Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You.

Matthew,
I still don't see the need pressed by you and others here to define religion. If we say religious adherence does not deserve special consideration by the law, them why does it need to be defined?

I suspect the reason is that there are those who want to define religion so that they can more easily subjugate it, and prejudice and persecute those who hold to different convictions.

I can see an example within the current football World Cup which is being played. There are Christian players, such as the Brazilian Kaka, who were told they weren't allowed to place Christian slogans on their T-shirts that they were wearing under their uniforms. This could be interpreted as a subjugation of their freedom of expression when they, at times, perhaps after the match finished, lifted their shirts to unveil their message. I'm not sure what other players are allowed to write or not write on their T-shirts they wear under their uniforms.

There was also the ban against female soccer players wearing any kind of veil or headgear while playing. This was a ruling made especially against the Arab girls who look at the veil as giving themselves a sense of modesty. This seemed counter productive as it stops girls from getting out and playing the game and enjoying that recreation.

But then again, the international football federation have always been megalomaniacs for power. Before the 2002 World Cup, the Cameroon men's team wanted to wear a uniform with cut-off sleeves (similar to Australian Rules footballers.) They were trying to be avant guard in their dress sense. They were fined by FIFA and told to sew six inch sleeves onto their uniform's shoulders before they were allowed to play.

SO Many lines..on defiing religion[when its of no mind..IN COURT]

QUITE SIMPLY THE COURt cant judge..religious belief
stuff YA RELIGIONS..WE TOLERATE THEM..THEY SERVE THEIR RESONS[EVEN THE WRONG ONES

TAKe the miracle..on page 124..[PAGE 134/ON THE module index/thingy]
http://www.spiritwritings.com/GatewayOfUnderstanding.pdf

HERE WAS A SPIrit/who took possesion/causing sickness
following an adverse chilDHOOD EVENT[A COMMON POINT\..REGARDLESS
THE NEXT FEW PAGES EXPLAIN MUch..[at least follow the conversation[miracle healinG..TO ITS END

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHat that static electric 'treatment'.. IS/ABOUT.
[apparently the static electricty 'TREATMENT'../EXPELS THE HAUNTING/into\other medium/read THE lost soul/CAUSING THE DIS-EASE..[NOT SiCKNESS/NOR\unwellness]..they arnt the same thing.

Dan S you can also have a look at the discrimination of an Indian wearing headgear that does not get taken off when going through customs, but a person wearing a cap is told to take it off actual fact, religion once again comes into the equation

Yuyutsu

"So what about monasticism?"

If all religious in all lands and all ages were monks, or rather were celibate, that would spell the end of my theory.

However the fact that some religious in some lands in some periods have been monks does not dispose of the theory for two reasons. Firstly the theory works on the average over long periods of time. If the average effect of religiosity is to increase the chances of reproductive success and there is any heritable component then, according to this theory, that would tend to explain the phenomenon of religion. The theory is falsifiable and can be tested but you'd need to design experiments, with a control, and test it against different cultural populations. We don't know what the results are because no-one's done it.

However just looking at all the ways in which religiosity does favour reproductive success in so many different ways: charisma, privileges, mate-advertising, paternal contribution, rape, etc. I think it's a fair bet, and a more plausible explanation than speculations about what religions are "meant" to do.

Secondly, the issue is not monasticism per se but celibacy. There's many a monk has used his religious status to increase his reproductive success, which was indeed part of the controversy that gave rise to the Protestant reformation and permitting marriage of clergy in Christendom.

".... the discrimination of an Indian wearing headgear that does not get taken off when going through customs, but a person wearing a cap is told to take it off actual fact, religion once again comes into the equation"

Not only that, but Sikhs do not have to remove their turbans in RSLs where all others must remove their headgear.