Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

topic posted Tue, January 3, 2006 - 10:50 AM by  Rocky
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
It's Interesting that this is happening in Italy -- home of the Vatican.

---

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.

Signor Cascioli said that the Gospels themselves were full of inconsistencies and did not agree on the names of the 12 apostles. He said that he would withdraw his legal action if Father Righi came up with irrefutable proof of Christ’s existence by the end of the month.

The Vatican has so far declined to comment.

www.timesonline.co.uk/article...,00.html
posted by:
Rocky
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

    Tue, January 3, 2006 - 1:21 PM
    Mama mia!

    Love to be a spectator in that courtroom. I can't wait to hear what arguments he comes up with...
    • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

      Tue, January 3, 2006 - 1:31 PM
      Yeah, me too.

      Why haven't we already done this in the U.S. where we have a secular Constitution that upholds a separation of church & state?

      Americans should be throwing a fit about the Gregorian calendar too. It is the Official Catholic calendar to this day. It got its name Gregorian from - Pope Gregory.

      A few facts about the Gregorian calendar

      ~ The Gregorian calendar was implemented by Pope Gregory in 1582. No one could receive the "blessings" of Christianity without receiving the Gregorian calendar. The Vatican considers the Gregorian calendar as its official liturgical calendar to this day.

      ~ The fact is that our present Gregorian calendar is set-up to date from what was considered the year of the birth of Jesus Christ. Every time an individual writes out a check or signs a document he or she is acknowledging the amount of time that has passed since the birth of the Christian Savior. Does this respect the rights of those that are not of the Christian faith? I don't think so, B.C. stands for "Before Christ"; while A.D. (Anno Domini), means "the year of our Lord".

      Does this respect the rights of those that are not Christian? Why are non-Christians forced to adopt the OFFICIAL Catholic calendar? Excuse me, I thought that the US had a secular (godless) Constitution? It makes no mention of jesus, christianity or god!!!! So, why are we using their calendar?

      ~ In the Pledge of Allegiance it says, "with liberty & justice for all". How about a calendar for all that belongs to no religion, is non-sectarian, democractically embraces all beliefs?
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

        Tue, January 3, 2006 - 1:40 PM
        Hey, I follow the lunar calendar myself. That's why I won't be wishing anybody a happy new year for another couple of weeks...
        • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

          Tue, January 3, 2006 - 1:47 PM
          Hey that pretty cool.

          Have fun with these ...

          www.lawoftime.org/

          www.earthmatrix.com/serie02/cuad02-1.htm

          www.13moon.com/

          www.tortuga.com/

          On a side note: Superstition or distaste for the number 13 are not valid since we had a U.S. flag with 13 stars representing the original 13 colonies, not to mention the symbology of 13 on the US $1 dollar bill. We still have 13 red and white stripes on the American flag today - COUNT THEM!!!!!!!!

          ~ As Broughton Richmond wrote in "Time Measurement and Calendar Construction":

          "If the Julian/Gregorian calendar was to be offered as a new device for measuring time, we, with our present knowledge and state of living, would reject it as something utterly impractical, lacking in harmony and order, unbalanced and irregular, too clumsy a calendar to make calculations by..."
          It is time to ask: Why do we use an instrument of imperfect measure to coordinate the affairs of the world?

          In 1961 a law was passed to protect the "Blue Laws" which included protecting the Gregorian calendar from challenge. Similar the more recent "Pledge of Allegiance act" that protects "under god" & "in god we trust".
          • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

            Thu, January 5, 2006 - 8:53 AM
            Did Jesus exist? Italian court to decide

            ROME (Reuters) - Forget the U.S. debate over intelligent design versus evolution.

            An Italian court is tackling Jesus -- and whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2,000 years ago.

            The case pits against each other two men in their 70s, who are from the same central Italian town and even went to the same seminary school in their teenage years.

            The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court later this month.

            "I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression," Cascioli told Reuters.

            Cascioli says Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws. The first is "Abuso di Credulita Popolare" (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is "Sostituzione di Persona", or impersonation.

            "The Church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala," Cascioli claimed, referring to the 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman army.

            A court in Viterbo will hear from Righi, who has yet to be indicted, at a January 27 preliminary hearing meant to determine whether the case has enough merit to go forward.

