ForumGarden

I found this article while browsing Fox News. What do ya'll think? Is it a waste of time for the courts to hear this trial?[/

Lawyers for a small-town parish priest have been ordered to appear in court next week after the Roman Catholic cleric was accused of unlawfully asserting what many people take for granted: that Jesus Christ existed.

The Rev. Enrico Righi was named in a 2002 complaint filed by Luigi Cascioli 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, a lifelong atheist, claims that Righi violated two Italian laws by making the assertion: so-called "abuse of popular belief" in which someone fraudulently deceives people; and "impersonation" in which someone gains by attributing a false name to someone.

Cascioli says that for 2,000 years the Roman Catholic Church has been deceiving people by furthering the fable that Christ existed, and 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 also asserts that the Gospels ” the most frequently cited testimony of Jesus' existence ” are inconsistent, full of errors and biased, and that other written evidence from the time is scant and doesn't hold up to scholarly analysis.

for rest of story http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182341,00.html

No, I don't think it's a waste of time, I think more people should challenge organised religions, they are the main cause of all the misery on this planet.

Good Job Luigi...

Remember the movie where they had Santa on trial????

In the movie they proved his existence by bringing in the mail that was sent to him. Maybe they'll prove Jesus's existence by the many who pray to him.......

That part about Cascioli being a lifelong atheist isn't true, though. He and Righi actually went to the same seminary, though I'm not sure if Cascioli actually went on to become a priest or not prior to "converting" to atheism. Not that it really makes a difference in the case, just interesting that the story seems to be changing slightly over time (this has been going on for a while.)

I reckon on balance of probability he did exist. Whether he was the son of god, then that is a whole different ball game. You either believe it or you don't since you can't prove it either way.

posted by slade 1

No, I don't think it's a waste of time, I think more people should challenge organised religions, they are the main cause of all the misery on this planet.


I would not challenge someones right to believe but when organised religon or a small bunch of nitters starts trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else and stop anyone disagreeing with them then I can see them far enough. There should be no blasphemy laws for any religon

http://www.dpjs.co.uk/blasphemy.html

United Kingdom's Blasphemy Laws

After studying the three important cases, in 1979, 1990 and 1997, www.vexen.co.uk/religion/blasphemy.html concludes:

"

Unused for decades, the UKs blasphemy laws have come to the fore since 1979. Blasphemy laws are invoked when closed-minded religious bigots want to stifle the free speech of others.

The blasphemy laws are used to stifle artistic expression and free speech, such as in R. v Lemon 1979 when a poem about Jesus was published in a gay magazine. [...] The publications in question are not personal insults or hateful literature; they are not professional or political, they are largely expressive, emotional or scholarly. That blasphemy laws are used in such a way - to protect concepts from being questioned - is not only wrong and closed-minded, but undemocratic.

The final straw is that the UKs blasphemy laws only protect Christians - not Muslims or Jews - and historically only the Church of England. It is deeply prejudice, intolerable and confusing that we still have such laws. Thankfully the European Courts, British legal community, Lobby groups and British politicians have spoken out against the blasphemy laws. We should all make a big of it when it is annulled, as the blasphemy laws are one last legal pillar of Christian intolerance and bigotry."


God save us from the religious!

Blackjack wrote: That part about Cascioli being a lifelong atheist isn't true, though. He and Righi actually went to the same seminary, though I'm not sure if Cascioli actually went on to become a priest or not prior to "converting" to atheism. Not that it really makes a difference in the case, just interesting that the story seems to be changing slightly over time (this has been going on for a while.)


What changes are those? I'm interested in hearing about them. These two seem to have a history of not liking each other.

Ok gmc I see your point. I'm a religious person but your post doesn't offend me. Why because like you I don't want someone else shoving their belief system on me.

If the blasphemy law was changed to include Judism, Muslims or even Buddists would it make a difference?

Sheryl wrote: I'm interested in hearing about them. These two seem to have a history of not liking each other.


It also seems to me like more of a personal vendetta than the crusade against fraud and injustice that Cascioni's case purports itself to be. The lawsuit was Cascioni's response when Righi criticized a book he had written called "The Fable of Christ" back in 2002. The case was originally thrown out of court. Cascioni has now finally won an appeal to have it reopened after trying for several years.

Personally I think it a waste of time. No amount of court time or argument is going to prove it otherwise. The debate, over 2000 years old, still goes on and will for the next 2000 if man is so lucy to survive that long. Courts are never ultimately difinitive. They can be and often are wrong in their conclusions.

