The Seperation of Church and State

[PrincessGoneral]

[I](I do not wish to offend any religious groups in this post. I am not criticizing their beliefs. I am only commenting on the conduct and organisation of certain individuals. And in case you didn?t get it, MCS stands for Mix of Church and State.)[/I]
I believe that the separation of Church and State is an important factor in keeping society [I]relatively[/I] sane. As we all know, when these two enemies meet, a violent battle is bound to ensue. Here?s one minor incident where they come in contact with each other.

Picking up the Globe and Mail, (Americans, it is known to be a right-wing paper) I found a front-page article stating that Florida Governor Jeb Bush had created a faith-based prison. Called Lawtey Correctional Institute, the 791 inmates are expected to be followers of the Christian God, in exchange for a more ?peaceful and lenient? environment than that of other prisons. The Institute is staffed by more than 500 volunteers from religious groups, most of them Protestant. These people provide daily worship and prayer-based rehabilitation. Civil-rights groups have accused it of being unconstitutional and offensive. But since the prisoners are volunteers, this isn?t so. Since the prisoners were not forced to be subjected to this, I have no moral opposition to the idea of faith-based jails. I do have some questions, though.
-Would someone be so kind as to explain to me how prayer-based rehabilitation prepares criminals to re-enter the real world?
-Additionally, do you think that this project deserves $200-million for funding? (Given to them by the George Bush-created ?Federal Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.)
-Finally, Can you give me a circumstance in which this approach has been effective?

So if this isn?t what?s getting under my skin, what is? Well, the article continues to explain that Mr. Jeb Bush has instated a ?faith-based co-ordinator? in every department of Florida?s government. Apparently, they reach out to religious groups and ?encourage them to make bids to offer government services in exchange for grants in Washington.? This is the Mix of Church and State Number One.

MCS #2
Jeb Bush fired the head of the Department of Children and Families ( it administers many of the state?s welfare programs), appointing a conservative with a master?s in Bible Studies. This man, Jerry Regier, suggested Bush spend $10-million a year on a program that provides prayer-based marriage counselling from Church Groups. He claims this will reduce the divorce rate.
-Again, Do you think $10 million a year is worth it, and can you find me a circumstance in which this worked?
- What if you?re not Christian? How does this help you?

MCS #3
Here?s a big one. Jeb has introduced a program called ?Character First!?. Government employees are coached in 49 ?key biblical qualities?, eg. Deference, Virtue, Loyalty, and Meekness. (Modelled after an evangelical Christian program called the ?49 Commandments of Christ?.) He appears to be enforcing Christianity into the Florida government. The state of Florida is not entirely comprised of Christians, right? I can see how many Christian commandments make sense, ie Thous shall not kill, but some people out there [I]are not Christian[/I]. It?s their choice.
This isn?t government related, but Jeb Bush is also attempting to put some child-care programs in the hands of religious groups. I assume some parents would be more comfortable with their children in religious care programs, so this is fine with me. As long as the children are educated about all their religious, social, sexual (and everything else religion dictates over) options.

This last point[B] really [/B] stood out for me. The aforementioned Mr. Regier suggested that the government should have absolutely no say in social-assistance. He believes that it should be left to the Churches. I repeat: Some people in Florida [B]are not Christian[/B]! What if they don?t want Churches telling them they can?t say this, do this, marry this person. At least the government is comprised of people of different viewpoints, religions, and morals. (At least [I]did[/I], until Jeb made had them all coached in ?Biblical Qualities?.) They can come to agreements on things, and remain neutral. Hopefully, their decisions will appease as many groups and cultures and possible, not just the majority. The minority must also be considered.

That?s also huge. Christianity appears to be the majority in Florida. (Please correct me if I?m wrong.) Election time is drawing ever closer, and the Republicans need votes. Wherever shall they get them? Republicans look to the evangelical Christians for their faithful vote. President Bush?s 2000 victory margin was so narrow due to the poor turnout of Christian conservatives. The Bush government won?t let this happen again. Florida has is the largest recipient of Washington?s faith-based funding. Those who have noticed this now accused this faith-and-fuding program of being no more than a campaign fund. What do you think?

In conclusion , like vinegar and baking soda, I believe that is necessary for the church to be separated from the state. Because when dealing with religion, there is only one way to go when dealing with a problem, and one cannot debate this way without fear of retribution. When dealing with the government, many different minds can contribute and help to resolve conflicts, in a (hopefully) composed and organised fashion. That is Democracy and Freedom. Aren?t these the two ideas that the United Stated of America are most proud of?

:D Smma wants your input on this issue!

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Obviously, due to the diversity of religious beliefs among American citizens it is simply illogical to base any form of the government (other than such statements as "thou shalt not kill", which would probably be stuck in there anyway) on religion.
Even if America were not as diverse as it is, it still would be a highly negative thing for the constitution to revolve around religious statements.

Take the Middle East for example. Many countries' governments are basically what is written in the religion of the area. This is what results in rape victims being stoned to death instead of their attackers being brought to justice (this isn't something I made up, BTW).
It just doesn't work.

Based on the information given, it seems as though Florida's government is all but stating that any one who is not, in fact, Christian has no place in the governmental staff.
I shouldn't need to explain how utterly wrong this is, as I know (based on seperate threads) that we are all (almost all) reasonable people here.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[QUOTE=PrincessGoneral]
-Would someone be so kind as to explain to me how prayer-based rehabilitation prepares criminals to re-enter the real world?
[/quote]Gladly. The religious re-habilitation would help to reduce the violent tendancies.
[quote]
-Additionally, do you think that this project deserves $200-million for funding? (Given to them by the George Bush-created ?Federal Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.)
[/quote]I'm sure they could cut down the costs a little. But yeah, might aswell fund it. It's better than just throwing them in a metal box.
[quote]
-Finally, Can you give me a circumstance in which this approach has been effective?
[/quote] Gladly. Often times when people accept Jesus as their savior, the desire for violence and drugs are uplifted almost immediatly. The only reason why these didn't work before is because they would force people into the religious prison, while here they are not.
[quote]
So if this isn?t what?s getting under my skin, what is? Well, the article continues to explain that Mr. Jeb Bush has instated a ?faith-based co-ordinator? in every department of Florida?s government. Apparently, they reach out to religious groups and ?encourage them to make bids to offer government services in exchange for grants in Washington.? This is the Mix of Church and State Number One.

MCS #2
Jeb Bush fired the head of the Department of Children and Families ( it administers many of the state?s welfare programs), appointing a conservative with a master?s in Bible Studies. This man, Jerry Regier, suggested Bush spend $10-million a year on a program that provides prayer-based marriage counselling from Church Groups. He claims this will reduce the divorce rate.
-Again, Do you think $10 million a year is worth it, and can you find me a circumstance in which this worked?
[/quote]Depends. What's the bare minimum?

