No Trial in Italy About Jesus's Existence, After All:

The AP reports that "An Italian judge has dismissed an atheist's petition that a small-town priest should stand trial for asserting that Jesus Christ existed, both sides said on Friday. Luigi Cascioli, a 72-year-old retired agronomist, had accused the Rev. Enrico Righi of violating two laws with the assertion, which he called a deceptive fable propagated by the Roman Catholic Church." I had noted the matter before, and thought I'd provide this update.

Sydney Carton (www):
Hopefully that won't happen here. But you never know:

Supreme Court's Ginsburg Offended by "Outrageously Anti-Abortion" Homily at Mass

"In the January 30 edition of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger, Abigail Pogrebin was asked which Jewish persons have left a 'profound impression' on her. She answered, 'I will never forget Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg saying, 'Don't put a [Christmas] wreath on this door.' Indeed, Ginsburg admits to putting a gold mezuzah on her office door's frame as a way of saying, 'This is my space, and please don't put a wreath on this door.' To observant Jews, the mezuzah reminds them of their connection to God. To Ginsburg, who is not observant, it is a symbol of protest.

"Ginsburg used to attend the annual Red Mass, a Catholic Mass that honors lawyers, but then she had a bad experience: 'I went one year and I will never go again, because this sermon was outrageously anti-abortion.' So much for respect for diversity. Just imagine how it would go down in the Jewish community if a Catholic Supreme Court Justice were to say that he would never again attend a particular Jewish event because he had to endure a talk that was 'outrageously pro-abortion.'"

""What Ginsburg has said should give all Christians pause, especially Catholics. Her intolerance for our teachings and traditions is striking."
2.10.2006 2:48pm
Chico's Bail Bonds (mail):
Sydney, what is the relevance of your comment to the main post?
2.10.2006 3:09pm
Bob Bobstein (mail):
Chico's Bail Bonds: "Sydney, what is the relevance of your comment to the main post?"

The main post deprived him of one of his favorite straw men ("Italy wants to lock up people who believe in Jesus!"), so now he has to come up with new ones ("If a justice decides not to attend a function, she's inches away from declaring religion UNCONSTITUIONAL!"). Seems pretty simple.
2.10.2006 3:25pm
Sydney Carton (www):
Chico's Bail Bonds:

The main post's underlying theme was the intersection of religious belief and the role of the judiciary. Obviously, the Italian court made the right decision by dismissing the case.

The article I linked to also deals with the underlying intersection of religious belief and the judiciary. If Justice Ginsberg's reaction is true, it suggests that her contempt for Catholicism is influencing, to some degree, her vote on the Court.

I marvel at someone like Bob Bobstein, who apparently knows me well enough to think that my post was not only a "straw men" post, but a "favorite" one of mine. It Behooves me to Burst your Bubble, Bob BobStein, but Break your Brooding Boast.
2.10.2006 3:40pm
Marcus1 (mail) (www):
Sounds like they were afraid to reach the merits...
2.10.2006 3:44pm
Bob Bobstein (mail):
Sydney Carton: Consider my Brooding Boast Broken!
2.10.2006 3:51pm
Chico's Bail Bonds (mail):
I hardly think Justice Ginsburg showed "contempt" for Catholocism. What she did not like about the Red Mass was that it billed itself as a ecumenical event, but was then used for a diatribe on an extremely divisive issue. Once she learned the Red Mass was not really ecumenical, she decided not to go anymore.

It's a huge leap to say that you have "contempt" for a religion that somehow improperly influences her vote on the court, simply because you do not attend its services. It would be like saying that unless Roberts goes to a synagouge that rails against the notion that Jesus is the son of God once year, we should question whether his decisions are influenced by contempt for the Jewish religion.
2.10.2006 5:17pm
fred (mail):
This was an attempt by an Italian atheist author to get publicity for his book. It goes no deeper than that. The book presumably was not selling well on its own, and of course rather than try to persuade scholars and regular people of its worth, the author tried to take the short cut to publicity by launching a preposterous claim in the courts.

As to "getting to the merits": a court is the last place you want to rule on what is scholarly research and what is not. The last refuge of scoundrels used to be the equal protection clause, but now it is using the courts to punish those who don't agree with you. Courts are a forum for narrowly deciding competing legal obligations, not for delving at length into scholarly matters.

Brandishing Boastful Book, Italian Bobo Beats Baleful Retreat.
2.10.2006 7:40pm
Sigh. I guess Jesus will not get his "Miracolo nella 34ma strada".
2.10.2006 11:51pm