That is correct, but you are not mentioning the "inconvenient truth" of the Catholic position on respect for human life.  That position is also foursquare against capital punishment in any case, a point that is often overlooked, no doubt because many who oppose embryonic stem cell research and by extension abortion in the U.S. also favor capital punishment.  (See Justice Scalia)

It's hypocritical when people trot out Catholic doctrine to support their point of view, and then brush aside things like Catholic social doctrine and an across the board right to human life, things that require someone to actually do good in the world, instead of stand on a sidewalk holding a sign.

John Paul II criticized what he called "structures of sin" in governments.  Systematic oppression and failure to support the least among us.  This is not regarded as a Catholic rejection of all government.  John Paul also warned against heedless pursuit of scientific knowledge without ethical responsibility.  Benedict is reiterating this point.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

...you are not mentioning the "inconvenient truth" of the Catholic position on respect for human life

I didn't see a reason to mention it since it is in no way "inconvenient" for the Catholic Church. Their pro-life position is internally consistent.

Justice Scalia's positions on abortion and capital punishment are also internally consistent because those opinions are based on the US Constitution, not on church law.

It's certainly inconvenient for those who hold that abortion is a violation of the right to life while capital punishment is not.  That was the point of the statement.  

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

It's certainly inconvenient for those who hold that abortion is a violation of the right to life while capital punishment is not

You mentioned Justice Scalia and, I think, insinuated that he is a hypocrite. Yet his legal opinions on abortion and capital punishment have nothing to do with "the right to life."

"Justice Scalia's positions on abortion and capital punishment are also internally consistent because those opinions are bases on the US Constitution, not on church law." What nonsense. Any intelligent person can come up with rationalisations for their beliefs and for their emotional preferences based on whatever authority has been deemed conclusive. Scalia could justify absolutely anything, as he proved when he chose to elect George W. Bush 43rd president of US. He has never been anything more nor less than "movement conservative" and partisan Republican hack, and Constitution says whatever he wants it to say. His "Catholic beliefs" have always been conclusive when he agrees with them and mere inconvenience when he doesn't.

Scalia could justify absolutely anything, as he proved when he chose to elect George W. Bush 43rd president of US

Really? What do you think his justification was in that case? In what way was it inconsistent with a plain reading of the law?

His "Catholic beliefs" have always been conclusive when he agrees with them and mere inconvenience when he doesn't

You know, novy, that is perhaps the most illogical and unsupported thing I've seen you write. Scalia's legal position on abortion is quite clear cut: there is nothing in the US Constitution that allows or forbids abortion. Period. That is not in any way a fact influenced by Catholicism - it just is.

We see in Scalia someone who says that judges must apply the law as it is written and not according to their personal beliefs. His legal opinions pretty solidly demonstrate that he conducts his professional life by that principle. The fact that he is a devout Catholic yet rules according to his own professional standards of strict constructionism makes it evident that "inconveniences" caused by his faith do not interfere with his intellectual honesty.

A Catholic interpretation of the Constitution as it pertains to abortion would be to say that the 14th Amendment applies to a fetus just as it does to a person. A Catholic interpretation of capital punishment would be that it is indeed cruel, and therefore counter to the 8th Amendment. Yet Scalia has taken neither of those positions despite proclaiming that he believes their theological basis as a matter of faith.

Scalia has said that his religious beliefs are separate from his legal thinking except that he thinks God's commandments require honesty, intellectual and otherwise. I do not agree with Scalia's religious opinions nor all of his legal opinions, but I can see that both are internally consistent based on his beliefs.

In what way was it inconsistent with a plain reading of the law?

