Science says Conservatives happier than Liberals...

[bbqpenguin]

not sure if this has been brought up before, but my dad who's a big time libertarian recently sent me this link from the washington post


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02012.html

[Jenos Ridan]

Abraham Lincoln. Worst. President. Evah.

Everybody in their right mind knows it goes:

Jimmy "peanut man" Carter (Iran, anyone? That aside, he blamed the deaths of the 1980 St Helens eruption on the few idiots who ignored the Federal and State warnings when most of the deaths occured WAY outside the area the government, HIS administration, had set in place. And this scumbag has the audacity to appear in the News after all this?!)

Followed closely by....

Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton (this miserable prick had the chance to nip Al Queda in the bud by taking out Osama but didn't have the balls. But somehow he had the balls to cheat on his wife.)

Bush Sr. (said "no new taxes" and then hiked the damn taxes. 'Nuff said.)

Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon (can be summed up in one word: Watergate.)

Lynden B. Johnson (oversaw the complete mishandling of Vietnam; Reason #1 why we lost. Reason number two is also his fault, that moron Westmoreland.)

Herbert Hoover (He had the nerve to say that nothing bad was happening as people began to starve durring the Depression.)

From there, we move into the more mundane, unimportant Presidents like Filmore and eventually into good ones like Teddy Roosevelt.

Wow...that's some fucking impressive own general knowledge. You ever consider going who wants to be a millionaire?

Are you being funny or an arse? I can't tell at the moment, so I'll hazard to act in the case of the latter.

I didn't care to go indepth with each and every one. But certainly a superior show to your lame one-liner about Lincoln; I at least bothered to put something resembling facts forward.

And I believe to ment to say "You ever consider going on "Who whats to be a Millionaire?"" If that were proceeded by "Do" or "Have", that would be even more proper.

Still think you're so hot now, wiseguy?

[Napoleon Ier]

Yes. Yes I do. Any more pointless questions?

[MeDeFe]

I see two typos in the one and a half line paragraph where Jenos corrects Nappy's grammar. One of them is quite severe.

[Napoleon Ier]

I see two typos in the one and a half line paragraph where Jenos corrects Nappy's grammar. One of them is quite severe.

Thanks for coming out on my side, my Bolsho-leftist Commiue-sympathising pseudo-masonico-socialist friend. It means a lot to me.

[Iliad]

I see two typos in the one and a half line paragraph where Jenos corrects Nappy's grammar. One of them is quite severe.

Thanks for coming out on my side, my Bolsho-leftist Commiue-sympathising pseudo-masonico-socialist friend. It means a lot to me.

or you know you can be a normal person and call him Medefe.

[Napoleon Ier]

I see two typos in the one and a half line paragraph where Jenos corrects Nappy's grammar. One of them is quite severe.

Thanks for coming out on my side, my Bolsho-leftist Commiue-sympathising pseudo-masonico-socialist friend. It means a lot to me.

or you know you can be a normal person and call him Medefe.

And you know you can't be a normal person until you find a way of donating your spare chromosome. The point is, the pseudo-Boche has been humiliated, and I'm glad.

[MeDeFe]

Thanks for coming out on my side, my Bolsho-leftist Commiue-sympathising pseudo-masonico-socialist friend. It means a lot to me.

or you know you can be a normal person and call him Medefe.

And you know you can't be a normal person until you find a way of donating your spare chromosome. The point is, the pseudo-Boche has been humiliated, and I'm glad.

Just to clarify this, is the pseudo-Boche supposed to be me or Jenos, and if it's supposed to be me (which seems the likelier option from the meaning of the word 'Boche'), how have I been in any way humiliated? And anyway, I'mjust fulfilling my duty as a grammar nazi.

[Napoleon Ier]

Thanks for coming out on my side, my Bolsho-leftist Commiue-sympathising pseudo-masonico-socialist friend. It means a lot to me.

or you know you can be a normal person and call him Medefe.

And you know you can't be a normal person until you find a way of donating your spare chromosome. The point is, the pseudo-Boche has been humiliated, and I'm glad.

Just to clarify this, is the pseudo-Boche supposed to be me or Jenos, and if it's supposed to be me (which seems the likelier option from the meaning of the word 'Boche'), how have I been in any way humiliated? And anyway, I'mjust fulfilling my duty as a grammar nazi.

The pseudo-Boche is Jenos, I had no clue you were a Grammar Nazi.

