Is it a good thing that religion and the state be seperate?

[Paulclem]

I certainly think so. Often it is claimed that religion causes, and thus is responsible for the killing of many people in religious wars. I think the combination of religion and state gives this impression, as the state pursues national/ nationalistic interests whilst claiming to be acting - if not in the name of religion - then with its sanction.

Examples of this include the axis and allied forces in WW2, including Japan, European religious wars and modern day conflicts with countries - Israeli and Arabic states, Nation States and terrorists.

I heard from a lecturer once that religion allows the individual to look beyond the aspirations of he nation state, and as such enables the individual to comment upon and criticise it. If the religion is entangled with the state, then this is not possible.

What do you think?

[papayahed]

Very much so, for practical purposes it seems impossible to legislate spiritual beliefs especially in places like the US where there are many different flavors.

[mercy_mankind]

...Often it is claimed that religion causes, and thus is responsible for the killing of many people in religious wars.
This is correct to some degree, but currently most countries claim to be secular and still responsible for the killing many people!!


..... and modern day conflicts with countries - Israeli and Arabic states, Nation States and terrorists.
The nature of such conflicts is much more political than being religiously..


What do you think?
I, personally think that certain religion (I mean Islam) and states (Muslim ones) should not be separated, and this separation causes many atrocities in certain societies, and the only solution for them to get out of the troubles they are in, is to unite religion and the state...

[L.M. The Third]

Religion is a realm in which the majority should have no authority. No matter how many members of a society adhere absolutely to a certain faith, there will always be those who will differ and if religion and the state are united, it will lead to rape of the soul.

[The Comedian]

My own little saying regarding this separation of church and state issue is this:

"If you want your religion to take part in your government, then be prepared for your government to take part in part of your religion." -- The Comedian

[Delta40]

My own little saying regarding this separation of church and state issue is this:

"If you want your religion to take part in your government, then be prepared for your government to take part in part of your religion." -- The Comedian

very insightful Comedian.

[BienvenuJDC]

I would agree with this, but it seems that those who have no religion (atheists) want this to mean that 'God' can't be mentioned at all on any government property. Well, that is quite ridiculous. Atheists disagree, but atheism can be just as much of a religion. So how do we handle that?

[Cunninglinguist]

I think another question to ask is, is even possible to totally separate church and state? Look at the United States e.g., they invariably elect christians; forthermore they would never elect a muslim. And a democartic muslim country probably would not elect a christian. Even in countires that are primarily atheistic there are usually if not always religious standards (or even lack thereof, see Bienvenu's post) that must be met.

Edit:


I would agree with this, but it seems that those who have no religion (atheists) want this to mean that 'God' can't be mentioned at all on any government property. Well, that is quite ridiculous. Atheists disagree, but atheism can be just as much of a religion. So how do we handle that?

Another good question.

[OrphanPip]

I would agree with this, but it seems that those who have no religion (atheists) want this to mean that 'God' can't be mentioned at all on any government property. Well, that is quite ridiculous. Atheists disagree, but atheism can be just as much of a religion. So how do we handle that?

Yes, atheist are all out to ban the mention of religion on public property :rolleyes:. Either you support that religion should be separate from the state, and that no one functioning in the official capacity as a representative of the state should be using religion as a means to justify their action or expresses religious motivation in the exercise of the state's power, or you do not actually support a separation of religion and state. What you really want to support is a non-sectarian Christian state, which is not a separation of church and state at all. I care less if private citizens go about praying on public property, but God has no business being mentioned by judges or any clerk when they are working in an official capacity.

The state has no business directing the course of religion and religion has no business directing the course of the state.

[Paulclem]

One important role that religion can serve in a country if they are seperate is to comment upon and criticise the state - as can others. If the state and religion are bound up, it is difficult to seperate state sanctioning and policy from the religious sanctioning. Religion shoud have a seperate agenda based on a clear morality, whereas when entangld with state politics, then you get doctrinal hybrids such as the Just War.

[Scheherazade]

I, personally think that certain religion (I mean Islam) and states (Muslim ones) should not be separated, and this separation causes many atrocities in certain societies, and the only solution for them to get out of the troubles they are in, is to unite religion and the state...There is no single country where all of its population belongs to one single religious faith. How does a religious state can guarantee the rights of those who are in minority? How can anyone trust that there will not be discrimination or opression towards who do not belong to the same faith?

One's religious beliefs and practice is (or, rather, should be) a private matter. The state and the government should neither led by nor strive to lead by what is supposed to be between people and their God(s).

*edit*
Religion is a realm in which the majority should have no authority. No matter how many members of a society adhere absolutely to a certain faith, there will always be those who will differ and if religion and the state are united, it will lead to rape of the soul.I am not very keen on the expression of "rape of the soul" but, yes, I agree with what you say here, LM.

[JCamilo]

I would like to point, all states pursue nationalistic an selfish interests. I know no state who caused to his own nation a prejudice to help someone else. It is not religion that does it, it is the concept of nation and the fact governs represent a particular nation. At somepoint, even the biggest religious state bigotony face an undenyable problem: economical factor. Without it, all wars will be forfeit.

Now, Religious and state separation is a need, as Scherazade pointed, inside a nation there is different groups and in a democratic nation, all those groups must have the same access to rights and public beneficts. An official religion will constraint this right (And this pretty much happens in USA, the majority of population is christian, so they are elected and this does not represent the presence of church on state, but a presence of church on society) and the state will turn against itself, hurting their own citzens.

Futhermore, Religous organizations were once the foremost source of knowledge and wisdow of western world. They lost this position long ago. Granting them access to a governament while other groups do not is not anymore sensible.

[Paulclem]

I, personally think that certain religion (I mean Islam) and states (Muslim ones) should not be separated, and this separation causes many atrocities in certain societies, and the only solution for them to get out of the troubles they are in, is to unite religion and the state...

Which atrocities are you referring to?

[Ecurb]

One's religious beliefs and practice is (or, rather, should be) a private matter. The state and the government should neither led by nor strive to lead by what is supposed to be between people and their God(s).

.

Huh? Since when is religious practice "a private matter"? People go to church (in public), sing hymns, evangelize, pray to Mecca, and perform all sorts of other public religious observances.

If religious practices WERE a private matter, we wouldn't know about them.

In response to the "rape of the soul" notion: does L.M. really think that in England (where there is an official state religion) everyone's "soul" has been raped?

Of course we modern liberals support tolerance -- people should not be abused or discriminated against on the basis of their religion. But that notion is not contradicted by a state religion. I'll also grant that in the modern, atheistic West the notion of a state religion is a bit silly -- but so is the hyperbole of the opposition to it in this thread.

[JuniperWoolf]

I would agree with this, but it seems that those who have no religion (atheists) want this to mean that 'God' can't be mentioned at all on any government property. Well, that is quite ridiculous. Atheists disagree, but atheism can be just as much of a religion. So how do we handle that?