It wasn't inconsistent with a plain reading of the law. In fact, it was his first plain reading of the law. As an ultra-extremist right wing jurist he had never in the history of his jurisprudence argued for equal protection. In fact, he had always argued against it. That finding was entirely inconsistent with any of his findings either before or since. In fact, some reasonable jurists who found with him at the time have looked back and admitted the error of their ways.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

As an ultra-extremist right wing jurist he had never in the history of his jurisprudence argued for equal protection. In fact, he had always argued against it

That is not correct. Scalia certainly has a fairly narrow view of what equal protection means under the Constitution, but his view is consistent with his brand of strict constructionism and of the way equal protection has been applied historically. Scalia has pointed out, for example, that the 14th Amendment didn't suddenly mean that women could vote; it took the 19th Amendment to make that the law of the land. His concurrence in the Gore v. Bush case is entirely consistent with that view and I am unaware of any opinion Scalia has written that is inconsistent with that case. (Perhaps you can point one out for me?)

His view was then and always has been consistent with outcome he wants. He has become Bush-era version of Earl Warren. He makes things up as he goes along, always making sure that he toes "movement conservative" line at all times.

Whatever his justification in Gore v. Bush, it was so weak that Court no longer accords it any value as precedent for any future case. In disputed elections like 2000 election, Congress should have determined outcome, not Supreme Court. On more limited issue of voting in Florida, states were supposed to be sole determinants of issues involving voting in their jurisdictions, and Scalia usually argues for states' rights, except when result he wants will be better accomplished by giving federal government powers it didn't previously have, as in Gore v. Bush or in California medical marijuana case (case in which even Rehnquist ruled for states' rights).

Scalia's position on abortion has been clear-cut: precedent means nothing to him unless he agrees with it. Abortion didn't exist for practical purposes when Constitution was written, so based on Scalia's rationale, since Constitution doesn't mention television or radio or computers, no constitutional rights like "free speech" can possibly apply to them. Privacy rights respecting marriage and childbearing existed at common law at time Constitution was adopted, thus should have been protected by 9th Amendment. When Scalia considers whether capital punishment qualifies as "cruel and unusual", it becomes apparent that his "movement conservatism" takes precedence over his Catholicism: he doesn't just disagree with people who make anti-death penalty arguments, he sneers at them. He doesn't "believe their theological basis as a matter of faith", his cafeteria Catholicism allows him to make fun of people who don't agree with his "movement conservative" position in favour of death penalty.

We see in Scalia someone whose view on any case can be determined in advance by reading conservative press and determining majority opinion among those on right, or by asking "what would be best for corporations?" We see in Scalia someone who makes big show of being "strict constructionist" unless he wants result that calls for something different: he has consistently been as result-oriented as Earl Warren ever was, no matter what he claims to contrary. He can find excuses for torture, for suspending habeas corpus, for denial of counsel, or for anything else, and he has. "Strict construction" and "intellectual honesty" my butt.

In disputed elections like 2000 election, Congress should have determined outcome, not Supreme Court

The Supreme Court didn't determine the outcome of the election, it merely asserted that 1) the recount process undertaken under an order by the Florida Supreme Court was inherently flawed because it applied different counting standards depending on where a voter lived (thereby coming in conflict with the Equal Protection Clause), and, 2) Florida state law had a deadline for electoral disputes to be resolved and that deadline had arrived. You are correct that it is the states are to be the sole arbiters about electoral procedure, but it is the state legislatures, not their courts, that have that authority. (US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 2nd clause.)

...Scalia usually argues for states' rights, except when result he wants will be better accomplished by giving federal government powers it didn't previously have, as in Gore v. Bush or in California medical marijuana case

Again you completely misunderstand Scalia's position on these issues. Since Congress had passed a statute outlawing marijuana, and that law was very clear in its intent and meaning, Scalia could find no reason to overturn it. Congress had deemed marijuana to be a Schedule 1 drug, i.e., addictive and with no medical uses. The fact that marijuana is neither addictive or useless is completely irrelevant. There is no "state right" to overturn a law duly effected by Congress: it is a political matter for Congress to consider, not a legal one for the courts.

Privacy rights respecting marriage and childbearing existed at common law at time Constitution was adopted, thus should have been protected by 9th Amendment

Restrictions on abortion were also part of common law. Maybe you had better read up on the matter before making silly proclamations. Privacy rights surely were retained by the people, but powers not delegated to the federal government were retained by the states per the 10th Amendment. The strict constructionist view is that states have the authority to regulate abortion and that the federal courts have no business ruling on illusory legal concepts hiding in penumbras when legislatures have clearly spoken.