Now let's relive some good times:

[MeDeFe]

Well, I read that 'Boche' is a derogatory french word for Germans, and seeing what nationality CC takes me for... well.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, I read that 'Boche' is a derogatory french word for Germans, and seeing what nationality CC takes me for... well.

Yeah...come to think of it, pseudo-Boche isn't all that insulting. I mean, it's like saying he's trying to be a baby-spearing bear-swilling jewicidal maniac in tight leather shorts speaking like he has a golf-ball rammed halfway down his throat but he's just too much of a nice guy to be a proper Boche. On the other hand, say what you will about their culinary talents and gustational habits, but the bastards are fucking efficient, especially when it comes to marching down the Champs-Elysées in a stylethat puts John Cleese to shame.

[Jucdor]

First of all, it was the Byzantines that had preserved the culture and science of the Greeks during the Dark and Middle Ages (especially since the Byzantines kind of controlled the area), also the Roman Catholic Church had some of the works of the Ancients, and it was during the Renaissance that these works (both science and stories) came back into the public.

Yes, Byzantium kept the culture alive as well and for almost a thousand years it was unmatched from West. However once the crusaders sacked Constantiple in 1204 Byzantium really never came back as a great power, not in military, economic or cultural sense. So all in all once the West had had enough new thoughts to call it a renaissance, Byzantium had pretty much vanished and thus it was arab scholars that knew ancient texts most well and it was muslim world Europe had to turn to to find its own roots. And thanks to that we still know names like Avicenna or Algazel and many others muslim scholars.

Also, one needs to think of the Popes as individuals, and not all of them lumped together as a single person. The only things that they had in common was that they were Catholic, the Pope, and the Religious leader of the Roman Catholics. There were Popes that were generals, ones that were artists, ones that were major supporters of Science, and many more with varying interests.

Quite right. And they did play a very important role when the West was trying to find its identity.

[muy_thaiguy]

First of all, it was the Byzantines that had preserved the culture and science of the Greeks during the Dark and Middle Ages (especially since the Byzantines kind of controlled the area), also the Roman Catholic Church had some of the works of the Ancients, and it was during the Renaissance that these works (both science and stories) came back into the public.

Yes, Byzantium kept the culture alive as well and for almost a thousand years it was unmatched from West. However once the crusaders sacked Constantiple in 1204 Byzantium really never came back as a great power, not in military, economic or cultural sense. So all in all once the West had had enough new thoughts to call it a renaissance, Byzantium had pretty much vanished and thus it was arab scholars that knew ancient texts most well and it was muslim world Europe had to turn to to find its own roots. And thanks to that we still know names like Avicenna or Algazel and many others muslim scholars.

Also, one needs to think of the Popes as individuals, and not all of them lumped together as a single person. The only things that they had in common was that they were Catholic, the Pope, and the Religious leader of the Roman Catholics. There were Popes that were generals, ones that were artists, ones that were major supporters of Science, and many more with varying interests.

Quite right. And they did play a very important role when the West was trying to find its identity.

One problem with the first part, the Turks were not, are not, and have never been Arabs. They had a tendency to burn and desecrate many things not to their liking.

And again, many histories, stories, and other manuscripts from the ancients had been collected and preserved in Rome long before the empire split into two. It was during the Renaissance that these were finally released again to the public. Considering that the Turks were one people that the Crusaders never got along with, and that the Turks were a huge threat to Europe as a whole. And considering that it was only about 50 years after Constantinople was sacked that the Turks then laid siege to it. So of course it wouldn't have had time to fully recover in almost any aspect (though the walls surprisingly held out for around 6 months against the heavy cannon fire of the Turks).

[tzor]

Are you saying that because Mendel was a monk which gave him a lot of free time for his experiments and made sure he didn't have to do any real work to pay for food and things like that the catholic church is a pioneer of genetics?

Note to self : Yell at self for hitting wrong button and deleting my entire reply. I'm normally a wite once type of person, doing a rewrite from memory is like picking on a fresh scab, but I'll do it anyway.

What I am saying is in providing for the free room board and the environment the church (it is silly to use the term "catholic church" prior to the reformation and the creation of "names" or denominations; the church was always considered as per the creed "one, holy, catholic and apostolic") helped nurture the sciences. It even encouraged and nurtured the universities.

