The PZ Myers Must Be Fired post now has over 1,000 comments, and I’ve noticed that a lot of people who don’t normally hang out on the blog have been commenting, including people who don’t normally hang out on Catholic blogs from what I can tell.
I know some other Catholic blogs have linked the post (thanks, guys!), but I couldn’t help wondering if the post was showing up in some search results.
So I Googled "pz myers"–that’s it, nothing else, nothing about firing–and this is what turned up:
Coming up next . . . something (anything!) that has nothing to do with PZ Myers!
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
“Coming up next…something (anything!) that has nothing to do with PZ Myers!”
Thank you.
how ’bout a caption thread?
I would love another meeting of the JA.O bookclub!
Paging Tim Powers…
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Look at this:
Bush Apologizes For Quran Desecration
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/20/iraq/main4110368.shtml
Thank you, indeed. I’ve read just the first 650 comments from that post, and it already gave me a headache!
Another short story by Tim Powers would be very good…
Or another A-grade John Wayne Western review…
Or just another one of those A reader writes… apologetics post from the good ‘ole days…
I’ll link to your post on my http://www.bringyou.to home page. Couldn’t hurt.
Phil P
I thought about something similar. Googling P. Z. Myers is not going to bring up very flattering results from now on, and one day he will probably come to regret that.
I googled
“Mirror worshiping” atheist
You can guess who was very prominent in the results.
What I find most revealing is the silence and inaction of the Muslims. I mean, the one thing you think you could rely on them.
Actually, it just goes to show that the Islam see Atheism as the Soviet Union saw Nazi Germany: a way for the west to weaken itself so they can strike and destroy everyone.
Olavo wrote:
Actually, it just goes to show that the Islam see Atheism as the Soviet Union saw Nazi Germany: a way for the west to weaken itself so they can strike and destroy everyone.
Maybe. Or maybe we don’t understand Muslims any better than atheists understand us. I doubt that there are very many non-Muslims with as much understanding of Islam as even its least-educated adherents. This is, I think, why we are constantly astounded at how grievously non-Catholics seem to misunderstand what we believe and practice.
Myers is hoping to become the next Richard Dawkins which is why he’s trying to get so much public attention.
+J.M.J+
>>>What I find most revealing is the silence and inaction of the Muslims. I mean, the one thing you think you could rely on them.
If you mean their silence on Myers’s desecration of a Quran, there may be a good explanation for that.
As I explained on Mark Shea’s blog a few days ago, Muslims consider the Quran sacred in its original Arabic. Any translation into another language, including English, is seen as a mere “commentary” on the Quran, rather than a true Quran. So if Myers desecrated an English translation (which I believe he did), to the Islamic mind he was just destroying a commentary on the Quran, not the “glorious” Quran itself. I’m not sure whether Muslims would see that as reason for a fatwa against him.
Now, if the page he desecrated happened to contain even a single verse from the Quran in Arabic, then Myers could be in trouble. Muslims don’t countenance the destruction of any Arabic verse from the Quran, even if it is printed or written separate from the book itself. Coptic Christians in Egypt actually use this fact to their advantage; they paint Quranic verses on the facade of their churches in order to prevent Muslims from demolishing them. The Muslims won’t touch the building for fear of destroying verses from the Quran!
However, if there was no Arabic quotation from the Quran on that page, it might not matter all that much to Muslims. That could explain their apparent silence.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie,
You are absolutely correct. Myers is a abject cowards – he didn’t really desecrate the Qoran. Let’s start a campaign for him to do so and point out his atheist cowardice.
>You are absolutely correct. Myers is a abject cowards – he didn’t really desecrate the Qoran. Let’s start a campaign for him to do so and point out his atheist cowardice.
I reply: That would be wrong from a Catholic perspective. Besides then the Muslims would turn to us & justly say “He ONLY violated the Holy Quran because you ant-Christian Muslims egged him on! Why should we then side with you?”
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
P. Z. Myers is a bully and a mean person.
I forgive him.
P.Z. Myers in the olden days would have been burned to the stake. There’s no shame for sin anymore. Our sins of abortion and same-sex unions cry to heaven. There’s no way that we aren’t going to pay for those mistakes. And unfortunately we will have to learn the hard way. We Catholics are going to be held to a much higher standard. For those who have more, more will be required. Pray much for sinners. The reason things like the P.Z. Myers incident happpen, is because no one prays for him. If we Catholics were obedient to the Church’s teachings we wouldn’t be seeing stuff like this.
When the Da Vinci Code came out in the movie theaters, I predicted that a greater persecution of the Church was about to begin. Well, a U.S. official calling the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality hate speech and taking us to court over this and the desecration of the Holy Eucharist are just the beginning. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. That’s why I say that God is about the punish the world for it’s henious crimes against humanity. You can’t spit in the face of God and get away w/ it. The Church will be forced to go underground for a while. The Pope’s words on how we will be a smaller Church is coming true. And many people laughed at him, much in the same way the Chosen People persecuted the prophets in the Old Testament. Are we any different then the Chosen People? Nope, we aren’t. We are a rebelious people. God can’t give us his healing power if we don’t want it. It’s like a patient who refuses to take his medication. The reason we are suffering from this abomination at the Univ. of Minn. is for the conversion of sinners and the reparations of sinners. Do a penance.
How about charging him using the new Internet Bullying law?
You can’t spit in the face of God and get away w/ it.
PZM seems to prove that principle wrong.
P.Z. Myers in the olden days would have been burned to the stake. There’s no shame for sin anymore.
Simply astounding.
If anyone needed more evidence, it has been given.
I have to chip in and voice my agreement with CT here, while also noting that Jimmy’s boast of his blog being boosted by connection to the name of PZ Myers seems to have faded.
I note that someone else in the thread mentioned San Francisco City’s Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously two years ago. A response to a ban on placing adoptive children in homosexual households, imposed by the Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, the resolution said, in part, “It is an insult…when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great City’s existing and established customs and traditions.” It obviously came as news to some of the more ignorant Roman Catholics that the Vatican is a sovereign state.
The attempt by the Roman Catholic Church to get this resolution overturned reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the other day. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the City, saying “The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement…This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of provocation…It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders.”
