Slashdot Mirror
Catholic Bishops Support Net Neutrality
An anonymous reader writes "This week, in their annual 'State of the Union' address, the President of the US Catholic Bishops Conference spoke on a number of issues, in particular a surprisingly strong statement in favor on Net Neutrality. 'As the Internet continues to grow in its influence and prominence in Americans' lives, we support legislation and federal regulations that ensure equal access to the Internet for all, including religious and non-profit agencies, as well as those in more sparsely populated or economically distressed areas. True net neutrality is necessary for people to flourish in a democratic society,' said Archbishop Timothy Dolan. It's always interesting to see the Catholic Church joining in a crusade that means so much to so many Slashdotters!"
It's always interesting to see the Catholic Church joining in a crusade that means so much to so many Slashdotters!
Crusade? Slashdotters were expecting the Spanish Inquisition!
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
For the most hypocritical church on earth they're surprisingly progressive with some matters. I don't think they're that keen on Intelligent design either.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The Internet is where Religion comes to die. Because its too easy for actual facts about the religion and actual history of Religion to be disseminated in a uncensored form. Where all the revisionist history can be exposed. I know tons more about Christianity than the average church goer thanks to the Youtube Atheist movement.
Does thier backing mean something positive? I'd feel better with the backing of a group that didn't have a reputation of being so out of date, with a closeted liking for boys. Sorry I'd rather an endorsement from just about anyone else really. " 9 out of 10 convicts really like Walley Toothpaste! "
They're alluding to equality of access (for example, subsidy to get penetration into rural areas at rates at least comparable to dense urban, and hosting on non-discriminatory basis to ensure freedom of --- in their case religious --- speech), rather than what Slashdotters mean by net neutrality.
Fuck Anonymous Coward! Oh, wait...
Honestly? It's not about WHO supports net neutrality, it's that its idea isn't hijacked, bastardized, and killed by politicians and lobbyists. Spread the information, defeat misinformation. I couldn't care less that a religious organization approves or agrees.
Who cares? Even for the religious, does this matter? Why would it matter at all?
Eat sleep die
Fuck the fucking fuckers?
Now all those not in favour of net neutrality will finally be condemned to hell!!
1) church popolarity decreases.
2) the actual pope tends to use a lot of discipline
3) orient nations, like china, choose to control culture, and specifically, internet.
4) china president goes to usa, and mr. obama receives him in a much traditional way.
I wonder if the bishops would speak out against regulation that would give priority to traffic to and from "religious and non-profit agencies".
I also wonder whether they regard atheïst websites as "religious and non-profit agencies".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Religious groups have long been in favor of Net Neutrality; they need to get their message out to the masses just like individuals. Many of them fear not being heard if censorship is allowed. In addition, many would not like paying exorbitant fees like the access fees that network providers want to to charge to carry their traffic.
It is the mass media and the corporate executives that want to drown out any voice but their own. They want to drive up the price of access to for their own greed and to avoid having to compete on a level playing field. How can anyone afford Netflix if Comcast forces their bandwidth costs to skyrocket. The same goes for VOIP services or any future idea that may compete with their monopoly (or duopoly as is the case.)
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master!
WE WILLNAE BE FOOLED AGAIN
Ice Cream has no bones.
Seriously, am I going to be the first to say it. The Catholic church has hidden masses of abuse in many countries (my experience from living 4+ years in Ireland, and a first hand account from a close friend). I am not saying it is prevalent across the board by any means, and I don't wish to take away from the many, many, many wonderful people within the Catholic faith that do so much good. But is there a link there or is it just me? Neutral, fair enough, but that may entail censorship issues too. Just sayin'.
On the 8th day God created teh Internet.
And He saw that it was good and fair, and neutral. And his minions supported it. Then twisted the original idea. Then wrote many books about it. Which were translated. And edited. And then it was not so good anymore. But nobody dared to admit that.
-- Call me an offtopic flaming troll - I just had to get this out of my system :-)
Actually you don't, because what the "youtube atheist movement" doesn't understand is that religion is and always was mostly a social interaction thing than the interpretation of holy books, dogmas and so on. You may know more about the later, but the churchgoer knows way more about the practical and social aspects of religion, e.g.: how it feels to sing or pray with a whole church.
Also the history knowledge of the "youtube atheist movement" shows distinctive selective knowledge. E.g.: non-religious reasons for the crusades or about the killing of believers by atheists in the name of the reason during the french revolution.