Shalom

Ted:-6

posted by sheryl

Ok gmc I see your point. I'm a religious person but your post doesn't offend me. Why because like you I don't want someone else shoving their belief system on me.

If the blasphemy law was changed to include Judism, Muslims or even Buddists would it make a difference?


Why would you take offence because I don't share your religious beliefs?

The blasphemy law should be eliminated altogether. If you have faith what anyone else believes or says should not affect it in any way. Why then should it be an offence for someone to say they think it is a load of bunkum?

I don't appreciate being told I am going to hell because I am not a christian. (not on this forum i hasten to add, I speak generally). Or that I can be killed because I am not a muslim or have some drunken yobo try and pick a fight because he thinks i'm catholic or protestant.

To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, it takes religon to make a good man do evil in the name of their religon-assuming you believe in the concept of intrinsically good and evil acts.

gmc wrote:







God save us from the religious!:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl .........

Ted wrote: Personally I think it a waste of time. No amount of court time or argument is going to prove it otherwise. The debate, over 2000 years old, still goes on and will for the next 2000 if man is so lucy to survive that long. Courts are never ultimately difinitive. They can be and often are wrong in their conclusions.



Shalom

Ted:-6 Hiya Ted, long time no see.

Happy New Year x

abbey:-6

Thaks and the same to you.

Shalom

Ted:-6

gmc wrote: posted by sheryl



Why would you take offence because I don't share your religious beliefs?

The blasphemy law should be eliminated altogether. If you have faith what anyone else believes or says should not affect it in any way. Why then should it be an offence for someone to say they think it is a load of bunkum?

I don't appreciate being told I am going to hell because I am not a christian. (not on this forum i hasten to add, I speak generally). Or that I can be killed because I am not a muslim or have some drunken yobo try and pick a fight because he thinks i'm catholic or protestant.

To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, it takes religon to make a good man do evil in the name of their religon-assuming you believe in the concept of intrinsically good and evil acts.


No what I meant about the offense post is that some would take your post as blasphemy of their religion. Where as I just see it as your point and go on. Ok hope that made sense. Just got home from spending 6 hours at a rock concert and my ears are still ringing. But seeing Shinedown in concert was worth it. :guitarist

posted by sheryl

No what I meant about the offense post is that some would take your post as blasphemy of their religion. Where as I just see it as your point and go on.


That's what gets me about blasphemy laws. You get in to a logic loop.

I don't believe in your religon.

You are a blasphemer!

How can you balspheme about something that does not exist except in myth?

You are a blasphemer!

Don't be silly you are making your religon up.

You are a blasphemer!

I don't believe in God only the cosmic budgie.

There is no cosmic budgie.

You are a blasphemer!

How can you blaspheme about something that does not exist?

You are a blasphemer!

Befare you know it you have a full scale war about whose religon is right and just for fun the folowers of the cosmic budgie can have a schism about whether you can make the perch out of jewel encrusted wood or whether that is idolatory, or indeed if you should use an image of any kind at all.



Every is entitled to their religious beliefs but if you need a law to make evcerybody worship as you do and to keep their mouths shut if they don't believe or come up with a theory that goes against accepted tenets of a relgon I would suggest that you have a problem.

The most vicious oppressive society to live in is a theocracy, of whatever type.

Keep to your faith by all means respect the free will of others and leave them alone.

gmc wrote: posted by sheryl



Why would you take offence because I don't share your religious beliefs?

The blasphemy law should be eliminated altogether. If you have faith what anyone else believes or says should not affect it in any way. Why then should it be an offence for someone to say they think it is a load of bunkum?

I don't appreciate being told I am going to hell because I am not a christian. (not on this forum i hasten to add, I speak generally). Or that I can be killed because I am not a muslim or have some drunken yobo try and pick a fight because he thinks i'm catholic or protestant.

To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, it takes religon to make a good man do evil in the name of their religon-assuming you believe in the concept of intrinsically good and evil acts.


Well said gmc . Blasphemy laws have absolutely no place in todays' society. Unfortunately though if Blair and his toadies have their way, things will take a huge step backwards, what with the 'Incitement to racial hatred' Bill.

posted by slade 1

Well said gmc . Blasphemy laws have absolutely no place in todays' society. Unfortunately though if Blair and his toadies have their way, things will take a huge step backwards, what with the 'Incitement to racial hatred' Bill.


Why do we even debate it? Lets have a law banning evangelism. as well.