Mwahahaha.. I have this post all to myself (no activity in four days).
The Chicken

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

>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!!!

So, what was it PZ Myers wasn't supposed to like, again?

Masked Chicken,
Thanks for the reminder.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

>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.

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.

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.

Ah, I just saw your withdrawal of the "96%" figure. Okay, accepted.

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?

BenYachov:
"Sanity is overated as is good spelling.:-)"
Thats quote magic! Gotta get that one up on the dept electronic "quotes of note" list.

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.

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.

Oh, silly me. I said "executed" when I meant "declared heretics".
They were then tried by the secular authorities, who did the dirty work.

"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.

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?

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.

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?

>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.

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.

Sanity is overated as is good spelling.:-)

Is it just me or does anyone else think whoever is behind BenYachov posts is a tad unhinged?

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_Controvers...
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!

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.

>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.

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.

>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!

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

the above should read "Heretics were considered traitors IN A Catholic confessional state..." Sorry for the typo.
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.

+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,