...he doesn't just disagree with people who make anti-death penalty arguments, he sneers at them

Perhaps you can point me to a sneering court opinion written by Scalia? We are, after all, discussing the difference between a privately held opinion (even one expressed publicly) and a professional legal opinion.

He can find excuses for torture, for suspending habeas corpus, for denial of counsel, or for anything else...

Can you point out any such "excuses" that were found by Scalia in any place other than the Constitution or legal precedent?

Earl Warren found all of his rationales for his decisions in US Constitution as well. People like Scalia pretended they were different from Earl Warren, but they weren't. "Principles" never lead him to decide against his "movement conservative" political beliefs.

"Sneering" takes place in his questioning during oral arguments. That doesn't count in your estimation because you want to believe Scalia has judicial temperament.

Of course Supreme Court determined outcome of 2000 election. No doubt Scalia and his Republican majority can "explain" why they were right to decide it, but decide it they did. Most legal analysts think that decision was unprincipled. It was.

You misunderstand Scalia's position on marijuana. Marijuana upsets "movement conservatives" and so Scalia will vote against anything that looks pro-marijuana. Rehnquist showed principles. Scalia never lets principles get in his way.

Maybe you should read up on precedents in abortion rights cases. Scalia thinks all of them wrongly decided and cares nothing for precedent. With any luck, when pendulum swings away from "movement conservatives", their replacements on Supreme Court will care as little for precedent as Scalia does.

"Principles" never lead him to decide against his "movement conservative" political beliefs

Other people say precisely the same thing about "liberal activist judges." I, on the other hand, try to keep an open mind about these things and actually read the justification behind individual decisions rather than have a knee-jerk reaction and immediately insist that "movement conservative" beliefs are all that is there.

You misunderstand Scalia's position on marijuana. Marijuana upsets "movement conservatives" and so Scalia will vote against anything that looks pro-marijuana

How clever Scalia is to conceal his true beliefs under a cloak of strict constructionism. He's so clever, in fact, that he does it every damn time, never once slipping up.

Maybe you should read up on precedents in abortion rights cases. Scalia thinks all of them wrongly decided and cares nothing for precedent

That's because from a strict constructionist point of view Roe v. Wade was decided wrongly, and obviously so.

"Other people" like me say same thing about "liberal activist judges". They represent flip side of conservative activist judges. What they have in common has always been that their political beliefs dominate their judicial beliefs, and they search for constitutional rationales for upholding their political beliefs.

There would be several different ways judges could be "strict constructionists". Scalia has chosen "movement conservative" version that allows him to uphold his political beliefs. If Democrats win presidency in 2008 and retain control of Congress, Scalia will spend next four years showing how deferential he feels toward Congress and President. When his team (one he chose in 2000) was in power, he believed in letting President do whatever he liked, deferring to will of Congress at every opportunity. When his enemies take power, we will see what he has always really been made of.

If you really think "strict construction of Constitution" allows presidential abrogation of international treaties like Geneva Convention, allows executive branch to set up secret prison system, allows President to order torture in violation of laws passed by Congress, allows "unitary executive" theory of presidential power, then we must agree to disagree. To repeat, those things would not be upheld under "strict construction" of Constitution. They get upheld by Scalia because he has been political hack and "movement conservative" from beginning, which accounts for why he got appointed to court to begin with.

"Other people" like me say same thing about "liberal activist judges". They represent flip side of conservative activist judges. What they have in common has always been that their political beliefs dominate their judicial beliefs, and they search for constitutional rationales for upholding their political beliefs

I don't think that's exactly the case. It's too easy to look at conservative judges and notice that many of them tend to be strict constructionists (or look at liberal judges and notice that many seem like activists bent on molding a living, breathing Constitution in their own image) and assume that it is their political beliefs that shaped their legal opinions. But that prompts me to ask, where did their political beliefs come from? Why not the other way around? Why not suppose that a strict constructionist mentality causes conservative beliefs? I think it is more likely that the correlation we notice represents two different manifestations of the same underlying cause.

