Wow, neon_duke said I should stop by here after my post in the Life thread in the Rumble Strip. It's taken me well over an hour to read all the posts, and there's a lot of interesting points to think about and discuss. Another
winner I'd say.
In this post, "Church" refers to a selected religion, it does not matter which, "State" refers to a country, i.e. The US, UK, Afghanistan etc.
Also, dear reader, it would be worth your while to spend a short time considering the phenomenon of ingroup/outgroup behaviour. This is rather like drawing a circle. Anything not in the circle is necessarily outside the circle. With Man being a social animal, social groupings are very important, and humans will belong to a number of groups at any one time. For example, we are all in the group "GTP members". Some of the members of this group take it very seriously, to the point that they are openly negative towards members of the group "GTF members". This hostility is often returned. Because the social group membership issue is so strong, it provokes strong reactions to other social group members, particularly members of other social groups, whether or not those groups have a particular rivalry. The easiest non-religious example of this is in European soccer teams, for example the Glasgow teams Celtic and Rangers, the London teams Chelsea and Milwall, the Eastern European teams AEK Athens and Panathenaikos.
For religious examples, look to Northern Ireland, with its myriad social groups.
On the issue of the separation of Church and State
I do not believe that it is appropriate for a State to mandate a religion (or "Church") to which its subjects should adhere. This stifles cultural diversity and promotes the ingroup/outgroup separation that Pako was talking about. Currently, in States which do not mandate a religion, religions co-exist in a state of watchful disharmony. Anyone who wishes to see this should take a drive through Birmingham in the UK, where there is an ethnically and religiously diverse community. Such communities lack the figurehead of a sovereign State, like Iraq, but can still grow to acquire a figurehead in exactly the same way that Martin Luther King became the figurehead of the blacks in America. This was not a religious uprising, but the social phenomenon is not far from that observed in religious communities - if you disagree, go back to thinking of a religion as a group, and think of ingroup/outgroup behaviour. In general, the social nature of humans ascribes significant power to groups, and this power grows almost exponentially with the size of the group. Think 'Nazi party' for an example of this rapid acceleration of power. Therefore, from a socio-anthropological point of view, it is massively unwise to have sovereign states wearing religions as a badge of honour.
Also, in large-population countries, such as the US, UK, Russia etc, it is difficult to mandate a single viewpoint, as these countries all contain culturally diverse populations. Such diversity is widely acknowledged as being a good thing, yet a State-mandated religion would stifle it. One thing this thread
has proven is that humans need to be able to express themselves and to hold their own beliefs. Therefore I unequivocally reject the idea of a State-mandated religion, even if it were to agree with my own personal beliefs.
On George W's comments about Praying to god
This is being read too literally. He was calling for all people to collectively, through their own personal beliefs, bring thoughs of respect, rememberance, condolence, peace and optimism to those who were hurt by 11/9, and to use this as platform to move on and grow as a people. To many, this means praying to their own deity, as presented by their religion. To take it as meaning "The Roman Catholic God", or any other specific deity "as recommended by Uncle Sam" is over-literalising. No profit can come of this debate. Also, it rejects the ability of atheistic people to have such thoughts, which was posited and then retracted earlier in this thread.
On Creation vs Evolution
I'm afraid that it's not good news for the creationists. The thing is that evolution
is a proven fact. Archaeological discoveries do support the position that the planet's ecosystem has slowly changed over time. This change is at the heart of evolutionary theory. However, the position of creationists in refusing to believe that a deity could have created a starting position, and everything could have evolved from there, is pure dogma. Pako has made several good points which, if I have interpreted them correctly, would seem to indicate that he believes that the deity created the 'pre-Big Bang' universe. This could be quite compelling, and could be the key to resolving this issue. Personally, I believe the evolutionary-history version of 'post-Big Bang', but have not yet had enough evidence about prior to this event to make up my own mind.
On theory, myth, law, logic, belief, science, religion et al
My physics A Level teacher once said to me "The thing about being a scientist is that you must undertake to accept that everything you hold to be true, everything you believe, can be proen to be false at any moment? Can you accept this? If you can, you can be a scientist." This is what Vat_man and neon_duke were alluding to in the "Flat World, Galileo" discussions.
The thing is, a theory is something that can be tested positively a million times, but if one single test is false, then so is the theory.
Someone once said (I wish I knew who it was), about going to war over religion: "You're basically fighting over who has the better imaginary friend".
On the teaching of Religion, morality etc to children
I'm not sure that morality should be bound to religion. One of the ten commandments is "Love thy neighbour as thyself" (please forgive wording inaccuracies), but does this mean that the sentiment is bound to the belief in the religion that posited the ten commandments? No, absolutely not! Therefore I don't feel that the teaching of morality to our children is dependent upon religious education.
I'm with neon_duke on the topic of teaching religion, but it is of course a thorny issue, and it is something that should not be taught to young children, but young adults. I think a certain degree of maturity is required to appropriately take account of someone else's beliefs even though they do not coincide with your own.
On my own personal religious beliefs
I am an atheist (somebody who does not believe in God or deities). This does not mean that:
1. I am a bad person
2. I cannot believe, in the fact of evidence, that God or deities exist
3. I am an amoral person
4. I do not know the difference between right and wrong
5. I am unaware that my actions have both antecedents and consequences, either now or some time in the future.
To finish (finally!!)
I'm sorry that this post isn't my usual light-hearted, brief self. In preparing to click "Submit Reply", I'm seeing the Special Note, and I'm wondering if I'm metaphorically lighting some metaphoric blue touchpaper. But I'm prepared to stand by what I've written here, and I hope you guys read it all and respect my opinions, as I respect yours, even when they're in opposition to mine.
-Peace,
Giles.
...
, that funny... Alright man, that's cool. But come on, your saying "you" as in me that does not fully understand what being human is, or was that just a loose generalization? BTW - It's ok for you to be human ( loose generalization 
) even if you don't fully understand what that means.