Jan
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
It should read:
With friends like that, who needs enemas?
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
It's always interesting to see the Catholic Church joining in a crusade that means so much to so many Slashdotters!"
No, it isn't. The catholic church has an opinion on everything, it goes with their pretension of being the spiritual, how-to-live-your-life authority. No matter what the topic, you will easily find someone from the church who makes a statement about it.
And, like with everything else, those of us who've discarded that pretension and the rest of the nonsense, I couldn't care less. It's a random opinion from someone who may or may not know anything about it, but the title "Bishop" is in no way a qualifier. If he happens to have some other qualifications, I may care, but in the context of net neutrality, bishop or random guy from the shopping mall is essentially the same thing.
So can we stop making those medieval dinosaurs more important than they are, and concentrate on opinions from people who matter?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
oh men, church is on our side. we loose
First they came for Google, and I did not protest that Google was treated differently on the web, because I was not Google.
Then they came for the farmers, and I did not protest that farmers could not get the internet, because I was not a farmer.
Then they came for protest sites, and I did not protest because... welll I don't protest and who cares those trouble makers can no longer afford an online presence.
Then they came for me and even if there was anyone left to protest, there was no place left to do it. Like the newspapers, the radio and TV before, the internet had become corporate run, purely for profit and removed any usage of the voiceless to be heard.
The Internet is not just a gimmick anymore, it has become as essential for democracy, freedom and equality as education, food and medicine. We have strict regulation to ensure equal access to lifes essentials. I think it might be time to put access to free information on an equal basis as a basic human right. Better that then let the American ISP who are without principle ruin yet another media.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Fuck the elite. Fuck the lords, Fuck the Kings, Fuck the dictators
Are they all cute?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
So why is it strange the catholic church is pro-technology ? Yes, they do find that technology must be moral, and even research must err on the side of morality (therefore - e.g. no killing embryos for research). The large majority of our technology was developed by catholic clergy. From the laws of physics to things like glasses (even now the catholic church is sponsoring Stephen Hawking - read his book once - and doubtless many others), and generally any and all technology we knew about before 1900. Especially in the medical field the catholic church is extremely well-represented. Without the catholic church, there would not be any universities, nor would we even have knowledge of the classical age in the first place.
The catholic church has been an institution of learning and knowledge during all of it's existence. During several time periods it has been the *only* such institution. It is not only the oldest organization that still exists, but is also the one of the very, very few organizations that have managed to avoid destroying all the knowledge they had available. (most "civilizations", from islam, to chinese, to mayas, incas have destroyed all their own knowledge, and they almost all did it to themselves)
They speak for human rights, and then you find that what they really want is the right to molest boys. Sorry, but when a bunch pedophiles OR those that ignore those that are pedophiles just because they are friends/previous lovers, I have ZERO respect for their opinion.
Yeah, flame way. But for another decade, we are going to find out that the church has plenty of them left.
Wow, way to take a debate on:
(1) Preferential treatment of bandwitdh, vs
(2) No barriers to access,
and make it about:
(3) Everyone should have the same internet access.
Way to go Roman Catholics.
If you read the letter, you will see that it is NOT about net Neutrality. It is about trying to get net access to all, basically, the poor.
This has NOTHING to do with ensuring that there is no discrimination amongst providers. It has everything with ensuring that there is no discrimination amongst consumers in ability to get to it. THat is all.
This is a BIG difference.
The odd thing is that the church could simply pay for the access for their poor parishioners. But, they do not want to do that. They want the GOV. to do that.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
IT technicians support transubstantiation.
You - geeks - love to have things labeled and clear, it makes the life much more easy. And this is a very good place to plant and grow some totalitary social system. Watch yourselves - you accept (sometimes subliminaly) what the media collect and present for fun and profit and in the result, you mess up the reality and some other's bad feelings. Now you are the lone fighters for freedom, but the good freedom, not the bad one and my deep but sour satisfaction will come 20 years later, when you fight for the rights for pedos, who you witchhunt now. It is not possible, it is necessary.
of child pornography....
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I agree. They are are trying hard to refocus the argument from equality of suppliers to equality of consumers. Totally different issues.
Sadly, ppl read the words 'net neutrality', but disregard what is said.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
grooming and hiding activities if they cant run at normal speed
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The Bible, both sides, actually has the most copies in the original ancient languages of any book from that era. It is actually the most widely copied book from the ancient world we have. The variations of the original versions are insignificant. Furthermore, the Old Testament in particular has been very well-preserved. The Jews did an unbelievably good job there. We have copies of Genesis that go back over 3,000 years that are the same as copies from 1AD and the middle ages.
