity back to himself, many have flat out cursed, and blamed Him for all their woes, in spite of the fact that he's clearly stated that it was our free will that brought us to this point in history.
The court should fine him for contempt of court. He has recklessly wasted the courts' time and the publics money to even process such an inane lawsuit. This shows just how desparate to impose his will on the rest of his fellow citizens. Throw him out of office.
Kevin, Randall.. way to miss the point guys. Did you two even take the time to read the article, or did you just see that someone might possibly be offending your religion and decide to spout off scripture? I don't know the background of what led to him suing "god", but it was done in order to raise awareness of frivolous lawsuits, not to slam religion.
James,
You missed the point. I was not commenting on the article, but was "spouting off" in reaction to other posts. My point was let's not judge lest we be judged. God can defend HIMSELF, HE doesn't need me to do it. HE commands me to love others as HE has loved me, even my enemies. I am not offended by what anyone says about MY LORD and GOD. By the way, I am not religious. Religions cause wars and hate, but a relationship with JESUS creates true love and peace amongst men. Peace out.
Randall.. still missing the point, it's not about god, it's about lawsuits. He could just as well filled a lawsuit against the Easter Bunny for all I care. I'm guessing the reason he chose god is b/c it's an issue that's sure to stir things up and bring attention to frivolous lawsuits... that is unless everyone gets bogged down in the religous aspect and COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT.
I agree with James!! Ernie Chambers is the greatest thing that's happened to the Nebraska Legislature and like the author of the article said, "Chambers is reportedly making a point about frivolous lawsuits, but I think he's making a point about being awesome".
Submitted by EvilPoet (not verified) on Tue Sep. 18, 2007 11:51 AM PDT.
Lundy - indeed. It's too bad that part of the story keeps getting lost in all the rhetoric.
Submitted by TheSoyMilkConspiracy (not verified) on Tue Sep. 18, 2007 11:51 AM PDT.
Um, HELLO?! Did anyone even read what Lundy said? Chambers filed the lawsuit to PROTEST A RAPE VICTIM who sued a judge because he forced her to use the terms "sex" and "intercourse" ("rape," "sexual assault," and "victim" were banned) during her testimony.
Chambers apparently thinks that suing a judge for re-victimizing a traumatized sexual assault survivor is "frivolous."
I'm all for poking fun at unjustified lawsuits and especially poking fun at God, but using a rape victim's horrible experience, both in and out of court, to make a supposedly "funny" point about "frivolous lawsuits" is absolutely disgusting. Sick sick sick.
What you think that G-d can't tell the difference between "God" and "G-d"? Pretty much any use of his name is in vain, especially in your case, whether spelled correctly or not. Anyway, neither way is spelled correctly. Even YHVH or YHWH or יהוה
Unfortunately, Ernie chose the wrong case to use as an example of a frivolous lawsuit. A rape victim is suing the judge who banned the word "rape" from a rape trial. There have been three mistrials because the judge ruled that all parties and lawyers must use phrases like "had sex with."
While I understand that defendants have a right to face their accusers, it also seems only fair that the accuser can point to the defendant and say, "He raped me."
The judge may have a point.
(I hope people will read my full comment before getting angry with me, although they have every right to be)
The word rape has huge connotations in our society. It doesn't just mean the literal action, it carries along emotional repercussions, implications, and drags forth images of pain and loss. All from saying the word even once.
When the word is used, most women (I am not a woman, so I can't say "all") will have an immediate and visceral reaction. A sharp pang of fear, anguish, anger, or some other dark emotion. Not just women, but men also feel that sharp flash of emotion.
Out in the real world, people who are given training in dealing with sexual assault are told "Always BELIEVE someone when they come to you." It is the most important thing to do. That is NOT the case in a court of law. The job of a jury is not to simply believe the defendant, but rather to discern the truth. And yet, as I described earlier, that word has an instantaneous effect of biasing (sp?) a jury. It has a way of making the accusation true, without any proof.
Now, I'm not implying that the scumbag should not e convicted, nor am I advocating that he ever see the light of day again. I'm simply trying to say that there might be a reason that the judge decided to ban those words.