A circumstance that prayer-based marriage has worked: Myself. My family is the only [u]actual[/u] Christian family. All the rest of my family are drug attics, abusers, and are the general scum of the white race. My father married my mother when she was 18 and he was 22, and they've stayed happily married for 24 years.
[quote]
- What if you?re not Christian? How does this help you?[/quote]A lot of the Bible is simply advice.

Also, no where did you state that they are lowering the other welfare programs.


[quote] MCS #3
Here?s a big one. Jeb has introduced a program called ?Character First!?. Government employees are coached in 49 ?key biblical qualities?, eg. Deference, Virtue, Loyalty, and Meekness. (Modelled after an evangelical Christian program called the ?49 Commandments of Christ?.) He appears to be enforcing Christianity into the Florida government. The state of Florida is not entirely comprised of Christians, right? I can see how many Christian commandments make sense, ie Thous shall not kill, but some people out there [I]are not Christian[/I]. It?s their choice.
[/quote]This is just coaching of advice. Not forcing them to be Christian. Has Jeb himself stated that he is making people become Christian, or is this just the view of an onlooker?

Yeah, Jeb is pushing things a little too much... from what's stated here, however.
[quote]
This isn?t government related, but Jeb Bush is also attempting to put some child-care programs in the hands of religious groups. I assume some parents would be more comfortable with their children in religious care programs, so this is fine with me. As long as the children are educated about all their religious, social, sexual (and everything else religion dictates over) options.
[/quote] Well, its better since the 15% Aetheistic world population has a tendancy to be a problem. Having people with a [u]Belief[/u] of modern-day moral values to take care of something viewed as innoscent and precious sounds like a good enough idea to me.

[quote] This last point[B] really [/B] stood out for me. The aforementioned Mr. Regier suggested that the government should have absolutely no say in social-assistance. He believes that it should be left to the Churches. I repeat: Some people in Florida [B]are not Christian[/B]! What if they don?t want Churches telling them they can?t say this, do this, marry this person. At least the government is comprised of people of different viewpoints, religions, and morals. (At least [I]did[/I], until Jeb made had them all coached in ?Biblical Qualities?.) They can come to agreements on things, and remain neutral. Hopefully, their decisions will appease as many groups and cultures and possible, not just the majority. The minority must also be considered.
[/quote]Well, too bad. The government should have no say in marriage because that was a religious ceremony. Whether the government wants to unlawfully give benifits to married couples or not is it's problem. Without a [u]Belief[/u] of moral values, they'll go down the drain. (Imagines every morning-radio show being like Howard Stern). They should rather appoint religious people in the social-assitance, and not just completely abandon the whole thing and let the Church take care of it.


[quote] That?s also huge. Christianity appears to be the majority in Florida. (Please correct me if I?m wrong.) Election time is drawing ever closer, and the Republicans need votes. Wherever shall they get them? Republicans look to the evangelical Christians for their faithful vote. President Bush?s 2000 victory margin was so narrow due to the poor turnout of Christian conservatives. The Bush government won?t let this happen again. Florida has is the largest recipient of Washington?s faith-based funding. Those who have noticed this now accused this faith-and-fuding program of being no more than a campaign fund. What do you think?
[/quote] A recent poll issued by the news say that 48% of people support George while up to 52% (Kerry's number unconfirmed) support Kerry. That is not nearly enough to make a dent in the electorial college.
[quote]
In conclusion , like vinegar and baking soda, I believe that is necessary for the church to be separated from the state. Because when dealing with religion, there is only one way to go when dealing with a problem, and one cannot debate this way without fear of retribution. When dealing with the government, many different minds can contribute and help to resolve conflicts, in a (hopefully) composed and organised fashion. That is Democracy and Freedom. Aren?t these the two ideas that the United Stated of America are most proud of?

:D Smma wants your input on this issue![/QUOTE]
Actually, there are multiple religious ways to deal with a problem. Don't let the previous catholic church scare you.

[PrincessGoneral]

[QUOTE=Crimson Spider]
I'm sure they could cut down the costs a little. But yeah, might aswell fund it. It's better than just throwing them in a metal box.[/QUOTE]

Excellent point.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Also, no where did you state that they are lowering the other welfare programs.[/quote]

Aaah. Well caught! I must look intot this.


[quote name='Crimson Spider']This is just coaching of advice. Not forcing them to be Christian. Has Jeb himself stated that he is making people become Christian, or is this just the view of an onlooker?[/quote]


Brilliant. I apologize for stating that as fact. 'Tis truly an observation.

[QUOTE=Crimson Spider]Yeah, Jeb is pushing things a little too much... from what's stated here, however.
Well, its better since the 15% Aetheistic world population has a tendancy to be a problem. Having people with a [u]Belief[/u] of modern-day moral values to take care of something viewed as innoscent and precious sounds like a good enough idea to me.[/QUOTE]
Not all Aetheists are bereft of morals. Being Aetheistic and immorral do not go hand in hand.

[quote name='Crimson Spider]Well, too bad. The government should have no say in marriage because that was a religious ceremony. Whether the government wants to unlawfully give benifits to married couples or not is it's problem. Without a [u]Belief[/u'] of moral values, they'll go down the drain. (Imagines every morning-radio show being like Howard Stern). They should rather appoint religious people in the social-assitance, and not just completely abandon the whole thing and let the Church take care of it.[/quote]

If the government gave something, wouldn't it instantly become [I]lawful[/I] ? I don't want to get into another topic, but look at gay marriages. So much religion, so much law involved. You can't take government out of that, but I believe you can take the Church out of that. It involves civil liberties, not choice of religion.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Actually, there are multiple religious ways to deal with a problem. Don't let the previous catholic church scare you. [/quote]
Thanks for that. Sorry I generalized. I hate it when I do that.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[QUOTE=PrincessGoneral]
Not all Aetheists are bereft of morals. Being Aetheistic and immorral do not go hand in hand.
[/quote]But being religious and moral do.
[quote]
If the government gave something, wouldn't it instantly become [I]lawful[/I] ? I don't want to get into another topic, but look at gay marriages. So much religion, so much law involved. You can't take government out of that, but I believe you can take the Church out of that. It involves civil liberties, not choice of religion.
[/quote]
You'll be suprised how often the constitution contradicts itself. It claims that it won't do a general area of stuff, yet it does something that fits in the category. Regardless if you can take the law out of itself (I only mentioned marriage because you mentioned it), it is still breaking itself. I am, after all, trying to stay out of the debate of gay marriage myself, since my personal preferance on the matter seems to dis-agree with the majority of people here.

[quote]Thanks for that. Sorry I generalized. I hate it when I do that.[/QUOTE]


Relax. I do that all the time. :D

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Crimson Spider, are you trying to say that all religious people have a strong sense of morality, as a rule? Or, rather, that they have a sense of morality that is realistic?

I am not attacking religious people in a general fashion, but you cannot go about making implacations that 1) all religious people follow a sense of reasonable morals 2) atheists, for the most part, do not.
I bring this up because pretty much every deliberate, devistating crime/conflict has been brought about by religion. Is blowing yourself up in order to kill 50 people of a different faith moral in your eyes?
I think I understand what you were trying to say, but the way you worded it was rather foolish, to be blunt.

