Italian atheist sues priest over Jesus' existence

[Charade]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-01-30-italy-atheist_x.htm



This should be interesting.

 

[CEDmom]

Some people just have WAY to much time on their hands .

 

[jekajekalynn]

Next he will be suing the Cadbury corporation over Easter, and the fact that he just found out that rabbits don't cluck..

 

[mommaU4]

Next he will be suing the Cadbury corporation over Easter, and the fact that he just found out that rabbits don't cluck..

Shut. Up. Rabbits don't cluck? Man. Why am I always the last to know these things?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Next he will be suing the Cadbury corporation over Easter, and the fact that he just found out that rabbits don't cluck..

Well, they may not cluck, but their "hen-fruit" is absolutely delicious. I can't wait for the first Cadbury Creme Eggs to arrive...

 

[goofygirl]

How in the world do you prove it one way or another?

Its like trying to prove that God exists or doesn't exist. You CAN'T!

 

[goofygirl]

PS- I think we should all sue our parents and all the malls for fraud for telling us during our childhood that there was a Santa Claus!

 

[JudicialTyranny]

How in the world do you prove it one way or another?

Its like trying to prove that God exists or doesn't exist. You CAN'T!

The athiests will try. This is not an uncommon tact of the athiests - there was a thread on this very board a few months ago where an anti-religion poster was making this same claim - that there is no "proof" that Jesus ever existed.

(Yet there is more evidence of the existance of Jesus than some things that are commonly taken as "fact" in history and science without hard definite "proof".)

 

[lemondog]

Well now I really HAVE heard it all!

 

[MrsKreamer]

Wow for once I agree with goofygirl...huh never thought that would happen! This is so ridiculas I would be upset b/c they are actually wasting tax payers money on this...

 

[caitycaity]

The athiests will try. This is not an uncommon tact of the athiests - there was a thread on this very board a few months ago where an anti-religion poster was making this same claim - that there is no "proof" that Jesus ever existed.

quite a broad brush you have there.

fwiw, i am an atheist and i think this is ridiculous. (and i have no interest in proving or disproving god's existence).

 

[JennyMominRI]

The athiests will try. This is not an uncommon tact of the athiests - there was a thread on this very board a few months ago where an anti-religion poster was making this same claim - that there is no "proof" that Jesus ever existed.

(Yet there is more evidence of the existance of Jesus than some things that are commonly taken as "fact" in history and science without hard definite "proof".)

Actually,I have said this,and I am non athiest. I'm also the first one to state that there is no real proof that any of the founders of my religion exist,IE. Abraham, Moses Isaac,etc.

FTR ,I think this lawsuit is stupid

 

[dcentity2000]

How incredibly insecure of them



Rich::

 

[beattyfamily]

Judge Tosses Case of Atheist Vs. Priest

ROME - An Italian judge has dismissed an atheist's petition that a small-town priest should stand trial for asserting that Jesus Christ existed, both sides said on Friday.

Luigi Cascioli, a 72-year-old retired agronomist, had accused the Rev. Enrico Righi of violating two laws with the assertion, which he called a deceptive fable propagated by the Roman Catholic Church.

"The Rev. Righi is very satisfied and moved," Righi's attorney, Severo Bruno, said. "He is an old, small-town parish priest who never would have thought he'd be in the spotlight for something like this."

Cascioli, a former schoolmate of Righi's, said he had not expected the case to succeed in overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Italy.

"This is not surprising but it doesn't mean it all ends here," he said, adding that he's considering taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

"This is an important case and it deserves to go ahead," he said.

Judge Gaetano Mautone said in his decision that prosecutors should investigate Cascioli for possible slander.

The ruling was released Thursday in Viterbo, a town north of Rome where the priest is based. Cascioli filed a criminal complaint against Righi in 2002 after Righi wrote in a parish bulletin that Jesus existed, that he was born to a couple named Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem and that he lived in Nazareth.

Righi, 76, said substantial historical evidence proves Jesus' existence.

Cascioli claimed that Righi's assertions violated two Italian laws: one barring "abuse of popular belief," or fraudulently deceiving people; and another barring "impersonation" or personal gain from attributing a false name to someone.

 

[HomeSweetDisney]

***. what a ridiculous lawsuit. you really can sue over anything these days. do you think these people just wake up and say "i think i'll sue so-and-so today." if this case hadn't been dismissed i would have been very annoyed

 

[wvrevy]

Personally - and I'll be the first to admit that I am fairly anti-religion - I think it's hilarious, and from a purely legal standpoint, I see nothing wrong with his case, other than, as a "life-long atheist", I don't see how he could claim to have been defrauded.

But George Carlin has repeatedly said that organized religion is the greatest fraud ever pulled in the history of mankind, and I couldn't agree more. It is a multi-billion dollar industry that is based upon a fable, and sells to it's consumers absolutely nothing, while claiming it is selling them everything.

Not sure I see what the problem is.

 

[whosyourdaddy]

Personally - and I'll be the first to admit that I am fairly anti-religion - I think it's hilarious, and from a purely legal standpoint, I see nothing wrong with his case, other than, as a "life-long atheist", I don't see how he could claim to have been defrauded.

But George Carlin has repeatedly said that organized religion is the greatest fraud ever pulled in the history of mankind, and I couldn't agree more. It is a multi-billion dollar industry that is based upon a fable, and sells to it's consumers absolutely nothing, while claiming it is selling them everything.

Not sure I see what the problem is.

So you would have no problem with a christian suing you because you were defrauding people by agreeing with George Carlin's quote. Purely from a legal standpoint.

 

[wvrevy]

So you would have no problem with a christian suing you because you were defrauding people by agreeing with George Carlin's quote. Purely from a legal standpoint.

Actually, yes, as I am not selling them anything, while the church - through tithing and other such practices - is. The legal cases are not parallel.

Besides...even if the case weren't summarily thrown out, it would be up to said "christian" to prove that religion isn't a complete and total fraud, and that's simply not possible. What's he going to do? Point at the sun and say something brilliant like, "It exists, therefore it must have been created?" He'd be laughed out of the courtroom. Why? Because a courtroom is a place of reason, not fantasy. (Or, at least, it is supposed to be).

 

[crcormier]

Why is it 'right' for Christians to profess their belief to others as missionaries but 'wrong' for someone who believes there is no God to try to convince others?

I am Catholic, btw.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Actually, yes, as I am not selling them anything, while the church - through tithing and other such practices - is. The legal cases are not parallel.

I'd argue that churches aren't "selling" anything, but I'm guessing that's something we'd end up agreeing to disagree on.

Besides...even if the case weren't summarily thrown out, it would be up to said "christian" to prove that religion isn't a complete and total fraud, and that's simply not possible. What's he going to do? Point at the sun and say something brilliant like, "It exists, therefore it must have been created?" He'd be laughed out of the courtroom. Why? Because a courtroom is a place of reason, not fantasy. (Or, at least, it is supposed to be).

It would work both ways, you know. There's no way someone would be able to legally argue that God doesn't exist, anymore than there's a way of proving that he does exist.