Most people who say "the Bible has been changed" are speaking out of ignorance. The Catholic church relied on the Vulgate which is a trashy translation into Latin. Protestants used to rely on the King James version which was "slightly less bad" but based on the Vuglate IIRC. Modern evangelicals actually use the New International Version in most cases, which is a direct translation from the ancient texts into modern English done by scholars of those language (who were substantially better than those that worked for King James).
The Bible sitting on my shelf is about as accurate of a translation as you can get from what Paul and Luke actually wrote in Koine Greek and Aramaic.
Because the Internet dispelled a number of myths I had about "how bad the Church was..."
1) Did you know that the Spanish Inquisition was run by the Spanish government after the King blackmailed the Pope by threatening to withdraw Spanish troops from Rome if he didn't get his way?
2) Did you know that the first Crusade was actually a response to 500 years of unrelenting Islamic aggression Christian states?
3) Have you ever read the tenants of the "church" that Hitler proposed as a replacement for the authentic Catholic and Lutheran religions?
3b) Did you know that Hitler actually practiced a modern form of German paganism and in private openly hated Christianity with a passion?
4) Did you know that Galileo was actually invited as an honored guest by the Pope and was actually imprisoned only after he behaved like a total douchebag toward the Pope (where similar behavior would have warranted execution if directed at a medieval king)?
The catholic church has been an institution of learning and knowledge during all^H^H^H most of it's existence.
Fixedeth that for you,
yrs
Messrs. Martin Luther & Galileo Galilei
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
They need to make sure they can get unlimited photos of naked boys.
to see the slow-moving, unresponsive behemoth that is the US government try to regulate technologies that evolve faster than they can pass the bill! It's even more interesting to watch lobbyists write these bills, since there's not a member of Congress who understands jack shit about anything. Only a type-A asshole of VERY low mental ability would run for Congress.
current public reputation of the Catholic Church, I'm not sure their support helps the cause much. I could see it being spun by Idiocrats as two dark forces joining in their pro-pedophillia advocacy. Stupider arguments have been made.
...a well regulated web would make it harder for priests to share their favorite "Altar Boys Gone Wild" videos.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
I suspect many Slashdoters will be rethinking there position, horrified that religion and technology are saying the same thing! What HORROR!!!!!
Many Slashdotters have commented that the Catholic Church is really talking about access for the poor. I think if you read the quote closely, you'll realize that they're mentioning two separate issues. The article was never meant to be a spelled out position, it was a list of topics that they feel are important this year.
1. we support legislation and federal regulations that ensure equal access to the Internet for all, including religious and non-profit agencies - net neutrality
2. as well as those in more sparsely populated or economically distressed areas.- internet access for all
Just because they didn't spell everything out in this particular letter only means they were making a survey of the issue. Perhaps they don't completely understand it, but perhaps they need encouragement rather than bashing, it looks like they're at least trying!
USCCB stands for United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, not the US Catholic Bishops Conference, which would be an event, not an organization, and for which the acronym would be USCBC.
They don't wan't their streaming pron throttled is the crux of the matter here
I am willing to bet that "the vast majority" of our technology has not been developed by clergy, and a lot of it (particularly ancient technology) not even in Europe. Have some Catholic clergy made contributions to science? Absolutely. The big bang theory was formulated by a clergyman, IIRC. However, it is easy to overstate their role in actually inventing things.
SSC
Actually the Christian missionaries destroied most of the Myan writings
In absolute terms, or compared to the Anonymous Coward?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The large majority of our technology was developed by catholic clergy.
Wow, that's a big fat [citation needed] right there...
I am willing to bet that "the vast majority" of our technology has not been developed by clergy,
Well, instead of betting, why not look into it for yourself, oh little /.er?
Of course. As we all know an instution can never be right unless it is right on every position it takes.
Of course they support this. How else are they going to get their streaming child porn if their ISP throttles their bandwidth?
we support legislation and federal regulations that ensure equal access to the Internet for all
Man, I hope that's a quote from his speech, because the grand sum total of the article on the Internet is:
As the Internet continues to grow in its influence and prominence in Americans’ lives, we support legislation and federal regulations that ensure equal access to the Internet for all, including religious and non-profit agencies, as well as those in more sparsely populated or economically distressed areas. True net neutrality is necessary for people to flourish in a democratic society.