Appropriately enough, the City’s resolution also pointed out that The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith used to be known as The Holy Office of the Inquisition. That’s got to hurt.
So I’m on facebook, July 22nd when I see this:
PZ joined the group PZ Myers Should Be Fired. 8:40pm
That’s style!
And more.
bill912, do you think we could perhaps engage in some kind of dialog? From your vague, monosyllabic responses it’s difficult to understand your point of view.
>A response to a ban on placing adoptive children in homosexual households, imposed by the Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, the resolution said, in part, “It is an insult…when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great City’s existing and established customs and traditions.”
I reply: Except Genus it’s an instruction to CATHOLIC adoption agencies not to secular ones. Jewish Adoption agencies can “discriminate” by seeing to it that Jewish orphanes are only adopted by other Jews. Orthodox Jewish groups don’t want Frum Children placed with gays & even the Koran condemns the gay sex.
Why are Catholics singled out? What happened to seperation of Church & State? I guess that only goes one way.
> District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled etc
I reply: A Carter apointee & loose contructionist fascist anti-Catholic liberal.
How dare Cardinal Levada instruct Catholic adoption agencies without the permission of the Anointed? He should be thankful that his betters take time out of their busy schedules to straighten him out. We should be grateful, too.
>”It is an insult…when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great City’s existing and established customs and traditions.”It obviously came as news to some of the more ignorant Roman Catholics that the Vatican is a sovereign state.
I reply: Talking points straight out of the KKK & the Know Nothings anti-Catholic political handbook. Romanist are loyal to a roman prince not to American etc……
Bigots the lot of ya!
+J.M.J+
>>>P.Z. Myers in the olden days would have been burned to the stake
You can’t expect something like that to happen outside a Catholic confessional state, which the US is not and never has been. So the point is moot.
>>>Appropriately enough, the City’s resolution also pointed out that The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith used to be known as The Holy Office of the Inquisition. That’s got to hurt.
Why should that hurt? The Holy Office of the Inquisition was the Roman Inquisition, not the Spanish Inquisition. Two different Inquisitions. Besides, the word “inquisition” simply means “questioning”; it took on dark connotations because of the black legend of the Spanish Inquisition – which was greatly exaggerated by British propagandists, as even secular historians are now discovering.
So no, I can’t see why a tribunal unrelated to the maligned Spanish Inquisition should be “hurt” by the fact that it was also once called an inquisition. In fact, if the San Francisco resolution was trying to score cheap points with that dig, it only reveals their ignorance of history.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie | Aug 2, 2008 6:46:03 AM: The Holy Office of the Inquisition was the Roman Inquisition, not the Spanish Inquisition.
What do you take me for, an ignorant rosary-fiddler? I’m aware of the difference between the Spanish Inquisition and the Papal Office of the Inquisition. The latter was formed in the sixteenth century and yes, did use torture and did execute people, including burning them. Pietro Carnesecchi, an early anti-schismatic supporter of Luther, was beheaded and then burned by the Inquisition in 1567. You may also have heard of the philosopher, Giordano Bruno. Yes, he was burned at the stake by that Inquisition in Rome, in 1600. Fortunately Galileo Galilei, who asserted similar heretical scientific theories, escaped execution and was merely held in house arrest until his death.
“if the San Francisco resolution was trying to score cheap points with that dig, it only reveals their ignorance of history.”
As I have shown above, the ignorance is on your part. I would hope that in future you refrain from lying for Jesus.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | Aug 2, 2008 6:39:26 AM, what does this gibbering about the Ku Klux Klan have to do with this? The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faithful is part of the Roman Curia. The Vatican has diplomatic relations with the United States and therefore is recognised as a sovereign state by the US State Department. What, the City of San Francisco must ignore the forms for addressing an extranational entity to save your feelings? Sorry, doesn’t work like that.
“What do you take me for, an ignorant rosary-fiddler?”
Classy, isn’t he? Perhaps a perusal of “DA RULZ”, particularly #1, is in order.
bill912, I was, of course, out of order there. I apologise, Rosemarie.
bill912, you might also want to check your own recent postings, many of which accuse other posters of “bigotry”. I’ve asked you to expand on your views on this, as simply yelling “bigot” isn’t very illuminating.
One result of all this is that the anti-Catholics have been flushed out of the woodwork into the open.
+J.M.J+
I am aware that the occasional execution occurred as a result of a trial before the Roman Inquisition. Unfortunately, that’s how things often worked back then in Catholic confessional states, such as the Papal States or Spain. I don’t like it myself but that’s how it was done in history.
Nonetheless, the Roman Inquisition was overall more lenient than the Spanish Inquisition and never had the black legend stigma attached to it specifically. So I hardly consider it “appropriate” that the SF city council implied that they were one and the same. They were clearly trying to tar the CDF/Holy Office with the same black legend-brush used against the Spanish Inquisition. This reveals either ignorance or malice. I prefer to chalk it up to ignorance.
In Jesu et Maria,
Fortunately Galileo Galilei, who asserted similar heretical scientific theories, escaped execution and was merely held in house arrest until his death.
Another such ignoramus on the matter of Galilei.
For your information, it was not the scientific theories of Galileo that were heretical (in fact, many Jesuit scientists at the time held similar notions and subscribed to the same ideas); it was Galileo’s stubborn insistance that the foundation of Catholic theology be compromised at the behest of his own theological leanings rather than those which rested on Christ and the early church.
It would really like to engage somebody who genuinely know the facts of the matter rather than those who rely merely on secular/anti-catholic propaganda.
Unfortunately, the latter is the more ubiquitous.
Crackers!
>what does this gibbering about the Ku Klux Klan have to do with this?
I reply: The KKK is anti-Catholic & like the City of San Francisco historically attacks Catholics for not being loyal to the US but to a prince from another country.
>The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faithful is part of the Roman Curia. The Vatican has diplomatic relations with the United States and therefore is recognised as a sovereign state by the US State Department.
I reply: The Catholic Faith is a religion that teaches moral & theological doctrines. It has done so long BEFORE the existence of the Papal States & the Vatican City State & it would continue to do so even if the Vatican where to lose it’s national soverenty tommorrow.
