Saturday, February 24, 2018

Judgement of god


(BI) Feedloader User

Case docket # 24-1-25-14-5

Prosecution: Your Honour, the defendant is charged with reckless endangerment, having gravely injured the reputation of several politicians, his own health, and children's well-being. In protest of a policy designed to benefit thousands of people by getting them out of traffic jams, the defendant embarked on a hunger strike, encouraging children to refuse to eat their bhaji and say "Are we there yet?", which forced Government ministers to embark on a weight-gain policy. The defendant has a PhD and so must have been aware of these consequences, and we would ask the court to send a message that such treasonous acts would not go unpunished.

Defence: Your Honour, while we acknowledge that our client has a PhD, it is in Spanish literature, which doesn't require logical capacity or regular bowel movements. Our client is also a proponent of socialism and talibanism, which proves that he has no concept of consequences and believes that any means justifies ends. We would also submit that many children refuse bhaji without encouragement. Our client is therefore not responsible for his actions and should be set free.

Judge: The court finds that, while it is clear that anyone who described Osama bin Laden as "waging the war of his life to protect Islamic space" has a skewed view of reality, this does not exculpate him from negligence, given that his actions further destabilised a government already made fragile by Cabinet's shortage of principles, brains, and bowels. Moreover, bhaji helps maintain a healthy metabolism and Indian culture. The defendant is therefore sentenced to eat rice and dhal three times a day while spending six months in jail.

Case docket #1-11-5-9-12

Prosecutor: Your Honour, the defendant is charged with gross negligence. The accused through inaction caused the deaths of an 83-year-old woman and a five-year-old boy, both of whom were killed in a fire in Laventille. The defendant could have saved one or both of these persons by shouting a warning, calling the Fire Service, or using his garden hose to out the flames. Instead, he continued watering his plants while watching Monday Night Raw. We submit that the court has no option but to find him guilty as charged.

Defender: Your Honour, while it is true that my client made no attempt to save the alleged victims, the court must bear in mind that he was watching a grudge match between WWE champions Leg Luga and Bob Buckland. In fact, he could not have used his telephone or shouted a warning since he was hoarse from cheering Mr Luga. Also, his hose was in use since that day was particularly hot and his petunias had not been watered. I would also ask the court to consider that one of the alleged victims had already lived 10 years beyond average life expectancy, and the other may have grown up to be a bandit.

Judge: Although this court appreciates petunias, Mr Luga isn't that great a wrestler. Thus, I hereby find that the defendant acted in in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others. He is hereby sentenced to five years in jail with hard labour growing African violets.

Case docket #1-12-13-9-7-8-20-25

Prosecution: Your Honour, the defendant in this case is charged with criminal negligence, having failed to prevent the deaths of 18 children who were gunned down while in school. The defendant had several options open to Him. He could have created a storm so school would be let out early; He could have caused the perpetrator's guns to jam; or He could have prevented the perpetrator from being born mentally ill. Despite being omnipotent and omniscient, the defendant failed to exercise any of these options, and we submit that the court must therefore find Him guilty as charged.

Defence: Your Honour, having granted free will even to five-year-olds, our client was morally bound to refrain from interfering in these unfortunate deaths. Nonetheless, He would have intervened had He been asked, but could not do so since no one in the school was allowed to pray to him in public and it appears that none of these children did so in private before being shot. It is therefore secularists rather than Him who should be held culpable for this atrocious act.

Judge: Anyone who has seen a five-year-old child eat ice cream may legitimately question the validity of free will, which also seems contradicted by the concept of omniscience. Nonetheless, a guilty verdict would imply that the defendant (a) does not exist; (b) exists but is malevolent; or (c) is a conman who has fooled the majority of human beings. Since any of these conclusions would reduce the incomes of thousands of religious leaders and force millions of believers to take on the discomforting task of thinking rationally and ethically, this court finds the defendant innocent of all charges, including child abuse, genocide, and prejudice against pork.