Objection, Foundation

Having affirmed that He can only tell the whole truth, The Witness took the stand.

Prosecutor:   Please state your name for the record.

Witness:  I am.

Prosecutor:  Sir, I asked you to state your name.

Witness:  I understood counsel.  I did state my name.

Prosecutor:  (turning to Judge) Would you please instruct The Witness that He is obligated to respond properly to my questions?

Judge:  (gazing at The Witness) Mr. Prosecutor, I gather The Witness has answered the question as He would have us interpret it. Would it satisfy you to have the record reflect that The Witness is that being upon whom the world generally bestows the name of “God”?

Prosecutor:  (to Judge) Thank you, your honor.  At this time I move to treat The Witness as hostile.

Defender:  Objection.

Prosecutor:  Your honor, this Witness’ very existence is on trial here.  We cannot even get a straight answer out of him regarding his own name.  Clearly, I am entitled to cross-examine him as a hostile witness.

Defender:  I have no objection to counsel cross-examining The Witness, but I do object to Him being referred to as hostile.

Judge:  OK, I see your point Defender.  Motion to treat Witness as . . .  in opposition, is granted.  Proceed Prosecutor.

Prosecutor:  (to Witness) Sir, you claim that you exist, don’t you.

Witness:  I am.

Prosecutor:  You also claim to be just.

Witness:  I am.

Prosecutor:  You have claimed on multiple occasions to know what is in the heart of man.  That’s true isn’t it?

Witness:  Uh. . . through my son, yes, I know your heart. 

Prosecutor:  I have also read that you claim to be omnipotent, all powerful.  Is that accurate?

Witness:  I am.

Prosecutor:   Sir, isn’t it fair to say that if you are in fact omnipotent, than nothing that happens on Earth could happen unless you set it in motion?

Witness:  Well . . .set it in motion, or allowed it to move I suppose.  Same thing I to you I guess.

Prosecutor:  You don’t deny it then?

Witness:   Deny what?

Prosecutor:  That everything that happens in the World is your responsibility.

Witness:   I am.

Prosecutor:  So you are all powerful, always just and in full knowledge of the heart of man—that is all so, is it not?

Witness:  I am.

Prosecutor:  (turning to face the Jury, and with his back to The Witness):  Well then sir, if you do in fact exist and are in fact just, how do you explain the fact that bad things happen to good people?

Defender:  Objection, Foundation.

Judge:  (confused) State your grounds Defender.

Defender:   Your honor, Prosecutor’s question assumes facts not in evidence.  The Bible states that there are in fact no “good people”, not one.

Prosecutor:  Your honor, please.  This so-called Bible, and the existence if this Witness that supposedly inspired it, is exactly what is on trial here.  Defender can’t use the discredited writings of a non-existent being to argue the existence of that very being.  That’s absurd.  It’s illogical.

Defender:  All right your honor.  Prosecutor has a point, though narrow and legalistic.  Even without the evidentiary weight of the Bible, it is clear to me that there are no good people.

Judge:  (looking kindly at Defender)  Mr. Defender, are you telling the Court that you are not in fact a good person.

Defender:  In spades your honor.  Though I have done many things the World calls good, I also have done many things even the World would admit were bad. 

Judge:  At the end of the day, doesn’t your good outweigh your bad Defender?  (they had known each other for many years).

Defender:  Your honor, I would need to know the weight of the scales used to measure my bad from my good to answer that.  At best, I can only say that I hope that I am found to be “net good”, although I think that is an immaterial point. 

Judge:   Well, if you are only net good, don’t you know of any wholly good people Defender?

Defender:  I know many people who, like me, hope that they are net good.  I have never met a sane man who claimed himself to be more than that, no sir.  Not even you.

Judge:  (smiling, and turning to Prosecutor).  Does the Prosecutor have anything to add?  Do you claim to be wholly good or to know someone who makes that claim that you could offer in evidence to this Court?

Prosecutor:  (uncomfortably).  Uhhh, I would also concede that I am at best net good, and do not know any sane man that considers himself to be wholly good.  But, it is not Defender and I who are on trial here.  Our relative goodness is not relevant.  Surely, there must be a man in the world who is wholly good.  The Court can take judicial notice of that.  I mean, it has to be so. 

Defender:  Your honor, I object to the Court taking judicial notice of the existence of wholly good people as to do so would be overly speculative.  To provide sufficient foundation for his question, Prosecutor will have to produce a sane man who actually claims himself to be wholly good.

Judge:  (to Prosecutor)  Can you sir? 

Prosecutor:  (shakes head, does not respond).

Judge:  Well, I suppose that I must sustain Defender’s objection then.  Can you rephrase your question Prosecutor?

Prosecutor:  I can your honor.  (to Witness) Sir, isn’t it true that you let bad things happen to . . . uh, net good people?”

Defender:  Objection, Foundation.

                                (TO BE CONTINUED)