I wont even go into gay marriages. *exasperation*

But the fact remains that if you were to base government on the Bible, or any other religious book, for that matter, things would go downhill very, very quickly.

I agree entirely with Goneral's vinegar x baking soda symale: the two just don't go together.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Xander Harris]

I agree that seperation of church and state is a good thing. History shows us that theocracies don't work out in the long run. And if they do, they tend to be pretty repressive governments.

Now, that said, I don't think we are in any danger of our government becoming a theocracy. I mean, seriously. The Bushes have decided to give government funding to religious (note I say religious, not christian) organizations so that those organizations can help the poor and the prisoners. That's a far cry from forcing everyone into the same religion.

Also, a person's religion is a fundamental part of who they are. The idea that leaders should, or are humanly capable of, divorcing their religion from their decision making entirely is ludicrous. The actions and thoughts of everyone, no matter if you are an athiest, a buddhist, a deist, a catholic, a protestant, a jew, whatever, [I]will[/I] be influenced by those religious beliefs. So long as Bush doesn't persecute those of other religions than his own, I see no problem.

Gay marriage. How did that sneak in here :rolleyes: . Well, since it's here, and certainly part of this subject matter, I'll try to address it. I believe a case can be made against gay marriage without any religious beliefs being brought into it. The argument goes like this: The institution of marriage between man and women is a fundamental aspect of our society... what's next after gay marriage, polygamy?
So far, those are the only kinds of arguements Bush has used against gay marriage. He hasn't brought up sodom and gommorah or anything, and he supports civil unions. (besides, who here honestly thinks the constitution will actually be successfully amended over this? For better or for worse, I think the decision will come down to the Supreme Court.)

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Crimson Spider, are you trying to say that all religious people have a strong sense of morality, as a rule? Or, rather, that they have a sense of morality that is realistic?
[/quote]Actually, I'm saying that the religious (not just plebian, but actually the higher assigned ranking in religion) people and religion enforce morality.


[quote]I am not attacking religious people in a general fashion, but you cannot go about making implacations that 1) all religious people follow a sense of reasonable morals 2) atheists, for the most part, do not.
[/quote]I did not. You are implying that I was trying to state that, while I actually didn't.
Notice how I said: "Tendancy"? Also had I said being religious, and not just belonging to a religion. I also stressed the word "Belief".
[quote]
I bring this up because pretty much every deliberate, devistating crime/conflict has been brought about by religion. Is blowing yourself up in order to kill 50 people of a different faith moral in your eyes?
[/quote]Nope. Then again, you can't go off of some radical religious group who dispises another and contradicts what their faith actually teaches with their actions, as did the Christian church did in the middle ages. Minorities need to be taken into account, but not the extreme few, like the part of the "pretty much" who aren't religious.
[quote]
I think I understand what you were trying to say, but the way you worded it was rather foolish, to be blunt.[/quote]
Or how you percieved it. My english teacher says that my writing is fine. Often times it is the reader who does not understand where someone is comeing from. I mean, try reading the Purloined Letter by Edgar Allan Poe, and good luck.

[quote]But the fact remains that if you were to base government on the Bible, or any other religious book, for that matter, things would go downhill very, very quickly.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Like? The downsides seen from other religions don't come from the teaching itself, but rather what people percieve from it, and how people abuse it.

EDIT: Xander, don't go there. Leave gay marriage out of this. The statement you made yourself is VERY easily debatable and in itself jaded. Trust me: people have something to counter it.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

The one do not speak for the many, nor do they dictate the actual religion itself.

A perfect example of this is me. I'm an arrogant bastard, and I'll admit it. I am not exactly what you would call the Christian norm (norm means model, not normal). I am also not the supreme embassidor of Christianity. So you can't look at me, and judge all religious people on the grounds that I myself am on.

In Medievel times, the Christian churches gained political power over Europe. Lets say it was hell for the common folk. The church would commit acts that were completely against what the actual religion was (inquisition, anyone?), and would accuse anyone who called them of it of herecy and burn them at the stake.

In a more modern age, having a government based on an actual religion while not having the church have supreme controll, and having access to the actual writings of a religion would allow people to speak freely against the acts commited by the government if it were somehow to become completely Church controlled.

[Baron Samedi]

[color=darkred][size=1]Simple.

Government is a system for governing and controlling everyone in it's jurisdiction, right?

Religion is a voluntary system wherebye people believing in the same thing, do so. Right?

They should be separate. Goverment is something compulsory for everyone. Religion isn't. They don't mesh. Stop trying to put a square peg in a round hole, because it isn't damn well going to fit.

If you're religious, do it in your own time. Don't infringe on others.[/size][/color]

[sublime2004]

[b][size=1][color=darkred] I have not read a lot of these last posts. I think i have undiagnosed A.D.D. or something. So, please forgive me if i state or re-state the obvious. But, thankfully i'm only here to discuss one aspect of the conversation.

The 49 Key Biblical Qualities. Have you ever gone over the specific qualities they are trying to instill? Most of them are next to impossible for anyone other than a saint. But, most of them have one thing in common: They are not exclusive to Christianity.

Most of them are vital for a successful government. Which is going down the tubes, I might add. Which is probably why he is trying to reinforce them in the minds of everyone.

I have no doubt that if Jeb had lef the word "biblical" out of the title and mixed the order up a bit of those virtues, that no one would have ever known the difference. But since he associated it with such a major constitutional faux pas, they made it a bigger deal than it has to be.[/b][/size][/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Crimson Spider]In Medievel times, the Christian churches gained political power over Europe. Lets say it was hell for the common folk. The church would commit acts that were completely against what the actual religion was (inquisition, anyone?), and would accuse anyone who called them of it of herecy and burn them at the stake.

In a more modern age, having a government based on an actual religion while not having the church have supreme controll, and having access to the actual writings of a religion would allow people to speak freely against the acts commited by the government if it were somehow to become completely Church controlled.[/QUOTE]

How do I make myself clear here... there's no such thing as "what the actual religion was" when you're talking about the Inquisition or any of the power plays of the Church over the centuries. Religion (or perversion of it, however you perceive it) is one of the most effective means of acquiring and enforcing control over the populace, and that fact does not change whether you're talking about the 16th century or the 21st.

Saying "a government based on an actual religion" (whatever the heck "actual" means) is equivalent to saying "theocracy," and that's nowhere near the definition of "democracy." I know that sounds a bit smart-alecky, but the point is you're going to take away certain freedoms from people if you replace the latter with the former.

I should also say that I completely detest any remarks about religions being "inherently moral" and non-religious people therefore not being "inherenly moral." Let me point out that moral codes were not created by religions; they were adapted by religion in order to accomodate society. They are, more than anything else, social moral codes (NOT religious ones). To say that religious people, because they "believe" in a moral system, are more likely to follow it, is just plain idiocy. The thread starts with a discussion of faith-assisted PRISONS, and you bring up such completely unfounded generalizations. Shame on you.