When his team (one he chose in 2000) was in power, he believed in letting President do whatever he liked, deferring to will of Congress at every opportunity. When his enemies take power, we will see what he has always really been made of

Above you cited the medical marijuana case as being one that revealed Scalia's bias. Perhaps you are unaware that the Controlled Substances Act was passed by a Democratic Congress in 1970?

If you really think "strict construction of Constitution" allows [blah, blah, blah]...

I have never suggested that any of the things you mentioned can be justified under a strict constructionist view of the law. I rather strongly doubt you can demonstrate that Scalia believes those things, either. So, yeah, nice strawman.

"I have never suggested that any of the things you mentioned can be justified under a strict constructionist view of the law. I rather strongly doubt that you can demonstrate that Scalia believes those things, either."

Saying it doesn't make it so. In every case in which any of these sorts of things has been challenged, there have been 5-4 decisions every time, with Scalia and other "strict constructionists" on the side of anything President Bush wants every single time. Scalia doesn't just vote with Bush, he reads his dissents in his typical angry tone from bench to let everyone know how pissed off they made him by not falling in line behind President Bush.

"Strict construction" has become "code phrase" for supporting political agenda of "movement conservatives". "Strict construction" now means you let President torture dissidents because conservatives worship Jack Bauer. "Strict construction" means no law that limits corporations from buying elections can possibly be constitutional because that would hurt Republicans more than Democrats. "Strict construction" means President can wage war without any declaration of war, Constitution be damned. "Strict construction" means right of privacy doesn't exist, at least until Democrats violate Republicans' privacy rights, common law and Ninth Amendment be damned. "Strict construction" means states have rights to resist federal authority when they do "conservative" things  but not when they do "liberal" things. "Strict construction" has never been genuine judicial philosophy, it was never anything but excuse for "movement conservatives" to engage in their own form of judicial activism. They don't notice their activism because they don't feel like it, rather like fundamentalists don't notice evidence that Earth has been around for more than 6,000 years.  

There's no 'state right' to 'overturn' a federal law, except when that state enacts a law concerning abortion that runs counter to federal law?  

It sure looks as though there is an inconsistency here.  Federal law classifies cannabis as an illegal narcotic with no redeeming value.  California says that there is a redeeming quality, and allows it to be used in certain circumstances.  Scalia, finding no reason to break with break with precedent, upholds the federal law.

The second case is almost the same. Federal law says that abortion is legal, with the conditions of the trimester rules.  Some state enacts a law that outlaws abortions, or restricts them further than the federal law does.

In one case, precedent is to be respected, and in the other it is not?  It seems like it boils down to the basis for Scalia's rationale, which is, stare decisis applies when he agrees with it, and not when he doesn't.  That's fine, that's his opinion, and he can say that when he gives a speech or an address, but when it comes to ruling in the court, it's hard to justify these two positions and still claim to be consistent.

You can argue points of law, but you cannot say that this is generally consistent.  I don't think even Scalia would say that it is consistent.  What he would say is that the two issues are wholly different, and each case was decided on the legal points cited in the petition.  Not knowing what those points are, I can't speak to how similar these cases are, but that is beside the point.

I do not think, as some do, that Scalia is a 'hack'.  By all accounts, he is a thoughtful jurist, and his reasoning in many cases is sound, provided you agree with his assumptions about the constitution.  I think that the constitution is not encased in amber, and that to act as though it just means what says strictly to the letter, why bother arguing about constitutionality of a great many things?  It seems that if one is a jurist who subscribes to that theory, it would be hard to vote to grant cert. to anything.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

There's no 'state right' to 'overturn' a federal law, except when that state enacts a law concerning abortion that runs counter to federal law?

What federal law are you talking about?

