You bet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#1616_ban_against...

In February 1616, the Inquisition assembled a committee of theologians, known as qualifiers, who delivered their unanimous report condemning Heliocentrism as "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."

This even landed Copernicus a spot on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (posthumously) even though he had been a Catholic cleric himself.

Another interesting bit of trivia: far from being a medieval artifact of ignorance and oppression, the Index existed until 1966. Galileo received an apology in 1992, and as far as I'm aware Giordano Bruno remains unpardoned.

But by all means, let's go back to the business of rehabilitating Christianity on the grounds that Bruno was a heretic, Hypatia a pagan, and Galileo an annoying jerk who got what was coming to him.

Another thing worth remembering is the historical context we're talking about. The list of books banned by Catholicism had a far more important meaning when the Catholic church was a state (or an instrument of the state). It hasn't been that for a very long time.

† (or, if you like, mainstream organized religions)

As for why monarchies (and theocracies) do inquisitions, just imagine what would happen if there were a Catholic majority in British parliament, a Muslim majority in parts of Spain back then or some non-Muslim majority in Saudi Arabia. The Church of England would be disolved by act of parliament and those territories would rebel and institute their own monarchs under their religions. The existing governments are not so stupid as let such things happen, so they to try to stay well ahead of them, both then and now. That way all of the existing bureaucrats will keep their jobs and everyone in the business of selling religious objects of the state religion will continue to meet quarterly earning expectations.

I usually try to steer clear of non-technology comments on the internet, but I felt that my 2 cents were sorely needed in this discussion. This back and forth fixation on inquisitions in Catholic countries ignores the larger picture where the religion that the government of the particular country chooses is irrelevant to whether any sort of inquisition is done.

We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo ... have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture

Other documents, such as those where Galileo was supposedly forced to abjure under threat of torture, use language which could be considered legal boilerplate of the day. He was not tortured nor was he in any real danger of being tortured. Galileo, old and frail, was put under house arrest and assigned a servant. As Alfred Whitehead put it, “In a generation which saw the Thirty Years’ War and remembered Alva in the Netherlands, the worst that happened to men of science was that Galileo suffered an honourable detention and a mild reproof, before dying peacefully in his bed.”

Because history is a stage of many actors and many forces, it is also worth noting that Copernicus dedicated "De Revolutionibus" to Paul III, and that his theory was met with interest by Clement VII as well as several cardinals (e.g., Schoenberg). Luther, on the other hand, vehemently rejected heliocentrism. Tycho Brahe argued against it. The point here is that the story of Galileo is repeated ad nauseum by people all too eager to believe in the fairy tale of the big, bad Church and the narrative that the West has been progressively liberating itself from its grip, beginning with the Reformation and followed by the Enlightenment. The more one becomes acquainted with the story of Galileo, the more one sees that it is to a large degree a story of an ornery scientist who was scientifically irresponsible in his aggressive promotion of an unproved hypothesis and who lent fodder to his enemies and made enemies of his friends by engaging in harassment and personal attacks. That does not perhaps justify his condemnation and subsequent house arrest, but all things considered and during an age when brutal punishments were the norm, it seems a little more than ridiculous to hold this up as an example of great conflict between the Superheroes of Science and the Villainous Church. Indeed, it is no accident that science flourished in the West. I refer those interested to Duhem who traces the ideas of physicists such as Newton to scholastic thought.

Also of interest, Galileo's recantation: http://law2.umkc.edu/Faculty/projects/FTrials/galileo/recant...

> an easy one since slandering the Church is acceptable and even respectable today

Slandering the church...

They have opposed science... molested children and protected molesters... Started wars... controlled countries... and if you are an atheist you might think that the very idea of religion is peddling in lies. I happen to think that.

Any secular group protecting molesters or starting a single war would not exist long enough to be slandered. They committed crimes and rode Jesus to avoid prosecution. Many of those individuals died hundreds of years and avoided justice, but the organization that enabled it still exists.

> It's all too common that people think it's okay to slander anyone you don't like or disagree with.

I am not for slandering the church. I acknowledge that the organized religions are a net loss for humanity and I would see them dismantled. What little good they do I would see replaced with secular institutions that are accountable for their negative actions.

You never hear about a school, corporation or non-profit NGO immolating or imprisoning people they disagree with. A group of otherwise moral people burning a human alive requires god.