Alright, sure. We'll agree that "God" can be mentioned in government policy and on state-owned property - as long as Allah, Shiva, Ganesha, Maya, Zeus, Hera, Indra, Aphrodite, Brighid, The First Father, The Crone, Thor, Odin, Freyja, Bhudda, et al. get a mention too on each and every one, as well as a "no faith" reference and option. If our government wants to mention religion, they can't look like they're being influenced by any one religion, can they?

Simpler to just seperate church and state altogether. If a country has people of many different religions, than the government of that country can't just pick one. The govermnet represents all of the people.

[OrphanPip]

Huh? Since when is religious practice "a private matter"? People go to church (in public), sing hymns, evangelize, pray to Mecca, and perform all sorts of other public religious observances.

If religious practices WERE a private matter, we wouldn't know about them.

In response to the "rape of the soul" notion: does L.M. really think that in England (where there is an official state religion) everyone's "soul" has been raped?

Of course we modern liberals support tolerance -- people should not be abused or discriminated against on the basis of their religion. But that notion is not contradicted by a state religion. I'll also grant that in the modern, atheistic West the notion of a state religion is a bit silly -- but so is the hyperbole of the opposition to it in this thread.

However, you're not taking into account the fact that religious persecution was the norm until secular concepts came into prominence. It is not that a state religion can not co-exist with religious tolerance, it is merely that the role of the state religion has been lowered to mere ceremony, as is the monarch's role as head of state. What we get when we see a true merger of state and religion is wonderful places like the theocracy in Iran and the implementation of Sharia law in Saudi Arabia. Canada is officially protestant through the role of the queen as head of state (despite the country also being majority Catholic), but the Canadian constitution renders the functioning of the state secular. Likewise, there is a structure of legal protections of religious freedom in the UK that renders the state secular in practical terms.

You're also misunderstanding Sheh's use of private, as in it is a matter of private citizens, not that it is done in private.

As to there being an atheist West, the only countries in the Western world with atheist majorities are Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Atheist don't even make up more than 5% of the American population.

[AuntShecky]

By the way, it's "separate."

Separation of church and state is not only implicit in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is is explicit in the New Testament: Matthew 22-21.

[L.M. The Third]

In response to the "rape of the soul" notion: does L.M. really think that in England (where there is an official state religion) everyone's "soul" has been raped?


I'm not particularly familiar with the role that the "state church" currently plays in England, but I believe Pip is right that for the most part it is merely formal today. However, in the past the Church of England has often used its secular powers to coerce the conscience.

[billl]

Also, "everyone" is a hyperbolic characterization of what was originally posted.

[Scheherazade]

Huh? Since when is religious practice "a private matter"? People go to church (in public), sing hymns, evangelize, pray to Mecca, and perform all sorts of other public religious observances.

If religious practices WERE a private matter, we wouldn't know about them.That is a very limit understanding of "private". Religious beliefs and practice are private matters in that the decision on what, how, where and when to practice are (should be) a choice made by the individual. It should not be dictated by anyone or any group; especially not by a political party or a government.

And even in those countries where the state and religion are not separated, where, sometimes, people forced to follow certain religious practices, there is no way of knowing whether each individual is doing what they truly believe in or simply out of a worry for their own safety, for example. So, their religious faith and beliefs are still private in the sense you mean as well.

[Ecurb]

I descried persecution based on religion in my initial post. Of course official state religions often promote the State Church with tax money or other advantages – which is unfair to other religions, but is hardly the egregious discrimination some people posited.

According to Scheherazade, religious “practice is a private matter… when to practice… should not be dictated by any group.” So Islamic Imams have no right to say that people should fast during Ramadan; should make a pilgrimage to Mecca, and should pray five times a day. In addition, Catholics cannot tell members to practice Confession, Holy Communion, or Baptism.

That all sounds fair enough to me -- but I’m not religious. If religious practices were made private, The Vatican would be out of business.

Many modern countries in which state and religion are not separated do not “force” people to follow certain religious practices. Last time I looked, people in the United Kingdom were allowed to be Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, or Satanist despite the fact that the Church of England is the official religion. I’ll grant that an association of persecution and state religion in the European past was commonplace, and that some Islamic countries practice it today.

I’ll further grant that “everyone” was hyperbole. Actually, I like hyperbole.

As to Matthew 22:21: (“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s”) the meaning is hardly clear. First of all, the soldier is trying to trick Jesus into treasonous statements, and Jesus is cleverly avoiding the trap. Second, isn’t it clear from Jesus’s teachings that ALL things are God’s?

[Paulclem]

By the way, it's "separate."


Thanks for that. I apologise for the mistake. I find that humiliation is a great aide-memoire. :D

(I jest)

[L.M. The Third]

^ Which proves how ineffectual it is to legislate adherence to any religion. Religion is, by its very nature, about that which is in the mind in relation to God(s) who knows that person as an onlooker does not.

[Ecurb]

^ Which proves how ineffectual it is to legislate adherence to any religion. Religion is, by its very nature, about that which is in the mind in relation to God(s) who knows that person as an onlooker does not.

I dispute this. Religion is, by its very nature, "about" a lot of things, including (but not limited to) public displays of communal togetherness, professions of common beliefs, rituals that promote the community, etc.

Of course it may also be true that religion is a very personal relationship between a person and his faith, but an objective observer has difficulty determining that. The student of society can only determine the public impact of religion.

I agree, by the way, that legislating adherence to any religion is ridiculous. However, most countries (especially Western ones) that have a state religion don't do that.

American Protestantism sometimes emphasizes the private relationship of a person and God (Jesus), and the importance of "faith" (just like L.M.3 does). However, this is unusual. Catholicism, for example, emphasizes public ritual as much as it does faith -- and so do many other religions.

One more thing: I'm an atheist myself (or at least agnostic), and I don't advocate teaching the Genesis version of Creation in science class. However, it makes sense to me to fund some religious studies more than others -- that is, to fund our own religious studies more than we do the studies of other people's religions.

Toward that end, in England (which has a state religion) there might be Chair in "moral theology" at Oxford that is funded in part by the state. The Chair would be filled by a theologian ordained by the Church of England. Of course this is discriminatory -- why not offer the Professorship to a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or a Muslim?

The reason (I think) is that we Westerners are more adept and sophisticated in Christian studies than we are in those of Eastern religions. In addition, Christian moral theology speaks more directly to Englishmen than does Buddhist moral theology (because of the long tradition of Christian morals). So to the extent that we want to fund scholars who teach moral philosophies that are accessible to a number of their students; who write books that may be accessible to many of their countrymen; and who influence clergymen who actually practice in England, it makes sense to fund a chair for a scholar of the Church of England instead of one for a scholar of Taoism.

