Ursa Majoris Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 That spat in Italy between the atheist and the priest is reaching new levels of inanity. VITERBO, Italy - An Italian judge heard arguments Friday on whether a small-town parish priest should stand trial for asserting that Jesus Christ existed. The priest's atheist accuser, Luigi Cascioli, says the Roman Catholic Church has been deceiving people for 2,000 years with a fable that Christ existed, and that the Rev. Enrico Righi violated two Italian laws by reasserting the claim. Lawyers for Righi and Cascioli, old schoolmates, made their arguments in a brief, closed-door hearing before Judge Gaetano Mautone in Viterbo, north of Rome. They said they expected the judge to decide quickly. Cascioli filed a criminal complaint in 2002 after Righi wrote in a parish bulletin that Jesus did indeed exist, and that he was born of a couple named Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth. Cascioli claims that Righi's assertion constituted two crimes under Italian law: so-called "abuse of popular belief," in which someone fraudulently deceives people; and "impersonation," in which someone gains by attributing a false name to a person. "The point is not to establish whether Jesus existed or not, but if there is a question of possible fraud," Cascioli's attorney, Mauro Fonzo, told reporters before the hearing. Cascioli says the church has been gaining financially by "impersonating" as Christ someone by the name of John of Gamala, the son of Judas from Gamala. He has said he has little hope of the case succeeding in overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Italy, but that he is merely going through the necessary legal steps to reach the European Court of Human Rights, where he intends to accuse the church of what he calls "religious racism." Righi, 76, has stressed substantial historical evidence — both Christian and non-Christian — of Jesus' existence. "Don Righi is innocent because he said and wrote what he has the duty to say and write," Righi's attorney, Severo Bruno, told reporters. He said he told Mautone during the hearing that Righi was not asserting a historical fact when he wrote of Jesus' existence, but rather "an expression of theological principles." "When Don Righi spoke about Christ's humanity ... he was affirming that he needs to be considered as a man. What his name is, where he comes from or who his parents are is secondary," he said. Fonza said he countered that there have long been questions of Christ's existence and that the matter warranted discussion in the court. "When somebody states a wrong fact, abusing the ignorance of people, and gains from that, that is one of the gravest crimes," Cascioli told reporters. Righi's brother, Luigi Righi, attended the hearing and said his brother was "serene but bitter." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I was headed here to post that. It is now only a matter of time before we see that here. Only difference is that here they will be asking for hugh amounts of money for pain and suffering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 I suppose the upside, if any, is that we're not alone in the world in frivolously wasting the time of our justice system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geeteebee Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I was headed here to post that. It is now only a matter of time before we see that here. Only difference is that here they will be asking for hugh amounts of money for pain and suffering. 1291795[/snapback] But the real question is: Did Righi bring Sky in as a witness to attest that he actually played in an early fantasy football league with JC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I suppose the upside, if any, is that we're not alone in the world in frivolously wasting the time of our justice system. 1291800[/snapback] LOL Ain't that the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I'm going to wait for the ruling by moneymakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I'm going to wait for the ruling by moneymakers. 1291868[/snapback] He is more into Russian affairs than Italian affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I'm no Christian.... but arguing that Christ did not exist historically is a loser of a case. This athiest is going to get his ass handed to him from scientists, historians, and a host of other non-religious folk. What a dumbass. You could argue that he wasn't a miracle birth... you could argue that he isn't the son of God... but to argue that he never existed is just dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sores Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 You could argue that he wasn't a miracle birth... you could argue that he isn't the son of God... but to argue that he never existed is just dumb. 1291927[/snapback] All true. Including the part about him never existing, but I waffle a little on whether or not arguing he never existed is dumb. If you don't believe in the Bible, but consider it a great piece of fiction, you could make an argument that Jesus is simply the Tom Sawyer of the Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 All true. Including the part about him never existing, but I waffle a little on whether or not arguing he never existed is dumb. If you don't believe in the Bible, but consider it a great piece of fiction, you could make an argument that Jesus is simply the Tom Sawyer of the Bible. 1291946[/snapback] There is a historical record of Jesus. I don't think you could argue that Jesus never existed without arguing that guys like Agustus Caesar, Herod, and Pontias Pilate never existed too. I believe all the records confirm the existence of each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 All true. Including the part about him never existing, but I waffle a little on whether or not arguing he never existed is dumb. If you don't believe in the Bible, but consider it a great piece of fiction, you could make an argument that Jesus is simply the Tom Sawyer of the Bible. 1291946[/snapback] I think the historical evidence is heavily in favor of Christ's actual existence, whether or not he was the actual son of God Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I think the historical evidence is heavily in favor of Christ's actual existence, whether or not he was the actual son of God 1292186[/snapback] And isn't the burden of proof on the Plaintiff, making him prove Jesus did not exist, even as a person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKF Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 And isn't the burden of proof on the Plaintiff, making him prove Jesus did not exist, even as a person. 1292189[/snapback] Let's see his name in Augustus' census. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.