Priest told by Italian Judge/court to prove Christ existed
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
With a nod to TivoCommunityForums.com where I found the original link for the item below, this one seems to take the cake for all time court cases. Heck, it reminds me a lot of the fictional court case for one Chris Kringle in the original Miracle on 34th Street movie, though we have yet to see the dramatic end for this case.
In an article in the Times Online of the U.K. (snippet to follow), we have news of an Italian Court Judge that has ordered a Priest to provide proof that Jesus Christ existed. Originally the same Judge had refused to accept the case, but upon appeal by a militant atheist who apparently feels that he was libeled or slandered by a Priest that has taken exception to his statements the appeals court ruled the Judge had to take the case. With that ruling the Judge has now ordered the Priest to prove that Jesus Christ existed.
This should be a very interesting court case, and I'd love to be a fly on the wall to watch the entire preceedings. What will be considered acceptable as proof, and at what point will there be a preponderence of the evidence in either direction? If the court receives enough evidence to say that Christ did exist, will that ruling condemn atheists throughout the world to a point where they can be completely ignored thanks to the eyes of the law? Would a ruling that confirmed the existence of Christ be enough of a precedence in the court of world opinion that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy looked towards for the ruling that set the standard for when youths could face adult punishment for crimes that they commit before their 18th birthday? If so, would it be Justice Kennedy that has to tell the bad news to Newdow and his idiotic co-conspirators that are suing to get God out of anything and everything in the U.S.? Would an affirmative ruling in this case establish precedent somehow that would say that Judge Roy Black was right in keeping the monument to the 10 commandments in his court house?
'tis a crazy world we live in. It should be fun to try to find out the results of this court case in the future.
Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest
From Richard Owen in Rome
AN ITALIAN judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed.
The case against Father Enrico Righi has been brought in the town of Viterbo, north of Rome, by Luigi Cascioli, a retired agronomist who once studied for the priesthood but later became a militant atheist.
Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence.
Yesterday Gaetano Mautone, a judge in Viterbo, set a preliminary hearing for the end of this month and ordered Father Righi to appear. The judge had earlier refused to take up the case, but was overruled last month by the Court of Appeal, which agreed that Signor Cascioli had a reasonable case for his accusation that Father Righi was “abusing popular credulity”.
Signor Cascioli’s contention — echoed in numerous atheist books and internet sites — is that there was no reliable evidence that Jesus lived and died in 1st-century Palestine apart from the Gospel accounts, which Christians took on faith. There is therefore no basis for Christianity, he claims.
Signor Cascioli’s one-man campaign came to a head at a court hearing last April when he lodged his accusations of “abuse of popular credulity” and “impersonation”, both offences under the Italian penal code. He argued that all claims for the existence of Jesus from sources other than the Bible stem from authors who lived “after the time of the hypothetical Jesus” and were therefore not reliable witnesses.
Signor Cascioli maintains that early Christian writers confused Jesus with John of Gamala, an anti-Roman Jewish insurgent in 1st-century Palestine. Church authorities were therefore guilty of “substitution of persons”.
The Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius mention a “Christus” or “Chrestus”, but were writing “well after the life of the purported Jesus” and were relying on hearsay.
Father Righi said there was overwhelming testimony to Christ’s existence in religious and secular texts. Millions had in any case believed in Christ as both man and Son of God for 2,000 years.
“If Cascioli does not see the sun in the sky at midday, he cannot sue me because I see it and he does not,” Father Righi said.
... more at linked article
In an article in the Times Online of the U.K. (snippet to follow), we have news of an Italian Court Judge that has ordered a Priest to provide proof that Jesus Christ existed. Originally the same Judge had refused to accept the case, but upon appeal by a militant atheist who apparently feels that he was libeled or slandered by a Priest that has taken exception to his statements the appeals court ruled the Judge had to take the case. With that ruling the Judge has now ordered the Priest to prove that Jesus Christ existed.
This should be a very interesting court case, and I'd love to be a fly on the wall to watch the entire preceedings. What will be considered acceptable as proof, and at what point will there be a preponderence of the evidence in either direction? If the court receives enough evidence to say that Christ did exist, will that ruling condemn atheists throughout the world to a point where they can be completely ignored thanks to the eyes of the law? Would a ruling that confirmed the existence of Christ be enough of a precedence in the court of world opinion that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy looked towards for the ruling that set the standard for when youths could face adult punishment for crimes that they commit before their 18th birthday? If so, would it be Justice Kennedy that has to tell the bad news to Newdow and his idiotic co-conspirators that are suing to get God out of anything and everything in the U.S.? Would an affirmative ruling in this case establish precedent somehow that would say that Judge Roy Black was right in keeping the monument to the 10 commandments in his court house?
'tis a crazy world we live in. It should be fun to try to find out the results of this court case in the future.
Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest
From Richard Owen in Rome
AN ITALIAN judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed.
The case against Father Enrico Righi has been brought in the town of Viterbo, north of Rome, by Luigi Cascioli, a retired agronomist who once studied for the priesthood but later became a militant atheist.
Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence.
Yesterday Gaetano Mautone, a judge in Viterbo, set a preliminary hearing for the end of this month and ordered Father Righi to appear. The judge had earlier refused to take up the case, but was overruled last month by the Court of Appeal, which agreed that Signor Cascioli had a reasonable case for his accusation that Father Righi was “abusing popular credulity”.
Signor Cascioli’s contention — echoed in numerous atheist books and internet sites — is that there was no reliable evidence that Jesus lived and died in 1st-century Palestine apart from the Gospel accounts, which Christians took on faith. There is therefore no basis for Christianity, he claims.
Signor Cascioli’s one-man campaign came to a head at a court hearing last April when he lodged his accusations of “abuse of popular credulity” and “impersonation”, both offences under the Italian penal code. He argued that all claims for the existence of Jesus from sources other than the Bible stem from authors who lived “after the time of the hypothetical Jesus” and were therefore not reliable witnesses.
Signor Cascioli maintains that early Christian writers confused Jesus with John of Gamala, an anti-Roman Jewish insurgent in 1st-century Palestine. Church authorities were therefore guilty of “substitution of persons”.
The Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius mention a “Christus” or “Chrestus”, but were writing “well after the life of the purported Jesus” and were relying on hearsay.
Father Righi said there was overwhelming testimony to Christ’s existence in religious and secular texts. Millions had in any case believed in Christ as both man and Son of God for 2,000 years.
“If Cascioli does not see the sun in the sky at midday, he cannot sue me because I see it and he does not,” Father Righi said.
... more at linked article
