NationStates Jolt Archive

A few months ago a thread was started, about a athiest sueing a priest over the fact that he wrote a book that said jesus did not exist. THe priest called him a liar and the athiest sued him. THe ITalian court told the priest to prove Jesus existed.

THe priest did, and the court told the Priest and the Church that they should Sue the atheist for liable. Here is the story.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/10/italy.christ.ap/index.html

THe ITalian court told the priest to prove Jesus existed.

THe priest did, and the court told the Priest and the Church that they should Sue the athiest for liable.
Funny you'd say that, because the article says nothing of the sort. It says the judge dismissed the atheist's petition, not that the priest proved Jesus existed, and that the judge said the atheist should be investigated for slander, not sued for libel.

ROME, Italy (AP) -- 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.


well i guess they told him!

it seems to have been a slightly different premise than what was reported earlier. but, as was mentioned, it wasnt likely that the nonexistance of jesus was going to be upheld in an italian court.

A few months ago a thread was started, about a athiest sueing a priest over the fact that he wrote a book that said jesus did not exist. THe priest called him a liar and the athiest sued him. THe ITalian court told the priest to prove Jesus existed.

THe priest did, and the court told the Priest and the Church that they should Sue the athiest for liable. Here is the story.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/10/italy.christ.ap/index.html

The real question:

Wtf is an athiest?

That Cascioli guy is a jerk >.> He's like the Italian version of Jack Thompson, pulling random crap out of his ass and bringing it to court to satisfy his being an attention whore.

And an athiest is someone who doesn't believe there's a god or any other higher being.

The real question:

Wtf is an athiest?

Whoever is the most athi.

Funny you'd say that, because the article says nothing of the sort. It says the judge dismissed the atheist's petition, not that the priest proved Jesus existed, and that the judge said the atheist should be investigated for slander, not sued for libel.

From the Article:

Righi, 76, said substantial historical evidence proves Jesus' existence. ALso the priest was being sued because of the claim that he and the church lied over 2000 years. It was dismissed because there was substantial historical evidence to counter Cascioli's claim.

The real question:

Wtf is an athiest?

Forgive me for misspelling. It has been edited

From the Article:

Righi, 76, said substantial historical evidence proves Jesus' existence.
Yes, he did say that. But you are removing the context.
"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."

That quote was talking about what the priest's assertions were that the atheist was staking him to court over, not about why the case was dismissed.
ALso the priest was being sued because of the claim that he and the church lied over 2000 years. It was dismissed because there was substantial historical evidence to counter Cascioli's claim.
The article does not say that anywhere. It merely says that the case was dismissed.

Yes, he did say that. But you are removing the context.
"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."

That quote was talking about what the priest's assertions were, not about why the case was dismissed.

The article does not say that anywhere. It merely says that the case was dismissed.


Ok here is the history of the case. Cascioli wrote a book that said Jesus never existed. THe priest stated that Cascioli was a liar. Cascioli sued the priest and the church for liable. THe Judge told the church to prove Jesus existed or they will be guilty of laible. In the article as well as stated in Fox News and CNN, the church had enough Evidence to show crediablity to Jesus' actual existance. Please re-read the article. If they did not show that Jesus actually existed, then the case would have been in favor of Cascioli. THere was enough evidence for the judge to believe that A historical Jesus did in fact exist and that Cascioli lied in his book and should be counter sued.

If any Italian court attempted to make a ruling to that effect, it would be overturned by the EU within a week.

In this case, however it has been phrased, the court effectively ruled that the matter lies outside its remit.

Ok here is the history of the case.
I know it, but I don't think you do.
Cascioli wrote a book that said Jesus never existed.
Correct.
THe priest stated that Cascioli was a liar. Cascioli sued the priest and the church for liable.
Totally false. Casicioli sued the church because he said they have been violating two specific Italian laws by claiming Jesus's existance, not because of the priest saying Casicioli was a liar, and not at all because of libel.
THe Judge told the church to prove Jesus existed or they will be guilty of laible.
Did you even read the article? The judge dismissed the case. It never touched a court.
In the article as well as stated in Fox News and CNN, the church had enough Evidence to show crediablity to Jesus' actual existance.
You must be reading a very different Fox or CNN than I am...
Please re-read the article. If they did not show that Jesus actually existed, then the case would have been in favor of Cascioli.
There was never a court case. There was no presenting of evidence.
THere was enough evidence for the judge to believe that A historical Jesus did in fact exist and that Cascioli lied in his book and should be counter sued.
You are correct in saying that the judge wanted Cascioli investigated for slander, but it has nothing to do with a proof of Jesus's existance.

The EU can't do anything in a week. I swear they're so bureacratic their commissioners can't go to the toilet in less than a week.

He he! Whoever had bet for the court just getting the hell out of this case as fast as it could just won.

The EU can't do anything in a week. I swear they're so bureacratic their commissioners can't go to the toilet in less than a week.
Okay, how is this relevant? :confused:

I know it, but I don't think you do.

Correct.

Totally false. Casicioli sued the church because he said they have been violating two specific Italian laws by claiming Jesus's existance, not because of the priest saying Casicioli was a liar, and not at all because of libel.

Did you even read the article? The judge dismissed the case. It never touched a court.

You must be reading a very different Fox or CNN than I am...

There was never a court case. There was no presenting of evidence.

You are correct in saying that the judge wanted Cascioli investigated for slander, but it has nothing to do with a proof of Jesus's existance.
Good post. *bows*

A few months ago a thread was started, about a athiest sueing a priest over the fact that he wrote a book that said jesus did not exist. THe priest called him a liar and the athiest sued him. THe ITalian court told the priest to prove Jesus existed.

THe priest did, and the court told the Priest and the Church that they should Sue the atheist for liable. Here is the story.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/10/italy.christ.ap/index.html

Wtf are you talking about? The article says nothing of the kind. The atheist sued the priest for asserting that Jesus existed. The court dismissed the case. Asserting that Jesus did not exist, proving that he did or did not, etc. had nothing to do with it.

It's shocking to me how many people around here post links to articles and then write summaries that bear no relation to the actual content. Did so many people miss the part of kindergarden where you learn reading comprehension?

Wtf are you talking about? The article says nothing of the kind. The atheist sued the priest for asserting that Jesus existed. The court dismissed the case. Asserting that Jesus did not exist, proving that he did or did not, etc. had nothing to do with it.

It's shocking to me how many people around here post links to articles and then write summaries that bear no relation to the actual content. Did so many people miss the part of kindergarden where you learn reading comprehension?
It probably wasn't stupidity or lack of comprehension. It probably was the assumption of gullibility on others' part as well as their willingness to confabulate a conclusion that wasn't presented to them. That's quite often the case with people who purport themselves as "faithful".
It may even have been a deliberate, disingenuous falsehood being propegated like so many other angles of religious agenda.

"Never attibute to evil what can be easily explained by stupidity" ...? Who said that, man?