posted
"The rest of the document is spent showing that he did indeed violate the injunction and so is dedicated to showing he was teaching heliocentrism and that his defenses (the certificate and the license) did not excuse him."
Speaking of singing Indigo Girls, I read this paragraph and immediately, inexplicably, set it to music. It's got a certain rhythm.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, that is a fair interpretation even though I disagree with it.
The first sentence states that Galileo was "denounced to this Holy Office for..." Both the scientific and scriptural transgressions were listed after this sentence. From my point of view, it means Galileo was denounced for both of these acts.
quote:Mr.Squicky: This is a view also supported by reading through Galileo's deposition. There is no mention of any misuses of Scripture.
That is a good point Mr.Squicky.
The inquisitor asked Galileo several questions about the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the injunction. Neither the inquisitor's questions or Galileo's answers mentioned scriptural twisting:
quote: Q: Since, as he says, he came to Rome to be able to have the resolution and the truth regarding the above, what then was decided about this matter.
A: Regarding the controversy which centered on the above-mentioned opinion of the sun's stability and earth's motion, it was decided by the Holy Congregation of the Index that this opinion, taken absolutely, is repugnant to Holy Scripture and is to be admitted only suppositionally, in the way that Copernicus takes it.
Q: Whether he was then notified of the said decision, and by whom.
A: I was indeed notified of the said decision of the Congregation of the Index, and I was notified by Lord Cardinal Bellarmine.
Q: What the Most Eminent Bellarmine told him about the said decision, whether he said anything else about the matter, and if so what.
A: Lord Cardinal Bellarmine told me that Copernicus's opinion could be held suppositionally, as Copernicus himself had held it. His Eminence knew that I held it suppositionally, namely in the way that Copernicus held it, as you can see from an answer by the same Lord Cardinal to a letter of Father Master Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Provincial of the Carmelites;
I have a copy of this, and in it one finds these words: "I say that it seems to me that Your Paternity and Mr. Galileo are proceeding prudently by limiting yourselves to speaking suppositionally and not absolutely."
This letter by the said Lord Cardinal is dated 12 April 1615. Moreover, he told me that otherwise, namely taken absolutely, the opinion could be neither held nor defended.
The only primary document left to address is the original injunction itself. But we cannot rely on that document too much since, as Dag correctly points out,
quote:Given that almost no one agrees that is the original injunction, I'm not sure how relevant this is.
This brings up a very interesting point. In his depositions, Galileo pointed out that he did not remember getting such a strict injunction from the Church. According to Galileo, he remembered getting a much more lenient warning that did not include the "not to teach, or defend in any way whatever" language of the stricter injunction.
But the Inquisitor ignored Galileo's defense and tried him according to the harsher restrictions set forth by the stricter injunction.
If the stricter injunction is, as Dag pointed out, recognized by many as a fraud, what does that say about the Galileo's trial?
Some people believe that Galileo pissed off the Pope by caricaturizing the Pope and his views in Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, the book at issue in the final trial. (The book had a character named Simplicio, who some people believe was based on the Pope and his scientific views).
Or, a less charitable view might be that the Church sensed the growing danger of Galileo's scientific claims and wanted to stamp out his views with a "modified" injunction.
edited: spelling
[ September 08, 2004, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mean another scientist? Man, those scientists are vicious.
Another conspiracy theory.
quote:We may now be led to conclude that Father Segizi, the Commisary-General of the Holy Office took on a sinister role in this affair. We know from Galileo's deposition that Segizi was present on February 26th and heard Bellarmine's' instructions to Galileo. The deposition also contends no one else spoke to Galileo during the ceremony at the palace. Perhaps Segizi, a Dominican father like Caccini, thought Bellarmine's sentence was too light on Galileo, and decided to do something about it. Since the file on the Inquisition was kept in Segizi's office, he had access to it. He might have ordered his assistant, Father Tinti, to compose the false minutes and insert them in the file. This would account for the lack of signatures at the bottom of the minutes we find in the file, and other irregularities mentioned above. Giorgio de Santillana proposes this notion, and it is well supported by facts and logic alike.
posted
It's my own pet theory that I haven't really looked into that the divide between the Christian religion and science has it's ideological basis in the differences between Thomas Aquinas and William of Occam regarding the role of reason in religious matters.
There was a surge of interest in the proper applications of reason around the time that these two Schoolmen were writing. The Western world had recently regained copies of the works of the Greek philosophers through contact with the Muslims. The theologians/philosophers of this time were energized by the systematic rationality exemplified in the later philosophers, especially Aristotle, and centered their own efforts around this as the focus.
