Double Proposition
In a small town, a person decided to open up a liquor shop, which was right opposite to a church. The church & its congregation started a campaign to block the liquor shop from opening with petitions and prayed daily against his business.
Work progressed. However, when it was almost complete and was about to open a few days later, a strong lightning struck the liquor shop and it was burnt to the ground.
The church folks were rather smug in their outlook after that, till the liquor owner sued the church authorities on the grounds that the church through its congregation & prayers was ultimately responsible for the destruction of his liquor shop, either through direct or indirect actions or means.
In its reply to the court, the church vehemently denied all responsibility or any connection that their prayers were reasons for the act of God.
If you were Judge, How will you decide ?
Work progressed. However, when it was almost complete and was about to open a few days later, a strong lightning struck the liquor shop and it was burnt to the ground.
The church folks were rather smug in their outlook after that, till the liquor owner sued the church authorities on the grounds that the church through its congregation & prayers was ultimately responsible for the destruction of his liquor shop, either through direct or indirect actions or means.
In its reply to the court, the church vehemently denied all responsibility or any connection that their prayers were reasons for the act of God.
If you were Judge, How will you decide ?
Labels: outside-the-box
posted by Rajesh Lal at
10:36 PM
27 Comments:
a judge could lose his or her job if he/she makes a ruling based on personal beliefs... their ruling must coincide with the laws of their country. In most countries this would be viewed as an act of god and thus, through the law, the verdict must be in favorof the church.
"An act of God is a natural catastrophe which no one can prevent such as an earthquake, a tidal wave, a volcanic eruption, a hurricane or a tornado. An act of God is generally considered an act attributable to nature without human interference. For example, damage from a tornado or a lightning strike would be considered an act of God. Damage would not be considered an act of God if it is caused by the property owner."
The judge cannot place responsibility on the church, but as a judge, I would request the church to buy the damaged property, at the pre-damaged value. IF THEY BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF PRAYER. There neighbor problem is resolved.
Failure to buy the damage property would admit they DO NOT believe in the power of prayer, and they will still have the neighbor problem when the store is rebuilt.
hjg
Yes.. Sadly I would agree the church could not be held liable. You would not sue santa if your roof collapsed. Even though the innocence of children demands that he exists, the ignorance of believers in god should not be punished for thinking that a supreme being brought the electrical discharge from the skies to land on the liquor store.
how exactly is this a puzzle/trick.... This is more like a question for a lawyer or a person who has studied the law thuroughly.
You are right, this submission has nothing to do with a trick, or puzzle, and really nothing to do with the law either, but it is a pleasant change and a good thought provoking diversion.
It would be interesting to read some novel answers. Unfortunately, novelity seems to on short supply.
hjg
Seeing as Judge is shown with a capital "J" the supreme judge is God anyway, so the liquor store owner would mysteriously vanish.
Problem solved.
hahahaha !
so that means that the liquor seller believes in the prayer and a whole church authority does not.
I rule in the church's favor, because, the church has the right to think whatever they want to think, and if everyone in the church believes this way, then it is not illegal for the church to pray the way they want to.
I rule in the church's favor, because, the church has the right to think whatever they want to think, and if everyone in the church believes this way, then it is not illegal for the church to pray the way they want to.
I rule in the church's favor, because, the church has the right to think whatever they want to think, and if everyone in the church believes this way, then it is not illegal for the church to pray the way they want to.
I rule in the church's favor, because, the church has the right to think whatever they want to think, and if everyone in the church believes this way, then it is not illegal for the church to pray the way they want to.
I rule in the church's favor, because, the church has the right to think whatever they want to think, and if everyone in the church believes this way, then it is not illegal for the church to pray the way they want to.
It is rather hypocritical of the church to deny responsibility in some degree. If the church had prayed for a million dollars, and received it, they would be praising their apparent God, yet as soon as it is turned on it's head, the cower away from their own beliefs and act like children... typical act of religion i suppose =P
"I rule in the church's favor, because, the church has the right to think whatever they want to think, and if everyone in the church believes this way, then it is not illegal for the church to pray the way they want to."
so you are saying if a pastor in a church hates people based on their religion, orientation, or race that they can pray for the death of these people and it is right? are you saying that religion and the beliefs are above the law?
Have the church pray that their building also be struck by lightning to determine whether or not their statement that their prayers were the connection to the Act of God. If their building burns to the ground, then their statement is false. If their building stays standing, then their statement is true.
How would I solve this? Three words: rock, paper, scissors!
lol i agree wit anon above me! YAY RPS
I'd toss the case out of court. People pray all the time, yet their prayers are not answered (or answered negatively). If prayer did cause God to intervene, then God is responsible for the lightning and He's not included in the suit. This is a silly lawsuit tying up the court's time.
i think the church should have done something more concrete, some thing legal, not pray to god. they should have asked the owner not to have it open during the hours the church was in service.
As the Lord stated to Peter before the crow caws twice you will deny me thrice the church is denying all responsibility so in fact it is denying its belief in god.
This's actually anole. The Judge says "I don't know how to rule this case, but it looks like we have a liquor Store owner who believes in the power of prayer and an entire congregator that does not" In addition, it this were a real case, an act of god cannot be related to a mortal act, regardless of prayer, selets, be they occult, holy prayer, magical, demonic, or the result of a slumbering elder-god burping.
I would have the church post a large sign in plain view of all who enter, with the inscription
"We do not believe in the power of prayer, and do not believe that God intervenes in our daily lives"
If the church refuses, then they are ordered to pay for all repairs and lost opportunity costs.
If they truly believe in the power of prayer, then the situation is very much like the situation where the congregation paid (strongly influenced) someone to torch the store. They are a material accessory to a crime.
Its not the churches fault that the abnormal happened
The liquor store should have been protected from lightning strike by the steeple of the church, since lightning normally strikes the tallest thing around. It wasn't protected, implying that it wasn't a lightning strike, but maybe arson.
finally someone with a brain! i was thinking i was the only one to have it!
thank you curt!!!
first i would establish if it was indeed lightning or if it was arson.
if not arson search the arson possibility.
if the lightning then considering the church peoples comment that it was god who had stuck him establishment, i would look to the evidence...and since it was a church then most likely it would be christian...and where do christians find out about god? the bibe of course. i would look at any events where god used lightning and considering the "victim" and the circumstance would set up a presidence.
also considering gods actions towards humans would, compare the treatment of the punished and the survivors to that of the shop owner.
and since god doesnt condem the presence of a liqueor shop (or that of moderate indulgence of alchol) but the abuse of alchol
i would rule that the lightning stike was following the scientic rules concerning such. and as such would be considered a "natural disaster" and ensure the owner got his insurance money + legal fees and compensation for any lack of business from the beginning of their campaign(s) from the "Flock" from that particular local congregation
i was about to post my answer but thankfully i need not.. i have the same answer as with curt. GO CURT.. come on this is a trick not a religious question.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home