[Cowperson]

That's a bit different than we saw in the original story that we debated a few weeks ago.

In that story, it appeared the atheist was suing or complaining that the priest had denounced him personally while using Jesus as an historical figure . . . . which in turn set up a pretty easy trial where those believing Jesus existed have to prove it, something they can't do.

In the note above, however, we see . . . . "but wishes to denounce the abuse that the Catholic Church commits by availing itself of its prestige in order to inculcate – as if being real and historical – facts that are really just inventions.

It's the difference between the Priest having to come to court to prove Jesus existed - somewhat of an impossibility - and the atheist having to prove Jesus didn't exist and in fact is a deliberate fabrication.

So . . . . what is really the question in this trial and which party has to provide the burden of proof?

Cowperson