Annoyed with religious-right who don't understand the idea of a seperate church/state

[heretic888]

I think it may also help if we realize that the unified religous/legal nature of marriage is, per se, a carry-over from the days which preceded Separation of Church and State --- in much the same way that slavery in the United States was a carry-over from the days preceding democracy.

Just make civil union and marriage into two different animals and be done with it.

 

[CanuckMA]

Right, people will ***** no matter what. Yet, I don't care if people ***** that our government doesn't recognize their "religious" union, as is that is exactly the point. Church and State should be seperate.

The State does not recognizes religious marriages. Clergy are licensed by the State to perform the Civic part of the marriage. 2 documents are signed.

Also, I don't think that this issue parellels the abortion issue enough to make the comparison. Abortion is a very complex issue regarding the equilibrium between government control over a persons body (woman), and at what point the child should be considered human or not, and how the government should stand on each. Marriage in it's basic sense is a religious union between 2 people. Changing the definition of abortion will not change the issue at all. Taking the word marriage out of the lawbooks, and the government taking a stand to stay that they are not here to define a religious union, but rather give people the freedoms to define that for themselves would change the issue completely. Some will complain, but it'll be over before you know it.

Marriage is the union of 2 people. The State regognition of which 2 people need not match the religious one, as long as the State's is more inclusive.

 

[Cruentus]

The State does not recognizes religious marriages. Clergy are licensed by the State to perform the Civic part of the marriage. 2 documents are signed.



Marriage is the union of 2 people. The State regognition of which 2 people need not match the religious one, as long as the State's is more inclusive.

By using the word "marriage" and being descriminatory as to which 2 people can/should get "married" is a definate violation of the seperate church/state principle, regardless of whether the state claims to recognize religious marriages or not.

 

[CanuckMA]

By using the word "marriage" and being descriminatory as to which 2 people can/should get "married" is a definate violation of the seperate church/state principle, regardless of whether the state claims to recognize religious marriages or not.

A word can have multiple meanings. Marriage is simple, it is the union of people. Currently, it means 2 people of opposite sex. I see nothing wrong with civil authorities changing their definition to mean any 2 people, while letting the religious authorities keep their meaning. The State will never recognize religious marriages. To do so would require the State to discriminate as to which religions are legitimate. In order to facilitate to the execution of a religious marriage, the State licenses clergy to be agent of the State, like a Justice of the peace. A religious marriage ceremony includes the signing of civil documents in addition to religious ones.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Rest assured, what will happen, is that those who marry will experience no perks what so ever. Perks will then be re-allotted to couples whom both have a biological relation to children or of some other male female aspect of marriage. If "outsiders" take our word, we will come up with a new word.
Sean

 

[CanuckMA]

Rest assured, what will happen, is that those who marry will experience no perks what so ever. Perks will then be re-allotted to couples whom both have a biological relation to children or of some other male female aspect of marriage. If "outsiders" take our word, we will come up with a new word.
Sean

'Your' word????

Which are you, Mirriam or Webster?

 

[heretic888]

HAH!! Good one, Canuck. :boing2:

 

[Touch Of Death]

'Your' word????

Which are you, Mirriam or Webster?

"our" as in the majority or society, the masses, the collective...

 

[CanuckMA]

"our" as in the majority or society, the masses, the collective...

Or as in the minority of narrow minded bigots who can't seem to get through their heads that there are some basic human rights at stake here.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Or as in the minority of narrow minded bigots who can't seem to get through their heads that there are some basic human rights at stake here.

Oh, and what basic rights are those?
Sean (NMB)

 

[Cruentus]

I am quite a trustworthy Freemason, or Mason for short, (note the capitalization, to differentiate a Brother of The Order from any other "operative" stone mason...

Funny that this comes up, though... I was talking with a few friends last night - one is the son of a Mason from a Masonic family, and the other I brought into the Lodge when we were assigned to Fort Riley. I had the honor and privilege of actually walking him through the initiation ritual myself.

I miss attending Lodge, I miss being part of that organization (it actually does quite a bit of good, worthwhile charity work), but I had personal and professional reasons for no longer attending...

Anyway... I recommend the Brotherhood to anyone considering requesting entrance.

Sorry Matt. I like ya, but I gotta do this.

I would like to make a counter-recomendation NOT to join any kind of secret society. Particularly if you fall into one of these categories:

#1. Your a Catholic.

#2. Your a Christian.

#3. You don't believe in elitism.