            "In my book, The Fable of Christ, I present proof Jesus did not exist as a historic figure. He must now refute this by showing proof of Christ's existence," Cascioli said.

            Speaking to Reuters, Righi, 76, sounded frustrated by the case and baffled as to why Cascioli -- who, like him, came from the town of Bagnoregio -- singled him out in his crusade against the Church.

            "We're both from Bagnoregio, both of us. We were in seminary together. Then he took a different path and we didn't see each other anymore," Righi said.

            "Since I'm a priest, and I write in the parish newspaper, he is now suing me because I 'trick' the people."

            Righi claims there is plenty of evidence to support the existence of Jesus, including historical texts.

            He also claims that justice is on his side. The judge presiding over the hearing has tried, repeatedly, to dismiss the case -- prompting appeals from Cascioli.

            "Cascioli says he didn't exist. And I said that he did," he said. "The judge will to decide if Christ exists or not."

            Even Cascioli admits that the odds are against him, especially in Roman Catholic Italy.

            "It would take a miracle to win," he joked.

            news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060...igion_court
            • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

              Thu, January 5, 2006 - 8:56 AM
              Cascioli says Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws. The first is "Abuso di Credulita Popolare" (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is "Sostituzione di Persona", or impersonation.

              We all should be contacting the ACLU, the AU & the FFRF & asking if we have these laws in the US & if so, why haven't we already done this?
              • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                Thu, January 5, 2006 - 9:05 AM
                um, are we really advocating government getting involved in people's religions?
                Litigation over religious beliefs?

                How would you feel if a judge *here* ordered a muslim to prove that Allah existed?
                I, for one, would be outraged.
                Am I missing something here?
                • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                  Thu, January 5, 2006 - 10:00 AM
                  No, nobody is going to be asked to prove such a negative at this time such as allah or god.

                  An individual has the freedom the think & believe as they wish. However, this must be balanced with the publics right to full disclosure of all of the facts & evidence too.

                  If a company was selling lumps of playdoh & selling it to people as gold & making millions of profit from it ripping people off. Would you want the truth to come out? Would you want this company repremanded for taking advantage of the public? Would you want The public to be protected, justice to prevail?

                  That's what's happening here. They're separating the facts from fiction to protect the public from further harm of being conned, manipulated or lied to etc.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                    Thu, January 5, 2006 - 11:54 AM
                    I fail to se how litigation against religious beliefs falls under the civil liberties umbrella. I am not a religious person, but I think freedom of religion is very important to our culture. I would hope the ACLU would not take the stance to support trying to "take down" any of these religions.
                    I find it creepy to think that some one would sue to have a church try to factually prove a spiritual issue.

                    I think it's just a promotion for his book? Or a vendatta. But I am leaning towards promotion. Nothing breeds interest like controversy.
                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                      Thu, January 5, 2006 - 12:12 PM
                      Personally, I think religion is a lot of superstitious claptrap, and religious organizations throughout history have really perverted any of the worthwhile teachings they were supposed to be based on.

                      I will acknowledge that some religious organizations have done charitable work and have helped people. But I do not believe that all the good works religious organizations have ever done since the beginning of time -- which, incidentally, Christian fundamentalists believe was around 7,000 years ago -- begins to make up for all the millions upon millions of people who have been murdered, tortured, enslaved and imprisoned in their names.

                      If people can't manage to get through life without believing in some supreme being, I feel sorry for them. I an doing just fine all by myself in this universe. If I need to adore something and devote all my waking hours to it, I will go to animal rescue and get a kitten...
                      • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                        Thu, January 5, 2006 - 1:40 PM
                        R "I fail to see how litigation against religious beliefs falls under the civil liberties umbrella."

                        - Then you are forgetting about the majority of human history. Remember the Inquisitions, Theocracies, Galileo etc, etc.

                        Religion has held humanity back far more than it has ever helped. St. Augustines distaste for astronomy held back the study of the heavans for 1,200 hears. He made it out to be EVIL & anyone caught was appearently in a pack with the devil.
                        You really need to view these videos -

                        “Religious freedom is one thing,” says Joan Bokaer, director of TheocracyWatch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell University. “But religious extremism is something completely different. What people aren’t aware of is just how deeply the radical religious right has penetrated our government—in all three branches. We really are very close to becoming a theocracy. People have reason to be worried.”

