Anyone remember this statshot? I think I need to make an addition at the bottom: "Any character from Stargate SG-1 who is remotely religious."

Because, as we all know, all religious people are superstitiously one-dimensional.

Take the episode we most recently watched, "New Ground", in which a scientist, searching to find evidence of his people's religious claim that their god, Nefertum, created life on their planet, unearths the Stargate, thus proving their enemies' position that Nefertum brought humans to that planet as slaves through a magic gateway.

Of course, the episode has the contractually-obligated (it must be somewhere in the SG-1 contract) one-dimensional religious zealot, who when confronted with the evidence, proclaims that it's a trick of their enemies, because he can't be wrong: he's studied The Book and devoted his life to it! The only way this character could be improved would be if he had a Snidely Whiplash-esque mustache to twirl while torturing the members of SG-1. The actor who played him also bears a striking resemblance to Bruce Campbell, which does not help the Campiness Factor.

The scientist who discovers the Stargate is also equally one-dimensional, and he, in fact, delivers the best line of the entire episode.

Scientist: "I must show my colleagues at the research academy."
Teal'c: "Can you be certain they will believe you?"
Scientist: "They are scientists as I am. They will realize they are wrong when presented with the evidence."
Me: "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA–eh"

"But Joe," you explain, "that's a fair depiction. After all, The Church has a terrible track record of persecuting scientists for undermining the obviously false, silly, and superstitious beliefs of Christians. Scientists, however, are noble and pure-hearted, only seeking out The Truth to better enlighten person-kind."

"Oh, really," I respond. "Care to provide an example?"

"Of course. Galileo was imprisoned (tortured, put to death, depending on how ignorant you are) for stating the simple fact that the Earth revolved around the Sun. The Evil Church, in its attempts to brainwash the masses and keep them ignorant and under her control, despised any sort of learning and oppressed those who favored The Truth."

"Oh, really," I respond. "Wanna bet?"

It's interesting to read a real account of Galileo's tribulations. It is nowhere as interesting as the conspiracy theory proposed by most Good Scientists (which, by the way, is an absolutely terrific conspiracy theory, as they go; conspiracy theories involving massive church cover-ups are always so amusing, the most important quality of any good conspiracy theory). It is in fact rather dull. Instead of the fascinating tale of a brave man heroically standing defiant against the oppressive Church, we get a rather dull tale of a man who flip-flopped about what he had agreed to talk about, and, through his arrogance and discourtesy towards his opponents, found himself at the wrong end of an Inquisition. And, unfortunately, even that wasn't one of those good clap-him-in-irons, string-him-up-by-his-thumbs inquisitions. No, instead it was more like a tribunal to determine if he had kept his word.

The claim that the Church was trying to suppress the Copernican system because it represented Scientific Progress and a challenge to its teachings is just so wrong on so many levels. Firstly, the theory of heliocentrism was first posited by, and named after, a churchman, Nicholas Copernicus. He published his ideas at the urgings of two churchman, Cardinal Schömberg and Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Culm. That work was dedicated by permission of Pope Paul III, in hopes that it would be protected from the attacks of mathematicians (scientists!).

Copernicus himself was not persecuted in any way by the church (but did receive strong condemnations by Luther) and for 75 years after, the Catholic Church offered no opposition to Copernicanism. Galileo, during his early years, was also in good standing with the church and on occasion of his trip to Rome in 1611, he set up his telescope in a garden belonging to Cardinal Bandim, to show sunspots to the admiring crowd.

It wasn't until later that he began to get into trouble. Perhaps, it could be said that Galileo had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Had he lived 100 years earlier or 100 years later, perhaps he would not have received any persecution. But he happened to live just at the height of the Protestant Revolution, where any novel interpretations of Scripture were looked at suspiciously. Anyways, in 1615 he presented himself in Rome, where he was graciously received, to explain himself before the inquisition which was (are you ready for this?) concerned that he was being un-scientific! At the time, the known evidence was in favor of a geocentric system, and Galileo himself was not able to prove that false with the evidence he had. As such, the Inquisition declared his teachings to be scientifically false and heretical. Galileo agreed not to teach Copernicanism as fact and that was that.

There are two interesting things that should be noted about that inquisition of 1616. Firstly, they did not forbid Galileo to discuss heliocentrism. They only said it should be discussed as hypothesis, not fact. Secondly is that the members of the Inquisition themselves did not seem to find their ruling final and absolute. Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the Inquisition, himself wrote:

"I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated."

Of course this decision was wrong. We can very easily say that now, since we have empirically observed, by means of advanced telescopes, measuring equipment, and various probes the motion of the bodies within the solar system. But that does not mean it was as obvious at the time. Also, we now have a better understanding of the scriptures and recognize, as Galileo put it, that "the Bible teaches men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." This was not necessarily obvious at that time (from what example should people have known it?)

Anyways, Galileo lived on peaceably, even visiting Rome in 1624, to a positive reception, until 1632, when he published a dialogue that mocked the geocentrist viewpoint. This being in disagreement with his former promise, brought him again before the Inquisition, which was not a debate about Ptolemaic vs. Copernican systems, but merely an investigation if he had kept his word. Galileo proclaimed that he had not taught Copernicanism since his trial of 1616. The Inquisition didn't believe him and convicted him of heresy, sentencing him to imprisonment. He spent a grand total of 22 days in imprisonment at the buildings of the Inquisition, not in a cell, but in an apartment of an official of the inquisition. After that, he lived out the rest of his life, still technically under "imprisonment", at the houses of friends, until his death in 1642.

So the claim that the Church was trying to prevent the spread of scientific truth is wholly false, otherwise other great proponents of heliocentrism, such as Copernicus and (perhaps the greatest astronomer of the age) Kepler would have come under fire for it, but no such thing happened to either. Also, the idea that the scientists would run to embrace the truth, once they had seen the facts was also false, as Galileo was unable to convince Bacon, Milton, and even the great Tycho Brahé (no, not that Tycho) of his ideas.

And this is the case all through-out history. Louis Pasteur received the most scorn and condemnation from other scientists, who insisted that maggots grew spontaneously from rotten meat, or that a dew drop would create aphids. The fundamental truth that the writers of Stargate are forgetting is that all men have faith, even scientists. After all, have you ever tried to prove, empirically, the principle of non-contradiction?

(this article plagiarized from the Catholic Encyclopedia)