Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SLD · 01-06-2006, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Except on banknotes. Except every time one must swear on the Bible.

On banknotes, yes. And many have argued that it is indeed a violation. I agree. But no one need swear on a bible. I practice law the heart of the bible belt, and I have never seen a bible used in a courtroom to swear people in.

SLD

SLD · 01-06-2006, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trout

This is perhaps one of the most quintessentially American things I have ever heard of.

Unbelievable.

It is most assuredly not quintessentially American. No such lawsuit would get past the point of service of process in the United States. I have never even heard of any such type of stuff ever being filed in the United States.

We may be a litigious society. But we aren't this weird.

SLD

darstec · 01-06-2006, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunawalk

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

And you do not have the story correct either. Note that they both attended the seminary for the priesthood together. They live in the same town. One became a priest, the other became an atheist. The atheist wrote a book on the paucity of evidence for the Jesus of the Gospels and maintained that some of the stories were mixed up from another person who was killed. The priest basically told his parishioners to not only ignore the book, but more or less told them to shun the writer because he was from the devil.

Many countries in Europe have laws unllike the US that protects the buyer from snakeoil salesmen. Basically the writer is saying that the priest is selling his parishioners a bunch of lies, and that is illegal in Italy.

Well does that imply that the priest knowingly lied to his parishioners. The priest belives that Jesus exists. Those laws protect people from con artists. people who knowingly set out to deceive their victems. I think the preist will win the case.

You are commenting without having read any of the original articles involving this case, and without reading any of the legal commentary. Apparently under their law it does not matter if the priest knows it is a lie or not. If he cannot prove it to be true if challenged that is evidence enough he cannot preach it. He would not win because he cannot prove that Jesus existed. However, I think in Catholic Italy something will happen to prevent this case from ever being heard, because if it is, the priest has no evidence. Using original documents as testimony is very involved and neither the gospel nor epistles would qualify as there is the matter of provenance of the evidence which will fail. Josephus and Tacitus are too far removed in time from the events and their writings of which the earliest copies we have are from around the eleventh or twelth centuries, would also not qualify under the provenance of evidence requirements.

It is one thing to believe they do, it is another to provide evidence they do.

Huon · 01-07-2006, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLD

On banknotes, yes. And many have argued that it is indeed a violation. I agree. But no one need swear on a bible. I practice law the heart of the bible belt, and I have never seen a bible used in a courtroom to swear people in.

SLD

So, I was mistaken. Thanks for the precision.

ninewands · 01-07-2006, 08:24 PM

From the American point of view, which is pretty meaningless since this case is pending in Italy, I believe SLD has the right of it. :thumbs: Infidels (and Christians alike) should oppose any and all government action in favor of, or opposed to, religion in any form. If we would be true to ourselves we must demand absolute governmental neutrality on questions of religion. This is what the law (First Amendment) requires. "Excessive entanglement," in the Lemon sense endangers both good government AND good religion.

If the Italian judge wants to project an especially "Enlightened" image he should dismiss the case for the reason that he lacks competence to decide the core question of fact.

Lunawalk · 01-07-2006, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

You are commenting without having read any of the original articles involving this case, and without reading any of the legal commentary. Apparently under their law it does not matter if the priest knows it is a lie or not. If he cannot prove it to be true if challenged that is evidence enough he cannot preach it. He would not win because he cannot prove that Jesus existed. However, I think in Catholic Italy something will happen to prevent this case from ever being heard, because if it is, the priest has no evidence. Using original documents as testimony is very involved and neither the gospel nor epistles would qualify as there is the matter of provenance of the evidence which will fail. Josephus and Tacitus are too far removed in time from the events and their writings of which the earliest copies we have are from around the eleventh or twelth centuries, would also not qualify under the provenance of evidence requirements.

It is one thing to believe they do, it is another to provide evidence they do.

Your right thanks for straighting me out. Since that the you could challege the existance of God, creation and other bible without proof. Basically you could outlaw religion. So they repel the law before the judge hears the case.which I sure will happen soon.

Xrikcus · 01-08-2006, 03:17 AM

You couldn't outlaw religion. You could end up a situation where a religious leader telling his congregation that what he believed is actually true, is outlawed. Is that really a bad thing? Are clashes between religions not so much down to believers beliefs, but believers being told that what they believe is true and everyone else is a heathen?

Chris Weimer · 01-08-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xrikcus

You couldn't outlaw religion. You could end up a situation where a religious leader telling his congregation that what he believed is actually true, is outlawed. Is that really a bad thing? Are clashes between religions not so much down to believers beliefs, but believers being told that what they believe is true and everyone else is a heathen?

If I recall correctly, in Canada churches could not condemn homosexuals to hell on account of anti-hate laws.

Clivedurdle · 01-08-2006, 08:36 AM

Is anyone supporting the atheist, like happened at Dover? He is going to have the Vatican against him, which makes it an international issue!

Clivedurdle · 01-08-2006, 08:55 AM

Is a Roman Catholic priest the equivalent of a self employed franchise holder? In this case though the franchisor is a state - so does that not mean a church is like an embassy or consulate, or foreign military base?

Could a priest be tried for spying - not treason - as are they foreign nationals?

Is the priest really a diplomat, so national laws, like sex abuse, may not apply?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-07-2006, 08:24 PM	#55
ninewands Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: ? Posts: 3,310	From the American point of view, which is pretty meaningless since this case is pending in Italy, I believe SLD has the right of it. :thumbs: Infidels (and Christians alike) should oppose any and all government action in favor of, or opposed to, religion in any form. If we would be true to ourselves we must demand absolute governmental neutrality on questions of religion. This is what the law (First Amendment) requires. "Excessive entanglement," in the Lemon sense endangers both good government AND good religion. If the Italian judge wants to project an especially "Enlightened" image he should dismiss the case for the reason that he lacks competence to decide the core question of fact.

01-08-2006, 03:17 AM	#57
Xrikcus Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,051	You couldn't outlaw religion. You could end up a situation where a religious leader telling his congregation that what he believed is actually true, is outlawed. Is that really a bad thing? Are clashes between religions not so much down to believers beliefs, but believers being told that what they believe is true and everyone else is a heathen?

01-08-2006, 08:36 AM	#59
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Is anyone supporting the atheist, like happened at Dover? He is going to have the Vatican against him, which makes it an international issue!

01-08-2006, 08:55 AM	#60
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Is a Roman Catholic priest the equivalent of a self employed franchise holder? In this case though the franchisor is a state - so does that not mean a church is like an embassy or consulate, or foreign military base? Could a priest be tried for spying - not treason - as are they foreign nationals? Is the priest really a diplomat, so national laws, like sex abuse, may not apply?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.