Notice that legislation and federal regulations are nowhere in there. And there's an important distinction between whats written and what was said. We have a (mostly) neutral network. That's how it was built and how everyone assumes it works. That's part of what makes the Internet a Good Thing. Network neutrality regulation is the enforcement thereof. Because we can all see the horizon here, and with the consolidation of the big ISPs, and especially now with telcom companies buying media companies, we can all see that they'd want to break down NN just to make a buck.
But no-one wants regulation for regulation's sake. What we want is the networks to remain neutral.
Those wacky Catholics and their 1500 years of state-sponsored pederasty, what will they think of next!
When a nation allows Catholic priesthood, that nation allows pedophilia and child abuse to prosper; and when a nation exempts an institution that promotes child abuse from taxation, that nation is sponsoring child abuse with taxpayer dollars.
If the Catholic version of God actually exists, Hell is well supplied with priests.
Glasses? 9th and 10th century China and Cordoba were not Catholic.
Furthermore, much of our technology pre-dates the Catholic Church and Christianity, looking down a timeline of historic inventions its hard to find anything before 1608 that could be contributed to anyone Catholic.
The Greeks formulated many of the early theories of Physics, and while much of that was lost to Western Europe, it made its way into Islamic schools and eventually made its way back to Western Europe.
It was not the Catholic Church that created Universities, it was Islam and the Greek Church, the Greek Church and Islam also saved the knowledge of the Classical Age, the diaspora from the fall of the Byzantine Empire spread that knowledge to Western and Central Europe.
Its completely wrong to say the Maya and Inca destroyed all their knowledge, because they along with the Aztecs had their civilizations destroyed by the Catholic Church through its proxy, the Spanish Conquest of America.
The case against Net Neutrality regulation http://hustlebear.com/2011/01/05/why-net-neutrality-regulation-is-the-path-to-ending-net-neutrality/
If only they had done a better job, maybe we wouldn't have to deal with this "2012" crap.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Are we so stupid that we are going to start listening to those evil bastards just because they happen to say something with which we can agree? Spare me. Who gives a damn what they think, all their opinions are self-serving (and evil).
The ducks in the bathroom are not mine. [http://www.27bslash6.com]
Even sadder that this story suggests the Church is actually FOR net neutrality as we understand it today.
They are pontificating (sorry) about net ACCESS.
They have two sentences about the internet, one explicitly calling for "equal access to the internet" for everyone, and one explicitly calling for "true net neutrality" as essential for "a democratic society".
I think it is a mistake to assume that the second is merely a misphrased restatement of the first.
They totally miss the main points of net neutrality such as traffic shaping, throttling, or prioritizing your own traffic over competitive traffic.
I'm not sure how you can reach any conclusions about whether they get these details or not from the two sentences on internet issues in the broad "State of the Union" message.
But, if you look at previous messages that deal directly with the net neutrality issue from the Conference, you'll find direct statements of support for "net neutrality as we know it" going back several years, particularly the 2006 statement in which the Chairman of the Conference's Communication Committee calls for net neutrality requirements to be written into law (following the FCC deregulation of Internet access) because "Unless Congress requires telephone and cable companies to act as neutral providers of Internet access, as they had been required to do since the birth and through the spectacular growth of the Internet, those companies will use their control over internet access to speed up or down connections to Web sites to benefit themselves financially."
Why is this even news?
Signed: Alex Libman's sockpuppet.
I like how people who have no knowledge of scientific history always point to Galileo when the church and science are at odds.
A few interesting things you might want to jot down:
Galileo wrote his book at the request of the Pope. He did not include both sides of the issue, and did not account for a hybrid model which was the popular theory at the time-- both which were agreed to in order to publish the book. He also insulted the Pope in the book to add insult to injury...
It is hard to imagine a similar situation.
Imagine that a climatologist observes a lot of data which suggests that we are incorrect about Global Warming. He develops an entirely new climate model by which he can claims is vastly more accurate, etc. The observation can also be accounted for by tweaking the existing model to account for before unobserved pressure differences across certain types of terrain. Which do you think most people will go for? A totally new model which goes against popular opinion, or a modification of the existing model which seems to account for all the new changes?
Now have him insult someone as powerful as the pope in the 1600s... a feat I don't think is even possible today as no one holds that much power.