And, everyone, for the last time (I hope), marriage is NOT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION by default. Many religious have established it as one, but because marriage (in whatever shape) is an idea carried over the vast majority of all societies in general (regardless of religion), marriage is first and foremost a social institution. The government cannot enforce a particular incarnation of it onto the public and maintain "separation from church and state," because any particular incarnation of it WOULD be directed by some religion (in this case, Protestant Christianity). If a couple does not wish to have a "Christian wedding," how can one say that marriage is a strictly religious union? Does that mean that the wedding is nullified? Anyway I hope I made my point.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']How do I make myself clear here... there's no such thing as "what the actual religion was" when you're talking about the Inquisition or any of the power plays of the Church over the centuries.[/quote]
Pick up any Bible and read it. *Gasp* the actual teachings of the religion! People [u]knew[/u] what they were doing wasn't coinciding with what their religion was teaching. They used religion as a scapegoat.
[quote]
Religion (or perversion of it, however you perceive it) is one of the most effective means of acquiring and enforcing control over the populace, and that fact does not change whether you're talking about the 16th century or the 21st.
[/quote] So is the aethiestic media. Religion is based exclusivly on one thing: [b][u][i]Belief[/b][/u][/i]. It is what you believe. Religion wasn't formed up 6000 years ago soley to control the masses of the future. I sure as heck bet that Mohommed didn't expect the Islamic religion he started to pull in 1/5th the world population. It just happens. Darwin didn't expect Evolution to kick off either. And when someone points out something that is written in what you believe (a lot of people don't always agree with what they say), then guess what you're going to do?


[quote]Saying "a government based on an actual religion" (whatever the heck "actual" means) is equivalent to saying "theocracy," and that's nowhere near the definition of "democracy." I know that sounds a bit smart-alecky, but the point is you're going to take away certain freedoms from people if you replace the latter with the former.
[/quote]Don't know what I meant when I put actual in their either. Possibly from habit.
O.K. A government BASED on a religion (which is the EXACT same government that the U.S.A is running off of right now) is not a theocracy, but a democracy. A government that has religious influences isn't a theocracy, but is still a Democracy. The definition of a theocracy is A government ruled by or subject to religious authority, which is not what I was proposing. A church should have a say, but not a dictatorship. Where did you get off on saying I am proposing a theocracy?
[quote]
I should also say that I completely detest any remarks about religions being "inherently moral" and non-religious people therefore not being "inherenly moral." Let me point out that moral codes were not created by religions; they were adapted by religion in order to accomodate society. They are, more than anything else, social moral codes (NOT religious ones). To say that religious people, because they "believe" in a moral system, are more likely to follow it, is just plain idiocy. The thread starts with a discussion of faith-assisted PRISONS, and you bring up such completely unfounded generalizations. Shame on you.
[/quote]
Someone's sig once said this: "If you were to ask 100 people what is right and wrong, you would get 100 different answers. So is there a right and wrong?" That statement couldn't hold anymore ground here than anything else I can say. If there was this mysteriously imposed moral code, then why do people view things such as murder and canabilsm as not bad? Without a third-party influence, there is no white or black. Only grey.
And then you question the power of belief? If you were to go to any Church on the planet and threaten to be-head anyone who wouldn't renounce their religion, you'll have a lot of heads on your hands. When you believe IN something (not just believe something. You seem to be mixing that up), you will stand by it until your last breath. So when you are appointing someone who believes in the moral values that you are trying to protect by instating him, he's going to stand by them.
Now, what was it that I made that first point about again?
[quote]This isn?t government related, but Jeb Bush is also attempting to put some child-care programs in the hands of religious groups. I assume some parents would be more comfortable with their children in religious care programs, so this is fine with me. As long as the children are educated about all their religious, social, sexual (and everything else religion dictates over) options.[/quote]
Ah, yes. And my response was
[quote]
Well, its better since the 15% Aetheistic world population has a tendancy to be a problem. Having people with a Belief of modern-day moral values to take care of something viewed as innoscent and precious sounds like a good enough idea to me.[/quote]Now, since you are going to mix this up, the word Tendency means the characteristic likelyhood. That means "possible" not "will", and certainly not "majority".

You know, my other two boards catch the way I phrase things, and would've seen what Tendency meant. Seems like this is the only place where people don't peruse my stuff.

[quote]And, everyone, for the last time (I hope), marriage is NOT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION by default. Many religious have established it as one, but because marriage (in whatever shape) is an idea carried over the vast majority of all societies in general (regardless of religion), marriage is first and foremost a social institution. The government cannot enforce a particular incarnation of it onto the public and maintain "separation from church and state," because any particular incarnation of it WOULD be directed by some religion (in this case, Protestant Christianity). If a couple does not wish to have a "Christian wedding," how can one say that marriage is a strictly religious union? Does that mean that the wedding is nullified? Anyway I hope I made my point.[/QUOTE] Then where did it come from? Thin air? Sorry to burst your bubble, but religion wasn't made 50 years ago. Religion came about long before society ever did. Before there were implied moral values. Long before Marriage ever had itself a purpose in the law. Regardless of how it is carried over in "Society" does NOT change what it is. And when you have a constitution that seperates Church from State, you cannot alter the "is" because you have no jurisdiction. The current laws with marriage are unconstitutional. If a couple wants to get married, then fine by them. But the government shouldn't have a say in this affair, because even if you aren't getting married in a church, you are still [u]getting married[/u], which means you are practicing a religious ceremony regardless of if you are from that religion or not.

Please have a more solid ground before you reply, because I'm probably going to predict what you are going to say next.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE=Crimson Spider]Then where did it come from? Thin air? Sorry to burst your bubble, but religion wasn't made 50 years ago. Religion came about long before society ever did. Before there were implied moral values. Long before Marriage ever had itself a purpose in the law. Regardless of how it is carried over in "Society" does NOT change what it is. And when you have a constitution that seperates Church from State, you cannot alter the "is" because you have no jurisdiction. The current laws with marriage are unconstitutional. If a couple wants to get married, then fine by them. But the government shouldn't have a say in this affair, because even if you aren't getting married in a church, you are still [u]getting married[/u], which means you are practicing a religious ceremony regardless of if you are from that religion or not.

Please have a more solid ground before you reply, because I'm probably going to predict what you are going to say next.[/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Organized religion is a by product of society, one could argue that individual faith arose before society.

I also would like to point out that marriages are not rooted in religion, they were first used as a method of agrreing on property trades (almost like a present day signature) by parents during business deals. Parents on both sides would arrange that their sons and daughters be bound to only each other for life, thus sealing a business deal. This actually was Sumerian custom and had no religious foundings. The traditions were eventually incorparated into various religions. The same could be said about the celebration of Jesus' birth. Why do Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus in December when the bible clearly states that he was born in March? Because conquering religions use existing holidays to make conversion less shocking, it is called transmutation.

Marriage was a by-product of transmutation, it often times went against religious teachings because undermining a person's free will and bartering them like chatel is against most present day religious ideology. At the turn of the first millenia however, Romans were still binding sons and daughters together in "marriage" to seal land purchases. Therfore, the tradition was transmutated to Christian philosophy.

As far as the seperation of church and state is concerned, I am all for it...as long as it doesn't infringe upon our other inalienable rights. For example, Jeb can propose a Christian jail, and the legislators in Florida can sign the building contracts, however, the judicial branch should step in and declare it unconstitutional instantly. That is why the balance of power in both state and federal government is so important.[/color]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud][color=indigo']Organized religion is a by product of society, one could argue that individual faith arose before society. [/quote] You do realize that people had a way of communicating back then, right? This religion that was made before an actual civilization was spread-out quite far.
[quote]

I also would like to point out that marriages are not rooted in religion, they were first used as a method of agrreing on property trades (almost like a present day signature) by parents during business deals. Parents on both sides would arrange that their sons and daughters be bound to only each other for life, thus sealing a business deal. This actually was Sumerian custom and had no religious foundings. The traditions were eventually incorparated into various religions. The same could be said about the celebration of Jesus' birth. Why do Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus in December when the bible clearly states that he was born in March? Because conquering religions use existing holidays to make conversion less shocking, it is called transmutation.
[/quote]Seems like no one takes it from me, so...
[url]http://www.stcatherine.org/marriage.html[/url]
Let me know of you want to see more sites.
Religions don't just adopt things into them and claim them as their own. While religions do have similarities, that is the religion itself that believes that believes whatever it is. Yeah, sure we celebrate the birth of Jesus in December from an origional holiday, but it is not the same holiday. It is a different one placed in the same spot. We [u]know[/u] that Jesus wasn't born in December. And I once aagain ask you: who thought of it? How did it become such a powerful institution? You only mentioned the first race that had it, not where they got it from.


[quote]Marriage was a by-product of transmutation, it often times went against religious teachings because undermining a person's free will and bartering them like chatel is against most present day religious ideology.[/quote]
Undermining someone's free will? The whole notion of "free will" came from religion. Otherwise we would still own slaves. Marriage is what would give the right for two indeviduals to reproduce with eachother, so you could say it granted rights.

[quote]At the turn of the first millenia however, Romans were still binding sons and daughters together in "marriage" to seal land purchases. Therfore, the tradition was transmutated to Christian philosophy.[/quote]Website above covers that. FYI: Christianity wasn't the first religion out there. It couldn't have, since Jesus hadn't walked the Earth yet. But there are many religions that came before Christianity which are pratically the exact same thing until Christ came. The reason why marriage itself had so many legal benifits is because the religion-controlled civilizations would often times make benifits for it.

Just look at what Moses did. "Thou Shall Not Commit Adultry". If religion adopted marriage, then where did that come from?

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Gladly. The religious re-habilitation would help to reduce the violent tendancies. [/quote]

Thats a matter of opinion, and certainly NOT fact. In fact some of the most violent people this world has seen have been very religious people. It's usually because of their religion that they do their violent things.

Individual faith also was around before any type of society was developed. This is evident in cave paintings and sculptures dating from ancient times before we know of any society or community existing. The statue "Venus of Willindorf" (sp?) is a good example of this

Anyway, it doesn't surprise me about Jeb Bush doing all this stuff. He's the worst thing to happen to the state of Florida since slavery was introduced. I live in Florida, I experience it first hand. I honestly couldn't see how he got elected to a second term two years ago or whatever it was. I certainly didn't vote for him.

Oh yeah, and under our current president, there is no such thing as seperation of church and state, apparently he forgot to read the constitution.

I also leave with a quote from a founding father and ex president: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.? ~John Adams.... I dunno how much clearer you can get...

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]To amble back to the original subject matter of this thread...

Religion-based prisons and childcare centers.

Let's start off by reminding ourselves that the purpose of prisons is "not to punish, but to rehabilitate", as a certain individual I know would say.
When you commit a crime, you commit it against the state. I say this because there are so many different religions with different teachings. Though the laws of the state, and those of religion often meet (i.e. Thou shalt not kill), they don't as a rule. For instance, adultery is not a crime. However, in certain theocratic governments, it is punishable by death. By stoning.
What is most chilling about this is that rape vicitms are also liable to be punished in this manner. I use this example again because it is an extreme case.

Anyway, I seem to have gone off on a tangent, so I will stray back to my original purpose...

If the idea is to provide a "more leniant environment", you will have many a raised eyebrow across North America (and probably in other areas of the world, too). Is this stating that those who choose to be rehabilitated based on their religious beliefs will be subject to a more pleasant prison environment?
Sounds fishy to me.

Dealing with criminals is the government's job. Leave the church out of it.

As for religious child-care centers?

I don't think the government should fund any race- or religion-based schools (or other such organizations, regardless of how moral they are), simply because it takes away from the public system.
One system is the way to go.

Crimson Spider, you [I]were[/I] implying that religious people are all morally stable in stating that religious rehabilitation institutions reduce violent tendancies. I was about to bring that up, but I had to go...come back and Transtic Nerve's done it already...
So I'm just agreeing with him.

Let's put it this way: [B]If you want a religion-based government, go live in Iraq.[/B][/FONT][/COLOR]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote]You do realize that people had a way of communicating back then, right? This religion that was made before an actual civilization was spread-out quite far.
[/quote]
Yes, people communicated in small organized nomadic pacts and hunted. People feared things they didn't understand and created gods to explain those things. At least that is what the scientific process tells us. Could God have created men before then? Sure, why not. But organized religion developed out of organized society which developed out of the need to effectivly hunt and gather.

[quote]Seems like no one takes it from me, so...
[url]http://www.stcatherine.org/marriage.html[/url]
Let me know of you want to see more sites.
Religions don't just adopt things into them and claim them as their own.
[/quote]

Well, yes they do. You see, Sumerian culture dates back before the very first copy of the old testament can be proven to exist, but the story of Gilgamesh is very similar to the story of Noah, a great example of the ability to transmutate religious stories. Also, the old testament never specifically references marriage as a sacred union, with the exception of the "Thou shalt not commit adultery" commandment. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" could easily have been a commandment because by commiting adultery a person was breaking the bonds of their parents arrangement, therefore whelching on a business transaction. I also like how you back your statement with a page developed by the Catholic Church, very unbiased.

[quote]We know that Jesus wasn't born in December. And I once aagain ask you: who thought of it? How did it become such a powerful institution? You only mentioned the first race that had it, not where they got it from.

[/quote]

The holiday was [i]sol invictus[/i] (Unconquered Sun) and it marked the time of the year when the sun returns and the days grow longer (coinciding with the winter solctice). The holiday was celebrated by the ancient Egyptians then later adopted by the ancient Greeks, who passed it on to the Romans. That is where the holiday came from.

[quote]Undermining someone's free will? The whole notion of "free will" came from religion. Otherwise we would still own slaves. Marriage is what would give the right for two indeviduals to reproduce with eachother, so you could say it granted rights.
[/quote]

I was actually backing the moral fibers of religion by saying that the practice of marriage, which was symbolized property trade at the birth of Christianity, undermined teachings in the Bible, specifically free will. Due to transmutation, the process was incorparated and eventually progressed into today's tradition. To be honest, I really don't understand your argument, I was just presenting you with enlightening historical facts, and you are making a case against them for no reason...I am not disagreeing with you on whether or not faith existed before society, it could have, just not religion.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Now TN's in this too. 3 agaisnt one isn't too fair...

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Thats a matter of opinion, and certainly NOT fact. In fact some of the most violent people this world has seen have been very religious people. It's usually because of their religion that they do their violent things[/quote]
Usually is less than 'Most". Just to point that out.
Also, I've seen many a person become a generally better person because they found religion. There is no reason why someone who volunteers there would not do the same. People use religion as a scapegoat, and are mostly psychologically crazy when they commit the act. You cannot point the blame squarely at religion.

[quote]Individual faith also was around before any type of society was developed. This is evident in cave paintings and sculptures dating from ancient times before we know of any society or community existing. The statue "Venus of Willindorf" (sp?) is a good example of this[/quote]The peculiar thing is that all of the individual faiths that came around were eerily similar.

[quote]Anyway, it doesn't surprise me about Jeb Bush doing all this stuff. He's the worst thing to happen to the state of Florida since slavery was introduced. I live in Florida, I experience it first hand. I honestly couldn't see how he got elected to a second term two years ago or whatever it was. I certainly didn't vote for him.

Oh yeah, and under our current president, there is no such thing as seperation of church and state, apparently he forgot to read the constitution.

I also leave with a quote from a founding father and ex president: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.? ~John Adams.... I dunno how much clearer you can get...[/QUOTE]
You know, if Jeb's last name was Gore, you would've been for it. Just something I've been observing from you.

Anyway, the opinion of one man does not change the entire history of the U.S. of A. Even if it wasn't founded on religion, it's laws were based on it. That's why the 10 commandments were in the Courts for so long.

Contestant No. 2:

[quote]To amble back to the original subject matter of this thread...

Religion-based prisons and childcare centers.

Let's start off by reminding ourselves that the purpose of prisons is "not to punish, but to rehabilitate", as a certain individual I know would say.
When you commit a crime, you commit it against the state. I say this because there are so many different religions with different teachings. Though the laws of the state, and those of religion often meet (i.e. Thou shalt not kill), they don't as a rule. For instance, adultery is not a crime. However, in certain theocratic governments, it is punishable by death. By stoning. What is most chilling about this is that rape vicitms are also liable to be punished in this manner. I use this example again because it is an extreme case.
[/quote] Firstly, they volunteer. They aren't being forced into anything, and are in fact seeking it themselves. Just because a person commits a crime against a state, doesn't mean that a completely optional religious prison can't have anything to do or not have a right to exist. If they were forced there, it would be a different story. But I like this one a lot (has nice pictures) ;D. And isn't prostatution illegal?
[quote]
Anyway, I seem to have gone off on a tangent, so I will stray back to my original purpose...

If the idea is to provide a "more leniant environment", you will have many a raised eyebrow across North America (and probably in other areas of the world, too). Is this stating that those who choose to be rehabilitated based on their religious beliefs will be subject to a more pleasant prison environment?
Sounds fishy to me.[/quote]Pointing out "IF". And my own "IF". If this act is to actually numb the violent disposition of prisoners who decide that they would want to seek religion, then that's fine by me. Unless you are actually them, anything you say is nothing more than mere speculation based on random data.


[quote]Dealing with criminals is the government's job. Leave the church out of it.[/quote]Why? Could it possibly be the governments choice to have the church help them in re-habilitation? Seems like the motive to me.

[quote]As for religious child-care centers?

I don't think the government should fund any race- or religion-based schools (or other such organizations, regardless of how moral they are), simply because it takes away from the public system.
One system is the way to go. [/quote]
And that system is? Having children get evolution [b]shoved[/b] down their throat when there as young as 7 years old is this system? Since Aetheism and evolution are beliefs, they are already having beliefs shoved down their throat.

[quote]Crimson Spider, you were implying that religious people are all morally stable in stating that religious rehabilitation institutions reduce violent tendancies.[/quote]No I wasn't. I never said the word "All". Don't put words in my mouth. I also said that they would [u]Help[/u] to reduce violent tendancies. I never stated it was a cure-all program made by the brilliant Jed (sarcasm alert).

And for the third and most Jaded domino.

[quote]Yes, people communicated in small organized nomadic pacts and hunted. People feared things they didn't understand and created gods to explain those things. At least that is what the scientific process tells us. Could have God created man before then? Sure, why not. But organized religion developed out of organized society which developed out of the need to effectivly hunt and gather.
[/quote]
That is quite the contrary. People don't fear what they don't understand. They are intrigued by it. People "came up with" God (which is a word that has german roots) because of unexplained experiences in their life that were so obvious to their origin that it was the only logical explanation. The Sceintific process has been wrong so many times its rediculous. The theory of Evolution has evolved more than what it claims the life on the planet has. Also, the scientific process has more evidence to back up religion than anything else. Organized religion developed which developed by a man who had a dream. Mankind was getting along fine hunting and picking fruits.

And for a table-turner, the USA accepted evolution because they were horny. Once it came up, it spread like wildfire because it happened to be the age of "Free love" in America at the time that Darwin came up with the throw-together theory. Evolution gave just the notion that people wanted to hear: no consequences. Now we have aids because of this.

[quote]Well, yes they do. You see, Sumerian culture dates back before the very first copy of the old testament can be proven to exist. Also, the old testament never specifically references marriage as a sacred union, it mentions relationships. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was a commandment because by commiting adultery a person was breaking the bonds of their parents arrangement, therefore whelching on a business transaction. I also like how you back your statement with a page developed by the Catholic Church, very unbiased.[/quote]
And I suppose the Sumerian culture were aetheists? Hardly not. There are multiple other religions out there. The old testament was reviewed over by a bunch of drunken Jews and re-written over and over. Jesus pointed out how offbeat the Old Testimate was when he came about. And science doesn't have the best dating abilities. According to modern science, an animal that was still alive and kicking was supposed to be dead for over 400 years. But nice theory you have there. And what is wrong with something said by the Catholic Church? Even if I'm not Catholic, when your right, your right.

Don't you find it peculiar that Moses came down with a few Rock Slates that had the 10 comandments written on them after he freed the Hebrew's from Egypt and re-stating that someone shouldn't commit adultry so long afer the Sumerian culture? You would've sworn that someone else would have stated it. Oh, wait. Someone did. Good ole religion, and there are even reasons stated why you should marry.