>What, the City of San Francisco must ignore the forms for addressing an extranational entity to save your feelings? Sorry, doesn’t work like that
I reply: If the Vatican was interfearing with trade policies or some political thing of that nature it would be proper to address the matter. But Archbishop Levada (a private American citizen) was AS A BISHOP of Our Religion addressing CATHOLIC INSTITUTIONS on a matter of moral doctrine & making sure they conform their policy to . Your unconstitutional friends in the City of San Francisco stuck their noises in the internal matter of a 1st amendment protected religion & used the legal power of the state to make a political proclimation against the teaching of said religion. While at the same time IGNORING other religions that do & teach the same thing.
If you agree with this act of City of San Francisco that violates our civil rights then I say Catholics should hold you in the same contempt a black man should hold for the likes of David Duke.
If the members of the City Council of San Francisco want to go around saying gay sex is not wrong & gays should be allowed to adopt that is fair game & I suppor their civil rights. But when they issue a legal proclimation condemning a constitutionally protected belief & internal Catholic policy THEY VIOLATE THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH & STATE.
Only a dopey Carter thug or the left wing fascist idiots on the 9th circite would agree.
So there.
Dear Tony Sidaway,
You wrote (responding to Rosemarie),
As I have shown above, the ignorance is on your part. I would hope that in future you refrain from lying for Jesus.
I see no ignorance on her part, nor lying. What she posted was reasonable – there were two (actually, three) Inquisitions. Some people sometimes get them confused (I am not saying that the SF City Council did). She did not say that you did not understand the difference. In fact, your name did not even appear in her post.
The reference by the SFCC looks like, to me, at least, nothing more than an attempt to poison the well by using what they hoped would be perceived as an emotionally charged name.
What you posted in your follow-up to what the Rosemarie posted was irrelevant, since your name does not appear in Rosemarie’s post at all – she was commenting on the action of the SFCC. What you understand of history was not germane to her point.
I would like to say, however, that the flap caused by the ban and the judges statements are examples of straw men, because Leveda did not tell SF what to do (he does not have the authority and never would claim to, so both the judge and SFCC started off with a false assumption or a poor understanding of what Leveda actually did by claiming that Leveda was provoking the City at all – these are, as BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th), correctly points out, classic Know-Nothing arguments from the late 1890’s).
Now, Leveda does have the right to tell Catholics what to do, since they do fall under his moral jurisdiction. They may, in turn, put forth propositions, as citizens, which just happen to coincide with Catholic teachings and if they get the required votes, it becomes law. Nothing illegal, here, had it happened that way, but it did not.
Leveda gave a directive to Catholic adoption agencies, not a directive to the City. He has that right. Apparently, the SFCC doesn’t approve. Too bad. This is a moral matter that happens to touch on legal matter, but it is, first and foremost, a matter of morals and conscience. No state has the right to force another’s conscience, which is what SFCC would, apparently, be trying to do to Catholic adoption agencies. I said that no state had the right to force another’s conscience, and here is the flaw with SFCC’s and the judge’s analysis: Leveda was not acting as a representative of a state, but as a representative of a religion (which does have the right to speak to matters of conscience). As such, the judge has no true jurisdiction, here, although she may try to claim it. When the law is perceived as immoral, conscience trumps the law (provided the conscience is well-formed).
Perhaps, I do not understand the history of this situation well enough. Would anyone care to give some background?
The Chicken
edit:Only a dopey Carter thug or the left wing fascist idiots on the 9th circite wouldN’T agree.
>As I have shown above, the ignorance is on your part. I would hope that in future you refrain from lying for Jesus.
I reply: Don’t you DARE call my wife a liar again.
Cracker Jack | Aug 2, 2008 10:55:33 AM, Galileo did not speak as a theologian, but as a scientist. The Inquisition, including Bellarmine who had just dispatched Giordano Bruno to his grisly fate, got involved because that theory when taught as fact based on observation appeared to conflict with something written in a book. The content of the book was held sacred so Galileo was tried for contradicting the book.
Please don’t try to defend that. The church has finally given up and apologised.
In 2000 Cardinal Ratzinger, the head of the modern Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith himself, who is now the Pope, confessed to the sins of his predecessors: “Even men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel.”
So don’t give me all that nonsense in defence of the persecution of Bruno and Galileo.
Now in 2006 his successor in the Congregation, in the midst of scandals about the sexual shenanigans involving the Church’s clergy’s abuse of children and the repeated concealment of that abuse, issued an edict on adoption, to which one American city took exception and issued a unanimous resolution condemning the Vatican’s inappropriate meddling. Not content to settle for a reminder of its shameful record of child abuse, the Church has now contested the resolution, unsuccessfully, all the way to the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
You’d think they’d know when to give up.
: The Masked Chicken | Aug 2, 2008 11:02:24 AM, you write Leveda gave a directive to Catholic adoption agencies, not a directive to the City.
I don’t believe that matter is in dispute. You yourself seem to have introduced this straw man. Neither the City nor Judge Patel have suggested that the offending instruction was a “directive to the City” or anything of that sort. The City described it in terms of “meddl[ing] with and attempts to negatively influence” the city’s established customs, and Patel said the City officers weren’t required “to remain silent in the face of provocation.”
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th), RoseMarie, I accept that RoseMarie was simply mistaken on the history of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faithful, the modern-day name of the same body that tried and executed the philosopher Giordano Bruno and tried and placed under house arrest the natural philosopher Galileo. I accept that she was not deliberately misrepresenting the facts. My apologies for my abusive language.
+J.M.J+
>>>What you posted in your follow-up to what the Rosemarie posted was irrelevant, since your name does not appear in Rosemarie’s post at all – she was commenting on the action of the SFCC. What you understand of history was not germane to her point.
Thank you, Masked Chicken. It’s true, I wasn’t attacking him at all, just critiquing the SFCC’s cheap shot.
One would think that I would be used to being personally attacked on Jimmy Akin’s blog by now. It happens almost every time I post here, even on non-religious subjects. Which is why I sometimes avoid reading the threads on this blog altogether. Maybe I should have stuck with that policy. (Funny, I post much more often on Mark Shea’s blog but don’t get attacked nearly as much there.)
