Sells, you might be a scientist, but as one swallow does not make a summer, one scientist could well be flawed in his thinking. One thing about science is that it is fairly specialized. So you might know a great deal about specific fields of knowledge, but there could well be other areas of knowledge about which you know very little, even though they could be critical to human understanding. Simply fobbing off those
who do not agree with you is not answering the questions.

You wonder about culture. Now if you were interested in primatology,
you would know that De Waal, Wrangham and others talk of what could be called chimpanzee culture. Things that chimps learn from each other as part of living in tribes, as a social species, much like
humans do. So what do you want explained about it?

As a scientist, you would know that there are no parts of the human brain that chimps don’t have, its more a question of size. As our
brain evolved to be larger, we got to think more, to wonder more about the world. All those questions produced many answers, but also many anxieties about what we did not know or understand.

Anxious humans make for unhappy humans. As there is hardly a tribe on the planet which did not invent some kind of god to explain what they did not understand about the world, I put it to you that religion
evolved to quell human anxiety and explain the things that various tribes
and cultures did not understand about the world. It satisfied their emotional needs and emotions matter hugely, as any good neuroscientist will tell you. So point out where my hypothesis is flawed.

Dear Sells,

The path between the politics of ancient israel and modern societies is a long and convoluted one. We can learn from the Bible but the world has moved on since the days of parochial Jewish tribalism. Far more relevant is the following letter by Thomas Jefferson. It was written in 1802 during the formation of the American constition and still remains an inspiration to Western secular goverments. Its ideals could not have been framed without the free-thought of the immediateky preceding Enlightenment period.

'Gentlemen, — The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.'

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.'

Amen.

TR,

you seem to think that the US constitution's refusal to establish a State religion, and Jefferson's thoughts are made in a Godless vacuum.

Did the founding fathers of the US make such arrangements independent of a belief in God? No, they were men of faith, Christian Gentlemen, but, freed from the shackles of Europe they sought to practice their faith in the absence of older rites and continue to this very day to reinvent the Christian (and other) message in more & more guises.

Unlike Yabby and others, I do not see the Pope as someone who controls my behaviour, but, I see the Church of Rome & its teachings as a reference point that, like or unlike other philosophies or belief systems, I can embrace or reject.

To give one's assent of faith is a serious matter and to compromise such an important decision for the sake of fashion, political or economic expediency is unfortunate.

Reality check
Quote "Did the founding fathers of the US make such arrangements independent of a belief in God? No, they were men of faith, Christian Gentlemen, but, freed from the shackles of Europe they sought to practice their faith in the absence of older rites and continue to this very day to reinvent the Christian (and other) message in more & more guises." Sorry Reality but you are wrong!

The founding fathers were men of faith but they were deists NOT christians. They were also people who wanted complete separation between church & state. To protect those with any religious views OR NONE!

Please don't believe me. Click on the link & read it for yourself.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/original_intent.html

Bosk gets it right. Emerson was a deist and no Christian. His desire for a dividing wall between church and state was motivated by a raw grab for power. We see the same thing In Europe with the rise of the nation state. This is the way secular power removes the faith from competition, it isolates it to the personal and removes it from the political. But the trial and murder of Jesus was a political event, among other things, and the gospel cannot be kept out of the political. This is why politicians complain when the church gets involved with politics, they hate it, because they think they have the field to themselves.

Posted at 4:36am.. Peter...get a life!
Anyway. The history of the Diests in America is an interesting one in itself but to give them the base motivation of "a raw grab for power" is a bit rich and insulting to the last set of truly great men in American politics (in my humble opinion).... Have to disagree with you on that one Peter.
To state that "secular power removes faith from the competition" also shows a complete misunderstanding of the development of secular government. As I stated earlier in this forum, secular government is simply a logical result of the failure of theocracy. The founders of the USA did not want to propogate the divisive sectarian power structures of Europe and felt that there must be a better way. Strangely enough Constantine did the same thing by allowing all religions to flourish and NOT instituting a state religion.
To say that the secular state isolates religion from the political and removes it to the individual is also drawing a long bow, this assumes that there is no organized religion within the state and no religious influence on government...e.g Pell's man in Parliament - Tony Abbot.
You state "the gospel cannot be kept out of the political". I ask why do we need the confused amalgam of ancient Hellenistic, Paganised Judaism to become a basis for government? Sure the churches have a well earned right to participate in the hurly burly of politics as do Atheists, Scientologists, Communists and Muslims et al. The "Gospel" as you put it has never been demonstated as being the basis of good governance. Theocracy nevers works and a state based on a literalist religious belief struggle because of it.
You are right in stating that the trial of Jesus, as told, was a political event - that's all it was. The whole of the New testament is a political document...a raw grab for power.