The Man who Sued God

Has it ever happened to you that something bad happens and finding nobody else responsible, you simply bow down to fate and say, “Whatever happens, God destined it to be that way!” Well, think about it. If God planned something to happen in a particular way, is he responsible for it? If so, is he liable for the damages caused by his plans? Quite intriguing isn’t it?

Well, the movie, “The man who sues God” takes this thought to a near reality. Based on a true case in Australia, the story is about a man, an ex-lawyer, who loses his boat in a lightening and loses the insurance money as they declare it as an “Act of God”. Feeling helpless and knowing that suing the insurance companies would be useless, he takes the other route: he sues God! That’s right; he sues the almighty, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God!

The movie starts out being a vindictive action by a man who has lost his only possession – his boat. Yet, when the case begins to develop, it really gets interesting. The first point he makes is, if the Church and other religious institutes call themselves as the representatives of God on earth, are they responsible for such calamities? If a flood occurs and it is called as an “act of God”, will the church bear the expenses of re habilitating the people who have suffered the losses?

The next point that he makes is that if we as humans knew what was going to happen, then, why would we even insure? If an insurance company can’t insure against a potential risk, saying it is an “act of God”, then, why have insurance?

The other point that he raises is, who are the people representing god on earth? Is is the Church or the insurance companies? If the insurance companies can come up with a clause of “act of God”, do they have experts in the areas of working of God?

All this leaves the Church and the Insurance companies fuming. The conundrum for the church is this: If they call themselves the representatives of God, then, they must be liable for the damages caused by “acts of God”. To get away from this liability, they’ll have to prove that God does not exist. If this is the case, the, the Church would be the biggest and most fraudulent organization in the world. All the money collected in the name of God and charities would all be in the name of an entity which they can’t prove exists!

For the insurance companies, the confusion is this: They represent investors, not God. So, how can they violate the copyright of representatives of God, namely Church! Also, the insurance companies would have come up with the clause of “Act of God” against any scenario which could be caused by some never before recorded incident. For this, the hero reads through the bible where it would say that anything that happens has already happened before. There is precedence for everything. Hence, the very basis of on which their rider is built is wrong!

The end in the movie is a bit of anti-climax. The church and the insurance companies agree to split some expense and close the case. Since the hero has no money to continue the litigation, he accepts the money and manages to get some extra so that he can settle the amounts that many of people with similar problems.

The amazing thing about the movie was the way it was presented. What turned out to be an absolutely dumb thing became a real legal challenge. I mean, the Church having to prove that God does not exist to win the case seemed to be truly incredible. A poor guy, with no money and not even his boat manages to hold the Insurance and the Church for ransom!