In Jesu et Maria,
Please don’t try to defend that. The church has finally given up and apologised.
Given up on what? The truth of the whole matter?
You must have missed the speech made by the same Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who also talked about particular facts of the matter.
However, why should we listen to the genuine facts when we can listen to those purported by anti-catholic propagandists?
Oh, by the way, I find your shameful attempt to distract from the whole subject matter by your tangent into the sex scandal. It is the very same tactic employed by your Myers-ian idol, who did likewise by going into some anti-semitic fable about the Catholic Church to distract from the fact that what he did was repugnantly immoral.
You’d think they’d know when to give up.
Especially when instead of looking into the actual facts of the matter, folks as yourselves content themselves with fairy tales written by the Anti-Catholic horde.
Please don’t try to defend that. The church has finally given up and apologised.
Given up on what? The truth of the whole matter?
You must have missed the speech made by the same Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who also talked about particular facts of the matter.
However, why should we listen to the genuine facts when we can listen to those purported by anti-catholic propagandists?
Oh, by the way, I find your shameful attempt to distract from the whole subject matter by your tangent into the sex scandal. It is the very same tactic employed by your Myers-ian idol, who did likewise by going into some anti-semitic fable about the Catholic Church to distract from the fact that what he did was repugnantly immoral.
You’d think they’d know when to give up.
Especially when instead of looking into the actual facts of the matter, folks as yourselves content themselves with fairy tales written by the Anti-Catholic horde.
+J.M.J+
Hmm, I can’t seem to turn off the italics on this blog.
I’n not ignorant of the history of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. I know that the Roman Inquisition executed a few people, but as I said above it was not nearly as many as the Spanish Inquisition executed – by even the most conservative estimates for the latter.
My point was not that the Roman Inquistion executed no one, but that it is not at all appropriate to equate the two or act like they are one and the same, which is what the SFCC implied.
In Jesu et Maria,
This Tony Sodaway is cleary an anti-Catholic troll since he has CLEARLY ignored what we have all said & is now REPEATING himself.
This what will happen. No matter HOW MANY TIMES we point out it violates the Establishment Clause he will ignore what we said, refuse to interect with our arguments, go off on irrelavent tangents (like anyone here REALLY defends child sex abuse or torture!) treat the judgements of the low courts as if they are Infallible Ex Cathedra pronouncments & continue with is snarky & condicending tone.
Love this:
>The City described it in terms of “meddl[ing] with and attempts to negatively influence” the city’s established customs, and Patel said the City officers weren’t required “to remain silent in the face of provocation.”
I reply: It’s called begging the question. He is assuming what he hasn’t proven. The City Offices have an absolute right as private citizens to comment on the actions of a private religion. But when they start using their CIVIL POWERS like issuing a goverment proclamation. The Establishment Clause is violated.
Don’t hold your breath people waiting for this Tony character to answer us. He’s a true believer in his own double standard how can we shake that kind of deathless faith?
>My point was not that the Roman Inquistion executed no one, but that it is not at all appropriate to equate the two or act like they are one and the same, which is what the SFCC implied.
I reply: Love ya babe!:-) You might want to point out technically it was the civll government who executed people. The Church has no death penalty for heresy. Rather civil governments judged heretics to be tradiors to the state & of course you can execute tradiors.
This tragic loopoll was closed by Vatican II & it’s moral teaching.
>I accept that she was not deliberately misrepresenting the facts. My apologies for my abusive language.
I reply; You are forgiven & I will take back my troll comment. But YOU WILL answer my Establishment Argument or I will not regard you as a person of good will.
BenYachov,
You wrote:
Only a dopey Carter thug or the left wing fascist idiots on the 9th circite would agree.
So there.
Ben, this is the kind of thing that makes it hard for me to ask our atheist guests that they be civil and reasonable. A little restraint, please, guys. Cracker Jack, I’m looking at you too, buddy.
+J.M.J+
>>>You might want to point out technically it was the civll government who executed people. The Church has no death penalty for heresy. Rather civil governments judged heretics to be tradiors to the state & of course you can execute tradiors.
True, I should have been more careful with my phrasing. If the ecclesiastical tribunal found someone guilty of heresy and he was utterly unrepentant, the civil government would execute him as a traitor. Heretics were considered traitors the Catholic confessional state since they denied the official state religion. A mentality that’s rather foreign to me, since I’ve always lived in a country with freedom of religion.
I’m rather glad such things don’t happen anymore in the Catholic world – though they still do in the Muslim world, unfortunately.
In Jesu et Maria,
>Only a dopey Carter thug or the left wing fascist idiots on the 9th circite would agree.
I reply: You have a good point I will be mindful in the future but experience teaches me Myers’ hardcore Fanboyz are anything but civil.
I apologize if I was overlly hostile but I remain distrustful of all New atheists.
the above should read “Heretics were considered traitors IN A Catholic confessional state…” Sorry for the typo.
In Jesu et Maria,
Tony,
You wrote:
Neither the City nor Judge Patel have suggested that the offending instruction was a “directive to the City” or anything of that sort. The City described it in terms of “meddl[ing] with and attempts to negatively influence” the city’s established customs, and Patel said the City officers weren’t required “to remain silent in the face of provocation.”
The Board’s description of the internal policies of the Church is inaccurate, but no, they are not required to remain silent about it. As a native and resident of San Pancho, though, I’d love to see them stick to matters of substance to the city, and cool it with their meaningless resolutions. Insofar as their resolution has absolutely no impact on internal Church policies, it’s a waste of my tax money and their time.
If their resolution did have any effect on Church policies, it would be a clear violation of the 1st amendment. I happen to agree with you that this resolution does not materially affect the free exercise of religion. It does, however, leave me (even more) disappointed with the so-called public servants who sit my city’s board of supervisors.
BenYachov,
You wrote:
I reply: You have a good point I will be mindful in the future but experience teaches me Myers’ hardcore Fanboyz are anything but civil.
Maybe so. When that happens, I point you to Matthew 5, particularly verses 9, 10, 11, and 44.
Peace of Christ be with you.