This brought up the obvious question, what is the role of reason in spiritual matters? Aquinas answered this with constructions (such as "telos" or the natural law of things) that supported the idea that reason applied to all things, especially the neccessarily extremely rational world of spirit. Occam, on the other hand, applied the Razor that now bears his name to the theological field to show that religion matters where beyond the scope of rational analysis. Where Aquinas was making rationality the centerpiece of everything, Occam divided experience into those things that could be accessed by reason and those that could not.
Today, we acknowledge Occam's split by the two categories of objective observation versus subjective values. My contention is that Aquinas' philosophy triumphing over Occam's led to the situation where these two things were seen as equivilent and a worldview that made both the world of observations and the world of values a part of the religious sphere.
Thus, Catholic - and other Christians - used their religion as a descriptor of the physical world as well as the spiritual one. This raised two main problems. One, as an objective decriptor, the conception of the Bible didn't stack up at all well. Second, the religious faith model is set up in direct opposition to doubt, which is the key ingredient to responsible scientific investigation. The religious person was generally not interested in disproving old assumptions by showing how other hypotheses were better supported by the data. Instead, they already knew the answer they wanted and endevoured to support their pre-conceived conclusion. That's why most of the "logical" thinking of this time centered around fantastical fripperies such as how many angels could dance on the head of a needle.
The Reformation exacerbated this divide between rational man and religious ones, because, not only did the Protestant split create places where the Church was unable to supress dissent on matters of the essentially unprovable values, but also areas where people could apply rational processes to objectively disprove to descriptions of the world held by the Church.
Thus the striking out against Galileo's "heresy" of teaching the Copernican system as objectively true was part of a much larger campaign of hostility against those who were unwilling to submit their rational investigations to the dictates of the Church. It's interesting to note that one of apocryphal quotes associated to the various astronomers that the Church persecuted during this time was essentially a reflection of William of Occam's statement, namely something like "Religion's role is to show men how to get to Heaven, not to show men how the heavens are ordered."
However, for me, all this comes back to William of Occam. Had his view been adopted, the Church would have developed much differently and would have been more likely to have encouraged scientific investigation as supportive of the world of values rather than opposed it as a competing authority in a world that they didn't really have a claim on. Alas, William of Occam's contribution was so little valued that today his Razor is used in exactly the same way he used it, for the opposite purpose. Where he tried to show that the religion was beyond reason, "rational" opponents of religion are now using it to imply that because religion is not rational, it has no place in people's lives. And it's rare that either side actually knows where this principle came from*.
At least, that's how I see it.
----
* Yes, yes I know, but you see my point anyway, right?
posted
Incidentally, have we agreed that the Catholic Church as this time viewed the teaching of the Copernican model as objectively true as, in and of itself, grounds for being found guilty of heresy? What say you Dag?
posted
Wow 17 pages and I just joined the discussion. Forgive my laziness, but in case this hasn't been posted, I will post it here. Dispute it if you so choose.
Homosexuality is NOT genetic. How do we know this?
The simple fact that identical twins are born as studies have shown where ONE twin is GAY and ONE twin is STRAIGHT even though they share the EXACT SAME DNA STRUCTURE.
I am ALL FOR Homosexual Unions but am Against Gay Marriage.
Why?
The Fact that marriage is between a Man and a Woman.
I am for the discerning of the difference between both for the simple fact that there are differences.
The Civil Rights movement wasn't about African Americans wanting to be called "WHITE". They are African Americans with the same RIGHTS as anyone else, but they are still African Americans.
I have a feeling many African Americans would be at LEAST offended if I, being caucasian, decided to call myself "Black" and then applied at Universities with discrimination policies included in their admissions. Or if I being Caucasian, said I was BLACK and then applied and received "Racially based" scholarships. Am I African American? No. But why shouldn't I be allowed to be such if I want to? Who are YOU to push your beliefs about what is Black and what is not upon me?
Even the most LIBERAL polling states that at LEAST 60% of Americans believe that Homosexuality is WRONG.
What do we call Governments where the PEOPLE'S opinions and beliefs are NOT the law, but that the MINORITY FORCES it's views and beliefs upon the MAJORITY?
It's called SOCIALISM. It's a form of TYRANNY. And anyone with half a brain will tell you that governments in which the MAJORITY of the people do not feel they are represented do what?
They degenerate and fall. The people TAKE OVER.
Remember the Shah of Iran? Remember Russia? The only successful Social country atm is China, and it's only successful because of the fear of military reprisal against it's general populace by the MINORITY who rule.
I am not a Socialist, Anarchist or any of form of Ultra Liberal.
