Put simply, religion is away of life that has followers and rules, thus Presbyterianism is a religion as is Communism.

Dear Is Mise,

«Put simply, religion is away of life that has followers and rules, thus Presbyterianism is a religion as is Communism.»

Indeed over-simply...

Yes, religion can be described as a way of life where one tries to come closer to God in thought, word and deed.

But everyone starts their journey from a different place, from different circumstances, so their paths to God vary accordingly.

For some religious people, Presbyterianism and its rules could comprise a segment of their path to God; and in theory, Communism and its rules too could be used as a segment of the path to God of certain people (though I find it difficult to point at actual examples).

However, neither Presbyterianism nor Communism automatically constitute religions for all their followers, only for some, depending where they come from. If there are many of them, then we may for convenience-sake call their path a religion, but we must keep in the back of our minds that no particular path suits everyone.

.

Historical alternatives to the death penalty …

.

Exclusion, ostracism, exile, and banishment have been practised by human societies throughout their evolution from the initial primitive family clans to modern multicultural nations.

Compared to physical revenge or direct reciprocal non-cooperation, ostracism constitutes a safer method of punishment. It carries less risk of injury for the remaining group members.

Anthropologists tell us that for tribal and ancestral humans dependent on tribal and social relationships for survival, ostracism may be experienced as an exclusion from humanity and a form of social death.

Exile was practiced by the ancient Greeks chiefly in cases of homicide. Ostracism was a form of exile imposed for political reasons. In Rome, exile arose as a means of circumventing the death penalty. Before a death sentence was pronounced, a Roman citizen could escape by voluntary exile.

Later, degrees of exile were introduced, including temporary or permanent exile, exile with or without loss of citizenship, and exile with or without confiscation of property. The Romans generally determined punishment by class, applying sentences of banishment to the upper classes and sentences of forced labour to the lower classes.

From the Anglo-Saxon penalty of outlawry, British law developed the practice of banishing criminals as an alternative to capital punishment. British convicts were deported to penal colonies first in North America until the War of Independence, and then to Australia.

The first convoy to take the 15,800-mile (25,427 km) trip to Australia departed on May 13, 1787, with 730 convicts. Banishment and transportation to Australia ended in 1868.

The colonisation of part of North America and much of Australia represented, to a large extent, an alternative to the death penalty.

.

Hi BP,

"The colonisation of part of North America and much of Australia represented, to a large extent, an alternative to the death penalty."

Totally correct, England was suffering a "crime epidemic" during the 17th through to the mid 19th centuries. This was brought about by social inequality and political instability. The answer from authority was draconian laws with extreme penalise, some 200 offences carried the maximum death penalty. This period was known as the time of Britain's "Bloody Legal Code", problems arose when somewhat "liberal" mined judges would commute a death sentence to a term of imprisonment, or simply imposes a lesser sentence to begin with. With little public money spent on overcrowded prisons, unsatisfactory alternatives were found, including the infamous prison hulks on the Thames. Resistance from colonists to convict transportation to North America had begun in the late 17th century, as American colonist had found slaves to be a better economic proposition to convicts, nothing to do with thoughts of liberty and justice.

The rest of the story is well known. BTW less than one percent of convicts transported to Australia ever returned to Britain. So indeed it was a life sentence.

Life sentence BS, the convicts that stayed ib Australia did so voluntarily, very few of them ever wanted to return to Britain.

Hi Issy,

Being in favour of the death penalty as you are, do you believe the Aussie baby killers from Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan should be hanged or face the firing squad? What's your choice.

We'll never know if convicts once completing their sentence would have chosen to return "home" to England, as they were required to pay their own passage, which at the time was prohibitive for a poorly paid worker. I agree most would not if they had the choice, returned to such a sh!thole, My convict relatives, eventually had the means but it was never an option for them, as far as I know.