Cracker Jack, I think you need to cool it a little. Of course Wojtyła when Pope and Ratzinger when head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith apologised for what his (Ratzinger’s predecessors did) and so I’m all the more surprised that you’re still trying to defend the indefensible now. Burning people and putting them into house arrest for writing something that contradicts something written in a book, however sacred, is I’m sure we all now agree unacceptable. So good riddance to old church, hello new, improved church.
But here again you’re accusing the victim, just as the Inquisition did before you, accusing PZ Myers of doing something wrong when he points to the shameful history of persecution of Jews, including mass murder, for merely being suspected of desecrating the consecrated wafer. Aren’t you glad, like me, that those bad days are over, that Christians no longer burn people and that the hateful people like Donohue who demand that people be fired for desecrating the host are now powerless?
And perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned the church’s recent shameful history of covering up child abuse. But you know? I’m seeing a pattern here. Church does something wrong, unbeliever points it out, you leap in and accuse that person of acting “shamefully”. But never the church, which has done actual wrong, only the unbeliever, who has actively and steadfastly opposed that wrong in word and deed. I think there’s something wrong with that kind of behavior.
Sleeping Beastly | Aug 2, 2008 12:13:51 PM, would that you’d also prevail upon your church to get them to stop wasting tithe money trying to get this unanimous resolution, which was merely a statement of their collective opinion, overturned. I don’t think we’ll see this one taken to the Supreme Court because it’s very clear cut, even if some people writing here have some reservations about the Ninth Circuit.
But you know? I’m seeing a pattern here.
So am I. The pattern is that those bashing the Catholic Church are some of the most un- and ill-informed people around. You guys are totally boring with your lack of originality and lack of thinking.
This may not be a complete answer, but it’s all I have time for at the moment. A post from the other thread:
yes and that strengthens my observation that those (in this thread and elsewhere) bombasting the Church do so without accurate information from credible sources.
If you’ll humor a small rant, no one in academics would even think of making a serious statement using the urban legends, 4th hand information (okay, maybe a bit hyperbole) or questionable sources that people who blast the Church do.
Back to topic. In the wake of the sexual abuse stuff, he bishops commissioned a study, the John Jay study which found that the overwhelming percentage of reported abuse was
with postpuberty males (read not pedophilia which is prepuberty or thereabouts),
the incidents peaked in the 1980s (which means a significant decline) and
the abuse was by an average of 4 percent of priests, ranging from a low of 2 percent of religious priests (in a religious order like Benedictiones, Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, etc) and a high of 8 or 9 percent of diocesan priests (priests assigned to a diocese). While that’s still awful, it means that even the worst case distribution, over 90 percent of priests are being maligned unjustly.
The quotation you cited is from the National Catholic Reportere, well known, very well known for its dissent from Catholic teaching. Who knows where they got those figures from, but it was written not in accord with Church teaching.
As for the presence of sexual sins, yes they happened. Not good, but a) the Church is hardly alone in that and b) being Catholic does not in itself make one perfect. Far from it. But it does provide a way to deal with one’s foibles.
There are some who think the Church is unreasonable on sexual matters. Again, part of that is because Catholic teaching can not be reduced to a sound bite and so what gets bandied about is no where near the fullness of reason for the teaching. But I think a second reason is that non-Catholics don’t see chaste and/or celibate Catholics, even thouse in their midst. I know a good number of celibate Catholics. Sometimes it’s a strubble, but they take it very seriously and not only has much good fruit resulted, but they are very joyful people.
That’s enough for me for one night.
Mary Kay | Aug 2, 2008 12:53:17 PM, hi.
I’ll just note that your quotation addressed none of my statements and you abusive attack is water off a duck’s back. 🙂
Cracker Jack:
No, Tony’s view is correct and in accordance with those of Galileo scholar Stillman Drake and other commentators.
Internal Church politics also played a part.
Galileo had empirical evidence to back up his arguments but Church officials thought it contradicted parts of scripture. This is a classic situation where an empirically driven world view clashes with a world view that is constrained by rigid doctrine. Galileo was a brilliant mathematician but also a very devout Catholic. He was also concerned that the religious authorities reaction to this affair would rebound and eventually embarrass the Holy Churh and bring it into disrepute. He was right about as well.
I wont comment on the morality of showing the instruments of torture to an old man, infirm and in poor health.
Tony, like you really gave that a serious reading AND posted a reply in 4 minutes. The quickness of your response simply proved my point.
>But here again you’re accusing the victim, just as the Inquisition did before you, accusing PZ Myers of doing something wrong when he points to the shameful history of persecution of Jews, including mass murder, for merely being suspected of desecrating the consecrated wafer.
I reply: Yep a Troll. Clearly Sleeping Beastly, Tony is not a person of good will but an anti-Catholic bigot & provocature.
Myers DID desecrate a Eucharist! He had one of his fanboys STEAL IT & he desecrated it. He is 100% in the wrong. He admits HIS GUILT! What are you really this obtuse?
>Myers of doing something wrong when he points to the shameful history of persecution of Jews, including mass murder, for merely being suspected of desecrating the consecrated wafer. Aren’t you glad, like me, that those bad days are over, that Christians no longer burn people.
I reply: Mass murder? The Spainish Inquision only killed about 5000 people over a period of a few hundred years. Compair that to Atheist Goverments in the 20th century have have murdered at least 100 million people. People who like Myers don’t believe Humans have dignety nor deserve respect for their religious beliefs.
>the hateful people like Donohue who demand that people be fired for desecrating the host are now powerless?
I reply: Then we are all victims of injustice. If Myers can’t be fired for stealing people’s sacred objects then how will he be punished on the day Myers concludes Tony Sidaway is not Atheist enought to deserve his respect & try to steal objects valued by Tony in order to descrate them.
That is what you pro-Myers fanatics seem to get.
I reinstate my charge of Trollness.
Tony is not a person of good will but a provocature.
PS FIRE MYERS!
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | Aug 2, 2008 12:01:46 PM, YOU WILL answer my Establishment Argument or I will not regard you as a person of good will.
