The State-Religion question was more scope:

Churches and priesthoods have their roots in earlier practices and mythologies pre-dating Christianity. Religionism as distinct from Shamanism probably arose around 4000-5000 BCE.

Humanity in the Middle East moved from being nomadic through a period of semi-nomadic Garden Cultures to establishing permanent states. Later, in Sumer, the ownership of land was an issue. In this frame, priesthoods were formed to administer the Land on behalf God. So, it was in the financial interests of the emerging religions to control of secular resources.

The Christian religion was formed possibly as a reaction to Jewish fundamentalism. Nonetheless, the Romans would have perceived the Christians as a Jewish Sect. Despite, the fall of the Second Temple, Roman occupation and the terrorist activities of the Zealots, Rome respected the Jewish religion's antiquity. Further, the Romans would have been more tolerant of the early Christians had the Christians:

(i) Made sacrificial offerings. (The Romans were superstitious and worried the Gods would punish them for non-observance.),

(ii) Not Framed two associations with cannibalism; i.e., transubstantiation and the practice of digging-up an eating dead martyrs, and

(iii) Stpped catechumen running riot before their adult absolution and Baptism. Last minute sins!

Around the later years of the sixth century, Christianity encroached onto tribal Arabic states. A little later, Mohammed c. 620 CE, wishing to organise the Arab tribes noted the Jews and Christians had "prophets" (Jesus being demoted), but the Arabs did not. Not surprisingly, shortly thereafter, Islam emerged, as another monotheistic religion, with its very own prophet.

For centuries afterwards and maybe into this century, there has clash between the Christian and Islamic monotheistic religions. Herein, when the State and monotheism are too close, and, there is mutual intolerance between rival States the situation is dire. Especially today, given the proliferation radiological weapons and other nasties.

In summation, there must be wide separation between the Church and State. Moreover, religionists need to be more tolerant, accepting their particular faith or belief is a postulation. Contrarily, the existence of the State - and the people in it - is a certainty.

My arguement is that we should be using the moral teachings and philosophies that religions have evolved over the centuries.To simply label people as "God Bothers" achieves nothing.It is a throw away line such as"heathen" It is better to believe in a lie and be a constructive being,than to believe in a reality,show no respect,and strive for nothing.Morality and values are about the common good and thus survival of our species.Presently we are facing a real dilemma of a society wth diminishing morality,religions with decreasing credibility,and nothing to fill the void.

Oliver
you tried to do a 'theory of everything' with that post, and I'm afraid that u covered material which requires just about a LIBRARY of books to fill in the HUGE gaps that you OVER generalized and very inaccurate posting gave us. U can eat an elephant if u eat it one bite at a time, NOT when u try to swallow the whole thing in one go as u did there. Reduce your post to just ONE major contention, and we might be able to engage with you.

KENNY mate.. u leave me absolutely speechless, for a bloke who claims a reasonable education, you did much worse than a first year apprentice on his first day butchering a newly slaughtered beef, chopping wrong bits off here and there, - to be honest, you handling of a serious issue of Biblical interpretation was atrocious and grossly off the mark. You selected just a few words of one complete parable, u used it out of context, and that my friend, is a PRETEXT. U just gathered a few convenient words and used them to hang your biases on :) sorry but true.
Now.. IMPORTANT.. do u have an email address which is non threatening ? if not, can u open one, I want to send you a photo which is most instructive (taken just days ago) in Borneo, and I'll show u something about slavery. I'm a great believer in 'facts are mightier than conjecture'

MORGAN and PERICLES its clear to me, that when the word 'Church' is mentioned, (this is for Kenny also) an image of some large beaurocratic organization seems to come to your minds. You can only see that image, and hence ur fear about 'Powerful Churches' imposing their will. The Biblical picture is not of a huge political/powerful group, but of people, renewed, living under Gods Kingship, speaking into the society in which they live. I am as opposed as YOU guys to a powerful 'Church' of one flavor controlling the state. That is not what I am advocating. Lets talk more about this

BOAZ

The very point of my posting was that the original author should be looking at his topic more generally. That is, one can understate the intricacies of huge issue of Church and State from the narrow perspective of the Bible and the West. I plead guilty to gaps, as I too hurriedly edited the postng back from 650 words. As for inaccuracies, not so. Explicit and subject to refutation - yes. Little is known about the life of Jesus. However, much is recorded about Roman History. The Bible is a book more like the Collected Works of William Shakespeare (i.e., there were several drafts of Hamlet). That is, the Bible is a selected compilation of works written after the fact. It is far better to study normative behaviour in society. Herein,the Jesus sects were uncharacteristic were uncharacteric of early Roman Times. As for known periods of "apparent" cooperation between monotheistic states, if that is what you are thinking, BOAZ, this behaviour is what evolutionary biologists call "by-product mutualism" and "reciprocal altruism". The benefits of zero-sum games were known to merchant traders long before mathematicians (Nash Equilibrium.

BOAZ, there is a lesson here for both of us. I should write more succinctly and articulately for a limited space. You need to learn not to write "a priori" with regard to using the Bible as a guide. Step back from your topic. As Confucius said, "you can't see the face of the mountain from inside the mountain"

Oliver
thanks for your response. I know the feeling, 350 words is not nearly enuf. You said:
"Little is known about the life of Jesus. However, much is recorded about Roman History"
Agreed. We know most about just 3 yrs of Jesus life, but it is that 3 yrs which most concerns mankind. I write from a conservative evangelical perspective, and a relationship with Christ which never ceases to amaze me, so you will see where I'm coming from.
It's probably better not to try to describe the Bible from a secular perspective to a believing Christian :) it just does not work. We appproach the scriptures sympathetically, and not as a scientist would do, because of its essential nature of communicating the Word of Grace. Only as we encounter that Word, and react to it will we have one or another view of Scripture.
In regard to the point of the arcticle, it boils down to the Christians in community (of any tradition) seeking to shape the community as they desire, using the democratic process, as it also does for those persuaded to a different social agenda.
We are generally against abortion, homosexual behavior, and sexual permisiveness in general, and we support a responsible approach to the environment and strong family values. We believe the most basic family will usually include a man and a woman, maybe children. (single parents with children are of course families) We firmly believe that a society will never survive its own decadence, and on that score history is our ally. We claim that decadence is definable and that we have a calling as preserving Salt and illuminating Light. The alternative is an anchorless ship in the rolling seas of moral relativism.
To believe in Christ is an experience 'of peace which passes understanding' and in anticipation of 'sure sure pat pat' :) pls read Pauls first letter to the Corinthians chapter 15.
Keep up the enthusiastic contributions

I always look forward to Peter's writings on these pages. I don't always agree with all his work, but I find his thoughts on the rise of fundamentalism insightful. Peter's articles have a common thread of examining the place that belief and Christianity, in particular, has in Australian life.

Political decisions are not made without reference to society and its morals. To pretend that "rational" decision-making free of personal values is possible is, to me, not rational.