After all, here in the U.S. we require students to take "U.S. History", because we think it's more important to their education than, say, Australian History. In the same way, understanding Christian theology and ethics is more important to an American or European than understanding Hindu theology and ethics.

[mercy_mankind]

There is no single country where all of its population belongs to one single religious faith.
I think there is, almost all citizens in Saudia Arabia are Muslims, but it is a special case, and it is not a real example of the union between religion and the state too....


How does a religious state can guarantee the rights of those who are in minority?
A religious state doesn't necessarily mean an aggressive state against minorities....When the religion itself preserves the rights of minorities and respects them, then there will be no problem, and it is the case with Islamic Shari'a (law)...

How can anyone trust that there will not be discrimination or opression towards who do not belong to the same faith?
The law is crystal clear towards those who don't belong to the same faith, which preserves their rights of practicing their religious beliefs freely, protects their religious places of worship, and their property...One can trust that more than the changeable secular laws...

Honestly, do you believe that the secular system didn't cause any discrimination towards religious minorities?!


One's religious beliefs and practice is (or, rather, should be) a private matter. The state and the government should neither led by nor strive to lead by what is supposed to be between people and their God(s).

That theory is completely meaningless, IMO. It implies that man shouldn't accept God and His guidance as a whole, it drives man to make a rebellion against the Master of this universe when it comes to the individual's collective life, but when it comes to private matters and individual life, that same man accepts God, His religion, His guidance and directions. Certainly such a person who combines between two extremely different situations is a lunatic. So this theory leaves us with only two alternatives. Either God is the creator of man and the whole world, thus He is the Master and the Sovereign, or He is not. So if He is not the Master, or the creator, nor the Sovereign then it is meaningless to have any relations with Him whether in public or private. It is really absurd to worship a being unconcerned with us, and the world we live in. And if He is really the creator of us and the Master of this world, then it is totally meaningless that His jurisdiction should be limited to the private life. So the only meaningful thing is to accept His guidance as a whole, or to reject it completely, there cannot be any combination of the two (From the Islamic POV).



Which atrocities are you referring to?

That was unexpected question, perhaps because I think that every non-muslim knows about the state Muslim nations are in....
In fact I don't know from where to start, from the aggressive regimes, or the corruption that has involved everything in our societies, or the failure of the secular system which doesn't represent the will of people...The list goes on!

[Virgil]

I think another question to ask is, is even possible to totally separate church and state? Look at the United States e.g., they invariably elect christians; forthermore they would never elect a muslim. And a democartic muslim country probably would not elect a christian. Even in countires that are primarily atheistic there are usually if not always religious standards (or even lack thereof, see Bienvenu's post) that must be met.


That isn't really about religion, that's about identity. The number one reason that people vote on is identity. That's why a politician emphasizes his life experiences, shows off his wife and kids, and his military record. People vote basically on who they identitfy with.

[L.M. The Third]

I dispute this. Religion is, by its very nature, "about" a lot of things, including (but not limited to) public displays of communal togetherness, professions of common beliefs, rituals that promote the community, etc.

Of course it may also be true that religion is a very personal relationship between a person and his faith, but an objective observer has difficulty determining that. The student of society can only determine the public impact of religion.

I agree, by the way, that legislating adherence to any religion is ridiculous. However, most countries (especially Western ones) that have a state religion don't do that.

American Protestantism sometimes emphasizes the private relationship of a person and God (Jesus), and the importance of "faith" (just like L.M.3 does). However, this is unusual. Catholicism, for example, emphasizes public ritual as much as it does faith -- and so do many other religions.



Religion often includes these communal aspects, but one can participate in these aspects and mentally not adhere to a belief system. Even a faith in which ritual is part of religious duty, must necessarily begin as a conviction that leads to the practice of whatever duties or rituals are considered salvific or else that religion is easily abandoned.

But I suppose I am coming from a Protestant standpoint in this, so I don't understand how (communal or ritualistic) practice of religion would be carried out without an inner adherence, unless it was for ulterior motives.

[Scheherazade]

According to Scheherazade, religious “practice is a private matter… when to practice… should not be dictated by any group.” So Islamic Imams have no right to say that people should fast during Ramadan; should make a pilgrimage to Mecca, and should pray five times a day. In addition, Catholics cannot tell members to practice Confession, Holy Communion, or Baptism.Those are not dictated by individuals but by the religions in their teachings and holy books.

However, when an imam or priest (or a goverment) issues orders for people to stay in their homes and not to take part in any kind of entertainment on Fridays or Sundays, then they will be imposing their own expectations and interpretation of their respective religions onto others.
I think there is, almost all citizens in Saudia Arabia are Muslims, but it is a special case, and it is not a real example of the union between religion and the state too.... Even in Saudi Arabia, the 3% of the population is non-muslims (Wiki).
A religious state doesn't necessarily mean an aggressive state against minorities....When the religion itself preserves the rights of minorities and respects them, then there will be no problem,If religious activities of different religions are not permitted or individuals cannot practice their right not to take part in any religious activity, then there is an apparent lack of religious tolerance in that country, I would say.

Honestly, do you believe that the secular system didn't cause any discrimination towards religious minorities?! They have less apparent reason to do so.
So the only meaningful thing is to accept His guidance as a whole, or to reject it completely, there cannot be any combination of the two (From the Islamic POV).Ignoring your "sermon" preceding this section, even this final sentence shows an amazing degree of intolerance towards those who do not share your point of view.

Keeping in mind that members of this Forum are equally intelligent and educated as you are, you should be able to admit that they are free to find "meaning" in any belief they choose or find close to their hearts.

You are starting with the assumption that there is a "master of the universe"; I don't see the point of worrying about this master and how to obey his rules while dealing with the tax issues.

[Cunninglinguist]

That isn't really about religion, that's about identity. The number one reason that people vote on is identity. That's why a politician emphasizes his life experiences, shows off his wife and kids, and his military record. People vote basically on who they identitfy with.

Hm. I think it’s impossible to deny, however, that in some instances these religious preferences affect the state, how it is run, and what kinds of policies are employed by it. Take the examples of gay marriage, don’t ask don’t tell, &c. in the USA, which has supposedly separate church and state. In at least this day and age religion informs so many people’s conception of “goodness” that conception is bound to significantly trickle into other places.

[Ecurb]

Religion often includes these communal aspects, but one can participate in these aspects and mentally not adhere to a belief system. Even a faith in which ritual is part of religious duty, must necessarily begin as a conviction that leads to the practice of whatever duties or rituals are considered salvific or else that religion is easily abandoned.

But I suppose I am coming from a Protestant standpoint in this, so I don't understand how (communal or ritualistic) practice of religion would be carried out without an inner adherence, unless it was for ulterior motives.

I think that people who practice religion and have a wide range of beliefs. Why wouldn't they? If you are born a Catholic you might partake of communion, get baptized and get married in the church without much soul-searching as to what you actually "believe".