(Medieval Universities) One of the key figures in the rise of the medieval university was Pope Gregory VII. In 1079, he issued a papal decree mandating the creation of cathedral schools that would be responsible for educafting the clergy. This decree ultimately led to the proliferation of educational centers which evolved over time into the universities of medieval Europe. In Italy,the University of Bologna was founded in 1088 while the University of Paris coalesced out of a loose conglomeration of various monastry schools and the center at Notre Dame some time around 1119. In 1231 under the sponsorship of Robert Sorbon, a theological college was established. Over the centuries this theological college would evolve and emerge as the Sorbonne University of Paris. In England various different colleges were established in Oxford between 1167-1185, and in 1209 the first college of the University of Cambridge was established. Some of the earliest colleges to have been formed included Balliol College founded in 1260 by John Balliol in Oxford. At Cambridge, Pembroke College was founded by Mary de St. Pol, wife of the Earl of Pembroke in 1347, and Corpus Christi College in 1352.

It is also wrong to suggest that the Church stoped science from spreading in the Rennisance. Art, science and religion were great friends in those days and their patrons were the rich merchant classes, the rich nobles and the rich churches.

(The Union of Art and Science in the Renaissance) One of the unique characteristics of the Renaissance was its integrative aspect. Unlike the boundaries between disciplines and activities, as say between the arts and the sciences, that were to be imposed strictly in later periods of history, the activities of women and men of the Renaissance frequently overlapped, or were absorbed into the same project. Artists like Leonardo and Michaelangelo performed dissections on human bodies and were superb anatomists. Interest in mathematics meant that mathematical perspectives became possible in works by artists such as Brunelleschi, Masolino and Masaccio. In their paintings, two dimensional spaces are rendered as three through mathematically precise positioning of planes and angles. Similarly, the world of science was informed by the Aristotelian idea that understanding the natural world required systematic observation, experience and the careful study of nature. Discovery in the Aristotelian view ultimately meant the uncovering of precise mathematical structures beneath the appearence of physical events and phenomena.

[Napoleon Ier]

First of all, it was the Byzantines that had preserved the culture and science of the Greeks during the Dark and Middle Ages (especially since the Byzantines kind of controlled the area), also the Roman Catholic Church had some of the works of the Ancients, and it was during the Renaissance that these works (both science and stories) came back into the public.

Yes, Byzantium kept the culture alive as well and for almost a thousand years it was unmatched from West. However once the crusaders sacked Constantiple in 1204 Byzantium really never came back as a great power, not in military, economic or cultural sense. So all in all once the West had had enough new thoughts to call it a renaissance, Byzantium had pretty much vanished and thus it was arab scholars that knew ancient texts most well and it was muslim world Europe had to turn to to find its own roots. And thanks to that we still know names like Avicenna or Algazel and many others muslim scholars.

Also, one needs to think of the Popes as individuals, and not all of them lumped together as a single person. The only things that they had in common was that they were Catholic, the Pope, and the Religious leader of the Roman Catholics. There were Popes that were generals, ones that were artists, ones that were major supporters of Science, and many more with varying interests.

Quite right. And they did play a very important role when the West was trying to find its identity.

Yeah...great, so...Johnny Arab copies out (rather poorly and incompletely, I might add) a load of Plato and Aristotle, nicks a few mathematical concepts from the Assyrians and Persians, calls them his own ( classic darkie trickery), and I should be impressed because...?

[Jucdor]

One problem with the first part, the Turks were not, are not, and have never been Arabs. They had a tendency to burn and desecrate many things not to their liking.

Whoa! Bad reputation really does die hard. On the contrary Turks were a much tolerant people than christians at the time and the reputation popes put on them is hardly deserved. It was evident already to Murad II that he could take Constantinople by force if he wanted to, but he knew it would fall into his hands without a fight if he just waited. And it did eventually, but to his son and if I remember right that after his death when his son attacked the town it had only 7000 men at arms. 7000! And let's not forget that before crusaders sacked it it was probably the greatest and most populated city on the globe. It was Venice that made Byzantium unlivable. When the disaster came with the 4th crusader, Venice & Genoa took out the economy from Byzantium by taking its trade fleet by force and directing the Black Sea trade to themselves. That had been the source of wealth Byzantium had relied on and after that was gone so was Byzantium. Particularly when at the same time they lost direct control on their wheat areas in Asia. However, Constantinople rose back to its glory once Ottomans took over. They not only let Venice merchants do their usual business, they gave them trade deals that were so lucrative compared to anything at that time that (in an era when everything was very heavily taxed) the city regained it status as a center of trade.

