Submitted via IRC for Bytram
The truth about Galileo and his conflict with the Catholic Church
Today virtually every child grows up learning that the earth orbits the sun.
But four centuries ago, the idea of a heliocentric solar system was so controversial that the Catholic Church classified it as a heresy, and warned the Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei to abandon it.
Many people believe that Galileo was hounded by the church for almost two decades, that he openly maintained a belief in heliocentrism, and that he was only spared torture and death because his powerful friends intervened on his behalf. But an examination of the fine details of Galileo’s conflict with church leaders doesn’t bear that out, according to English department distinguished research professor Henry Kelly.
In an article published this month in the journal “Church History,” Kelly clarifies some popularly held notions around Galileo’s travails with the church.
“We can only guess at what he really believed,” said Kelly, who for his research undertook a thorough examination of the judicial procedure used by the church in its investigation of Galileo. “Galileo was clearly stretching the truth when he maintained at his trial in 1633 that after 1616 he had never considered heliocentrism to be possible. Admitting otherwise would have increased the penance he was given, but would not have endangered his life, since he agreed to renounce the heresy — and in fact it would have spared him even the threat of torture.”
This year marks the 400th anniversary of the beginning of the Catholic Church’s investigation into Galileo.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:45PM (5 children)
Galileo was friends with the Pope (Urban VII), but then took the Pope's arguments from a personal discussion they had and put them in the mouth of a character called "Simplicio" (the Simpleton) for one of his books. That is when all the trouble started.
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:08PM (4 children)
I'm not sure "friends" was ever the correct description, but his problems *were* caused by an arrogantly abusive nature. And that "Simplitico" character was clearly an caricature of the Pope as a fool. Others espousing much the same beliefs at the same time got off a lot more lightly. (OTOH, they were also less public about their beliefs, but heaping abuse on the Pope was not a smart move.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:01PM
I'm not sure what primary sources they have to conclude "close friendship", I just knew he was having private audiences with him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:51PM (2 children)
No, his problems were caused by authoritarians who were willing to violate other people's rights if they dared to believe differently and voice their disagreement. 'That person was an idiot for daring to say/do that in an authoritarian society!' was, is, and forever will be authoritarian victim blaming. You see this in the present, too, when people challenge cops, the TSA, etc. and have their rights violated as a result.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @11:32PM (1 child)
Show me a case where cops or TSA verifiably violated someone's rights and that person didn't get at least a settlement out of it. I wait with baited breath.
As for the rest.... you seem to be objecting to the fact that authority might actually wield that authority. Leaving that little tautology aside, please elucidate what Galileo's rights were that the Inquisition violated. Not what rights *you* enjoy or that you *think* Galileo should have had. What rights were afforded Galileo in that time and place, and how were they violated?
Yep. thought so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @01:00AM
Congratulations: You are an authoritarian.
The TSA's job is to violate people's rights. Though I'm sure you'll disagree that jackbooted thugs searching everyone at airports in the name of safety is a violation of people's rights, it is. Nowhere in the Constitution is this permitted, and the Constitution is a whitelist of powers the government has, rather than a blacklist of powers the government doesn't have. I've always thought we should have the TSA search everyone walking on sidewalks as well, with the reasoning that they implicitly consent to the searches just by virtue of the fact that they chose to walk on sidewalks. That's about as logical as the arguments that people use to defend the TSA's searches at airports.
As for the cops, anytime they enforce the drug war - which is unconstitutional at the federal level - they are violating people's rights. Not to mention, cops routinely use asset forfeiture to outright steal people's property without any due process. There are plenty more violations as well, but you know that and simply do not care about little things like rights.
To get around this, you can just say that these things aren't true violations of people's rights. Since X is illegal, enforcing the law is inherently good and proper.
No, it depends on how they are allowed to use their authority and what they actually use their authority to do. If they use their authority to punish someone for disagreeing or saying something that is considered offensive, then yes, someone's rights have been violated.
What rights are afforded to North Korean citizens, and how are they violated? Welp, guess we can't care about human rights as long as authoritarians just make the claim that they're not actually violating human rights!