"Belief" or "inner adherence" (to use L.M.'s words) means different things to different people. The ritual may be more basic to religion than the myth in which one is supposed to believe. In fact, James Frazer, the author of "The Golden Bough", thought that ritual precedes myth, and that myth develops as an explanation of ritual. This is contrary, of course, to the Protestant emphasis on myth. However, it makes sense because non-human animals practice a variety of rituals, but, lacking sophisticated language, are incapable of myth. So we know that rituals probably preceded myth.

Frazer thought that ancient humans practiced magical rituals designed to promote the rebirth of crops as the seasons changed, and these rituals led to stories of the dying and rising God (Osiris, Jesus, etc.). Although "The Golden Bough" is dated in terms of the quality of the ethnographies on which Frazer relied, and in terms of the sophistication of its theoretical underpinnings, it's well worth reading for its literary merits.

[OrphanPip]

What rituals do non-human animals practice? Apart from maybe some closely related hominids, like neanderthals, I can't think of any ritualistic behavior in animals. Beyond perhaps some social behavior which could be described as ritualistic, but I'm not quite comfortable with such an anthropomorphic projection on animals. Bonobo's mutual genital manipulation as a greeting could be described as a ritual, but this implies that the Bonobo are aware they are performing something that is culturally significant.

That being said, I don't have a problem with the proposition that ritual precedes a solidified religious conception. Mysticism and animism seem very likely to have preceded deistic theology.

[Ecurb]

What rituals do non-human animals practice? Apart from maybe some closely related hominids, like neanderthals, I can't think of any ritualistic behavior in animals. Beyond perhaps some social behavior which could be described as ritualistic, but I'm not quite comfortable with such an anthropomorphic projection on animals. Bonobo's mutual genital manipulation as a greeting could be described as a ritual, but this implies that the Bonobo are aware they are performing something that is culturally significant.

That being said, I don't have a problem with the proposition that ritual precedes a solidified religious conception. Mysticism and animism seem very likely to have preceded deistic theology.

Many animals, including our distant relatives like insects, practice ritualistic behaviors. A one minute search found these websites (the first is more for fun):

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/mating-ritual/mating-ritual-10.html

http://www.anth.uconn.edu/faculty/sosis/publications/Alcorta_Sosis,_Signals_and_rituals_of_humans_and_a nimals.pdf

Of course if we define "ritual" as behavior for which animals are "aware they are performing something that is culturally significant" the claim that animals perform rituals becomes more problematic -- it's hard to determine what the nature of animal self-awareness is since they lack sophisticated language with which they could describe it. Indeed, until recently "culture" was thought to be possible only for humans (and even today, humans are far the most "cultural" of animals).

Frazer thought that preliterate humans practiced "sympathetic" magic based on "contagion or contact", or through "similarity". For example, a voodoo doll acts on both principles: the spell relies on the piece of clothing stolen from the victim and attached to the doll for "contagion", and on the appearance of the doll for "similarity". Frazer never really explains WHY magic operates according to these principles, but there the principles are.

Rituals involving sympathetic magic were developed (acc. Frazer) to stimulate rebirth in agriculture and animal husbandry. The myths of the dying and rising God were explanations of the rituals.

Frazer initially wrote "The Golden Bough" in 1890, and revised it 20 years later. Social anthropology was in its infancy, and, not surprisingly, modern anthropologists tend to pooh pooh the quality of the Frazer's ethnographic sources. In addition, he was probably motivated by the desire to shock and tweak Christians, sort of like internet atheists who delight in finding pagan origins for Christmas rituals (OMG!!! Shocking!!!).

[OrphanPip]

Many animals, including our distant relatives like insects, practice ritualistic behaviors. A one minute search found these websites (the first is more for fun):

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/mating-ritual/mating-ritual-10.html

http://www.anth.uconn.edu/faculty/sosis/publications/Alcorta_Sosis,_Signals_and_rituals_of_humans_and_a nimals.pdf


Ah, well I'm a biologist by formal education. This is just the lax use of language by popular science sources. A "mating ritual" is a clear anthropomorphic projection onto behavioral patterns. It arises from the lax science that was oh so popular with 19th century naturalist, it has stuck around in the public discourse of animal behavior but has been dropped from any serious scientific discussion.

The second link provides a rather weak, unspecified definition of ritual. The author begins with the assumption that any consistent behavior, or non-verbal communication is ritual. Religious ritual certainly involves elements of innate and learned non-verbal communication, yet it doesn't seem obvious that this equates religious ritual, as a cultural construct, with non-verbal communication. The article, which I'll note is not peer-reviewed and thus I don't take to be much more than the musings of an anthropologist, then goes to great length to elaborate on the genetic determination of non-verbal communication, to elaborate on a thesis that ritual in humans arises out of the same systems of innate understandings of verbal and non-verbal communication. Basically, she is trying to make a case for an evolutionary psychology explanation of ritual, which is reasonable. However, I think she oversteps the boundaries of her argument by using the rhetorical trick of equating religious ritual with overly simplified descriptions of basic human social interactions. Not all ritual is a social interaction, people perform prayers in private as well after all.

I would argue that describing ritual in terms of merely being repeated behavior is not a useful description. Eating, ****ting, and pissing are all repeated behaviors, but are they rituals in anything other than a colloquial sense of repetition. Repeated behaviors, as forms of non-verbal communication, certainly exist amongst animals but it is not fruitful to lump such behavior alongside those that are clearly complex and not determined as directly by genetic factors. It is a rather weak application of evolutionary psychology, that so often falls prey to the reduction of human behavior to overly simplistic terms.

Ritual in chimp and bonobo are possible, as they have been shown to be capable of associative logic. The article correctly points out the uses of complex behavioral patterns as a means to allow discernment in mate choosing, and I would agree human ritual has its roots in the same sort of process. I do not agree that the processes are the same though. A complex system of associative learning, and cultural propagation, is necessary for ritualistic behavior like a bedtime prayer to come about.

Frazer's argument just seems to me to be arising from a standard racist ethnographic argument from the period that non-Western society was primitive, and thus could be used to understand the origins of human society. It ignores the fact that all human societies have been evolving continually. It also seems to lack any standards of intellectual rigor or objective verification of any of his claims. I would think modern anthropologist would be right to pooh pooh his ideas.

[Ecurb]

Modern anthropologists are indeed right to pooh pooh Frazer's general theories -- although their occasional snide superiority is obnoxious, considering that "The Golden Bough", although theoretically unsophisticated, remains a great and seminal book. Most reductionist explanations of complicated human behaviors suffer from this same lack of theoretical sophistication -- they sound good on a very general level, but are incapable of offering explanations for the vast complexity and differentiation of human behavior. Richard Dawkins work is one such example.

I didn't actually read the anthropology article (I read as far as the second page, where it discussed rituals in the non-human animal world). Obviously, non-human animals don't practice "religious" rituals -- since they don't have religion. In anthropology, a ritual is a set of symbolic actions, prescribed by the traditions of a community. The extent to which greeting behavior among canines (as just one example) is “traditional” or “innate” can be argued. However, if we concede that some of the mating and greeting behaviors are traditional, then they constitute "ritual" behavior (by this definition), and we must concede that ritual preceded myth.

Anthroplogists (racist and not) do follow a "phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny" model, although modern anthropologists (that’s my training, by the way, although from some time ago) are more sophisticated about the limitations of the model than Frazer was. Our own culture may not have passed through specific stages precisely exemplified by "primitive" cultures around the world today. However, it's reasonable to think that non-literate, stone-age societies might teach us something about our own prehistory. More properly, though, cultural anthroplogy teaches us what it is to be human -- what we all have in common, and what is distinct in differing cultures.

[Ecurb]

By the way, since this is a literature discussion board, I shall offer the opening paragraphs of Frazer's "The Golden Bough". Whatever Frazer's lack of theoretical sophistication (and Frazer recognizes the weaknesses of his approach in the last paragraph quoted below), modern anthropologists can only wish they could write this well:




WHO does not know Turner’s picture of the Golden Bough? The scene, suffused with the golden glow of imagination in which the divine mind of Turner steeped and transfigured even the fairest natural landscape, is a dream-like vision of the little woodland lake of Nemi— “Diana’s Mirror,” as it was called by the ancients. No one who has seen that calm water, lapped in a green hollow of the Alban hills, can ever forget it. The two characteristic Italian villages which slumber on its banks, and the equally Italian palace whose terraced gardens descend steeply to the lake, hardly break the stillness and even the solitariness of the scene. Diana herself might still linger by this lonely shore, still haunt these woodlands wild.

In antiquity this sylvan landscape was the scene of a strange and recurring tragedy. On the northern shore of the lake, right under the precipitous cliffs on which the modern village of Nemi is perched, stood the sacred grove and sanctuary of Diana Nemorensis, or Diana of the Wood. The lake and the grove were sometimes known as the lake and grove of Aricia. But the town of Aricia (the modern La Riccia) was situated about three miles off, at the foot of the Alban Mount, and separated by a steep descent from the lake, which lies in a small crater-like hollow on the mountain side. In this sacred grove there grew a certain tree round which at any time of the day, and probably far into the night, a grim figure might be seen to prowl. In his hand he carried a drawn sword, and he kept peering warily about him as if at every instant he expected to be set upon by an enemy. He was a priest and a murderer; and the man for whom he looked was sooner or later to murder him and hold the priesthood in his stead. Such was the rule of the sanctuary. A candidate for the priesthood could only succeed to office by slaying the priest, and having slain him, he retained office till he was himself slain by a stronger or a craftier.

The post which he held by this precarious tenure carried with it the title of king; but surely no crowned head ever lay uneasier, or was visited by more evil dreams, than his. For year in, year out, in summer and winter, in fair weather and in foul, he had to keep his lonely watch, and whenever he snatched a troubled slumber it was at the peril of his life. The least relaxation of his vigilance, the smallest abatement of his strength of limb or skill of fence, put him in jeopardy; grey hairs might seal his death-warrant. To gentle and pious pilgrims at the shrine the sight of him might well seem to darken the fair landscape, as when a cloud suddenly blots the sun on a bright day. The dreamy blue of Italian skies, the dappled shade of summer woods, and the sparkle of waves in the sun, can have accorded but ill with that stern and sinister figure. Rather we picture to ourselves the scene as it may have been witnessed by a belated wayfarer on one of those wild autumn nights when the dead leaves are falling thick, and the winds seem to sing the dirge of the dying year. It is a sombre picture, set to melancholy music—the background of forest showing black and jagged against a lowering and stormy sky, the sighing of the wind in the branches, the rustle of the withered leaves under foot, the lapping of the cold water on the shore, and in the foreground, pacing to and fro, now in twilight and now in gloom, a dark figure with a glitter of steel at the shoulder whenever the pale moon, riding clear of the cloud-rack, peers down at him through the matted boughs.

The strange rule of this priesthood has no parallel in classical antiquity, and cannot be explained from it. To find an explanation we must go farther afield. No one will probably deny that such a custom savours of a barbarous age, and, surviving into imperial times, stands out in striking isolation from the polished Italian society of the day, like a primaeval rock rising from a smooth-shaven lawn. It is the very rudeness and barbarity of the custom which allow us a hope of explaining it. For recent researches into the early history of man have revealed the essential similarity with which, under many superficial differences, the human mind has elaborated its first crude philosophy of life. Accordingly, if we can show that a barbarous custom, like that of the priesthood of Nemi, has existed elsewhere; if we can detect the motives which led to its institution; if we can prove that these motives have operated widely, perhaps universally, in human society, producing in varied circumstances a variety of institutions specifically different but generically alike; if we can show, lastly, that these very motives, with some of their derivative institutions, were actually at work in classical antiquity; then we may fairly infer that at a remoter age the same motives gave birth to the priesthood of Nemi. Such an inference, in default of direct evidence as to how the priesthood did actually arise, can never amount to demonstration. But it will be more or less probable according to the degree of completeness with which it fulfils the conditions I have indicated. The object of this book is, by meeting these conditions, to offer a fairly probable explanation of the priesthood of Nemi.

[Paulclem]

It's clear that religion has been used by states to legitimise wars and laws to mask nationalistic tendencies, prejudices and conquest for economic gain - good for the state, bad for religion. Religion is too vulnerable to power, and the powerful because of the propaganda that the state can bring to bear upon an issue.

In my opinion, religion is about the conduct of the individual and their relationship with their religion. I think the state simplifies and can polarise too easily. It can assume the role of intermeidary between an individual and their religion's highest ideals - as it did in the Chain of Being which legitimised the rule of Royalty in Europe - and then begin to warp these ideals for it's own purposes.

It works both ways though as well. In the UK, the Church of England is the nominal state religion, but you wouldn't think so except in the ceremonial role it plays for Royalty with The Queen as the Head of the Church and State. I think it's in name only, and that's a good thing. Just look at the schism that may happen with the ordination of Women, and the hoohah over homosexuality. In these cases the secular laws have already moved on - we have civil same sex marriage, and euality for women is - on the whole - an accepted norm leaving a strange mismatch in the understanding of individual rights and the outdated attitude of the church.

[Ecurb]

Just look at the schism that may happen with the ordination of Women, and the hoohah over homosexuality. In these cases the secular laws have already moved on - we have civil same sex marriage, and euality for women is - on the whole - an accepted norm leaving a strange mismatch in the understanding of individual rights and the outdated attitude of the church.