There is an entire spirituality and way of thought that is specifically anti-Catholic. In terms of Christianity, the spirituality of freemasonry (especially beyond the 3rd degree) is contrary to most Christian Doctrines. An extreme example would be this would be in the official organ of the italian masonry: "The formula of the Grand Architect, which is reproached to Masonry as ambiguous and absurd, is the most large-minded and righteous affirmation of the immense principle of existence and may represent as well the (revolutionary) God of Mazzini as the Satan of Giosue Carducci (in his celebrated hymn to Satan); God, as the fountain of love, not of hatred; Satan, as the genius of the good, not of the bad".

On elitism; the basic belief is that the freemasons are "enlightened" over other "profane intruders." In American rituals members are considered, "The greatest and best men of all ages. (note also that this means "white men" as there are other lodges for "colored" men).

On that note, I've met people who I have liked who are masons, and the organization can be charitable. However, Most had not gone past the 3rd degree, and were still considered to be "groveling in Egyptian Darkness." [Pike]

In regards to papal decrees against the masons; In 1738 the Masonic "Old Article" or fundamental law changed to be in contrast to the churches teachings, and the organization openly attacked the church then as it does to today. At the time of the decree of excommunication, Freemasons were clearly against the church teachings. There is no manditory excommunication for that sort of thing today. I'd say the church was protecting it's beliefs rather then "usurping civil authority," and if anything, I am more suspiscious on the influence of secret societies on our government then the churches.

So, I said my piece. We can agree to disagree on these views here and move on...

PAUL

 

[Cruentus]

Another misconception to clear up.

The Catholic church recognizes, at least today, the need for the seperation of church and state.

However, the current general belief by church authority is that if it is for the betterment of the people and the community, that the state is obligated to promote the spiritual interests of the church. This is where I disagree. I feel that the state should really only protect our freedom to have and apply these spiritual interests to our lives.

This is just in case anyone thinks that the Catholic church doesn't want to recognize the seperation between church and state. This is not true. The church recognizes the seperation. It is the members of authority who would like to see a more proactive role.

PAUL

 

[heretic888]

Or as in the minority of narrow minded bigots who can't seem to get through their heads that there are some basic human rights at stake here.

No offense, but I'm inclined to agree here.

There is an entire spirituality and way of thought that is specifically anti-Catholic. In terms of Christianity, the spirituality of freemasonry (especially beyond the 3rd degree) is contrary to most Christian Doctrines. An extreme example would be this would be in the official organ of the italian masonry: "The formula of the Grand Architect, which is reproached to Masonry as ambiguous and absurd, is the most large-minded and righteous affirmation of the immense principle of existence and may represent as well the (revolutionary) God of Mazzini as the Satan of Giosue Carducci (in his celebrated hymn to Satan); God, as the fountain of love, not of hatred; Satan, as the genius of the good, not of the bad".

Sounds like a very highly-developed and refined Gnostic sentiment to me (although I personally doubt most, if any, Masons experientially understand its true meaning). I suppose its anti-Catholic in the sense of anti-Nicene --- but, by no means is it contrary to many of the teachings of most early Christian sects (which is what Masonry was originally based upon).

On elitism; the basic belief is that the freemasons are "enlightened" over other "profane intruders." In American rituals members are considered, "The greatest and best men of all ages. (note also that this means "white men" as there are other lodges for "colored" men).

On that note, I've met people who I have liked who are masons, and the organization can be charitable. However, Most had not gone past the 3rd degree, and were still considered to be "groveling in Egyptian Darkness." [Pike]

Splitting hairs, I'd dare say --- especially when we consider the Biblical and conventional Christian injunction considering the "saved" versus the "damned", and the "chosen" versus the "unclean".

EVERY religion worth its salt is going to acknowledge development of some higher spiritual principle within its adherents (through whatever path: prayer, meditation, morality, etc.), and this necessarily denotes a "higher" consciousness (of sorts) compared to the common man. For example, in Buddhism, those whom have awakened Buddha Nature are regarded as "more enlightened" than those who have not --- at the same time, however, this is regarded as an "elitism" to which all are invited (as anyone can awaken to Buddhahood).

I don't see Freemasonry (at least in its original and symbolical context) as being fundamentally different.

I'd say the church was protecting it's beliefs rather then "usurping civil authority,"

Dunno about that. The papal decree in question sounded pretty anti-democracy to me. I'm just glad the Church had changed its tune since then.

and if anything, I am more suspiscious on the influence of secret societies on our government then the churches.

Very interesting sentiment, considering Christianity itself was clearly a Mystery School (y'know, with the "secret initiates" and "knowledge hidden from all but a few") at its inception.

Laterz.

 

[loki09789]

Right, people will ***** no matter what. Yet, I don't care if people ***** that our government doesn't recognize their "religious" union, as is that is exactly the point. Church and State should be seperate.

