Yahoo! News - I recommend reading this article. It's about a man in Italy, Luigi Cascioli, who is suing Rev. Enrico Righi for making claims that Jesus existed. To me this is a disturbing development. Let me state right now that I do believe Jesus existed but that is not why this lawsuit troubles me. It comes down to freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. It's also another case of people not wanting to take responsibility for themselves and putting that job off on the government.
First of all I don't see how this guy, Luigi Cascioli, has a case. If you're going to accuse someone of telling a lie, in this case he believes saying that Jesus existed is a lie, then you should have some evidence that what was said is not true. Otherwise it's just a belief. Without evidence one way or the other, saying that Jesus did not exist is as much a belief as saying that he did. If you're going to bring a libel or slander case against someone, you have to present evidence that what was said or printed is not true. Can you really say it's not true that Jesus existed anymore than you can say it's true that he did? Cascioli himself admits that he cannot, saying, "The point is not to establish whether Jesus existed or not, but if there is a question of possible fraud." How can you establish fraud if you cannot establish that what was said is indeed wrong and therefore misleading? Couldn't the defendant, Rev. Enrico Righi, just as easily bring Cascioli to court for saying that Jesus did not exist, since there's obviously no need to establish the fact in the first place? Let's say Jesus did exist, then Cascioli is the offender. Can either Cascioli or Righi prove their case in a court of law?
Again, this doesn't bother just because it has anything to do with Jesus or Christianity, but for the very principles of the case. Imagine how it could be applied elsewhere. Couldn't every religion come under the same fire? I don't believe that, say, Enki, an ancient Sumerian deity, is real, but I know people who do. Can I take them to court for asserting his existance? We don't have to limit the debate to theological issues either. Are we going to start dragging parents into court for telling their kids about Santa Claus? I think it would be pretty easy to prove he doesn't exist, and you could make a case for fraud since parents do tell the story in part to bribe their children to good behavior all year under false pretenses.
I also think Cascioli is insulting people's intelligence, and their responsibility to be intelligent. "When somebody states a wrong fact, abusing the ignorance of people, and gains from that, that is one of the gravest crimes," he said. Do you consider yourself to be ignorant? He thinks you are. You are, as I am, and he is, of the people. I don't particularly like his assertion that I am so stupid I need the government to protect me from preachers, or anyone else for that matter. Are there stupid people out there? Sure. But that doesn't make it the government's job to take over their responsibility to protect themselves and care for themselves. Maybe if these people were exposed to more direct consequence instead of running to the government every time they stub their toe on a curb that wasn't painted with a warning sign they'd get smarter.
Whether you believe in Jesus or not it's a belief, and you're entitled to it as well as you are entitled to express it. If people can start taking others to court every time they hear a thought, belief, or point of view they don't agree with we're all in trouble. Cascioli has no more right to shut Righi up for his believes than Righi has a right to shut Cascioli up for his non-beliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment