Who is the enemy of the people? The contemporary society disdainfully views with contempt the killing of Galileo, for he is a symbol of progress. The words "progress" and "progressive" are in vogue for modern and contemporary society. The question the progressive society would like to pose is: Who can turn back the tide? Change is inevitable, so the only option is to accept it. Either get on the train of progress or get run over.

The word "progressive" is liberally used as "forward-thinking" by the so-called liberals, only to denigrate the conservative and the so-called traditionalist. 'Don't you dare kill Galileo again,' a satire of our time.

However, a tension between allowing Galileo to live and executing him persists in every era. Nonetheless, nobody can be progressive without being doctrinal—faith and morality. Therefore, who will and can decipher the wisdom? The liberal, in their justification, says, think of those who opposed Galileo; how silly they were to cling to their outmoded ideas."

Undoubtedly, over the past few centuries, progress in science and technology has significantly improved our lives. With each generation, medical advances improve our health. Today, we can travel around the earth in hours. The mode of information and communication with anyone in the world is in our pockets. But if we find things progressing in the wrong direction, shouldn't we stand in their way?

Progress, by its very name, indicates a direction; and the moment we are in the least doubtful about the direction, we become in the same degree doubtful about the progress. And the doubt about progressives is written all over the wall. A brief examination of the 20th century, marked by wars and oppressive regimes, reveals that there's no inevitability in our progress toward universal peace and human rights. More people were killed in wars of the last century than in all other wars combined. Besides, millions of innocent children who are killed in their mother's womb are unaccounted for and remain anonymous in the name of progress.

Is such a progression of violence inevitable? Can't we and shouldn't we stand in the way of such progress? Has our progress in wisdom and justice matched our so-called glorious progress in science and technology? What stand would Galileo take?

A worrying world is full of distress, as in recent times, Mother Nature has turned violent, and all can easily behold the wrath of nature's devastating mood that has destroyed homes and neighbourhoods and the lives of people and animals without discrimination around the world, perhaps as a return gift of progress. In the midst of such devastation from nature's wrath, the question arises: was this eventful nature's behaviour envisioned by the progressive mind as part of its schema?

The rainfall this year in many parts of India is unprecedented. In Himachal Pradesh, which has been hit by landslides, cloudbursts, and flash floods, this monsoon is beyond imagination, as the PM said: "natural disasters testing the nation." The flood-ravaged Punjab received rain that was not only in excess of normal but also the highest the state had witnessed in the past several decades. A similar pattern was observed in neighbouring Haryana, which received rainfall much higher than the normal average.

It is true that some change is inevitable and that, over the last few centuries, changes in science and technology have been rapid and productive. Auguste Comte had this to say: "The progress of the human race must be considered susceptible of modification only with regard to its speed, and without any reversal in the order of development." This scenario is particularly alarming because it lacks both a clear purpose and a definitive conclusion, as its natural course is to continue without being mindful of its consequences.

But not all change is good, and the rational mind should understand this and take the proper course of action. When we find that changes are progressing toward what's worse, we can and should stand in the way of such progress. Maybe there are times, and for the right reason, Galileo must die.

In hindsight, the younger generation wants to know: Is 'global warming' a natural phenomenon or a man-made one? In response to a girl student from the eastern state of Assam, who noted her generation's concern about climate change, the premier, Mr Modi, had replied, "The climate has not changed. We have changed." It is not a wise reply, but otherwise, the objectivity is lost in translation.

As technology continues to progress exponentially in our time, the trajectory of technological advancement is unimaginable, even as morality and objectivity are lost in translation. Warfield and the economy are a good place to gauge the modern progressive morality in relation to truth and justice. No one should be surprised to learn that the highest level of advanced technology is often used for war. The country with more advanced technology has an advantage and leverage over other nations, allowing it to dominate.

In the name of progress, humanity is at odds with itself, allowing the dictatorship of moral relativism to govern without objectivity. The contemporary human society is perplexed and pondering: why was Galileo not silenced, or will the confused liberal society allow Galileo to be silenced? Yes, Galileo must live, for the sake of truth and objectivity.

Consider the increasing emphasis on self-interest and greed in many businesses and our personal lives. Although people seem to be growing progressively less interested in helping others, it does not follow that such a trend is inevitable or that it should be accepted. Over 200 million people in India live below the poverty line. At the same time, the Galileo of India is dressed in a suit worth lakhs of rupees and travels in luxury cars, while flying in a private plane that costs lakhs of crores, all while selling the nation's wealth to a few business tycoons in the name of progress.

Is it justified? It is not mermoral relativismely true that the age that has settled least on what progress is this progressive age. Indeed, the people who have settled for the least progress are often the most progressive, while the masses are left to fend for themselves.

In view of the country's advancement, corruption is rampant in India; just consider one sector, road and highway development. As we are told that roads in India are constructed using space technology, but they don't last even a year. Only if that money were properly used with honesty, many fewer Indians would be living in poverty. However, in a progressive world, the common good is lost in translation by falsely exalting Galileo. The missing factor in the liberal world is good—the objective.

Contemporary society is fond of talking about progress; that is, dodging the discussion on what is good—the goal is a move towards what. The modern man says, let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty—away with old moral formulae." One of the flagbearers of the liberal society, Hillary Clinton, had asked the Catholic Church with audacity and arrogance to change its teachings to keep up with the changing times to fit in with the progressive schema of things. Was she trying to be the new Galileo or kill the Galileo?

GK Chesterton says, "Progress, properly understood, has indeed a most dignified and legitimate meaning. But as used in opposition to precise moral ideals, it is ludicrous." The contemporary progressive society continues the path of ethnic cleansing, racial discrimination, environmental degradation, corruption, and violation of moral laws as the new normal.

Yes, Galileo was killed for the wrong reason; it was for the fear of the known and the unknown in the material world. However, the objective moral truths are the goals for rational beings to emulate and abide by, without compromising as we advance in our knowledge of the material world. Galileo will and should certainly live. Progress is not an illegitimate concept, but it is logically evident that it is illegitimate for us as we gauge contemporary society, which is devoid of faith and morality. It is a sacred word, a word that could only rightly be used by rigid believers in the age of faith. Galileo must be laughing at us.