Also, I don't think that this issue parellels the abortion issue enough to make the comparison. Abortion is a very complex issue regarding the equilibrium between government control over a persons body (woman), and at what point the child should be considered human or not, and how the government should stand on each. Marriage in it's basic sense is a religious union between 2 people. Changing the definition of abortion will not change the issue at all. Taking the word marriage out of the lawbooks, and the government taking a stand to stay that they are not here to define a religious union, but rather give people the freedoms to define that for themselves would change the issue completely. Some will complain, but it'll be over before you know it.

The comparison is about religious values as a foundation vs. legal/political civil liberties creating miscommunication and no resolution in sight as long as folks are not on the same topic. It does work because religious based arguments are going to always clash with legal/science based arguments because at the root it is a clash of philosophies... this little rant is a case in point. On one hand the religious definition is the dominate one in your head. It takes precedence over the legal/government definition for you, so you want the word to be left out of it. It will not change the legal issue, if the new term of 'civil union' isn't restructured/defined as well.

Marriage is not so cut and dry either. THe legal recognition leads to access and rights of spouses to estates, inheritance, adjustment in taxation for married couples, insurances, who chooses to or not to pull the plug if the spouse is in an accident..... so even the legal definition of marriage carries a whole bushel of rights and responsibilities that go with it.

Honestly, it is just a word that has been translated and taken on a connotation of religious only definition for you. As part of the legal definition of marriage is the connotation "union of two people" so it already exists.

If they change the term and keep the definition, it won't mean a thing. If they keep the term and change the legal definition it will be significant only in the legal identity of who is recognized by the state as a legally married couple.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
"Words, words, words"

 

[Cruentus]

Sounds like a very highly-developed and refined Gnostic sentiment to me (although I personally doubt most, if any, Masons experientially understand its true meaning). I suppose its anti-Catholic in the sense of anti-Nicene --- but, by no means is it contrary to many of the teachings of most early Christian sects (which is what Masonry was originally based upon).

That's the theory. The Masons of today claim to be "the most ancient religion" and closer to early Christians then Catholics or Christians. They don't view Christ as a messiah, and they claim that their religion predates Christ. However, they neglect to mention that the Masons, from when they were first created in the 1300's or so (France, I believe) until the early 1700's, claimed Catholicism as their faith, and they claimed to be Catholic in their "Old Article" until 1738 when it changed. They changed it due to their more Gnostic viewpoint, and rejection of the Catholic church, which of course led to the Papel Decree's and such.

Splitting hairs, I'd dare say --- especially when we consider the Biblical and conventional Christian injunction considering the "saved" versus the "damned", and the "chosen" versus the "unclean".

Perhaps, but I don't take the view that I am "Saved" and everyone else who doesn't follow my belief system is not. I don't believe in elitism, and I think that it is contrary to Christs teachings. While people are alive on this earth, they have the opportunity to be "saved." And, since I am not God and I cannot determine who is saved or not, it is not my right to judge or damn anyone. I can judge someones actions, sure, but it is not my right to believe that "I am better then so-and-so because I am saved." Who am I to say who God loves?

I personally feel that not only is elitism contrary to my faith, but I also feel that it is one of the biggest problems in our society.

EVERY religion worth its salt is going to acknowledge development of some higher spiritual principle within its adherents (through whatever path: prayer, meditation, morality, etc.), and this necessarily denotes a "higher" consciousness (of sorts) compared to the common man. For example, in Buddhism, those whom have awakened Buddha Nature are regarded as "more enlightened" than those who have not --- at the same time, however, this is regarded as an "elitism" to which all are invited (as anyone can awaken to Buddhahood).

I don't see Freemasonry (at least in its original and symbolical context) as being fundamentally different.

I agree with you in the idea that "everyone is invited" in most religions. Since I take that idea a step further as I explained above, I feel that religions (at least Christianity) does not have to be (and shouldn't be) elitist.

I see Freemasonry as very differen't, though. First off, not everyone is invited to "see the light" as they say; women, children and other 'non-whites.' Unless something has changed, non-whites had to belong to their special lodge, and wasn't given all the info and perks. Then, within' the organization there is elitism. After the first 3 degree's you are told that you are a master mason, and that you are enlightened, but in reality the other higher degree's still believe that you are in the dark. In order to be privilaged to be truely enlightened, you have to be chosen special by other members of the higher degrees. Who is chosen and why are often related to your "status" in society as well as the order, and higher amounts of fee's are involved in the higher degree's. If you are not of appropriate status, and if you can't afford it, then you are not chosen to seek true enlightenment.

This is highly contrary to a religion that says "all are invited." Not all are invited and not all are chosen to be a freemason.

Dunno about that. The papal decree in question sounded pretty anti-democracy to me. I'm just glad the Church had changed its tune since then.

