An Italian court will decide! Luigi Cascioli, who seems to be Italy's answer to Michael Newdow, brought the suit, he says, because he "wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression." What Italian laws does he cite?
1. "Abuso di Credulita Popolare," that is, Abuse of Popular Belief.
2. "Sostituzione di Persona," that is, Impersonation.
Cascioli, who has singled out one particular priest whom he went to school with, has a book about atheism to sell. I think he should be charged with "Prodezza Diabolica di Pubblicità," that is, Evil Publicity Stunt.
७ जानेवारी, २००६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८ टिप्पण्या:
Michael Newdow, Ordained Minister, Lawyer, Medical Doctor, True American Patriot.
Restore The Pledge I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Above is the version of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America first approved by the Congress in 1942. It evokes feelings of patriotism and unity, and brings together the vastly different cultures, ethnicities, languages and backgrounds that form the common experience called America. It reaffirms our commitment to the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution, and reflects the foundation of that amazing document: that diversity is a blessing which only strengthens our nation. This is especially true concerning religion, which the Framers recognized as uniquely divisive, causing them to set forth that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
And while you're clicking, be sure to visit and donate to the Foundation Foundation, who will be placing Monuments to Our Bill of Rights Across America. My Bill Of Rights Our mission is to promote awareness and respect for the Bill of Rights as the foundation of our individual freedoms, our laws, and the American system of justice, through the design and crafting of Bill of Rights displays to be placed on public lands throughout America, beginning with those sites where displays of the Ten Commandments are currently found.
The question he should ask the court to decide is proof that Jesus died and rose again, the foundation upon which the Christian Church is built not whether he existed at all. There is a fair amount of historic mention of him outside of the Biblical, by Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus, three historians of that era who had no great love for the first Christians. Would they, Jewish and secular historians, have included Jesus and his later followers in their histories if he had not existed?
And that's not to mention Luke, whose historical account has been supported by archaeology repeatedly. I know I know Q -- only those who deny the existence of Christ are unbiased enough to comment on it.
There is a yahoo at Cal State Long Beach who calls himself ("hisself" as those bassackwards Christians say) a historian who also denies Jesus' existence.
Oh, but it is surely worth it! Just think of the lost opportunities for satire if the case had never been brought. Although, this particular week, there are a number of stories rivaling it
Aside from the substance of this post. I mean ... you speak Italian? I'm really impressed.
Reader_Iam blogged about this story last Tuesday.
(In fact, her blog is a good place to go, as she has an Althousian touch for the interesting, but at the same time, with her own inimitable style)
As for me, I know one thing -- Michael Newdow has a much better chance of having his viewpoints upheld in the US, than Cascioli's does in Italy.
Cheers,
Victoria
quxxo, you go;
It was McCarthyist knee-jerkism that added "under God" in 1954.
And, contrary to the first poster below you, since Althouse raised his name, your comment's perfectly germaine.
Diane,
FYI, there are plenty of scholars who dispute whether the existence of Jesus was ever noted by Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, or Suetonius. In many cases those sources reference a "christos" among the Jewish populations, and given the fact that "christos" meant "messiah" and there was no shortage of messianism at that time those references could refer to any number of preachers. Some of the references appear to be to a "Chrestos," which could be something else altogether. Then there's the problem of later Christians dropping lines or even whole passages into those early histories, which can usually be picked out for their stylistic and ideological inconsistencies with the surrounding material (is it really likely that Jew-turned-Roman-official Josephus would refer to Jesus as the Messiah so casually?).
http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm
http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा