Tuesday, April 26, 2011

The temporary insanity theodicy

Defense attorney Roger Olson gave a heartfelt closing argument in the trial of the millennium. The DA had indicted God for crimes against humanity, citing numerous tragedies, atrocities, and humanitarian disasters which had transpired under God’s watch.

Olson had countered by attempting to mount a temporary insanity defense, otherwise known as the temporary insanity theodicy.

The key witness for the defense was renowned depth psychologist Georg Hasenpfeffer. Dr. Hasenpfeffer cited a case involving one of his own patients, Jennifer Carmichael.

Jennifer was a freckle-faced high school student with a crush on the hunky quarterback. However, the quarterback didn’t reciprocate her affections.

He danced with her just once at a party to make her feel better, which she mistook as a sign of mutual infatuation. But when she caught him making out with one of the cheerleaders in the laundry room, she felt betrayed.

She fell into a condition technically termed post-boyfriend psychosis, akin to somnambulism. One by one the cheerleaders began to disappear, only to turn up dead days later, like a teen slasher film.

As Olson argued, when God wooed obstreperous sinners who refused to reciprocate his advances, he became angry, vindictive, and depressed. Humanitarian disasters were the subliminal result of his post-girlfriend psychosis.

But, as Olson explained, God never intended for any of this to happen. That was a subconscious projection of God’s instinctual id, detached from God’s super-ego or conscience.  God was unaware of the link between his motives and his actions. And in that diminished condition, God could not be held responsible for the catastrophic consequences of his unrequited love. 

1 comment:

  1. I'm just wondering why the defense attorney and the DA are never in the courtroom at the same time. It seems that when the defense attorney sits down and the judge calls on the DA, Olson gets up, runs outside and the DA walks in wearing a suit identical to the defense attorney's only that he's wearing glasses and a fake mustache.

    What DA could prosecute on those grounds anyway? A better defense would be to challenge the understanding of the law.