Quote:
|
Originally Posted by icarus
It's not a slander case, it's a case of "abusing popular credulity" which is apparently an offence under Italian law. I know nothing about this charge or Italian law, but a judge making someone prove the existence of Jesus Christ to defend against this charge is a bit silly really. In our country we have a hard enough time proving hundred year old aboriginal title claims.
|
seems like semantics to me. From my understanding of things, the guy broke the law in his attack on the non-believer, until and unless he can prove that he is right and the guy he called out is wrong. In order for him to be right, Jesus must exist, so in orderto prove that he is right, he has to prove that Jesus exist(ed/s). Noone expects him to be able to do it - this is just the judge's way of getting an easy resolution to a silly case.
Had things gone the other direction and the non-believer attacked the believer's views in a similar manner, my understanding is that the same thing would apply, and the non-believer could be required to prove the non-existence of Jesus (even more impossible).
The end result is that the guy will be found guilty of a crime that he DID commit. Whether or not we agree that this should be a crime is moot. Apparently, in Italy, it is.