If such a person existed today, I have a hard time believing house arrest and the allowance to continue studying science would be the result...
I am Catholic. When the Church speaks on scripture, it has authority. When it speaks of that which has nothing to do with the bible, as in net "neutrality" (really nothing more than Government control over private networks, there is nothing neutral about it) or "man made global warming" the Church has no authority whatsoever.
This is hopelessly confused as a statement of Catholic doctrine. The magisterium of the Church heirarchy is not certainly not limited to scripture (sola scriptura is common Protestant doctrine, opposed to the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic Church), instead, it extends to matters of faith and morals whether grounded in Scripture or Tradition or both.
Advocacy of "net neutrality" and "man made global warming" both lead to similar ends: the confiscation of private property directly (by taking it over) or indirectly (by telling you what you can't do with it via regulation), which I can argue violates one of the foudnations of Judeo Christian morality, the 10 Commandments, specifically "thou shalt not steal".
One can, of course, argue for anything, but to argue that any taking of private property for public use or restriction by public authority on the use of private property categorically contradicts Christian morals you must dissent from the teachings of the Catholic Church on faith and morals in the domain in which you are making the argument; particularly, you must dissent from the teachings on the moral aspects of private and public property articulated in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) which, recognizes the importance of private property rights but also states that they are constrained by the rights and obligations of public authority, and that "The right of private ownership, however, is not opposed to the right inherent in various forms of public property. [...] Furthermore, it is the right of public authority to prevent anyone from abusing his private property to the detriment of the common good."
If you read the letter, you will see that it is NOT about net Neutrality. It is about trying to get net access to all, basically, the poor.
Well, no.
If you read the letter, you'll see that there are two sentences about the internet.
The first focusses on access, the second on net neutrality.
The USCCB spoken more directly of its support for net neutrality outside of bullet points in broader addresses on public policy, as well.
"Without the catholic church, there would not be any universities, nor would we even have knowledge of the classical age in the first place."
That's quite a grand claim. Perhaps it is also possible to claim that without beer, or the spade, there wouldn't be any universities either.
- A lot of knowledge and texts from the classical age were held in African and Asian countries by non-Christians while the there was little regard for 'heathen learning' after the fall of the Roman Empire in Western Europe. What is your argument against the diffusion of classical knowledge outwith the European church run education system?
- A lot of institutions of higher education developed outside of Europe before the European universities started. A bit rich I would have thought to tell Indian, Chinese etc scholars that their learning and teaching methodologies don't count. Technically these places might not have been universities ("associations of students and teachers with collective legal rights usually guaranteed by charters issued by princes, prelates, or the towns in which they were located") but I'd be willing to guess some of them closely resembled this model.
- The University of Bologna began as a law school teaching the ius gentium or Roman law of peoples which was in demand across Europe for those defending the right of incipient nations against empire and church.
Notice that legislation and federal regulations are nowhere in there.
Its two sentences in an address laying out "principles and priorities that will guide the public policy efforts" of the US Catholic Conference in the year ahead. They aren't going to mention "legislation and federal regulation" in every sentence, but that's what the speech is about.
We have a (mostly) neutral network. That's how it was built and how everyone assumes it works.
Yes, that's the way it was built and worked for quite a long time -- under the FCC's old open access regulations -- its also what it has drifted away from since deregulation, which is what created the push for "open internet"/"net neutrality" laws and/or regulations.
And the USCCB has previously called for net neutrality rules to be incorporated directly in federal legislation. The incorporation of a reference to the issue in this speech is a statement that the issue remains a policy concern for the Conference.
They're alluding to equality of access (for example, subsidy to get penetration into rural areas at rates at least comparable to dense urban, and hosting on non-discriminatory basis to ensure freedom of --- in their case religious --- speech), rather than what Slashdotters mean by net neutrality.
Wrong.
The speech has two sentences about the internet. One is about equal access, which is one area where the conference has policy concerns.
One is about net neutrality, which is another area where the conference has policy concerns (which have been expressed more fully previously.)
"We need X. We need Y." does not mean "We need Y, and, when we say Y, we mean X."
They are are trying hard to refocus the argument from equality of suppliers to equality of consumers.
No, they are addressing both issues, and sloppy slashdot readers are assuming that because they mention one issue (access) in one sentence, when they address the other issue (net neutrality) in the next sentence, its really just a reference to the first issue, and not a reference to what they say they are talking about, even though the Conference has -- in contexts where they weren't brief points in a broader policy address -- directly called for net neutrality (and stated why it is important for the Church as an institution) previously.