That is partly true. Bruno for instance was handed over to the secular authorities after the Inquisition declared him to be a heretic. I hope you’re not trying to suggest that thereby the Church bore no responsibility for his death. The Inquisition knew what it was doing: suppressing scientific teaching that conflicted with its doctrine, and damn the human price.
Galileo on the other hand was sentenced directly by the Inquisition. An English translation of part of his sentence, issued under the names of seven Cardinals, reads:
“We order that by a public edict the book of DIALOGUES OF GALILEO GALILEI be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure; and as a salutary penance We enjoin on thee that for the space of three years thou shalt recite once a week the Seven Penitential Psalms, reserving to Ourselves the faculty of moderating, changing, or taking from, all other or part of the above-mentioned pains and penalties.
As you can readily see, this was an ecclesiastical sentence, including a sequence of psalms traditionally recited by penitents.
Galileo successfully persuaded the Pope to permit him to serve his sentence under house arrest. He died under imprisonment, eight years later. After death, the Pope protested against his burial in the main body of the Basilica of Santa Croce next to his family, and his body was for a long time interred in a small room on a corridor leading off to the sacristy. Nearly a century after the great scientist’s death, he was reburied in the main body where a monument had been erected.
>Galileo had empirical evidence to back up his arguments but Church officials thought it contradicted parts of scripture.
I reply: That’s nonsense. No self-respecting scientist would use Galileo’s proofs. It wasn’t until the 19th century science proved the Earth rotated. Clearly you never READ Galileo “proofs”. The tide proves the rotation of the Earth? Ah no the Foucum Pendilum does.
>This is a classic situation where an empirically driven world view clashes with a world view that is constrained by rigid doctrine.
I reply: This is a classic case of mindless secular dogmatism. Please show us a PROOF made by Galileo that proves the motion of the Earth accepted by ANY modern Scientist. Galileo did not prove the movement of the Earth, Foulcrum did, Galileo made a lucky guess.
>Galileo was a brilliant mathematician but also a very devout Catholic. He was also concerned that the religious authorities reaction to this affair would rebound and eventually embarrass the Holy Churh and bring it into disrepute. He was right about as well.
I reply: Nonsense, Fr. Copernicus recieved honors from the Pope & his book was read for a century without problem till Galileo came along & made an ass of himself.
Mary Kay | Aug 2, 2008 1:13:23 PM, you write: Tony, like you really gave that a serious reading AND posted a reply in 4 minutes. The quickness of your response simply proved my point.
No, Mary. I looked at it carefully and saw that it was impossible to tell who was saying what. It is incoherent. Moreover none of the content addressed anything I said: rather it seemed, as far as I could make out, to be a reply to some other point made by another person.
Tony Sidaway you are NOT a person of goodwill & thus earn my contempt. I am talking to you about the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution & how the City by the Bay violated it. You are a Troll in that you are would RATHER change the subject. Not interested!
Read this BTW
http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
Clearly you would rather continue your shameful attempt to distract from the whole subject matter by your tangent into the sex scandal, Galileo & the Inquisition. It is the very same tactic employed by your Myers-ian idol, who did likewise by going into some anti-semitic fable about the Catholic Church to distract from the fact that what he did was repugnantly immoral.
(I only steal from the best. Kuddos Cracker Jack!)
You have nothing to say to me & you can Smeg Off dog food breath!
Is it just me or does anyone else think whoever is behind BenYachov posts is a tad unhinged?
Sanity is overated as is good spelling.:-)
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | Aug 2, 2008 1:16:13 PM, you write: “Myers DID desecrate a Eucharist! He had one of his fanboys STEAL IT & he desecrated it.”
Actually he advertised for it on his blog and somebody sent it to him. We don’t know the circumstances under which it was obtained (Myers mentioned in an interview that he was in contact with observant Catholics who went through the motions but did not believe, but we don’t know). He did desecrate it.
You write: “He is 100% in the wrong. He admits HIS GUILT!”
Well, he admits that he desecrated that host. “Guilt” would rather depend on whether what he did was wrong. I happen to see his act as a deeply moral one: he called out Bill Donohue, who was trying to bully a young student, and in effect, said “pick on someone your own size”.
You write: “The Spainish Inquision only killed about 5000 people over a period of a few hundred years.”
Actually Professor Myers referred not to the Spanish Inquisition but to the mass murder of Jews on the pretext that they had desecrated the host.
You write: “Compair that to Atheist Goverments in the 20th century have have murdered at least 100 million people. ”
Those governments were hideous and wrong. And yes, most of them far more hideous and wrong than any Catholic government or Papacy has been. Do the actions of those bad, evil governments make it okay for Catholics to kill people or try to get them sacked because they desecrate the host?
I’m suppose asking, really: do you in fact know the difference between right and wrong?
You write: “If Myers can’t be fired for stealing people’s sacred objects then how will he be punished on the day Myers concludes Tony Sidaway is not Atheist enought to deserve his respect & try to steal objects valued by Tony in order to descrate them.”
I don’t believe in magic. I’ve no reason to believe that PZ Myers would steal anything.
You write: “I reinstate my charge of Trollness. ”
Wouldn’t you prefer to declare me a heretic? Might have worked back in the day. You could have had me tossed into an oubliette or burned.
>Those governments were hideous and wrong. And yes, most of them far more hideous and wrong than any Catholic government or Papacy has been. Do the actions of those bad, evil governments make it okay for Catholics to kill people or try to get them sacked because they desecrate the host?
I reply: I never said ANYONE should kill Myers. Like I said you are Troll who is not acting in good will. You just proved me right infidel.
PS Only Catholics in rebellion against the doctrine of the Church can be heretics.
Tony,
If it would help you, it was my response to CT on the other thread. However, the substance is very clear and understanding it does not require knowing who said it.
Why don’t you admit that you didn’t even read it?
Mary Kay, if I hadn’t read it I either wouldn’t reply at all or (though this seems extremely unlikely) I would tell you I hadn’t. Would you like to try to clarify your argument?
To recap, I simply said that the church has a recent history of covering up child abuse.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | Aug 2, 2008 1:53:47 PM, I said: Do the actions of those bad, evil governments make it okay for Catholics to kill people or try to get them sacked because they desecrate the host?
