I donât know about a chicken, but Judaism has a mock court tradition in which G-d Himself is put on trial and accused by humans (and sometimes the Patriarchs of the Hebrew Bible) of allowing the suffering caused by mankind and, in cases such as natural disasters, responsible for inflicting that suffering. This tradition extends even to the Holiest day on the Jewish calendar: Yom Kippur. The greatest Hebrew prophet, Moses, wrestled with G-d to spare the Jewish people. Jewish belief states that our human reason provokes the expression of profound discontent in the face of suffering and evil, and this is as it should be. However, we are also required to go beyond the confines of our finite reason by having faith that G-d will ensure our suffering is not in vain.Can I take a chicken to court? How about God? Is our legal system adequate to judge God?
Why or why not?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9078334&postcount=11
How is this practiced? I am not familiar with this Jewish tradition. Is this done in the synagogue? Is it a ritual? Is it done in front of an audience?
Why not? Why canât I drag a chicken by the feathers straight to court?
AFAIK, it is not a ritual or doctrineâat least not in Reform Judaismâbut part of Jewish tradition nonetheless. At least one famous rabbi of yesteryear (was it Rabbi Akiva?) accused G-d on Yom Kippur in the synagogue of great sins caused by natural catastrophes, while mankind was guilty only of minor sins by comparison. And the Jewish inmates at Auschwitz put G-d on trial, according to the testimony of Elie Wiesel. Part of the Oral Law, the PatriarchsâAbraham, Isaac, and Jacobâwould gather and plead for mercy for the Jewish people against the suffering wrought by G-d, Who is the defendant on trial.
As my grandmother, who did not trust doctors too much, used to say (in Yiddish): âA chicken is to be cut, not a person.â Chickens are for eating, particularly on Friday night according to Jewish custom (although it was once fish, as in Catholicism), not for taking to court.
Interesting. Give me a little time to research this.
Aside from preventing cruelty or providing protection I donât think our legal system extends any further rights or responsibilities to animals. However some places to have prescribed responses for animals that commit certain actions, such as putting down an animal that attacks a human.
Caramba!
And do what?
Yes, but, letâs not mix oranges with apples. They were not pretending to JUDGE GOD they were pleading for Mercy.
In a fruit basket, oranges are often mixed with apples. They are pleading for mercy AND accusing G-d for exacting too severe a punishment for their sins. It is true, however, that faith in G-dâs eternal and unfathomable plan, in which suffering is redemptive and good is brought from evil (the latter somewhat more a Christian belief than a Jewish one), triumphs in the end.
For the sake of reality, letâs agree to agree as it is the case; a chicken has no place in a court room except in regards to those laws you have noted and at that, I think a judge would have a hard time allowing the actual chicken in his/her court room. Mettzleboyâs grandmother may have pointed out that it belongs in a pot.
In this country we sanction those who bring frivolous lawsuits such as this and waste the courtâs time. A person can be fined for doing this. A lawyer can wind up suspended or sanctioned if he takes such a nonsense case. This is an affront â God has aliases? God created the terrorist attacks? Obviously, Mr. Chambers is not a Catholic.There is legal precedent in the US for suing God.
State Sen. Ernie Chambers Sues God
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.
ketv.com/news/14133442/detail.html#ixzz1pIMgNmmI
Legal case against God dismissed
A US judge has thrown out a case against God, ruling that because the defendant has no address, legal papers cannot be served.
Mr Chambers, a state senator for 38 years, said he filed the suit to make the point that âanyone can sue anyone else, even Godâ.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7673591.stm
It sounds like Senator Chambers enjoyed himself. He made the point which should be known, people can even sue the government, corporations, and even on behalf of people, state and government. However, this does not advance the topic at hand which is if I can verbalize it: Can we judge God?There is legal precedent in the US for suing God.
State Sen. Ernie Chambers Sues God
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.
ketv.com/news/14133442/detail.html#ixzz1pIMgNmmI
Legal case against God dismissed
A US judge has thrown out a case against God, ruling that because the defendant has no address, legal papers cannot be served.
Mr Chambers, a state senator for 38 years, said he filed the suit to make the point that âanyone can sue anyone else, even Godâ.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7673591.stm
I am not even sure how to respond to this, except to say that it is not my intention to offend you.
Even in the case of a guilty verdict I donât think there could be any actionable plan. For a person found guilty of an offense the actionable punishments include prison time, loss of privileges, and fines for injury and legal fees. I suppose it is something one could try to do for what ever reason motivates them but it seems like it would be every bit as effective as the charges the state of New York filed against Osama bin Laden (note: they dropped the charges after he was declared dead).
This topic is an exchange of ideas. A practice that human beings engage in. One is free to read it or not.