And again, many histories, stories, and other manuscripts from the ancients had been collected and preserved in Rome long before the empire split into two. It was during the Renaissance that these were finally released again to the public. Considering that the Turks were one people that the Crusaders never got along with, and that the Turks were a huge threat to Europe as a whole. And considering that it was only about 50 years after Constantinople was sacked that the Turks then laid siege to it. So of course it wouldn't have had time to fully recover in almost any aspect (though the walls surprisingly held out for around 6 months against the heavy cannon fire of the Turks).

I don't know where you've read your history, but 50 years after the sacking the original owners were just trying to get it back from Western Europeans. The walls itself wasn't damaged by the crusaders - as they were supposed to come to Byzantium's aid and not end up killing, raping and stealing everything.

[Jucdor]

(Medieval Universities) One of the key figures in the rise of the medieval university was Pope Gregory VII. In 1079, he issued a papal decree mandating the creation of cathedral schools that would be responsible for educafting the clergy. This decree ultimately led to the proliferation of educational centers which evolved over time into the universities of medieval Europe. In Italy,the University of Bologna was founded in 1088 while the University of Paris coalesced out of a loose conglomeration of various monastry schools and the center at Notre Dame some time around 1119. In 1231 under the sponsorship of Robert Sorbon, a theological college was established. Over the centuries this theological college would evolve and emerge as the Sorbonne University of Paris. In England various different colleges were established in Oxford between 1167-1185, and in 1209 the first college of the University of Cambridge was established. Some of the earliest colleges to have been formed included Balliol College founded in 1260 by John Balliol in Oxford. At Cambridge, Pembroke College was founded by Mary de St. Pol, wife of the Earl of Pembroke in 1347, and Corpus Christi College in 1352.

Hmmm... let's see. Europe in ruins. Small feudal, barbaric states. Priests still need to know how to read and catholic church is the biggest organisation - the only organisation that can work on a continental basis. So yes, once formal education was to emerge again after ancient times, it was no surprise that it came from churches needs. And since we know that everything did go well for Western Europe eventually as Byzantium fell so orthodox church wasn't really a rival anymore and muslims don't really count, because they're aliens, sure even the highest education form we nowadays have does go back to the catholic church. However what we should look more closely is what other cultures had on education and science at the moment. Let's make comparison on religion, science & education on the arabs, byzantium & western europe.

Religion:
Western Europe: Catholic, fight between secular and ecclestial powers.
Byzantium: Orthodox, more tolerant, but did have dispute over icons.
Arabs: Islamic, tolerant towards other religions

Science:
Western Europe: Religion replaced rationalism. The big thing was that religion was the same as science.
Byzantium: Secular topics. Science went well forward
Arabs: Hellenistic science, far ahead of Byzantium for example in medicine, astronomy and mathematics.

Education:
Western Europe: Schools at churches. In Universities there were four department, philosophical, theological, law & medical
Byzantium: The ancient education tradition never disappeared and neither did its topics.
Arabs: Ecclestial & secular teachings were strictly separated.


Now the only thing I'm glad about Western Europe for the that period is that thank god the universities slowly became independent.

It is also wrong to suggest that the Church stoped science from spreading in the Rennisance. Art, science and religion were great friends in those days and their patrons were the rich merchant classes, the rich nobles and the rich churches.

No, the world isn't that black and white. Education did rise from the church's needs, but it's greatest impact came when it managed to get out of churches grip and became independent. Sure my former lecturers seemed to value the theological teachings and depate skills that are still valid today, but let's face it - church burned people at stake when they claimed that blood runs in our veins or that space is infinite.

[tzor]

No, the world isn't that black and white. Education did rise from the church's needs, but it's greatest impact came when it managed to get out of churches grip and became independent. Sure my former lecturers seemed to value the theological teachings and depate skills that are still valid today, but let's face it - church burned people at stake when they claimed that blood runs in our veins or that space is infinite.

And I have to strongly disagree. The problem here is that in Europe there is only one historical timeline and the history of the sciences cannot be seperated from the history of the church. Remember that it was Luther who wanted to hang and burn Gallelio, not the Pope. You also have a number of other problems, shared by the sciences and religion, that were a part of the Renissance. There were many who considered the wisdom and science of the greeks which they had just rediscovered as "gospel" even though some ideas were actually flatout wrong. It took a few centuries to get over Aristotle worship for example.

The first person who described blood flow in veins was burnt at the stake alright, but not because he described blood flow in veins. He was condemned because he argued strongly against the trinity. This is a problem that existed in this day. The same work (Christianismi Restitutio) that described blood circulation also "rejected the idea of predestination and the idea that God had condemned souls to Hell regardless of worth or merit." This apparently pissed off Calvin as well. Here's Calvin's writings to one of his friends about this man.

"Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive."

He apparently had pissed off everyone who was anyone in religious circles.

Martin Luther had condemned his writing in strong terms. Servetus and Philip Melanchthon had strongly hostile views of each other. Most Protestant Reformers saw Servetus as a dangerous radical, and the concept of religious freedom did not really exist yet. The Catholic world had also imprisoned him and condemned him to death, which apparently spurred Calvin to equal their rigor. Those who went against the idea of his execution, the party called "Libertines", drew the ire of much of Christendom. On 24 October Servetus was sentenced to death by burning for denying the Trinity and infant baptism. When Calvin requested that Servetus be executed by decapitation rather than fire, Farel, in a letter of September 8, chided him for undue lenity, and the Geneva Council refused his request. On 27 October 1553 Servetus was burned at the stake just outside Geneva with what was believed to be the last copy of his book chained to his leg. Historians record his last words as: "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me."

That is the problem with the question of science and religion. Here you have a classic example of a person who dabbled in both. But people prefer to use the classic church (and by that typically the Roman Catholic Church) against science because they need simple justifications to support their hatred and bigotry.

But in the end who burned him? Not the church, the state, the "Geneva Council." What wonderful times those times were. (And thus it shall be said of us by those who will come after us.)

[Snorri1234]

That is the problem with the question of science and religion. Here you have a classic example of a person who dabbled in both.

Which is exactly the reason why it's a good thing the universities got independent. The issues rarely got seperated, and therefore lots of valuable info and scientists got lost because their beliefs didn't match with the church.

Sure the church helped the advance, but it also slowed it.

[Jenos Ridan]

First: This was about Right and Left. What Happened?

Second: Islam is TOLERANT?! Whoever suggests that is insane, or at least is ignorant of what the Koran and Hadith dictate, and have dictated since the days of Muhammad.

[Jenos Ridan]

Yes. Yes I do. Any more pointless questions?

No. Just one statement:

Wow, you are conceited. And arrogant does not begin to describe you. Pompass, too, does not quite cover it all. But troll covers enough.

I'll spell this out for you kid, you know nothing. No if's and's or but's, You truelly do not know a damn thing. You think you do, but you have not earned that right. That is why the above statement is there, to lay this down in no uncertain terms.

Come back when you have graduated from high school and swallowed some humble pie.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yes. Yes I do. Any more pointless questions?

graduate from high school

I might suggest the same to you, sir.

[tzor]

Which is exactly the reason why it's a good thing the universities got independent. The issues rarely got seperated, and therefore lots of valuable info and scientists got lost because their beliefs didn't match with the church.

That really had nothing to do with the universities being independent. It had a lot to do with the mindset becomming independent. This is not unique to science, this happened in engineering texts as well, there are classic engineering texts in which in between diagrams of engines waxes on philosophy. This was happening long after the reformation in countries like the United States.

In fact one can even see the influence in the 19th century and into the start of the 20th centuty. The United States didn't get real serious on the sciences and science education until the cold war.

[jonesthecurl]

Yes. Yes I do. Any more pointless questions?

No. Just one statement:

Wow, you are conceited. And arrogant does not begin to describe you. Pompass, too, does not quite cover it all. But troll covers enough.

I'll spell this out for you kid, you know nothing. No if's and's or but's, You truelly do not know a damn thing. You think you do, but you have not earned that right. That is why the above statement is there, to lay this down in no uncertain terms.

Come back when you have graduated from high school and swallowed some humble pie.

You know, I seldom agree with the Little Corsican, but I don't see how you can accuse him of knowing nothing. He may be wrong usually (what do I mean may be? ), but he is seldom uninformed. Conceited, yes. Arrogant (yes it does begin to describe him). Pompous, certainly. Wrong, mm-hmm. But totally ignorant? No.

[Jucdor]

First of all tzor:
I really enjoy our conversation. It is more than refreshing, it's extremely nice to have someone backing up the catholic church with some view on things. You do seem to put words into my mouth though, but I take your word for it that often there could be people who just want to blame the catholic church as indeed with the Renessaince and Reformation a whole new identity of nations were formed and it was seen as opposite to the problems with catholic church. However...

And I have to strongly disagree. The problem here is that in Europe there is only one historical timeline and the history of the sciences cannot be seperated from the history of the church. Remember that it was Luther who wanted to hang and burn Gallelio, not the Pope. You also have a number of other problems, shared by the sciences and religion, that were a part of the Renissance. There were many who considered the wisdom and science of the greeks which they had just rediscovered as "gospel" even though some ideas were actually flatout wrong. It took a few centuries to get over Aristotle worship for example.