Love thy neighbour/friend/family
Love thy enemy
The ultimate neutrality. Treat everyone the same way.
Disclaimer: I personally go for the Golden Rule, i.e. Tit for Tat.
Then we'll get a few white supremacist groups, and finally the teabaggers will jump on board and net neutrality will be dead. How Comcast and the FCC managed to orchestrate this is a mystery, but they have my grudging respect.
Of course. As we all know an instution can never be right unless it is right on every position it takes.
Damn right every position matters, because the only reason this story was even posted was to say, "See, Net Neutrality is a good idea. Even the Catholic Church thinks it's a good idea."
When you invoke whatever moral authority any organization has like that, you'd better believe every position that organization takes on every possible issue directly impacts the strength of that moral authority you're trying to appeal to.
"It was not the Catholic Church that created Universities, it was Islam and the Greek Church"
That my dear friend is complete nonsense. Name one university in Europe that wasn't founded and built by the Catholic Church.
Compared to what I'm getting. And remember I'm on slashdot.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
University of Constantinople, Preslav Literary School, Ohrid Literary School, Schola Medica Salernitana.
There are four, the first three were created by the Emperors of the Byzantine and Bulgarian Empires.
University of Constantinople
"original institution was founded in the 5th century by the emperor Theodosius II."
(who was a Catholic Emperor, q.v. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Constantinople )
Preslav Literary School likewise, just read the wikipedia article. It was found by Simeon I in around 893. The split between the Orthodox and the Catholics is about 200 years later, so this could nominally be called a Catholic university at least in origin.
The Ohrid Literary school was founded at about the same time.
The Schola Medica Salertana was actually from a monastery in the 9th century, and most of the graduates such as Gilles de Corbeil were actually clergy (he himself was a canon).
Thus it seems even your examples all are directly related to the Catholic Church. The first three were founded more or less due to Christological disputes, the fourth more from the development of medicine in the dispensary of a monastery.
so much for "stuff that matters".
He did not include both sides of the issue
Science does not work that way.
But being an Emperor who is a Catholic who founded something does not make it a Catholic University.
The Apollo Program was started by a Catholic President, does that make it the Vatican's space program?
It was found by Simeon I in around 893. The split between the Orthodox and the Catholics is about 200 years later
The formal schism didn't happen until later, but by 900 the lines were already drawn, and Latin and Byzantine missionaries were directly competing against each other over spheres of influence (who gets to Christianize, and therefore control, the remaining pagan lands).
Euhm ... yes it does. Especially in physics.
Ideally :
Side A
Side B
Hypothesis : describe experiment. If sideA is right -> outcome A, if sideB is right -> outcome B
Experiment : setup, measurements, caveats, ...
Conclusion : sideA is right. Can someone please replicate my findings ?
No but the fact that he founded it as a catholic university as the head of the church (need to check if that is correct) kinda does. That university was basically started, like just about all others, and all older ones, by the pope.
Islam's attitude towards science can be trivially summarized : Here's what muslims believe allah said to the caliph. This has as much authority in islam as the ten commandments have in Christianity or Judaism. These are the "divinely inspired" words of the first caliph, about books and knowledge in general :
""they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous."
You have to admit, it is not exactly lacking in clarity.
So why does islam have a reputation for being scientific ? Well, because Egypt was very scientific between 800-1100, and, to a much lesser extent, for Cordoba. There is of course, one tiny little detail : Egypt was at least 95% christian during that time, with separate government for muslims and christians.
Now make a wild guess which of the 2 governments was the only one with a science department ...
Same goes for Cordoba. The muslim government carried out genocides on the countryside, to eventually be stopped by the French, Christians still did science.
This is still going on today in Egypt, of course. Noone cares, of course. This is what muslims mean by "freedom of religion", because this is their religion, this is what they want to carry out.
Euhm, no, it doesn't.
There is no "side A" and "side B" in science. There is "proposition A", and there is "something other than proposition A."
Your attempt at imposing religious dualism on the scientific process is straight out of the Discovery Institute playbook.
Now if they would just go into the PC repair business. They could lay on hands to heal broken technology. I hear Dogbert may be willing to loan them his sceptre so that they could drive out the demons of stupidity. Of course that may result in the occasional bishop being beat to death, but I'm willing to risk it.
Changing the world... one research project at a time.