In history, we're having a mock trial, trying Galileo for heresy, and I'm Galileo's attorney. I've already finished my argument, direct-examinations, and stuff. So I'm not looking for homework help, and I won't steal your ideas. But I found it a really fun argument. So, what are people's opinions?

Well, yeah, that's what I meant. I call everything from Everett to Tacoma "Seattle." I know there are distinctions, but living in a small town for the past five years has made me forget what suburbs are like.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I did. I got the Pope to admit that scripture doesn't always need to be interpretted literally (I was so proud of myself when I did that. It was awesome. Boy did he buck. Oh well, that's more that he wasn't prepared than I was all that ingenious), and then I tried to prove that Galileo was only being theoretical, and he was pious and would never try to accuse the church of being liars or somethign like that. And then another on the defense team pointed out that certificate given to Galileo stated that he couldn't hold or defend the ideas. Teaching them was never forbidden, so he didn't even break the promise that he'd given Cardinal Bellarmine. I think that one was a pretty good point.

However, the prosecution, the guy who cross-examined Galileo, brought out the Webster's Dictionary (which he shouldn't have been able to, because it wasn't written. He apparently asked the judges previously, and they said he could, but we didn't know that. I would have liked to use some dictionaries, I must say).

...I WANT THOSE VERDICTS

clpo, I don't actually live in Seattle. I live in a suburb of a suburb of a suburb...and we didn't have power for eight days. Fun times.

quote:

here in Seattle we had a HUGE windstorm, and power was knocked out to the entire Western half of Washington, and a lot of roads were blocked, we didn't have school that day.

Hey, I didn't know you lived in Seattle! That was a nasty windstorm. Luckily, I was off on winter break when it hit (I go to UW but live further north), so I missed the power outages.

Anyways, back on topic.

Amp's right. At least that worked for me when I was on the defense for Louis XIV. Well it sort of worked. The judges decided not to execute him at least.

quote:

So how do I defend him?

make like a real defense attorney. tell extremely convincing lies and try to get any evidence brought up by the prosecution thrown out as "inadmissable"

Exactly why defending Galileo against the charges of heresy is so difficult. BECAUSE GALILEO WAS A HERETIC! So how do I defend him?

Speed, I go to a regular high school, but I'm in IB, if you guys know what that is. We do this sort of stuff in IB.

Anyways, the trial went pretty well. Our cross-examinations went beautifully, as did the direct examinations. The prosecution, I must say, was REALLY weak. I'm friends with two of the "judges" (call it corruption if you want), and they both say that the only thing that even made them think about giving it to the prosecution is the one attorney who all he did was cross-examine Galileo, was AMAZING.

But anyways, we were supposed to get the verdicts on the Friday before Christmas vacation (December 15), but since here in Seattle we had a HUGE windstorm, and power was knocked out to the entire Western half of Washington, and a lot of roads were blocked, we didn't have school that day.

quote:

When did that become heresy?

Uh.... when it went against the teachings of the church at that time? As HL said the fact that he was right has nothing do with the fact that in the churches eyes at that time he committed heresy by going against what the church's thought on the matter was at that time.

Galileo wanted to prove that science and religon were one and the same. He was a very strong believer in his faith. The fact that he went against the vain members of the Church who thought the earth was the center of everything in the universe is awesome. He was differant than them. When did that become heresy?

Unfortunately, the fact that Galileo was right has nothing to do with the fact that he did commit heresy. As far as I understand, heresy was going against the teachings of the church yeah? Well, proving that Earth is not the center of the universe went against what the church was teaching at the time...

How did the trial go anyway?

what kind of school do you go to?

quote:

Well concidering it wasn't until the 90's that they "forgave" Galileo....

That is absurd. So sad.

Well concidering it wasn't until the 90's that they "forgave" Galileo....

I don't know where i'm going with that... I think I was going to say something about the Catholic Church being lame.

What do you mean by heresy? Heresy according to the Roman Catholic Church at that time, or heresy in general? In Galileo's time, saying anything contrary to the stance of the Church was heresy, no matter how much proof you had, so I'd say he was guilty using that logic. But if you say that since he had evidence to back up his claims, he was right and the Church was wrong, then he'd be innocent.

I guess. I'm not too clear on what being innocent or guilty amounts to in this situation.