`  ::::: I have a feeling that we are misunderstanding each other to some extent.  I am going to try to be as plain as possible to try to cut through that effect.  :::::Can you be specific about which parts of ``the statement [I] insist on inserting`` you find objectionable?  To me, the most important part is the word ``though,`` which provides a contrast with the preceding sentence's claim that he was persecuted primarily for believing in Copernicanism or in many worlds (and perhaps that preceding sentence could be edited to clarify that that is its main point).  I wonder whether that it was you have been thinking I meant?  I gather from your emphasis on Bruno's philosophy as a whole that you also would disagree with the ideas I am seeking to contradict, which is why I have found our conflict to be puzzling.  I wonder whether we can craft some language that would satisfy everyone's main concerns?  :::::When Gatti says that Bruno's trial was ``about free thought and the right of the philosopher to pursue an inquiry touching on the same subjects as those considered by the theologian,`` doesn't that just mean that it was about whether trials for heresy should exist in the first place?  Doesn't it just mean that Bruno was seeking the right to not have his thoughts policed?  I don't mind seeing the trial in that way, but it seems kind of a truism.  Religious freedom had not been invented yet, its lack was hardly unique to Bruno or to 16th-century Italy, and in that context it seems worthwhile to give greater consideration to the actual content of Bruno's thought, and why he got into trouble when countless thinkers from Aquinas to Cusa did not.  :::::You say Bruno ``wasn't persecuted simply for his theology as opposed to other elements of his philosophy.``  Okay, so then he was persecuted for his philosophy as a whole?  But weren't parts of his philosophy completely unproblematic?  Even Hitler was right about some things (interstate highways, for example).  So then mustn't here be some parts of his philosophy that led to his condemnation more than others?  Can we enumerate what those were?  Even leaving aside the possibility of hyperbole, the fact that ``all his philosophical ideas`` were ``analyzed minutely`` as part of his trial does not mean that all of them equally led to his condemnation.   :::::I think my second paragraph might be the most helpful, as I try to better explain myself and perhaps clear up ways in which you might have been misunderstanding me.  The third and fourth paragraphs are more of an attempt on my part to understand what you are saying and why.  Best,  / `