It sure looks as though there is an inconsistency here.  Federal law classifies cannabis as an illegal narcotic with no redeeming value.  California says that there is a redeeming quality, and allows it to be used in certain circumstances.  Scalia, finding no reason to break with break with precedent, upholds the federal law

Federal law trumps state law. It's not a question of precedent, it's what the Constitution plainly says. (US Constitution, Article VI, 2nd clause.)

Federal law says that abortion is legal, with the conditions of the trimester rules

Really? I was unaware. Please point me to the relevant federal statute.

You can argue points of law, but you cannot say that this is generally consistent

It is indeed consistent from a strict constructionist standpoint. Read the Constitution. It says federal laws take precedence over state laws. It says nothing at all about abortion.

I think that the constitution is not encased in amber, and that to act as though it just means what says strictly to the letter, why bother arguing about constitutionality of a great many things?  It seems that if one is a jurist who subscribes to that theory, it would be hard to vote to grant cert. to anything

That's correct. The Constitution pretty clearly set up a government where representatives of the people make the laws. If you want the law to be changed then you have to insist that the representatives change it. The Constitution says nothing about abortion and until the federal government passes a law making abortion legal then it is up to the states. The exact same thing is true about marijuana, but the federal government did pass a law about marijuana.

Why is this so hard to understand?

it is the state legislatures, not their courts, that have that authority

Florida state law specifically stated that the candidate with the most votes is the winner of an election.  That implies that votes must be counted, and that is what the Florida Supreme Court ruled.

The disingenuousness of ruling that the deadline for counting was passed is obvious in that the reason the it passed was because those same five "justices" voted to stop the counting until they could rule in favor of Bush.

[Scalia] concluded that Americans should disabuse themselves of the notion that "everything you care about personally is in the Constitution."

The irony is rich and pungent.

So, because they hold views with no reasonable scientific basis, it's ok for them to...hold views with no reasonable scientific basis.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

...it's ok for them to...hold views with no reasonable scientific basis

I never said anything was "ok," I was merely pointing out that novy's comment was not an accurate description of the church's position.

Why is it only wrong for the Catholic Church to hold views with no reasonable scientific basis? You hold views at odds with medical science. Another example is pro-abortionists that reject all limitations on the excercise of abortion, despite the scientific fact that there are no significant biological differences between newborn infants and the "fetuses" on the reciving end of partial birth aboritions.

There is, of course, the medical fact that these "partial-birth" abortions are or were, extremely rare, and done only in emergency situations.  The whole issue was a constitution challenge.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

Not according to doctors who perform them.  

pro-abortionists that reject all limitations on the excercise of abortion

And then there are the trolls who reject all limitations on the creation of straw men.

It's mighty easy to demolish these mythical pro-abortionists who want to make everyone get one.

I have no idea how you can be unaware of the pro-abortion absolutists who see the slightest regulation of abortion as the first step down the slippery slope of outlawing it everywhere. It's true many of them pretend this isn't the case, usually by claiming they don't oppose restrictions on partial birth abortions as long as there are loopholes for the "health and safety of the mother, " but then they make sure the loopholes are big enough to make the restrictions meaningless. (Maybe you think this a coincidence, that's your business, but don't accuse me of inventing "strawmen" because you are niave.)

I also have no idea what you mean about making "everyone want to get one".

I'm by no means anti-science, I just find it odd how when it comes to abortion suddenly science can't tell us anything.

I have no idea how you can be unaware of the pro-abortion absolutists who see the slightest regulation of abortion as the first step down the slippery slope of outlawing it everywhere.

No regulation of abortion?  Does that mean these "absolutists" want to be able to make people who don't want them get abortions?  They do that in China, but I don't recall anyone in America either approving of or advocating that.

The reasonable restriction on abortion is that it should be the choice of the pregnant woman.  Funny how you can argue for "freedom" to racially discriminate and buy politicians, but then you're against women having the freedom to decide whether they want to procreate.

Why should women be allowed to decide? I thought personal beliefs shouldn't be allowed to override science.

That's why Steve Urkel shouldn't be allowed to decide.