However, I find no merit in banning the word "victim".
Now, onto my own opinion. I don't think that the word is inflammatory enough to be banned. I think that the jury should be cautioned, but that the accuser should be able to use whatever language they possess to explain how they feel.
And... about ernie chambers.
Using frivolous lawsuits AGAINST frivolous lawsuits doesn't work, because the people who are filing the lawsuits don't consider them to be foolish, it's EVERYONE ELSE who thinks that. Which, is much like Ernie's own lawsuit. It seems like he's the only one who believes there's a firm and valid point at the base of it.
The word "murder" has some pretty ugly baggage attached to it as well.
Does it make sense that someone accused of shooting a person in the the head while they slept be spared the word "murder" at their trial, because the use of the word "might prejudice the jury"?
Jury's are made up of adults (allegedly) and they are EXPECTED to deal with the facts and the testimony presented in court, and to separate those facts from their own emotional responses (act as reasoning adults).
If the government (courts) no longer think US citizens can sit on a jury, hear certain words and retain a functional degree of reason and deliberation, then we need to establish a better government.
One we'd be willing to trust, because They trust US.
Any topic that has ANY religious angle to it is going to draw out into many tangents! I believe that stems mostly from insecurities and persecution issues of the responders and not God or his teachings. The only effect it has is to draw away from the actual issue.
That being said, let's look at the issue at hand, Frivolous lawsuits. I personally believe that Mr. Chamber's suit is hilarious, and only done to garner a headline or two. It, however is only a petition until a judge actually sends it to trial. Judges, not lawyers are to blame for time wasting lawsuits. Most of what we call "frivolous" lawsuits should never get past a judges bench the first time, and I don't believe that this one was intended to.
So, let's all get a laugh about this, and use it to focus on it's intent, and what it is trying to show/teach us.
In Sept 2002 the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights called Sen. Ernie Chambers both anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic bigot. He has also been denounced by several leading Jews for his anti-Semitic remarks; his comments regarding white people have earned him the label 'One of the biggest racists in Omaha'; he has been crassly dismissive over 9-11 saying: 'It didn't affect me at all'.
Glad to see that Mother Jones still can't dig deep into the story to get the *real* news.
Follow a few links folks to get the facts:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/21/man_sues_god/
And now a Federal Judge has stepped in and told Tory that she and her legal team face sanctions if they don't drop their suit:
http://www.ketv.com/news/14108751/detail.html?rss=oma&psp=news
Nice going Mother Jones. Yet another example of your "fine" reporting.
@DevinBialo
"The judge may have a point."
Fine, Devin. Then how about removing the word "killed" in a murder trial? How would a witness to a "killing" describe what they saw without *inflaming* the jury? I would propose that there is _nothing_ more inflammatory than the statement "I saw the defendant kill my brother!" I guess under your guidelines, and those of Judge Jeffre Cheuvront, the witness would be required to say "I saw the defendant make my brother fall down!" Anything other statement would be a conclusion that only the jury could make.
Rape, despite being a legal conclusion, is defined as unwanted sexual intercourse. The rules set by Judge Jeffre Cheuvront, that the witness must use the word "sex" instead of rape, make the act sound consensual. There is no way for a victim of a sexual assault or rape to testify, without perjuring themselves, without using the correct term for the act: rape.
The victim of sexual assault and rape in Judge Jeffre Cheuvront's court is twice victimized.
Marv, you are just a knit picker. You need to go to Liberal-Progressive "re-education" camp to learn to speak PC. Don't be a paleoconservative, get with the modern times. Can't you see that the judge is just so more advanced than the Nebraska hay seed farmers.
Ha, ha, this is so hilarious, before sueing someone one should ask if the one sued has the right to do the things that he his being sued for. Investigate first if he is even guilty of the allegations made. How can you sue someone for destroying e.g. his own car. How can you accuse a father of his adults criminal activities. The son is of legal age and has a choice of what he wants to do in his life. The list goes on and and on. The ones with a deeper train of thought will most likely not even attempt to accuse much less sue someone when a case can't even be found. Less the accuser be accused of accusing and be sued.
H.F.Elmendorp