It seems to me that religions in general are conservative, backward looking institutions. Modern, scientific liberals tend to believe that life is getting better; humans can improve themselves and their lot. Religous worldviews often involve a fall from Eden; a retreat from a golden age when people could actually know Jesus or Mohammed (instead of spiritually knowing them); an era when demi-gods like Achilles or Herakles walked the earth.

Of course to the modern liberal (using the term in a general sense of scientific orientation), this Conservatism may seem ridiculous. However to the believer it does not. In addition, it may function as an anchor, limiting society's lust for change and improvement. Of course there are specific instances (like the womens' rights one mentioned above) where we may deplore a particular church's attitude. But maybe that GENERAL attitude serves some function in stabalizing society.

[Paulclem]

I think one lamentable area of mismatch between religious dogma and individual practice is in contraception. I am not aware of the Muslim rules on contraception, but the Catholic hierarchy's attitude is definately harmful - most especially to third world Catholic countries where there is poor healthcare, little education and overpopulation. It's clearly the casre that many Western catholics do not follow the church's guidance.

Modern, scientific liberals tend to believe that life is getting better; humans can improve themselves and their lot.

In the West it's demonstrably true. I think that's one of the reasons for the decline in church attendance in the West - the Church has lost a lot of the initiative to science.

One thing science can't give, though, is community, understanding and comfort. People stil have to cope with illness, tragedy and death at some point in their lives. Who would you rather talk to - somene from your religious community or a psychologist/ scientist?

It seems to me that no individual's or community's worldview needs to be imposed or co-opoted into the national identity. Religion works best for individuals and small communities rather than on national issues. The law, which is temporal and thus changeable according to circumstance, is much better suited to dealing with bigger issues.

[Ecurb]

Modern, scientific liberals tend to believe that life is getting better; humans can improve themselves and their lot.

In the West it's demonstrably true. I think that's one of the reasons for the decline in church attendance in the West - the Church has lost a lot of the initiative to science.


I'm not sure it's "demonstrably true". It's only true if we define "improvement" in a particular way. Obviously, life has gotten better in terms of health, longevity, and general wealth. However, to suggest that these are the key factors for "improvement" is to deny the religious perspective. Perhaps spiritual well-being (rather than physical well-being) is the most important thing. So to say that "life is getting better" is demonstrably true is to beg the question -- no doubt it IS getting better in some ways, but are they the ways that matter?

In fact, religious people might say that by distancing ourselves from death and disease we have lost sight of what would REALLY constitute "improvement" -- a better relationship with God. Also, religious people might say that this IS the "bigger issue", and that the temporal issues of food, shelter, etc. with which the law is capable of dealing are comparatively trivial.

[Paulclem]

I'm not sure it's "demonstrably true". It's only true if we define "improvement" in a particular way. Obviously, life has gotten better in terms of health, longevity, and general wealth. However, to suggest that these are the key factors for "improvement" is to deny the religious perspective. Perhaps spiritual well-being (rather than physical well-being) is the most important thing. So to say that "life is getting better" is demonstrably true is to beg the question -- no doubt it IS getting better in some ways, but are they the ways that matter?

In fact, religious people might say that by distancing ourselves from death and disease we have lost sight of what would REALLY constitute "improvement" -- a better relationship with God. Also, religious people might say that this IS the "bigger issue", and that the temporal issues of food, shelter, etc. with which the law is capable of dealing are comparatively trivial.

I was referring to your statement:

Modern, scientific liberals tend to believe that life is getting better; humans can improve themselves and their lot.

and, as western liberals think in terms of living conditions, I think it is demonstrably true. It's improved since I was a lad.

I agree with what you're saying about the religious perspective and the distance from death, though I'm not sure we should go back to Grandma lying in the sitting room - as used to happen in the UK pre-WW2.

The temporal issues of food and shelter have a way of intruding into the spiritual life if you're inadequately catered for. I would say that a healthy spiritual life depends upon the right level of sustenance, as well as other factors such as a stable state, laws and a certain economic prosperity. What those levels are is a moot point.

I think you're right about the relationship with God/ the path, (to cater for Buddhists) being the big issue. That was my starting point on the state in this thread - none of this requires the state to endorse one religion.

[Ecurb]

I understood what you meant -- I was just being persnickety. Of course many religious asthetes starve themselves, flagellate themselves, and deny themselves sex -- all intentionally, because (we can assume) they think it an "improvement" over well fed comfort.

You are right, however, that none of this requires the state to endorse one religion. We have strayed from that subject, it seems.

[Paulclem]

It was an interesting stray though.:D

[mercy_mankind]

They have less apparent reason to do so.
I think my question was not about their reasons to discriminate, but rather whether the secular system has already caused discriminations towards them or not?


Ignoring your "sermon" preceding this section, even this final sentence shows an amazing degree of intolerance towards those who do not share your point of view.

Really? Is it intolerance when I say that Islam and secularism are not compatible with each other, and at the same time you think you've every single right to say that the state shouldn't be lead by religion? You can't impose a secular system on Muslims when it doesn't represent their will. Now why should your view be supreme to mine?


Keeping in mind that members of this Forum are equally intelligent and educated as you are, you should be able to admit that they are free to find "meaning" in any belief they choose or find close to their hearts.

I'm sure that members here are intelligent, that's why I love this place, and I'm happy for being a member in such wonderful small community :)

I'm really sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but as you can see I concluded by say it is the Islamic point of view, which means it is concerned to Muslims and Islam. And of course you've every right to believe whether YOUR religion is compatible with secularism or not, it is not my business, really!

[hellsapoppin]

Our Founding Fathers were the greatest collection of wise men the modern era has seen. Their desire to keep state and religion separate proves this.

Now some ask, but isn't it true that they endorsed slavery? Well, they did. But most wanted to end it and thought it was going to disappear within two generations. Remember, they were human and certainly were not perfect.

[Sionn Harrow]

Separation of church and state was created to protect the church from the government, instead of vice versa. I think that in that context, it's a good thing. I also think that it's good not to have a government based off any single religion, but I think America has taken that to an extreme...whether we like it or not, our leaders are affected by what they believe. It's impossible to leave one's faith at home, no matter what your background is.

[jocky]

Separation of church and state was created to protect the church from the government, instead of vice versa. I think that in that context, it's a good thing. I also think that it's good not to have a government based off any single religion, but I think America has taken that to an extreme...whether we like it or not, our leaders are affected by what they believe. It's impossible to leave one's faith at home, no matter what your background is.

Call me Mister Naive, but is faith not a direct route into power and politics? Can one honestly say that a non believer could be elected as President of the most powerful nation on earth? We are back in the realm of the supernatural. Is it unfair to point out that world leaders justify and reinforce the written words of people who were only trying to make sense of a world they did not comprehend. Faith should be private and personal and not forced down the throat of the uneducated. If we keep on this path the fundies are going to end the world. What for, Bronge age ideas ? I am not advocating that science has all the answers, but I do say that we can not keep living in the past. :angel:

[The Atheist]

Call me Mister Naive, but is faith not a direct route into power and politics? Can one honestly say that a non believer could be elected as President of the most powerful nation on earth? We are back in the realm of the supernatural. Is it unfair to point out that world leaders justify and reinforce the written words of people who were only trying to make sense of a world they did not comprehend. Faith should be private and personal and not forced down the throat of the uneducated. If we keep on this path the fundies are going to end the world. What for, Bronge age ideas ? I am not advocating that science has all the answers, but I do say that we can not keep living in the past. :angel:

10/10!