                        1. "Life and Liberty for All Who Believe"

                        2. "The Rise of Dominionism"

                        www.theocracywatch.org/audio-video.htm
                        • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                          Thu, January 5, 2006 - 2:30 PM
                          I'm not forgetting.
                          I don't want the government involved with anyone's religious life, and I don't want religious life involved with the government. This lawsuit isn't about the religion penetrating the state; it's about the very core of religion, it's about proving the un-proveable. It's silly and insulting, and if it were brought against a muslim, buddhist, or hindu in this country, the ACLU would most certainly oppose it. They have rightfully defended a woman's right to wear a headscarf and they would I'm certain defend a wiccan's right to practice freely. Why should a christian or catholic be any different?

                          I hope we are all able to see that religion is a deeply personal thing. We could argue, very well, that it has no place defining our government. We could argue that there are many hateful or unhelpful people of any creed, but to try to legislate the very core beliefs, is idiotic and insulting. Individuals practice religions, and yet we see it as a vast movement. Net-net: I vehemently oppose any law system trying to entangle itself with the belief systems.

                          PS: the Catholic Church and the "Religious Right" permeating our country are two vastly different things. History is history, and every powerful group (religious or otherwise) has a lot of blood on it's hands, but what does that have to do with freedom for individuals to practice religion freely?
                          • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                            Thu, January 5, 2006 - 2:56 PM
                            Very well said Rebecca! It seems this is a misguided argument, and the lawsuit seems a bit ridiculous (even though i think the guy has a point)
                            • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                              Thu, January 5, 2006 - 4:48 PM
                              Sorry, I guess I should clarify and what I meant by "misguided argument" - it just doesn't really have anything to do with civil liberties - it's an athiest vs. the church - but to what end? An interesting challenge, but not very relevant this tribe
                              • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                                Thu, January 5, 2006 - 6:08 PM
                                D "it just doesn't really have anything to do with civil liberties - it's an athiest vs. the church - but to what end? An interesting challenge, but not very relevant this tribe"

                                - The ACLU, the AU, the FFRF & other organizations in the US would disagree with you on this.

                                I am trying to find something here to agree with you on & most of it I can't but this I can, 'that religion is a deeply personal thing.'

                                I think I only disagree with you on the rest because it seems one-sided. Are you Catholic or Christian? There are two sides to this & you're leaving one out completely. You said a few things that seem inaccurate to me but I know you're just making a point so I won't judge. Let me explain -

                                1. We'll have to wait & see how this case plays out.

                                2. I don't think it's silly or insulting though, I may change my mind later.

                                3. 'they would defend a wiccan's right to practice freely'

                                - Ahh, actually no they have unconstituionally ruled against Pagans & others in the US -

                                "COUNTY IN VIRGINIA REFUSES TO CONSIDER WICCAN ELIGIBLE TO GIVE INVOCATION": [the county] refuses to issue invitations to Native Americans, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Wiccans, or members of any other religion,” msnbc.msn.com/id/9661790/#storyContinued

                                "Religion In Court: N.C. Judges Say No To Koran, Yes To Bible" - blog.au.org/2005/07/religion_in_cou.html

                                "In 1985 United States Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina and United States Representative Robert Walker of Pennsylvania, introduced legislation in both Congressional Houses which would deny tax-exempt status to witchcraft and Neo-pagan groups."

                                www.paganspath.com/aware.htm

                                ---

                                R "PS: the Catholic Church and the "Religious Right" permeating our country are two vastly different things. History is history, and every powerful group (religious or otherwise) has a lot of blood on it's hands, but what does that have to do with freedom for individuals to practice religion freely?"

                                'to practice religion freely' - what like this -

                                * Freethought of the Day
                                January 5, 2006

                                Felix Manz

                                On this date in 1527, heretic Felix Manz was drowned under sentence of the Zurich city council. As an Anabaptist, Manz was killed for believing in baptism for cognizant adults rather than in infant baptism.