[quote]The holiday was sol invictus (Unconquered Sun) and it marked the time of the year when the sun returns and the days grow longer (coinciding with the winter solctice). The holiday was celebrated by the ancient Egyptians then later adopted by the ancient Greeks, who passed it on to the Romans. That is where the holiday came from.[/quote]
Nice history lesson, but you dodged the question.
[quote]I was actually backing the moral fibers of religion by saying that the practice of marriage, which symbolized property trade at the birth of Christianity, undermined teachings in the Bible, specifically free will. Due to transmutation, the process was incorparated and eventually progressed into today's tradition. To be honest, I really don't understand your argument, I was just presenting you with enlightening historical facts, and you are making a case against them for no reason...I am not disagreeing with you on whether or not faith existed before society, it could have, just not religion.[/quote] For no reason at all? Where is your head right now? The non-Christian history book I'm reading dooesn't say a single thing that you have stated. What you were saying is that marriage is not from religion, and thus the government should dictate what the church can do in the matter. I cannot see how
[quote]I also would like to point out that marriages are not rooted in religion, they were first used as a method of agrreing on property trades (almost like a present day signature) by parents during business deals. Parents on both sides would arrange that their sons and daughters be bound to only each other for life, thus sealing a business deal. This actually was Sumerian custom and had no religious foundings. The traditions were eventually incorparated into various religions. The same could be said about the celebration of Jesus' birth. Why do Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus in December when the bible clearly states that he was born in March? Because conquering religions use existing holidays to make conversion less shocking, it is called transmutation.

Marriage was a by-product of transmutation, it often times went against religious teachings because undermining a person's free will and bartering them like chatel is against most present day religious ideology. At the turn of the first millenia however, Romans were still binding sons and daughters together in "marriage" to seal land purchases. Therfore, the tradition was transmutated to Christian philosophy.

[/quote] would be backing the fibers of religion. While I was just counter-debating your statement, such as how religion existed before society. [b]According to the Aethiestic scientifical studies, ORGANIZED religion didn't come until there was a civilization.[/b]
And since you didn't say what I was expecting, I'll state this: IF what you say is true, marriage was adopted and became [u]Legally[/u] the religious ceremony of which two became wed in holy matrimony. This happened a long time ago. Thus, for over a century, Marriage has been a religious ceremony. Now people state that the government has the right to boot out religion from marriage when that when America was founded it was a religious ceremony. That's like saying that the government has control over how the church is organized since it took orginization from religion, and that it may burn down all the Churches because they are built on government property.


EDIT:
In fact, all your statements are on a base of which the actual origin of man is from evolution, while each religion gives its own detailed account on how man started, and from what I've seen, they're all possible.

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Now TN's in this too. 3 agaisnt one isn't too fair...[/quote]

Actually it's quite fair. We're just pointing out how wrong you are. It's unfair you are so uninformed.

[quote]Usually is less than 'Most". Just to point that out. [/quote]

Very good, you want a cookie for knowing what usually and most means?

[quote]Also, I've seen many a person become a generally better person because they found religion. There is no reason why someone who volunteers there would not do the same. People use religion as a scapegoat, and are mostly psychologically crazy when they commit the act. You cannot point the blame squarely at religion.[/quote]

I can't help what people use as scapegoats. The bottom line is they use religion. Sorry but that makes religion responsible for it. Something in that religion made them go all crazy. I suppose religion was just a scapegoat for the people killed in the crusades too right? Cause religion had NOTHING to do with that. The bottom line is, it is because of religion that some of the worst things in this world have happened. Whatever way you put it that fact stands, there's no going around it. Just accept it.

[quote]The peculiar thing is that all of the individual faiths that came around were eerily similar.[/quote]

And so are so many of the religions today. Does that mean they are all the same? Or made up by the same person? Take a mythology course and you'll see how closely related almost every religion is to one another despite the fact some of them originated with complete issolation from the other.

[quote]You know, if Jeb's last name was Gore, you would've been for it. Just something I've been observing from you.[/quote]

What? No i wouldn't have been. If his name was Jeb anything I wouldn't be for what he's doing. It has nothing to do with his political party or his last name.... it has to do with what he's doing to this state which I live. Do you live here? Do you experience what he does? You know nothing about it.

[quote]Anyway, the opinion of one man does not change the entire history of the U.S. of A. Even if it wasn't founded on religion, it's laws were based on it. That's why the 10 commandments were in the Courts for so long.[/quote]

And the opinion of yourself doesn't change the fact you're still wrong and too ignorant to accpet that fact.

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Crimson Spider][b']According to the Aethiestic scientifical studies, ORGANIZED religion didn't come until there was a civilization.[/b][/quote]

[color=green]This ?Atheistic Scientifical (Shouldn?t that be Scientific?) Studies? sounds pretty laughable. After all, it?s pretty hard to have organized religion without a civilization?

That painfully obvious statement seems to fit with the above-mentioned group?s acronym, ?[b]A[/b][b]S[/b][b]S[/b]?[/color]

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]"Having evolution shoved down their throats."

Stating that evolution and religion are based on the same kind of belief is like saying that whipped cream and brussel sprouts are the same kind of dairy product. One is nice and foamy, there to make you feel good, and the other is something you have to accept, simply because it's good for you. Not to mention they can't even be brought to the same level.

However, this isn't a debate over whether or not we evolved from nameless blobs floating in the vast oceans.

The argument that people improve through finding religion is a new idea to me. The vast majority (80%, maybe...I'm not about to go through the wearying process of calculating this and debating with myself...) of the most intelligent people I know are atheists. However, this is personal experience, and cannot be applied to every one.

Why should the church stay out of the school system?

One could argue that religious schools bring children of the same faith together. And that is what is wrong with them--they're bringing children of different faiths apart.
This point may seem irrelevant, but think about it: if you're constantly surrounded by people who follow your beliefs, what will you learn to think? That they, and they alone, are the right way to see things? In one school system, where there are no devisions (aside from inevitable ones brought upon by the students themselves) based on religion, race or social status, we learn to at least accept the views of others. I don't mean we outwardly tollerate them, but understand, inwardly, that they hold value, as well.

As far as adultery goes, I am not talking about prostitution (which I am against). That is an entirely different issue. I'm talking about the mutual attraction between to people who happen to be married to others.
I don't see why this should be illegal, but I do find it wrong (Simply because it means breaking your vows to stick with one person--unless you are divorcing or something, and are no longer really in a relationship, beyond legalities...) This isn't the issue at hand, however.

There seems to be alot of misconception as to what atheism is. It is not a "belief", as so many people seem to interperate it. It's not a philosophy, either. It's not necessarily a strict acceptance of everything that can be proven scientifically (though science is the way to go, IMO). It's simply a lack of belief in any kind of "devine power". [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Winter]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]

Why should the church stay out of the school system?

One could argue that religious schools bring children of the same faith together. And that is what is wrong with them--they're bringing children of different faiths apart.
This point may seem irrelevant, but think about it: if you're constantly surrounded by people who follow your beliefs, what will you learn to think? That they, and they alone, are the right way to see things? In one school system, where there are no devisions (aside from inevitable ones brought upon by the students themselves) based on religion, race or social status, we learn to at least accept the views of others. I don't mean we outwardly tollerate them, but understand, inwardly, that they hold value, as well.