And there is proof that an admitted atheist could not become president of USA - atheists are easily the most hated grouping in the country.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1

[hoope]

There is no single country where all of its population belongs to one single religious faith. How does a religious state can guarantee the rights of those who are in minority? How can anyone trust that there will not be discrimination or opression towards who do not belong to the same faith?


Even during the prophets and Before christ , there were people who were having other religious beliefs and yet they lived together. No Religion means to attack or harm other people with different beliefs..But its only if enforce on this facts that some minority ignore it.
Before the discrimination was mostly due to color or race or rich and poor. But religion .. that was so less.. everyone believed in whateva they choose.. and no one harmed the other or disaggreed.


Of course it may also be true that religion is a very personal relationship between a person and his faith, but an objective observer has difficulty determining that. The student of society can only determine the public impact of religion

There is deffinately a relation between RELIGION AND THE GOVERNMENT or the country can't run without laws and rules that have religious aspects and teachings. or else how can you set an example to the people..On what base you would abandon them from any act .. or what vlaue or moral it would give them . without some religious views.. ...


Of course if we define "ritual" as behavior for which animals are "aware they are performing something that is culturally significant" the claim that animals perform rituals becomes more problematic -- it's hard to determine what the nature of animal self-awareness is since they lack sophisticated language with which they could describe it. Indeed, until recently "culture" was thought to be possible only for humans (and even today, humans are far the most "cultural" of animals).



The thing is why are we comparing animals to humans .. !!!!
Animals rituals and human rituals are based on different intentions.. and certainly of now way to put them aside.


It's clear that religion has been used by states to legitimise wars and laws to mask nationalistic tendencies, prejudices and conquest for economic gain - good for the state, bad for religion. Religion is too vulnerable to power, and the powerful because of the propaganda that the state can bring to bear upon an issue.


Agree... and unfortunately it happens in many middle eastern countries..

[The Atheist]

The thing is why are we comparing animals to humans .. !!!!

Because humans are animals too?

Or maybe because it might help us to understand our origins, since we evolved from "simpler" animals.


Animals rituals and human rituals are based on different intentions..

In what way? Wouldn't you have to know a lot more about why animals have and enact those rituals? Why and what humpback whales sing is a good place to start; if you can tell me what that's about, I'd be very grateful. (As would the scientific community.)

From lifelong observation, it seems to me that human and other animalian rituals are all cut from the same piece of cloth.

[JuniperWoolf]

Wouldn't you have to know a lot more about why animals have and enact those rituals?

We've got a bit of insight into pigeon superstition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uPmeWiFTIw).

[The Atheist]

Very clever!

:D

[BienvenuJDC]

Separation of church and state was created to protect the church from the government, instead of vice versa. I think that in that context, it's a good thing. I also think that it's good not to have a government based off any single religion, but I think America has taken that to an extreme...whether we like it or not, our leaders are affected by what they believe. It's impossible to leave one's faith at home, no matter what your background is.

I agree...and the very many atheists that are in power have proven that they will stop at nothing to spread their "faith". Their faith is in themselves...as if they were gods to guide their own paths. No one is without a faith...they all believe in something. It is naive to believe that the complete exclusion of God from a nation won't end in it's own evil conclusion.

[hoope]

Because humans are animals too?

Or maybe because it might help us to understand our origins, since we evolved from "simpler" animals.



That is WRONG theory .. and absolutely incorrect Sir !
Because God created human , created Adam and Eve.. and from them the offsprings came and life spread..and human race spread.
But if your words are based on the concept of Darwin's theory .. which suggests that human were animals . THEN YOU ARE GOING IN A WRONG WAY.. which i assume you won't think of considering. Whatevaaa

The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved (http://ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html)


Darwin's Theory: True Or False? (http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/2/Darwins_Theory_True_Or_False_Transcript.html)



In what way? Wouldn't you have to know a lot more about why animals have and enact those rituals? Why and what humpback whales sing is a good place to start; if you can tell me what that's about, I'd be very grateful. (As would the scientific community.)

From lifelong observation, it seems to me that human and other animalian rituals are all cut from the same piece of cloth.



Whale song is the sounds made by whales and which is used for different kinds of communication.[1]

The word "song" is used to describe the pattern of regular and predictable sounds made by some species of whales, notably the Humpback Whale. This is included with or in comparison with music, and male humpback whales have been described as "inveterate composers" of songs that are "'strikingly similar' to human musical traditions".[2] Male Humpback whales sing only on calving grounds and only in the mating period and humpback songs are similar, almost identical, within a single population. It has been suggested that humpback songs communicate male fitness to female whales.[3] The click sounds made by Sperm whales and dolphins are not strictly song, but the clicking sequences have been suggested to be individualized rhythmic sequences that communicate the identity of a single whale to other whales in its group and allows the groups to coordinate foraging activities


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_song

From Wikipedia

Whales sing as described mostly for mating and for attracting the female whales.. ..
The point is ..we.. Humans don't usually sing for that.. though we try to attract our lovers sometimes.. But we sing at any time .. we sing for money even. whatevaa..

Animals fight for choosing the female .. as for the seals in the antartica.. when they fight for one female.. and one of the seals may die until the stronger wins.. Humans don't do that.. i mean , We have a brain and limits.. though people in love nowadays can kill for the sake of their love.. but that is still something that is not common and socially not accepted so no way to say that we fight and kill madly just like how animals do.

( ps: humans r killing and fighting in a mad un humane way.. ... but that doesn't means that they r animals )

However, whatever we do is based on rationle.I mean we have brain.. And you can't imagine how great the brain works and how gifted the human being are . Animals lack that..all their actions is based on either hunger so they kill to eat. Or for breeding so they fight to get .

A child who has been raised on not eating food that is thrown on the street won't pick anything from the street even if he is hungry.. coz he knows when he get home he will have something better.. But an animal won't .. and they will eat when they are hungry.. just like how wild tigers start hunting when they're hungry.


We have gone way far ....
That is how i see it.. and i don't force anyone to agree with me.. It's after all just points of view of different people with different thougts...


In simple words...
Is it a good thing that religion and the state be seperate?
I don't think so ...

[The Atheist]

That is WRONG theory .. and absolutely incorrect Sir !

Well, 200 years after Darwin, no better theory has been advanced, so I'll stick with the absolute scientific consensus that the theory of evolution remains true.


