I, Sagredo

In 1632, Galileo Galilee published his "Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems- Ptolemaic and Copernican." The Church, of course, held fast to the Ptolemaic view, the view supported by the Bible, that the earth is the center of the universe. Galileo had the temerity to utilize observation and measurements and calculations to arrive at the most reasonable answers to such questions. The Church/State began all such "investigations" with the presumption that the Bible is inerrant. Needless to say, Galileo, and all men of science in their day, had to tread very lightly when introducing any new ideas that might contradict the accepted doctrine. A common literary device of the day, and one which made the author appear at least nominally neutral, was the dialogue. In this case, Galileo presented his helio-centric view in terms of a fictional discussion held among three men: Salviati- an intellectual espousing the Copernican view (clearly speaking for Galileo), Simplicio- an Aristotlean philosopher supporting the then-orthodox view of geo-centrism (the position of the Church), and Sagredo- an intelligent layman in search of the truth (with whom we, the reader, are meant to identify).
Of course we do identify with Sagredo. We should identify with Sagredo. We should be open-minded and willing to hear the arguments of all sides, and further, to weigh those arguments against our own critical thinking and logical skills before reaching any conclusions. To me, this is the elegance of Galileo's "Dialogue." He not only gently introduces his new, blasphemous paradigm, but he presents the oppositional arguments and shows the reader (by following Sagredo's line of reasoning) how to properly digest these arguments. Genius. Too bad he was imprisoned and forced to recant anyway. Oh well. At least the Church acknowledged their error and apologized for it almost 400 years later.
That spirit of open-mindedness, of critical thinking, of justice and truth, that attitude and hunger of Sagredo's persists to this day. It is the highest ethics of journalism. It is the solemn duty of elected and appointed officials. It is the right and obligation of our citizens to ask- what are the facts? what is then the best way to proceed? Salviati may know best, or perhaps it is Simplicio who will deliver us from despair. Sagredo is not certain. Sagredo wants to hear the facts and the persuasive arguments from all sides before making a decision. Sagredo Lives. Sagredo Speaks.