I never said anything was "wrong," I was just trying to calibrate zyxwvutsr's comfort level with the church's position ;-)

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I was just trying to calibrate zyxwvutsr's comfort level with the church's position

Other than for weddings and funerals, I haven't been to mass in twenty years.

I understand that Catholic Church believes embryos have same rights as those who have already been born. But what do they say about embryos at fertility clinics, waiting to be disposed of? Nothing, except that they shouldn't be used for anything productive. Catholic Church doesn't call for shutting down those clinics, doesn't call for saving all those embryos, doesn't say anything except that scientific researchers shouldn't be able to use those embryos for research prior to their otherwise inevitable disposal. You can't point to any comparable situation. Where do we look for four-year olds who will certainly be killed in weeks or months as natural part of anyone's business? I call Church's approach gross hypocrisy, even if it makes sense to you.

All flavours of Christianity have invented all sorts of new doctrines since mid-19th century, and all of those branches present all of those new doctrines as divinely inspired and unquestionable. "Old time religion" has died and has been replaced by weird new religious doctrines of one sort or another, from Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, and Fertilised Eggs as Children among Catholics to Anti-Christs, End of World, ministers with "healing" and "prophetic" powers, and Genesis as science textbook among fundamentalists. These sorts of nonsense don't qualify as "ethics" and shouldn't be granted automatic respect by rational people just because its proponents call it "religion".

But what do they say about embryos at fertility clinics, waiting to be disposed of? Nothing,

Even a quick Google for a Wiki link reveals that as false.

Yes, they oppose in vitro fertilisation in general. But what do they advocate should be done with embryos presently at fertility clinics?

You oppose environmentalism. You laugh at "don't drink Fair Trade coffee, and save the Earth". Yet here you defend Pope and Catholicism by comparing them to radical environmentalists. Huh?

Very few people who otherwise embrace environmental awareness regret "widespread availability of power, food and transportation", which explains why radical environmentalism looks radical to most people and why most people reject it. But when we discuss Catholicism, which one billion humans embrace, or fundamentalism, which half billion humans embrace, you say that their anti-science attitudes make sense because they can be compared to environmental doctrines that even most environmentalists reject. Do you really not see any disconnect?

You oppose environmentalism. You laugh at "don't drink Fair Trade coffee, and save the Earth". Yet here you defend Pope and Catholicism by comparing them to radical environmentalists. Huh?

I also generally champion Republican candidates and scorn Democratic ones. Yet I still call them each representatives of a political party. One can recognize disparate items as being members of the same abstract set. In this case, the set in question is "faith-based limitations imposed upon science."

But when we discuss Catholicism, which one billion humans embrace, or fundamentalism, which half billion humans embrace

Religious leaders do not get mind control helmets to use on their congregations. Individual Catholics have the free will to agree or disagree with the Pope, just as pro-environment individuals can agree or disagree with, e.g., Greenpeace. You and I, for the sake of argument, can either agree to consider Greenpeace leadership and the Vatican as exemplars of their respective creeds, or not. But FYI -- choosing "not" obviates this write-up.

"Creed" with no god and few million "followers" = creed with billions of followers and serious political pull around world? Another painful example of insistent disingenuity.

"Creed" with no god

Yep -- just like Buddhism.

Buddhism believes in "universal mind", consciousness and life force that permeates universe, same god that "New Thought" churches believe in. Try again. Maybe you could claim Marxism as godless religion. At least it has hundreds of millions of believers instead of handfuls.

"Creed" with no god and few million "followers"...

Would you prefer the term "cult"?

"Cult" sounds good, "cabal" sounds all right, "hopeless political movement" would be descriptive but probably too long, "Luddites" might work. We need "the right tool for the right job".

The desire to save the Earth is not really similar to the desire to save your soul.  There is no doubt that the Earth is real, and there is very good reason to think that it needs to be saved from further environmental degradation (although we can certainly debate the exact measures that would be appropriate).  There is no real evidence that there exists such a thing as a soul, much less that souls are in need of being saved.  Belief in the soul is based upon unfounded pronouncements by self-appointed religious authorities claiming to be in receipt of divine revelations from a deity who, like the soul, is also imaginary.

