My strong apologies to Ernie Chambers for accidentally misrepresenting his court case earlier. I read from an AP story that Chambers was suing god in part to scold a rape victim for issuing a lawsuit based on her perceived mistreatment on the witness stand. A commenter named Kaethe pointed out that the AP got it wrong---Chambers is suing in support of the victim, which means that his atheist pranking wasn't hostile to this young woman at all, but supportive.

Chambers said senators periodically have offered bills prohibiting the filing of certain types of suits. He said his main objection is that the constitution requires that the doors to the courthouse be open to all.

"Thus anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody -- even God," Chambers said.

However, it's all very confusing. There's also video showing Chambers saying that not everything has redress in the courts. But was that taken out of context? Lindsay has more on the confusion in this case. If Chambers is supportive of the young woman's attempts to get some justice, then I apologize for misrepresenting him. If he's mocking her, then he needs to be held accountable for that. I just wish this wasn't so confusing