I'm a Democratic Patriot.
I believe everyone has the right to have a voice. But I don't believe the minority has the right to FORCE their voice to not only be heard, but to be LAW over the majority.
I also have HUGE personal experiences from which to draw my opinions on Homosexuality. Feel free to ask.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And clearly you are NOT biased, and WILL listen to other people's opinions.
More seriously, you commit a major logical gaffe or two right off the bat -- for one thing, just because some homosexuality is not completely genetically determined does not mean some homosexuality is. For another thing, just because homosexuality is not completely genetically determined does not mean it is not somewhat genetically determined.
Learn not to be so sure of yourself, and learn that this is about discussion, not ultimatum.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like your use of capitalizations. It's neat.
quote: Am I African American? No. But why shouldn't I be allowed to be such if I want to? Who are YOU to push your beliefs about what is Black and what is not upon me?
Doesn't being African American entail having roots in Africa??
posted
Technically being African American means that you are born in Africa but a citizen of America. Anything else is just American.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh and I absolutely LOVE how all the responses to OSC's article were exactly what he predicted.
He knows his stuff and human nature better than the people responding to him.
And as to the Genetics of Homosexuality.
All studies done on the issue are about as FLAWED as you can get.
I mean they take 4 guys who died of AIDS, and assume because their "Hypothalmus Gland" is slightly smaller than the average SUPPOSED hetero male, that means all Homosexuals were genetically born that way.
WTF?
Race, Age, Lifestyle, etc. all were NOT taken into account in any of the study.
You want to behave in a homosexual way? More power to you.
Just don't ask the state to call it marriage so you can feel better about yourself.
It's a Gay Civil Union and should be labelled as such, if for no other reason than statistical.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Technically being African American means that you are born in Africa but a citizen of America.
To most "African Americans" your statement would be offensive.
So anyways who thinks we should just NOT track any Racial differences at all?
Come on! Anyone who is FOR Gay "Marriage" has to be for the eradication of Race and Racial Studies and Statistics. Since there really is "No difference" then it really shouldn't matter what "color" someone's skin is.
The NAACP's statistical page would be COMPLETELY BLANK if we adopted the Gay Marriage stance.
Civil Unions or No Unions.
It's really the only logical choice.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Come on! Anyone who is FOR Gay "Marriage" has to be for the eradication of Race and Racial Studies and Statistics. Since there really is "No difference" then it really shouldn't matter what "color" someone's skin is.
Why is this the case, exactly? Because anyone who is FOR gay marriage has to conform to your ill-informed understanding of their reasoning?
quote:Ah. This is a FACT? You hold your facts to very low standards, apparently.
Really? I don't know which dictionary you get your definitions from.
Maybe an alternate History (there's alot of that floating around now days. Rewrite history to make me feel good about myself. It's called Mixing history with Psychology. They don't mix very well and produce fact.)
Or maybe an alternate reality?
Marriage IS the civil contract between a Man and a Woman.
End of debate.
__________ is the civil contract between a Man and Man or a Woman and a Woman.
The blank is what you need to figure out.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a fact that Marriage is a "contract" (the civility of such is debatable) between a man and a woman.
If you have a problem with that fact. Then you have a problem recognizing FACTS in general.
To those who are "Gay Marriage" advocates (instead of "Civil Unions" or another titled form of civil contract) it's that FACT that they want to change.
Tradition, History and General Consensus and the LAW are just more salt in their wounds beside the obvious fact.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I still maintain that the major reason for a lot of opposition to gay civil marriage is that some think it would reduce marriage to a civil contract.
The major reason the MAJORITY of people oppose it is they believe it is wrong and they believe the country should reflect the point of view.
Again, I'm not a socialist, and therefore I don't believe in Socialist politics like the one espoused by some.
The people will determine what is the law. If they don't, then you have an un-enforcable law.
I say let the People decide.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: No... the real reason is that people are afraid of the unknown and change.
Just because you are against something specific changing doesn't mean that you are "afraid of change".
Posts: 143 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also there is the "Devil's Law" which is defined thus:
"As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, it's ok."
Which is one step from Anarchy. Is not found ANYWHERE in the constitution of the United States and boils down to the definition of "hurt" or "harm" which is scientifically unprovable. (science is cause and effect only. Morality and Ethics decide what effects are harm and what is good. Which is what most Ultra Liberals are against.)
I don't espouse the Devil's Law.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriage is not a contract. It's a legal relationship with some aspects similar to contract, some similar to partnership, some similar to agency, and some unique to itself.
