Jesus Goes To Court

In the Saturday, 28 Jan 06 edition of the Hamilton Spectator (not always a paper known for accuracy) I saw the headline "Existance of Jesus Goes to Court". This little catch prase gets my attention and my curiosity is piqued.

The story - In a small town (really though, if you have never heard of the Itialian town, chances are it's a small town) called "Viterbo" an atheist (in Italy?!?) has taken a Catholic priest to court stating that the priest broke two Italian laws. Law number one says that you aren't allowed to fraudulently deceive people and law number two says you aren't allowed to gain by attributing a false name to someone.

The players - Rev. Enrico Righi, a small town priest and Luigi Cascioli his accuser. Apparently both these gentlemen are old schoolmates.

The "facts" - Cascioli claims that the Catholic church has been deceiving people for two thousand years by "furthering the fable that Christ existed" and also states that the church has been profiting by "impersonating as Christ, someone by the name of John of Gamala, the son of Judas of Gamala." Another fact, Cascioli wrote a book entitled the "Fable of Christ".

My reaction - Are you FREAKIN' KIDDING ME?!?!?! Italy is a beautiful country whose citizenry serve in fear of two masters. The Mafia and the Roman Catholic Church. Then out of the blue this little peon tries to challenge one of the basic foundations of the Catholic faith; really of all Christian faith, WHILE IN ITALY. Astounding. He's either got cojones like mountains or the cranial capacity of a tetse fly (no offence to tetse flies).

I myself am still struggling in my journey of faith. I'm not wholly convinced of everything that has been said about Christ. However, even I am convinced that he existed. In what capacity I'm not sure but I am sure that Jesus was born to Mary, in Bethlehem, a little over two thousand years ago. This is supported by volumes of documentation and evidence both Christian and non-Christian. Even (some) other religions don't doubt the existance of Christ although they do doubt his exact role.

To conclude, I have to believe that this is a stunt to try and sell his book; and a particularly stupid stunt at that. Based on this idea of his, I have no desire to read what conclusions he drew in his book, or how he got them. I can only hope that should he live to see the case laughed from court, that he wisen up just a touch.

Not even I'm THAT kind of stupid.

'Nuff said.