“At one point, prosecutor Ian Jackson told the court, “To say to someone that Jesus is the only God is not a matter of truth. To the extent that they are saying that the only way to God is through Jesus, that cannot be a truth.””
It seems prosecutor Ian Jackson has his head up his can because that is PRECISELY what disagreements about truth demand. By definition these are matters of truth.
He might honestly opine that he doesn’t believe Christianity is the genuine path to the divine, but he cannot dismiss claims about fundamental truth as if they weren’t.
That he does simply displays his poor logic skills since two things that claim to be true, and are mutually incompatible, cannot both be true. One must be false. Likewise any finite collection of things that are said to be “truth” but are mutually incompatible in their claims then all but one must be false.
In either case logic alone does not tell you that any are correct just because there is a choice, or that any in particular, but it does disallow saying that any cannot be true because it claims to be exclusive. “Exclusivity” is logical and rational. “Universalism” is illogical and irrational.
Even in systems of belief that include Kharma it must matter that you get things right, especially if you ever teach your views, because teaching the wrong things has negative consequences for others.
Indeed the ONLY system of belief where there can be no negative consequence for getting it all wrong is that form of materialism (atheism) that demands rapid extinction of self (as opposed to the Golden Compass sort of atheism where self endures).
In short, the prosecutor is a twit. Or a lawyer who is confused to imagine that the law and social convention somehow dictates what is reasonable to believe at all. Same difference.
Which brings up the problem with this subsequent quote:
“That prompted the men’s lawyer, Michael Phillips, to say, “This prosecution is nothing more than a modern-day heresy trial – dressed up under the Public Order Act.””
... no, it’s not a heresy trial ... they are on trial for not being Christian heretics as the nitwit prosecutor thinks they should be.
Going along to get along, the very core of political correctness, is a poor way to lead a life.
Don't get me wrong; you seem to have your logic stuff together. But in the proposition you posited, isn't it still possible for ALL the claims to be false? I think so. Where, if at all, did I go wrong on this?