The Italian lawsuit begins Friday.

[Cheese]

I know I know...but I thought some might be interested.

New Article

I searched the website of Luigi Cascioli, the Atheist who filed the complaint.
Luigi's website

This complaint does not wish to contest the freedom of Christians to profess their faith, sanctioned by art. 19 of the Italian Constitution, 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.

An Italian court will this week ponder the existence of Christ after an atheist accused a priest of misleading the public by presenting Jesus as an historical character.
The atheist, 72-year-old Luigi Cascioli, first filed a complaint against 75-year-old Father Enrico Righi, a parish priest in Bagnoregno, central Italy, in September 2002.

[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

[Cheese]

ya I agree...heres the link on his website that details the lawsuit...maybe our local legal beagles can decipher some of it for us...

The whole enchilada

Luigi Cascioli lodges the present formal complaint

at the Seat of the Court of Justice in Viterbo,

Versus

don Enrico Righi, parish priest in Bagnoregio, as representative of ministers of religion, for abuse of popular credulity and impersonation.

TO THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

COURT OF JUSTICE OF VITERBO

The undersigned Luigi Cascioli, resident in

Roccalvecce (Viterbo) Via delle Province no. 45/b

I appears as though Luigi wants to take on the church and try to prove the non-existence himself.

[Cheese]

so any bets on how this ends up? Is there a legal way to say it comes out a draw? That the judge just simply does not rule on it?

[FireFly]

He can just dismiss the case I would imagine. 'A hung jury'... or judge.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Cheese

so any bets on how this ends up? Is there a legal way to say it comes out a draw? That the judge just simply does not rule on it?

I'm sure the court will be looking for every possible way to avoid making a decision on this.

[Cowperson]

In this article at MSNBC, the atheist states his ultimate objective . . . .

Cascioli filed a criminal complaint in 2002 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 claims that Righi’s assertion constituted two crimes under Italian law: so-called “abuse of popular belief,” in which someone fraudulently deceives people; and “impersonation,” in which someone gains by attributing a false name to a person.

"The point is not to establish whether Jesus existed or not, but if there is a question of possible fraud,” Cascioli’s attorney, Mauro Fonzo, told reporters before the hearing.



Cascioli 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 has said he has little hope of the case succeeding in overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Italy, but that he is merely going through the necessary legal steps to reach the European Court of Human Rights, where he intends to accuse the church of what he calls “religious racism.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11057077/

Cowperson

[FireFly]

Religious racism? So he's trying to force the Catholics to admit priests who do not believe in Catholicism? Isn't that what started this whole thing, is that he didn't belive Jesus was who the Catholics said he was, so they booted him out?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Religious racism? So he's trying to force the Catholics to admit priests who do not believe in Catholicism? Isn't that what started this whole thing, is that he didn't belive Jesus was who the Catholics said he was, so they booted him out?

I agree. . . . . it seems kind of dopey.

If he'd simply put the Priest into the position of having to demonstrate Christ existed, it would have been an interesting battle.

Unfortunately, he seems to have let his extreme position get the better of him as he goes for a brass ring that may be not only unattainable but also rather pointless.

Cowperson

[Bobblehead]

The case has been thrown out of court.