[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I just want to point out, that I personally went to Catholic school for 7 years, and being surrounded by people who believed the same thing without question, naturally prompted me to wonder if they were wrong.

I actually was expelled from that school in 1st grade for questioning my teachers; only got back in after a few bribes from my papa.

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Winter']I actually was expelled from that school in 1st grade for questioning my teachers; only got back in after a few bribes from my papa.[/quote]

Seems all it takes is money to pretend someone is a believer.... lol

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]I can't believe that I am taking the time to write this post, but I really think that there is a chance that you will understand what I am syaing if I word my thoughts very carefully and you read very, very slowly. Fortunatly I have complete access to my school's library and I have taken a little time to gather and cite real books by real historians and scientists all of which I will cite at the end of this post (on a side note, because I am at the library I will be writing this on notepad so this will probably have horrible spelling mistakes, I apologize in advance).[/color]


[quote][i]Posted By [b]Crimson Spider[/b][/i]
Well, too bad. The government should have no say in marriage because that was a religious ceremony. [/quote]
[color=indigo]This is the statement that piqued my initial curiosity. You explicitly state that marriage was a "religious ceremony" but, as I attempted to point out before, although marriage has become a traditional practice in most religions but marriage was not originally a religious institution. "Early evidence of marital practice can be found in nearly all ancient societies. Ancient Egyptians kept detailed records of unions between sons and daughters that were arranged to bind business transactions (1)". Similar practices can be seen in nearly all other ancient cultures that kept written records. This is evident in early Asian culture as well. Most Japanese men married even though their two major religions advised against it (both Buddism and Taoist philosophy shared the similar motto that women posioned men's spirits). They married because it was considered to be a traditional way to bind both political and financial goals. Therefore, marriage was a societal tradition long before it ever was religious philosophy.[/color]

[quote][i]Posted By [b]Crimson Spider[/b][/i]
IF what you say is true, marriage was adopted and became Legally the religious ceremony of which two became wed in holy matrimony. This happened a long time ago. Thus, for over a century, Marriage has been a religious ceremony. Now people state that the government has the right to boot out religion from marriage when that when America was founded it was a religious ceremony. That's like saying that the government has control over how the church is organized since it took orginization from religion, and that it may burn down all the Churches because they are built on government property.[/quote]
[color=indigo]Well, what I say may not be true, nor do I claim it to be true, I just know that I have evidence backed up by scientific fact. However, I will play along with your last statement. Marriage [b]is[/b] considered a religious ceremony, and since several Christian denominations are willing to marry homosexuals, thereby allowing them to wed in holy matrimony, why shouldn't the government recognize them as married?
Also can you support your statement that government borowed orginization from religion? The first known documented government was a neolithic culture in Mesopotamia that inhabited and farmed the area between 6000-5000 BC building several small cities and villages. Ancient pictographs were found depicting various forms of daily life including the process of determining a leader by physical combat (2). Now while I too think that religion was around before this civilization was formed, there is no evidence supporting a religion before this time. Again, I could logically conclude that scientific evidence points to organized community and government before religion began. Is it too radical for you to ponder the possibility that a person or group of people could have borrowed "orginization" from simple government and then built a religion around it? Remember the definition of religion is "a set or institutionalized system of worship". Sure, the idea of government could have gained orginization from religion, but the inverse is also a possibility, and one that has some shreds of evidence. [/color]


[quote][i]Posted By [b]Crimson Spider[/b][/i]
And for a table-turner, the USA accepted evolution because they were horny. Once it came up, it spread like wildfire because it happened to be the age of "Free love" in America at the time that Darwin came up with the throw-together theory. Evolution gave just the notion that people wanted to hear: no consequences. Now we have aids because of this.[/quote]
[color=indigo]Oh my god, you are so right! I forgot all about Darwin and how he threw together the idea of Evolution right around the time the dirty hippies were preaching peace and love in America. when did Darwin publish his most noteable work [i]On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection[/i] again? 1859? Wow, those dirty hippies flocked to it immediatly. I think you are thinking of the Scopes Monkey Trial, which occured because a teacher suggested the possibility of something besides Adam and Eve and Genisis in a classroom (which Scopes taught along with evolution). If you can't even get simple facts right I am going to be writing quite a few of these long winded posts in an attempt to at least make you admit that there is a feasible possibility to what I am saying.

Here is another one of my troubles with your posts
[quote][i][b]Me[/b][/i]
I also would like to point out that marriages are not rooted in religion, they were first used as a method of agrreing on property trades (almost like a present day signature) by parents during business deals. Parents on both sides would arrange that their sons and daughters be bound to only each other for life, thus sealing a business deal. This actually was Sumerian custom and had no religious foundings. The traditions were eventually incorparated into various religions. The same could be said about the celebration of Jesus' birth. Why do Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus in December when the bible clearly states that he was born in March? Because conquering religions use existing holidays to make conversion less shocking, it is called transmutation. [/quote][/color]

[quote][i] [b]Your Response[/b][/i]Religions don't just adopt things into them and claim them as their own. While religions do have similarities, that is the religion itself that believes that believes whatever it is. Yeah, sure we celebrate the birth of Jesus in December from an origional holiday, but it is not the same holiday. It is a different one placed in the same spot. We know that Jesus wasn't born in December. And I once aagain ask you: who thought of it? How did it become such a powerful institution? You only mentioned the first race that had it, not where they got it from.
[/quote]
[quote][i][b]Me[/b][/i]
[color=indigo]The holiday was sol invictus (Unconquered Sun) and it marked the time of the year when the sun returns and the days grow longer (coinciding with the winter solctice). The holiday was celebrated by the ancient Egyptians then later adopted by the ancient Greeks, who passed it on to the Romans. That is where the holiday came from.[/quote][/color]

[quote][i] [b]Your Response[/b][/i]
Nice history lesson, but you dodged the question. [/quote]
[color=indigo]What question did I dodge? I was providing an example of transmutation, the process of one religion adopting another's traditions in order to soften the hardships of mandoatory religious conversion. It was an example I used to aide my presentation on how marriage believed to be a transmutable trait that was eventually adopted by various religions.
Anyway I am getting tired, so I will end my post woth this quote. [/color]

[quote][i]Posted By [b]Crimson Spider[/b][/i]
According to the Aethiestic scientifical studies, ORGANIZED religion didn't come until there was a civilization.[/quote]
[color=indigo]I hope that isn't an attempt to quote a book that so obviously doesn't exist. Plagarism is not a good way to further a debate. [/color]

[size=1]Footnotes and various other material that may help to enlighten people to both sides of this argument: 1. H. Frankfort, The Birth of Civilization in the Near East (London:
Williams and Norgate, 1951)
2. "The Reforms of Urukagina" in Nels M. Bailkey, ed., Readings in
Ancient History: Thought and Experience from Gilgamesh to St. Augustine, 4th
ed. (Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 1992), p. 21
Also used for information: H. Frankfort, The Birth of Civilization in the Near East (London:
Williams and Norgate, 1951)[/size]