You replied: I never said ANYONE should kill Myers
Well that’s part of the question, and I’m sure Myers will be relieved. Because some people, evidently Catholics, do not agree with you.
And now the tricky part: do you believe that he should be sacked?
“PS Only Catholics in rebellion against the doctrine of the Church can be heretics.”
I wonder if the protestants executed by the Inquisition tried that one.
Oh, silly me. I said “executed” when I meant “declared heretics”.
They were then tried by the secular authorities, who did the dirty work.
And perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned the church’s recent shameful history of covering up child abuse. But you know? I’m seeing a pattern here. Church does something wrong, unbeliever points it out, you leap in and accuse that person of acting “shamefully”. But never the church, which has done actual wrong, only the unbeliever, who has actively and steadfastly opposed that wrong in word and deed. I think there’s something wrong with that kind of behavior.
What I responded to was that you, like so many other Church bashers, drags in the sex abuse stuff. The better response to you would have been to tell you that there is a corollary to Godwin’s law which is that the first person who brings up the clerical sex abuse, loses. My school district re-assigned someone they knew to be a perp. When that became known, there was nowhere the outrage that’s there been for the Catholic Church.
And my point (if you read it) is relevant. You’re unjustly maligning 96 percent of priests in this country.
btw, you may have skimmed the post, but it full comprehension of new material takes more than 90 seconds. You claimed to have digested information that’s clearly unfamiliar to you, typed a reply and gotten through the spam filter in 4 minutes.
And now I have to get back to my real work. I’m on a deadline this weekend and come over just to take a break.
correction: skip the 96% statement. But you were painting with a broad brush about the Church and there are a lot of good priests and bishops who don’t deserve your badmouthing.
BenYachov:
“Sanity is overated as is good spelling.:-)”
Thats quote magic! Gotta get that one up on the dept electronic “quotes of note” list.
Mary Kay | Aug 2, 2008 2:30:35 PM, I do hope you’re not seriously comparing this to Godwin’s law.
I brought the issue up in a specific context: the attempts by the Vatican to influence the policies and practices of the City of San Francisco with respect to child adoption by homosexuals.
I voiced the inappropriateness that I and many must feel that the Church, which has a history of covering up child abuse, should attempt to intervene in this matter and to purport to represent itself as a moral authority. The Ferns Inquiry, for the Irish government, is possibly the most complete investigation into such matters. The evidence gathered was damning and showed coverups and inappropriate reassignments by Bishop Herlihy of the diocese of Ferns (1964-1983) and his successor Brendan Comiskey (1984-2002).
You say “You’re unjustly maligning 96 percent of priests in this country.”
Nonsense. But seriously, are you alleging that as many as 4% of Catholic priests are child abusers?
Ah, I just saw your withdrawal of the “96%” figure. Okay, accepted.
To their credit,the American bishops have commissioned a study into this phenomenon of abuse of minors by clerics. The John Jay Report is the result.
Because of its nature, it deals only with alleged incidents and cannot distinguish between true allegations and malicious ones, so the results must be interpreted with caution.
PZ Myers has posted 334 times during university hours during the spring 2008 semester. Apparently, often during his lab classes. This is sufficient enough to have him dismissed.
>Ah, I just saw your withdrawal of the “96%” figure. Okay, accepted.
Which PROVES Mary Kay right about you are not reading posts.LOL!
What a loser.
Don’t feed the troll.
In that same vain…..
>And now the tricky part: do you believe that he should be sacked?
I wonder what part of “FIRE MYERS” I posted earlier was unclear?
BenYachov(Jim Scott IV) | Aug 2, 2008 3:44:40 PM, you wrote: “I wonder what part of “FIRE MYERS” I posted earlier was unclear?”
Well I was wondering if now you’d had a chance to rethink, you’d changed your mind and decided to avoid the errors of the Inquisition.
Assuming (as seems to be the case) that Myers’ university will persist in their refusal to fire Professor Myers, how do you propose to proceed?
BenYachov(Jim Scott IV you write “Which PROVES Mary Kay right about you are not reading posts.LOL!”
This is tiresome. Obviously if I were not reading her posts I would be unable to deny her claims that I am not. What I did was fail to find anything coherent or relevant in one of them, and then make a reply to another posting during the course of which she made a posting withdrawing a statement made in the earlier one–which I then courteously acknowledged.
And please, Jim, I’d appreciate it if you also would try to be courteous. It would make the discussion here much more pleasant for all of us if we all tried to stay courteous.
loses
This bringing up of Godwin’s Law and the like and whether someone wins or loses seems rather pointless. Discussion should not be about winning or losing. It is not a game. It should be about enlightenment and persuasion. If I argue for something and you argue for something else and I am persuaded that I am wrong and that you are right then I have not “lost”; I have actually “won” for I have been enlightened.
Voice in the Crowd | Aug 2, 2008 3:06:21 PM, you write “PZ Myers has posted 334 times during university hours during the spring 2008 semester. Apparently, often during his lab classes. This is sufficient enough to have him dismissed.”
Well if you really think that’s so, give it a go. You do know that Nature has listed him as the top Science blogger, don’t you? What do you think the community of scientists who avidly read that blog would say if they learned that he had been sacked for blogging during class, as a result of complaints by some Catholics who were annoyed at something he did at home?
CT | Aug 2, 2008 4:09:21 PM, you wrote: “This bringing up of Godwin’s Law and the like and whether someone wins or loses seems rather pointless.”
Indeed it is, though I note that it’s a game that has become rather popular.
“If I argue for something and you argue for something else and I am persuaded that I am wrong and that you are right then I have not “lost”; I have actually “won” for I have been enlightened.”
Exactly. I cannot learn what people think if I do not discuss matters of interest with them.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | Aug 2, 2008 1:23:31 PM, you wrote: “No self-respecting scientist would use Galileo’s proofs. It wasn’t until the 19th century science proved the Earth rotated. Clearly you never READ Galileo “proofs”. The tide proves the rotation of the Earth? Ah no the Foucum Pendilum does.”
Actually it is true that I have never read Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (though you were addressing another in the above).
John has said, correctly, that Galileo had empirical evidence to support his views. That is correct. The tides!