Yes, and nowadays there isn't anymore local history as everything is connected to global developments. But all kidding aside, you're right that church was such a powerful organisation that one cannot skip it. And it's not my intention to say church was all bad or that the new ideas were all good. The way I see it is that the medieval time is very much equal to what China experienced after they got freed from the Mongol rule. They turned their eyes into the past and opposed anything not-chinese, alien. The same was with Europe in medieval. This world was not important as this was just a place to prepare for the joys in the afterlife. So it was sinful to question church's doctrine and that is why even the mighty kings got into trouble at first as they were usually the only ones powerful enough to dare to think "out of the box" of that time. The church had domination over people's minds and souls. But what I see unfair from the catholic camp is that they/you fail to admit that the scientist who reshaped the world were all revolutionaries. If they had denounced God alltogether they would've been killed for sure. And such an idea was so alien I don't even think anyone had even began to suspect god wouldn't exist. But that still doesn't change the fact that the most parts in the big change did not come from the church, but from a source that was bold enough to think for themselves and thus they are not in line with the church. I know only too well that the protestant churches at the beginning could be just as intolerant as the catholic church had been as was the case in Finland(Sweden) where the new lutheran chuch had even more powerful grip on people's throat than the earlier catholic church. So yes, all the scientist were deeply religious people - as were everyone else. It wasn't a secular time and thanks to that if you were to hold ancient texts over the Bible you often were way too tempted to replace the divinity of the pope's word to that of another. It's purely human. But in this case those who prevented new thoughts by considering Aristotle as being absolutely correct (which by the way happened already in ancient times that his mere authority replaced views that were more correct) - they were still contributing something to the general change by making sure the highest authority on earth - the pope can be questioned and he could be wrong. And what I still today think it's redicilous is that apparently in the catholic circles you're supposed to think the popes of those days were correct if they said something with divine leading or what ever the terms were. The same goes why I'm proud of the protestant movement although I realise that at the far corners of the Earth like Finland what became as open-mindness and wisdom might not seem like it after the message has travelled a thousand miles.

The first person who described blood flow in veins was burnt at the stake alright, but not because he described blood flow in veins. He was condemned because he argued strongly against the trinity. This is a problem that existed in this day. The same work (Christianismi Restitutio) that described blood circulation also "rejected the idea of predestination and the idea that God had condemned souls to Hell regardless of worth or merit." This apparently pissed off Calvin as well. Here's Calvin's writings to one of his friends about this man.

"Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive."

He apparently had pissed off everyone who was anyone in religious circles.

Ummm... I don't follow you here. What is it that you're trying to say?

And wasn't Calvin himself burned at the stake as well?

But in the end who burned him? Not the church, the state, the "Geneva Council." What wonderful times those times were. (And thus it shall be said of us by those who will come after us.)

Yes, even in the 19th Century even the secular legistlation was based on what was believed God wanted. Is that the blame of the church or the secular goverment? We can depate. A year ago I did a research on Finnish War and early 19th century in Savolax and can tell for sure that in Finnish legistlation of that time it was believed that in order for a convict to be able to face God to actually repay his crimes (which was supposed to be the more important one) the one to be put to death it was needed to cut his hands off to cause extra pain to purify him before giving him death. And in worst crimes the body was to be put into a Catherine Wheel after that (which was thanks to humane period of that time as in earlier centuries death could be caused by Catherine Wheel), you know - to purify the dead body or something.

So if religious circles believed God wanted that then there's either something wrong with religious people of that time or God and I think we all agree that at least the first one is right.

But talking about Reneissance a bit more. The witch hunt. It was mainly a war against women and the most peculiar thing about that is that thanks to church's influence on things the word of an husband counted nothing if a woman was accused of witchcraft. It was just said that since she was in alliance with Satan she could leave her body during the night and do the sinful things in the neighbourhood along with filling their sexual desired with the devil. And even if you think inqusition is too often mentioned the influence church had on secular legistlation and on any criminal charges is simply criminal. And honestly what is really refreshing is that you bother to defend the church of that time. Because even my very best friend whom I've known since the 7th Grade and who is the most hardcore religionist I know (to the extend that when she grew up their family were missionaries in Ethiopia - a place where her parents two years ago went back to continue their work), even she admits that church was the bad guy of that era.