However, if you do believe in a soul, then that supersedes any need for saving worldly goods, including, well, the world.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

While in theory (and depending upon which particular religion you believe in) you can save your soul through religious rituals such as the Catholic sacraments, many religions (including Catholicism) do emphasize the importance of living a good life as well, in which you act responsibly, are kind to your fellow human beings, and help to make the world a better place, despite the belief that the world as we know it is just a minor part of our existence as immortal souls, the after-life being much more important than life.  I think that most religious authorities, including Pope Benedict XVI, would agree that it is a good thing to save the world in addition to saving your soul, even if the latter is the more important form of salvation.  

there is very good reason to think that it needs to be saved from further environmental degradation

That quote right there? That's where you stepped out of science and dipped into faith. "The Earth" does not need to be "saved." It has endured more abuse (read: environmental degradation) over a longer period than most can comprehend. The Earth has been smacked upside the crust with large asteroids -- repeatedly, if evidence is to be trusted. Still, not only is the Earth still here, the biosphere is still here, in all its robust glory. Even assuming that the worst fears of the environmental movement are to be believed and the planet's surface temperature rises, causing massive flooding, etc., this will mean nothing to the Earth -- and just about as much to the majority of life on it. There is nothing human beings with current technology could do which could not be undone in a few score of millenia -- less than an eye-blink of time on a geologic scale.

I think that most of the readers of treesandthings would favor the continued existence of the human species and of human civilization as we know it, and those are definitely endangered by current environmental problems which feed into and exacerbate other political and economic problems.  If we are talking about the continued existence of the terrestrial biosphere, then you are entirely correct, the biosphere will continue to exist, despite anything that we human beings may do to it.  Bacteria, at the very least, will survive any possible calamity that we might engineer.  And chances are, cockroaches will also survive.  In that sense, the Earth does not need to be saved.

do you think the eugenics movement could be described as "the best they saw fit,"

The eugenicists saw it that way.  You have the right to disagree.

using people as medical guinea pigs is as best as we see fit today?

Well, we do it, don't we?  At some point, medical procedures do have to be tested on humans, and the first subjects are "medical guinea pigs."  That doesn't mean that things like the Tuskegee Project were moral, even though the people who were doing it thought they were acting as best they they saw fit.

Everyone is wrong at some point or another, whether it is morally or factually.  The point is that eventually you have to act despite incomplete confidence, because only a fool has complete confidence.

What does the eugenics have to do with science?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Aren't you happy they're a national leader in building natural gas plants?  Let's do that nationally to fight global warming.

It might be argued that although Galileo was found guilty in his original trial, he has subsequently been absolved by the court of public opinion.  But beyond that it is worth noting in this discussion that sometime in the 1980's (I forget exactly when) the Catholic Church itself, a mere four centuries after Galileo's original trial, did officially reverse its position and exonerated Galileo.  And I doubt that even Pope Benedict XVI, the most conservative Pope in quite a long time, would consider the heliocentric theory to be heretical, at this point in history.  These days the Vatican itself has its own astronomical observatory, which (ironically enough) carries on the work that began with Galileo.

If he was referring to cultural anthropology...

Considering the history of the Catholic Church, and the ways it has adapted to local customs, I'm guessing that's exactly what he was referring to. Still, I wouldn't put cultural anthropology on an equal footing with theology. At least cultural anthropology tries to use scientific methods; theology, as practiced by the clergy, is nothing more than using fairy tales to influence the masses.

Marxism isn't a scientific method.

Marxism isn't a scientific method

I disagree that all cultural anthropologists apply Marxist ideology to their work. Some certainly have, but because they are doing so in the framework of science their work is easy to refute. (Indeed some of it is self-refuting, such as any anthropologist who uses the term "dialectic.") When a theologian, however, proclaims something to be a theological truth, he often cannot be directly refuted because his proclamations are not done in the framework of science, but of faith.