It has repercussions in property, contract, criminal, and tort law. Marriage is most assuredly NOT a contract.
quote:Then help me understand YOUR reasoning and how you justify it.
If you read this thread, I have done so in several places. There's also a thread linked in this one in which I have explained them.
I've done it many times on this board, and will probably do so again. If I thought for one second that you respected anyone's opinion but your own, I'd do so again.
posted
And the fact that you remain obtuse and presumptious, rather than inquire further as to what someone means (especially someone who has been completely civil and patient with your sarcasm), means you don't want to find out what other people really think, merely belittle the argument of a perceived opponent. Dag's response has not been raving, it has not been simplistic. "Ask and you shall receive," seems to be the order of the day.
---- Hmmm, I may have to write up a newbie guide someday, so that we all have a common short-hand to describe various newbie demeanors. Things like newbius annoyus, newbius esctaticus, newbius timidus...
Currently you're acting like the first. Fortunately, it's a pattern that can be corrected, if the poster wants to. I hope you'll get to that point.
posted
Wow, such hatred. And they say people don't have respect for other's opinions. My post was exactly that. My opinion. I didn't demean him in any way in which YOU did to me. (I always seem to have to point this out to liberals who automatically start flinging personal attacks and don't notice. Oh well. )Congrats! I guess since I don't "agree" with the party norm here I can expect more hostility such as yours.
Your problem. Not mine.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From 52 Am Jur 2d MARRIAGE ยง 5 (Can't link, it's on Lexis):
quote:It has been said that although a marital relationship is in its origins contractual, depending as it does upon consent of the parties,1 a contract of marriage is unique in that it is simply introductory to the creation of a status determined by the law.2 In this regard, it has been said that although by statute marriage is considered a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable of contracting is essential, it is not a contract resembling others in any but the slightest degree, except as to the element of consent.3 For instance, unlike many private contracts, the state has an interest in every marriage contract.4 Furthermore, commercial contract principles are not applicable to marriage vows.5
Observation: Marriage is not a contract within the meaning of the Federal constitutional provision6 which prohibits the states from impairing the obligation of contracts.(emphasis added)
If it makes you feel better (because that's what this is about, making people feel good and secure about their choices.) I'll put some in for you.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's a legal relationship with some aspects similar to contract, some similar to partnership, some similar to agency, and some unique to itself.
posted
No - contract is a fine metaphor for talking about marriage casually.
But when talking about policy decisions which will affect the well-being of millions of people, it would behoove you to abandon convenient metaphores and use precise description.
I've given a very precise, targeted description as to why contract is an incomplete description. You've used a cheesy dictionary definition.
If you want a highly concrete example, a contract can be modified merely by agreement of the parties. A marriage cannot. Terminating a contract requires intervention by the state. Certain modifications to the contract are just flat out forbidden.
quote: If you want a highly concrete example, a contract can be modified merely by agreement of the parties. A marriage cannot. Terminating a contract requires intervention by the state. Certain modifications to the contract are just flat out forbidden.
Actually the marriage contract can be changed ALOT without the state's intervention.
Alot of states laws constitute a valid marriage as one being "consumated". That is not entirely true as people get married all fo the time who CANNOT consumate said marriage. No action by the state is required in order to ratify such an agreement. That marriage is as valid as one that is consumated. That is non-state sanctioned change.
There are also multiple contracts besides marriage which cannot be changed without interference by the government REGARDLESS of whether the parties agree or not.
The Judicial system is full of them. From sentencing, to child custody to parole.
Just because the two parties involved agree to a change, does not alter those contracts without government intervention and approval.
I think we are really debating semantics here.
As your quote from Legal documents show.
It's a Contract, albeit a special one.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think you've exposed enough ignorance now that you can safely be ignored.
Edit: And crying about semantics is rich considering your entire argument seems to be based on the "FACT" that the definition of marriage is as you say.
posted
I love how you state all the studies on the subject are flawed, just after stating that studies clearly show homosexuality isn't genetically based.
Yeah, you're very ignorable.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* I decided to ignore the guy once he started claiming that "definitions" were "facts." He's either a troll or a really, really sub-par thinker. *shrug*
I'll reserve my final judgement until I see him post on some less political threads, but so far CS just seems like yet another partisan hack.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Dagonee![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
You would be surprised at how much legalese is required among purebred dog breeders when breeding dogs. Lawyers get dragged in all the time.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
My post was exactly that. My opinion. I didn't demean him in any way in which YOU did to me. (I always seem to have to point this out to liberals who automatically start flinging personal attacks and don't notice. Oh well. )Congrats! I guess since I don't "agree" with the party norm here I can expect more hostility such as yours.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