Of course it doesn’t stand in modern terms, because it was formulated in the period between the theories of Kepler and Newton. The belief at the time that Copernicus’ view contradicted a sacred book, doesn’t make it right to suppress Galileo’s work and to imprison him. Nor does the fact that his arguments were incorrect.
The topic of this post is,”P. Z. Myers won’t like this.”
This has nothing to do with:
1. The San Francisco City Council
2. The Inquisition
3. The Galileo Affair
4. Priest Abuse
When discussions veer so radically from the topic, its either time to start a new thread or end the discussion.
Da Rulz are the rules of the house which should be followed in exchange for being given the privilege to post in these comboxes. They clearly state that no hobbyhorses are to be brought up. It appears that some people have introduced hobbyhorses to the discussion.
For those who are new to this site, please, read Da Rulz before you post, again. We all slip, from time to time, but everyone should know about what is expected in these comboxes.
The Chicken
Masked Chicken,
Thanks for the reminder.
So, what was it PZ Myers wasn’t supposed to like, again?
>This is tiresome. Obviously if I were not reading her posts I would be unable to deny her claims that I am not.
I reply: Yes it is! No it isn’t. Yes it is! No it isn’t. Yes it is! No it isn’t. Yes it is! No it isn’t. Yes it is! No it isn’t. Yes it is! No it isn’t. Yes it is! No it isn’t. Yes it is! No it isn’t. Yes it is! No it isn’t. Yes it is! No it isn’t.Etc.
You silly “arguments” thus far are nothing more then the tactics of a Monty Python skit, only not as amusing. You CLEARLY haven’t read Mary Kay’s post since you HAVE NOT formulated SPECIFIC replies to her but have merely made contrary statements. Nobody is fooled.
>What I did was fail to find anything coherent or relevant in one of them, and then make a reply to another posting during the course of which she made a posting withdrawing a statement made in the earlier one–which I then courteously acknowledged.
Translation: You have no intelligent response to her points so you pretend she hasn’t made them & then go about the tedious task of restating your ORIGINAL arguments (throw in a dash of special pleading) as if it was self-evident much like I predicted you would.
>And please, Jim, I’d appreciate it if you also would try to be courteous. It would make the discussion here much more pleasant for all of us if we all tried to stay courteous.
I reply: Based on your behavior thus far I don’t in anyway trust you are a person of good will. In fact I don’t now believe your earlier apology to my wife was in anyway sincere, since not long after you made it you CONTINUED to behave in a snarky, obnoxious and condescending fashion.
You have done NOTHING but hurl abuse on Catholics here & threw out meaningless tangent accusations to justify the vile behavior of a man all rational & humane Atheists have unequivocally condemned(on voice in the Crowd’s blog such a person has posted. lovely fellow).
So cut the crap. You are not fooling anyone.
PS on last point.
>John has said, correctly, that Galileo had empirical evidence to support his views. That is correct. The tides!
I reply: Clearly you HAVE NOT been reading, further vindicating Mary Kay’s assessment of you. The Tides do NOT prove the rotation of the Earth but merely prove the effect of the Moon’s gravity on the Earth. A fulcrum pendulum was used to prove the rotation of the Earth. I would suggest some reading on the matter but as we can see by your past & continuing behavior it would profit you very little.
The Chicken is right of course so I will go elsewhere since you are boring me Tony. You may stay & test everyone’s patience until Jimmy Akin tires of you & gives you the boot for repeated violation of DA RULZ. I’d rather not watch.
Smeg ya later gimbod!
BOYZ FROM THE DWARF! IN SPACE NOBODY CAN HEAR YOU SMEG!!!
Benyachov(JimScott 4th) | Aug 2, 2008 6:58:55 PM, you write: “The Tides do NOT prove the rotation of the Earth but merely prove the effect of the Moon’s gravity on the Earth.”
Yes, that’s absolutely correct. We now know that the tides are not caused by the rotation of the earth. I’m sorry if that didn’t come across from my earlier postings.
I think you’re mistaking the statement “Galileo had empirical evidence to support his views” for the statement “the tides prove that Galileo was correct in his Copernican views.”
Galileo lacked the understanding of the role of gravity that we now have. In the absence of gravity, he surmised that the tides were due to frequent and regular acceleration and retardations in the rotational speed of the earth. His adoption of a rotating earth implied a heliocentric view. A few decades after Galileo’s death, Newton showed that gravity influenced all bodies, and it was easily shown that the tides were tidal forces, which are due to the differential of effects of a body’s gravitational force (the moon, for instance) across the extent of another body (the earth).
This is how scientists work. They formulate explanations which are discarded when a better one comes along or they fail to predict observation. It was the suppression of Galileo’s ideas and his imprisonment, because he taught them as fact and they disagreed with a certain interpretation of an ancient book that constituted the problem between science and Catholicism, which was only recently resolved for the Church by an apology for the errors made.
He taught the Heliocentric Theory of the Universe as fact, when he did not have the data to back up his claims, and after agreeing to teach the Heliocentric Theory of the Universe *as* theory. Nor, as we now know, would he ever have the data to back up the Heliocentric Theory of the Universe.
bill912 | Aug 2, 2008 8:06:34 PM, you write “He taught the Heliocentric Theory of the Universe as fact, when he did not have the data to back up his claims, and after agreeing to teach the Heliocentric Theory of the Universe *as* theory. Nor, as we now know, would he ever have the data to back up the Heliocentric Theory of the Universe.”
There are people in universities up and down the civilized world now teaching string theory even though they don’t have a shred of data to support it. It’s merely a coherent alternative way of looking at the world that shows some promise. They may never have the data to back up their theories. What are you going to do, stick them all in jail?
Oh hang on, bill912 and Benyachov(JimScott 4th) and I are back with the old “Galileo” hobby horse. Sorry guys, we have to stop there.
Note that he didn’t really address my post (as usual). He didn’t state that those teaching String Theory are teaching it as FACT(I capitalized “fact” because someone seems to have missed it before), as Galileo was (falsely) teaching the heliocentric model of the universe as fact.
Mwahahaha.. I have this post all to myself (no activity in four days).
The Chicken