                                www.ffrf.org/day/

                                Let me ask you a question: Are you for the faith-based initiative that Bush has put forth? Are you against a separation of church & state?
                                • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                                  Thu, January 5, 2006 - 7:33 PM
                                  "3. 'they would defend a wiccan's right to practice freely'

                                  - Ahh, actually no they have unconstituionally ruled against Pagans & others in the US - "

                                  I think Rebecca's use of the word "they" meant "the ACLU," not the U.S. court system, in which case she would be correct.

                                  Please correct me if I am wrong, Rebecca.
                                • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                                  Thu, January 5, 2006 - 8:32 PM
                                  -I would be very surprised if the ACLU got involved in supporting a lawsuit against a religious person to "prove" their faith. Surprised, and deeply disheartened.

                                  -About being one-sided, I feel more like it is the opposite. I prefer to be inclusive of people's different religious beliefs and cultures. But I do feel that there is a lot of christian-bashing, most of it because of a number of outspoken, but not necessarily representative, goons in our own country who claim to be christian. (again, I feel this is very similar to what has happened to Islam lately: they've been given a bad name by a few bad apples using their name)

                                  -I am not catholic or christian, though I don't know why it matters.

                                  -"3" the sentence refers to the ACLU, not the courts. Read it again.


                                  "'to practice religion freely' - what like this - " and then something about a guy getting killed by the council of Zurich...

                                  I guess this just supports my point about individual worshippers vs. power institutions. Like I said, they are two very different things. It would be bizarre to think that all Christian (or even most, or many, for that matter) in modern times would support this. Again, what someone or some institution does in the name of a religion doesn't necessarily have to do with the individuals who practice. I mean, obviously, because I know a lot of muslims who aren't terroorsits and Christians who aren't murderers. Keep in mind that atheists, too, have killed or persecuted religious people as well. My point? It has little to do with faith, and a lot to do with power. It happens to and from every group at some time in history. Atheists are guilty too, if you group them all together. It is wrong to condemn all christians for the acts of the Zurich council, and wrong to profile muslims because of a few terrorists.

                                  None of which has to do with the original question: whether a court of government has the right to tell you what to worship or not worship. the judge making you prove you religion? Outrageous.

                                  Either way it seems clear: government deciding or defining what you can or should believe=very bad.

                                  Your questions: no, and yes. But these two have nothing to do with the Italian case.
                                  • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                                    Thu, January 5, 2006 - 10:42 PM
                                    "None of which has to do with the original question: whether a court of government has the right to tell you what to worship or not worship. the judge making you prove you religion? Outrageous."

                                    I don't think the issue in the Italian case is about making the priest prove his religion. The priest is not being asked to prove that Jesus Christ was the Son of God or rose from the grave, or that accepting Christ as one's lord and savior means that one will go to heaven after death. That would indeed be outrageous, and ridiculous. I think that what the priest is being asked to do is to provide valid, realistic, historical or scientific evidence that the physical, human entity we now call Jesus Christ did in fact exist, and that he did in fact exist at the same point in history as the Catholic church claims.

                                    I think it's akin to the producers of Listerine being required to remove from their advertising that it can cure a sore throat, or indeed for any product, service, etc. being required by law to not falsify its contents. If a cheese states on its label that it has been aged for three years, it should not be allowed to be aged only a month before sale. But that doesn't mean that one would have to stop liking the cheese when one finds out that it has been aged for only a month. If you like the cheese, then you like the cheese.

                                    Let us not forget that the Catholic church makes an almost unimaginable (one might even say "obscene") amount of money from its participants. Do you think it inappropriate that such a money-making monolith should be asked to adhere to the rule of "truth in advertising," in as much as there can be objective truth in any religion or spiritual belief?

                                    Now, if the priest is really required by the court to provide "irrefutable proof" of the historical existence of the man named Jesus Christ by the end of the month, as the litigant requests, well, that could prove to be a bit trickier.
                                    • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                                      Fri, January 6, 2006 - 7:37 AM
                                      Enrika "I don't think the issue in the Italian case is about making the priest prove his religion..."

                                      - Thank you Enrika, I agree.


                                      "3. 'they would defend a wiccan's right to practice freely'

                                      - Ahh, actually no they have unconstituionally ruled against Pagans & others in the US - "

                                      I think Rebecca's use of the word "they" meant "the ACLU," not the U.S. court system, in which case she would be correct.

