Written by Creepy McSordid
Rating:

Share/Bookmark
Print this
Topics: Islamic

Tuesday, 12 July 2005

image for God Testifies at Van Gogh Trial
Justice is blinded

Last November 2nd the grandnephew of artist Vincent Van Gogh was murdered by a 27 year-old Islamic militant named Muhammad Bouyeri. It seems Bouyeri took exception to Theo Van Gogh's views as expressed in film and brutally murdered Theo first by shooting him several times and then slitting Theo's throat, all in broad daylight on an afternoon in Amsterdam. Bouyeri "believed he was carrying out God's will by killing van Gogh" and appeared in court today dressed in black and holding a copy of the Koran.

The following is an overview of the transcript when God was called to the stand by the prosecution.

Bailiff: Do you, God, swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth so … erm … help you God?

God: Yes, I do.

Judge: God, you may have a seat

Prosecution: Ah well, God, you certainly are very …um… bright and incredibly hard to stare at directly..... so it is difficult to see if you are in fact male or female.

God: Alright.

Prosecution: Well the reason you are here today, God, is because Mr. Bouyeri stated under oath that you were the direct inspiration he acted upon when Mr. Bouyeri killed Theo Van Gogh. Is this true?

God: No.

Prosecution: Perhaps we can get some background then. Did you write the Koran, God?

God: No, I did not

Prosecution: Oh ….um …let's see. How about the Bible or the Torah? Were you the author of either text?

God: No, I've never written anything of religious significance.

Prosecution: Erm… well, that comes as quite a surprise in that we are generally led to believe you are the author of these texts.

God: Nope. These books were written by people who were under a great deal of stress and in times of huge political unrest. The contexts of these books are to be seen from that perspective only.

Prosecution: So, you've never asked anyone to kill, smite, or otherwise take someone else's life?

God: No, why would I do that?

Prosecution: Mr. Bouyeri here has said he was "doing your will" by killing Mr. Van Gogh and I am trying to establish a stable motive to try this case.

God: Muhammed Bouyeri did not agree with the political view of Theo Van Gogh and feeling threatened that Theo's medium to which his message was expressed had bearing on a large audience; Muhammed ended Theo's life of his own accord. This was nothing more than fear acting upon itself. This was a case of two people with different viewpoints; one choosing a platform to announce his beliefs the other choosing violence to practice his beliefs. Saying I inspired this is nothing more than justification under the guise of fundamental religious practice.

Prosecution: So you're saying this was nothing more than a matter of one party, Mr. Bouyeri, feeling threatened by Mr. Van Gogh?

God: That is my point exactly.

Prosecution: Well, since you, God, are such a rare witness for the prosecution..... may I frame a question for you to consider?

Defense: Objection, Your Honor.

Judge: Because this is satire I will allow the question. Overruled!

Prosecution: Thank you, Your Honor. God..... how does one proceed with a case such as this? So many people have incredibly strong feelings toward what occurred last November 2nd that there is the likelihood of either side being horribly upset by the jury's decision in this violent matter.

God: You wish for me to make a ruling on this trial?

Prosecution: Would you express your best judgment in how this crime should be tried and the murderer be brought to justice?

God: That is for you to decide. You have established a system of social standards from which your society takes its rules. To ask me to intervene is inappropriate and also useless as I have no intention of influencing your laws to reflect a specific outcome. Follow the systems you've set for yourselves based on the laws and regulations of the community where this crime occurred.

Prosecution: So, there is no real 'perfect and eternal' answer to this criminal proceeding?

God: That's correct. It is a matter of which side presents a competent case for either the plaintiff or the defendant and how the jury interprets the information they perceive...... nothing more.

Prosecution: Well, okay then …. I want to thank you for your testimony here today and, Your Honor, I have no further questions.

Make Creepy McSordid's day - give this story five thumbs-up (there's no need to register, the thumbs are just down there!)

The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious.

If you fancy trying your hand at comedy spoof news writing, click here to join!

Print this

More by this writer

View Story
View Story
View Story
View Story
View Story
View Story

Related Stories...


Share/Bookmark

Mailing List

Get Spoof News in your email inbox!

Email:

What's 4 plus 4?

4 8 22 24
79 readers are online right now!

Go to top