Because when people post nonsense, such as you've posted in your characterization of Galileo, then others are compelled to correct the nonsense. When the nonsense gets corrected, the poster of the nonsense generally refuses to step down and instead becomes defensive and combative. It's all downhill from there..
Galileo was never at odds with either Christianity or with the Catholic Church. It was certain influential officials of the Church who were at odds with Galileo. When Galileo was ordered to halt teaching the Copernican heliocentric model in 1616 he did so until 1623. He did not resume his endeavors in that regard until 1623 when his friend Pope Urban VIII succeeded to the Holy See, and lifted the prohibition. His pivotal exposition of Copernican theory was published in 1632 with the imprimatur of the Catholic censors. It was only thereafter that Church opponents of science brought him before the Inquisition on the basis of the 1616 prohibition. As we all know, Galileo duly recanted before the Inquisition; he was always profoundly religious and never sought to undermine the Church. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that Galileo 'misbehaved' with regard to the Catholic Church.
PS. As an idle aside, it's worth noting that Sir Francis Bacon, despite his admirable formulation of the scientific method, nonetheless firmly rejected the Copernican model on religious grounds.
PPS. It's also noteworthy that Nicholas Copernicus drew his inspiration from the heliocentric theory of the ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus formulated 17 centuries before Copernicus. It was Copernicus however that worked out the basic physics and transformed Aristarchus' model into a science.
I only read this sentence. Since it is incorrect, I'd rather focus on this and see about the rest later.
You believe what I posted as nonsense, but that doesn't make it so. The fact that you call any opinion that doesn't match your own "nonsense" is part of the problem at FR. It is possible I am talking about something you don't know.
I didn't bring the book in, but I reviewed my copy of "The Soul of Science" by Nancy Pearcy last night. She has a few pages on the issues between Galileo and the Catholic Church. I was recalling them correctly, the battle between Galileo and the Church was not a battle about scientific truth. In fact, many scholars in the Church already supported the heliocentric theory.
However, I had oversimplified. It was actually a battle about the philosophical underpinings of science. The Church based their scientific approach on Aristotle and believe this was a requirement to the notion of moral authority. Galileo had to challenge Aristotle (sorry, I don't remember the detail) and the Church took this as a challenge to its own ability to maintain a moral code. The Pope and Galileo had been friends. The Pope had even been a "follower" of Galileo in the science realm. But the Church's desire to hold on to this power put them at odds. The battle got ugly and it became a political mess.
In the same way as Luther could have avoided the Reformation if he hadn't called the Pope the Anti-Christ, Galileo might have avoided the false split between Church and Science if he hadn't turned it into a personal crusade. But that's not to blame either radical. The Church should be big enough to handle a challenge without getting nasty itself and, IMO, enjoys the lion's share of the blame.
I meant to bring the book in and provide a couple of quotes and some footnotes, but I left it at home. You can read the book yourself. But to say the battle was about faith vs. science is as gross an oversimplification as to say that the US Civil War was about slavery.
Shalom.