                                      - Yes I agree with your ACLU comment However, I was demonstrating that Law makers within our own US gov't are more than willing to make laws against Pagans & faiths other than the Judiao-chrisian faiths & provided the proof of that. There's plenty more where that came from too. If you chose to continue to ignore these types of facts then, we are on a completely different page - book even.

                                      It proves what I said before - “... What people aren’t aware of is just how deeply the radical religious right has penetrated our government—in all three branches. We really are very close to becoming a theocracy. People have reason to be worried.”

                                      1. "Life and Liberty for All Who Believe"

                                      2. "The Rise of Dominionism"

                                      www.theocracywatch.org/audio-video.htm

                                      * The above videos are free online videos & one may buy them for $7 each. Please at least view them.

                                      * * Let us not forget that the first religious sect that would have us believe that jesus was a real human that lived on earth as the son of god, would also demand that we believe that the earth was flat & the center of the universe.
                                      • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                                        Sat, January 7, 2006 - 7:43 AM
                                        I forgot to mention it so, I'll just add it here.

                                        * If Alito is nominated to the Supreme Court, the religious right will have a 5-member Roman Catholic majority. Let us not forget that 7 of the 9 members on the Supreme Court are Christians & two are Jewish.

                                        ** We haven't had a Freethinker on the Supreme Court since 1886.

                                        Religious Affiliation of the U.S. Supreme Court -

                                        p.s. don't forget to check these too -

                                        "Related pages:
                                        - Religious Affiliation of The Legal 100:
                                        the people who have most influenced law
                                        - Religious Affiliation of U.S. Congress
                                        - Religious Affiliation of U.S. Presidents
                                        - Religious Affiliation of U.S. Vice-Presidents
                                        - Religious Affiliation of U.S. Governors

                                        www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html

                                        p.s. don't forget to check the photo in the pic section on this subject titled "Wake-Up America"
                                        • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                                          Sun, January 15, 2006 - 2:05 PM
                                          VIDEO CLIP: The Earth & The Sun

                                          In 1992 Pope John Paul II officially apologized for his church's mistreatment of Galileo. The church had condemned the pioneering astronomer for teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun.

                                          The apology took over 450 years.

                                          This clip from the beginning of "The God Who Wasn't There" DVD uses Christianity's scientific blunder to introduce another idea: Is the religion stubbornly engaging in a historical blunder of equal scale?

                                          www.thegodmovie.com/clip-EarthSun.php
                                          • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                                            Sun, January 15, 2006 - 9:54 PM
                                            I watched the clip, but it doesn't explain the nature of the "historical blunder" to which this description refers. Do you know what the blunder is?
                                            • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                                              Thu, February 2, 2006 - 10:49 AM
                                              Anyone know what happened/is happening in this Italian trial?
                                              • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                                                Sat, February 11, 2006 - 1:11 AM
                                                news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060...HNlYwM3NTc-

                                                ROME (Reuters) - An Italian atheist lost his legal crusade against the Catholic Church on Thursday when a judge rejected his attempts to sue a priest for saying that Jesus existed 2,000 years ago, the priest's lawyer said.

                                                Luigi Cascioli, 72, had argued his hometown priest and former schoolmate had effectively broken an Italian law meant to protect the public from being conned.

                                                But instead of granting Cascioli his request to bring the case to court, the judge recommended magistrates investigate him for slandering priest Enrico Righi, Righi's lawyer, Bruno Severo said.

                                                The 76-year-old priest said he was delighted by the news.

                                                "Thank God it's over," Righi told Reuters. "I'm glad it has ended like this, because imagine if it had gone on and on."

                                                Cascioli, author of a book called "The Fable of Christ," said the court had not yet informed him of the ruling. But he was not surprised, and said he would appeal to Italy's highest court, and then to The Hague.

                                                Asked about the possibility he would be tried for slander, Cascioli chuckled, saying that to prove he lied, prosecutors would have to prove that Jesus existed.

                                                "They don't have any proof," he said.
                                                • Re: Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

                                                  Mon, May 18, 2009 - 7:37 PM
                                                  "But instead of granting Cascioli his request to bring the case to court, the judge recommended magistrates investigate him for slandering priest Enrico Righi, Righi's lawyer, Bruno Severo said. "

                                                  Oh mon dats good........

                                                  Lawyers should know better! hahaha