The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved

Darwin's Theory: True Or False?

Seriously, those links are laughable.

On one hand, there is an accepted fact of science, and on the other, you have provided two links written by non-scientist theologians who never touch on science, but write from the belief that a religious book is true. Their statements are both illogical and false. I noted with amusement that the theologian who "disproved the TOE using mathematics" never once showed an algorithm.

At a time when even institutions like the Roman Catholic church embrace evolution as factual, I find it amazing that some small sects of religion still insist it's not correct.

To deny evolution is to deny science, which is somewhat ironic since we're communicating using tools invented by scientists.



From Wikipedia

Whales sing as described mostly for mating and for attracting the female whales..

Except that's only a part of the story based on assumptions. Science doesn't work like that, so while it is acknowledged that songs probably play a part in sexual selection, the specifics remain unknown.

[hoope]

Well, 200 years after Darwin, no better theory has been advanced, so I'll stick with the absolute scientific consensus that the theory of evolution remains true.



Even if i supplied a scientific theories..I wouldn't matter to u .. Simply coz your comments are based on objections to whatevaa..

Here's a website .. yes i didn't search much online.. but i think this can do .

The case against Darwin (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21776)
Darwin didn't mention the genetics.. and it was never discovered .. The discovery of DNA.

Besides.. i believe you have heard of ARDI.. the skeletal of an old human being found that lived 4.4 million years ago.. and it obviously didn't look like that of an ape .. And they found it in somewhere not far from that Ape Lucy ( that darwin got ) . at the Ethopian deserts.

Your gonna love this (http://www.handresearch.com/diagnostics/palmar-creases-hand-lines-evolution.htm)

( I know you won't like it .. and it won't convince you... but i feel like saying your gonna love it :) )

And check the last youtube in that page..




the specifics remain unknown.

Daaaaaaaaa. whatevaaa ! And that is enough reason to think that animals and human r same !!!

Regards,
Hoope

[The Atheist]

Even if i supplied a scientific theories..I wouldn't matter to u .. Simply coz your comments are based on objections to whatevaa..

No, and it's silly to suggest that. I note you have a link from another creationist who uses no scienctific facts at all in his "disproving" evolution.

You're welcome to believe what you want, but please don't try to present articles by creationists as evidence. If you really think there's a scientific case againsy evolution, there is a Nobel Prize awaiting you.

Here's a website .. yes i didn't search much online.. but i think this can do .



Daaaaaaaaa. whatevaaa ! And that is enough reason to think that animals and human r same !!!

That's not what I said. No two animals are the same, but it is indisputable that humans are animals.

[OrphanPip]

The case against Darwin (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21776)
Darwin didn't mention the genetics.. and it was never discovered .. The discovery of DNA.

Ug, the number of factual errors, ridiculous ad hominem, and nonsense in that article. This is why science education is so very necessary, because then people would be able to recognize why everything that guy says is irrelevant, and or, outright lies.

Of course Darwin didn't know anything about genetics, the point? Darwin proposed the mechanism of natural selection. Anyone who has actually bothered to read Darwin's writing would know that he knew of inheritance, and he postulated that inheritance was not a perfect process. In the latter half of the 19th century Mendel's work in genetics were rediscovered along with other novel research in inheritance. By the early 20th century the evolutionary theory had been modified into the "modern synthesis" which incorporating genetics into the theory. And you know what is really remarkable, the fact that Darwin was right about there being imperfect inheritance, although he was only able to deduce that from the fact that organisms change over time.



Besides.. i believe you have heard of ARDI.. the skeletal of an old human being found that lived 4.4 million years ago.. and it obviously didn't look like that of an ape .. And they found it in somewhere not far from that Ape Lucy ( that darwin got ) . at the Ethopian deserts.

Your gonna love this (http://www.handresearch.com/diagnostics/palmar-creases-hand-lines-evolution.htm)

( I know you won't like it .. and it won't convince you... but i feel like saying your gonna love it :) )

It shouldn't convince him because Ardi is a hominid like Lucy, not a human being in the sense of being Homo sapien sapiens. Ardi had a brain the size of a chimps. Ardi is possibly the earliest hominid, that is an ape who walked upright, although paleontologist think they were likely partially arboreal.

Really nothing annoys me more than people trying to discredit evolution by arguing against Darwin. Darwin is a historical footnote, natural selection was his genius innovation, he was wrong about pretty much everything else. Darwin wasn't even the first person to propose that evolution occurred, or that the Earth was too old to have been created by God, and that some things seemed to have been much older than human beings. Geologist were the first to do that.

[hoope]

No, and it's silly to suggest that. I note you have a link from another creationist who uses no scienctific facts at all in his "disproving" evolution.

You're welcome to believe what you want, but please don't try to present articles by creationists as evidence. If you really think there's a scientific case againsy evolution, there is a Nobel Prize awaiting you.
QUOTE]

I don't need to prove anything.. and i don't need a nobel prize for anything. Many people are aware of how Darwin theory is wrong.. but some evolutionist and atheists don't agree ; which is upto them.
And humans were not in any time evolved from animals .. not even simpler animals as you say ..


[QUOTE=OrphanPip] Darwin wasn't even the first person to propose that evolution occurred, or that the Earth was too old to have been created by God, and that some things seemed to have been much older than human beings. Geologist were the first to do that.

Really ! was earth too old to have been created by God.. !!!
Earth and everything in human beings and every little thing starting from the tiny micro organism until the big humpback singing whales .. and to the air that we breathe.. all ..were created by God.. for no any super power can bring that into being.


Of course Darwin didn't know anything about genetics, the point? Darwin proposed the mechanism of natural selection. Anyone who has actually bothered to read Darwin's writing would know that he knew of inheritance, and he postulated that inheritance was not a perfect process.

Everything remains a theory.. and yet supported with evidence . Its still a dangerously far reaching views of life. That many people might find it unacceptable.

[The Atheist]

Everything remains a theory.. and yet supported with evidence .

That is the beauty of science - it leaves "truth" for religion.

Science only ever stops at "theory" because science is a process and always subject to change with additional evidence - again, exactly unlike religion.

That's why the theory of evolution has been honed and perfected over time. If someone comes up with actual evidence to the contrary, it would be taken into account, but wild assertions from theists are rightly given nio weight at all.

Pythagoras' right-angle triangle remains a "theory" even though every right-angle triangle in the universe behaves in precisely the same way.


Its still a dangerously far reaching views of life. That many people might find it unacceptable.

This is yet another joy of science - what is "acceptable" never comes into it, the evidence is left to speak for itself. In science, nothing is unacceptable, even evidence for god/s; should any ever exist.

I can't figure what might be dangerous, however.

[XQZ]

I think that for a politician to be an atheist and be seen go to church won't lose them votes from atheists, but to declare themselves an atheist will certainly cost themselves an entire election

What? Politicians lying to the public? Never!