Did Jesus exist? If this question has engaged many for centuries, a court engaging itself with this
issue may be for the first time.
That is precisely what an Italian
court is expected to do this month in a case involving Jesus Christ, The case pits against each other two men in their 70s. They are from the same central Italian town and even went to the same seminary school in their teenage years.
Of the two who are likely to jolt the world’s largest religion, the plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist, and the defendant, Enrico Righi, became a priest writing for the parish newspaper.
Cascioli sees Church as the bearer of obscurantism and regression, and started the lawsuit to deal the final blow against the Church. His justification runs thus:
Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws - Abuso di Credulita Popolare (Abuse of Popular Belief) which is meant to protect people against being swindled or conned; and Sostituzione di Persona, or impersonation -; the Church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala, the 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman army.
Cascioli claims that in his book, The Fable of Christ , he has presented proof that Jesus did not exist as a historic figure. The lawsuit against Righi is to make him legally refute this claim by showing proof of Christ's existence.
Righi claims that there is plenty of evidence to support the existence of Jesus, including historical texts; and that justice is on his side.
As Cascioli claims Jesus didn't exist, and Righi claims he did, the
judge will have to decide if he existed or not. Whichever way, whatever way the judge decides what will be the scientific validity of the decision?
Taking a cue from the above case the Ramrajya loonies may be tempted to go to the court with some Ramayana text, and ask some secularists to disprove that Rama existed. The Indian judiciary, however, seems to have preempted such madness. A few years ago the Supreme Court in its then wisdom declined to adjudicate a Presidential reference on the Babri-masjid structure on the ground that the court is not equipped with the machinery to examine and decide upon such an issue.
Will the Italian judge do the same thing claiming that religious belief cannot be adjudicated by the court?