> I'm not remotely interested in litigating most of this. This reminds me of the character in "Five Easy Pieces" who repeatedly says, "I don't want to talk abo

> I'm not remotely interested in litigating most of this. This reminds me of the character in "Five Easy Pieces" who repeatedly says, "I don't want to talk about this," while talking about it nonstop. > Anyone who tries to rationalize the legitimacy of the United States is in a similarly tricky rhetorical position ... Wait, did you just compare a government to a church? Governments aren't religions -- they don't posture as morally superior gateways to heaven. > If you cast your net several centuries back, it would be hard to find any group of people who don't have something truly appalling to excuse themselves for. Yes, true, which is why religions are in the impossible logical position of posturing about a moral superiority they can never substantiate. > Your comment created the perception that Galileo is a divisive issue amongst Catholics, or the Catholic church. I did nothing of the kind. Prove me wrong -- locate the quote in which I say that modern Catholics don't think Galileo is a hero of the scientific revolution. The word "is" in the above sentence is your choice -- by contrast, I took the position that Galileo was an issue for the church, until 1992 when he was rehabilitated. It's a simple matter of reading the words. And your reply completely vindicates the views in the post you replied to, a post in which I say, "I want to emphasize that I think the Catholic church is a fascinating entity with very many well-intentioned followers, but the thinly veiled intolerance for ideas outside the canon is a constant irritation." > Later, full disclosure: I polled Catholic school students in my office and found one person who had a Christian Brother teacher who believed Galileo to be a heretic. Shows to go you, you can find nutballs anywhere you look for them. There's a lot of rationalization in your prose. You do see this, yes?