Texas Judge Rules God Must Testify in Court Case Sparking Constitutional Firestorm
Texas judge orders God to testify in court case

A Texas judge has sparked both outrage and disbelief after ordering the divine to appear in court, in a ruling that's testing the boundaries between religious faith and legal procedure.

The Case That's Dividing Legal Experts

Livingston Municipal Court Judge George Flores issued the controversial order requiring 'God' to testify in an ongoing property dispute between two religious organisations. The case involves competing claims over land and buildings previously used by the River of Life Church.

Legal Community Reacts with Shock

Legal experts across Texas are questioning whether the judge's order crosses constitutional lines. "This ruling ventures into dangerous territory," commented constitutional law professor Michael Sanders. "The court is effectively ordering a religious entity to prove their relationship with the divine - something that fundamentally challenges religious freedom protections."

The case took its bizarre turn when representatives from The Church of the Divine Presence claimed divine guidance in their property claim, prompting Judge Flores to rule that 'God' must appear to clarify the matter.

Political Fallout Spreads Across Texas

The ruling has drawn attention from the highest levels of Texas government, with Attorney General Ken Paxton's office monitoring developments closely. Governor Greg Abbott's administration has remained notably silent on the matter, though sources suggest internal discussions are underway about potential state intervention.

Religious Groups Voice Concerns

Various religious organisations have expressed alarm about the precedent this case could set. "When courts attempt to adjudicate matters of faith and divine communication, they risk violating the very foundation of religious liberty," stated Reverend Sarah Mitchell of the Texas Interfaith Council.

The case continues to draw national attention as legal scholars debate whether this represents a constitutional crisis in the making or merely an eccentric judicial misstep that will be quickly overturned on appeal.