It does sound that way. Basically, democracy in a Christian culture was a new idea. Sure, Democracy had been done before, but not by Christians. Pope Pius IX, in my opinion, made a mistake in some parts of what he was saying. He is human, so he is allowed to make mistakes. His mistakes are the same mistakes that the Church tends to make now, IMHO.

Rich Parsons illustraited this to me once, which I had heard before in small doses, but I liked his categories. There are basically 4 types of beliefs:

1. Morals - Religious and Cultural Beliefs.
2. Values - Personal Beliefs, usually based on #1, but not always identical.
3. Ethics - What Society deems good or bad. Basically comes from the collection of the Morals and Values of the individuals in that society.
4. Laws - What the Government Regulates

In the Papel decree's, this idea of there being 4 different categories was not understood. The question was "how do you run a government without morals?" They could not see the difference between the 4, and they worried that society would lose it's morals if the government didn't address them. Plus, the Catholic religion as a whole was under attack by the masons, and by other secret societies. Those Papel Decree's were reactionary to this environment.

Now that the church authorities have a better understanding of the ideas of a seperate church and state, they recognize it's importance to a degree.

In my opinion, I believe that Church should be there to teach us morals, while giving us the choice (freewill) to define our values from those morals. If the Church is making the impact that it needs to make, then the ethics of the society will match those of the morals of the church, throught the freewill of the people, and everything will be fine. Government then should only regulate what is absolutely nessicary to allow this process to occur, basically keeping its hands off morals and values, and only defining ethics as much as is needed for our protection, and the protection of this process. In a perfect world, that is what should happened.

What instead has happened is that the Church (and traditional/cultural values) has not been having the positive impact that it should be having for sometime now. Therefore, the values of the people do not coincide with the Catholic or Christian church exactly, causing the ethics of society (by church standards)to deteriorate as well. To counter this, Church members/authority often decide to try to go to the Law to get the government to dictate morality, with the idea that the values and ultimatliy the ethics of society will change. I feel that this is the wrong approach, and that allowing the Government to basically attempt to force our morals will only succeed in deminishing our freedoms.

Very interesting sentiment, considering Christianity itself was clearly a Mystery School (y'know, with the "secret initiates" and "knowledge hidden from all but a few") at its inception.

I explain my view on that here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13939

It's not the societies themselves, it goes back to the elitism that occurs within them.

:asian:

btw...before someone brings up the idea of "infallability," and "how can I say that a Pope may have not been perfect?" I'll explain what it is. "Infallability" from the church standpoint is the belief that because Jesus instituted the Church (as it is believed), the Church Doctrine/beliefs are correct. However, how people interprete these could be incorrect or correct. Also, the Pope is only "infallable" when he makes a statement "ex cathedra," otherwise it is not an infallable statement. An "ex cathedra" statement is rarely done.

 

[Cruentus]

The comparison is about religious values as a foundation vs. legal/political civil liberties creating miscommunication and no resolution in sight as long as folks are not on the same topic. It does work because religious based arguments are going to always clash with legal/science based arguments because at the root it is a clash of philosophies... this little rant is a case in point. On one hand the religious definition is the dominate one in your head. It takes precedence over the legal/government definition for you, so you want the word to be left out of it. It will not change the legal issue, if the new term of 'civil union' isn't restructured/defined as well.

Marriage is not so cut and dry either. THe legal recognition leads to access and rights of spouses to estates, inheritance, adjustment in taxation for married couples, insurances, who chooses to or not to pull the plug if the spouse is in an accident..... so even the legal definition of marriage carries a whole bushel of rights and responsibilities that go with it.

Honestly, it is just a word that has been translated and taken on a connotation of religious only definition for you. As part of the legal definition of marriage is the connotation "union of two people" so it already exists.

If they change the term and keep the definition, it won't mean a thing. If they keep the term and change the legal definition it will be significant only in the legal identity of who is recognized by the state as a legally married couple.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
"Words, words, words"

As I explained before in my last thread when I categorized beliefs, I feel that the government should only be protecting us so we can have our own morals and values, and so society can have it's own ethics. Sure, there is the Moral definition of marriage from religious belief, and a legal definition of marriage. Problem is, the same word is being used. So, if the word "marriage" in the legal definition doesn't match the moral definition for some people, then people get upset. If you changed the word, then religious people wouldn't feel that their morals were being intruded upon by the state by allowing Gays to marry. Sure, they'll still disagree with gay partnerships as before, but I would bet that there wouldn't be the same drive to make the government outlaw it.

You can disagree with me if you like. We'll just have to see what happends.

 

[Matt Stone]

Sorry Matt. I like ya, but I gotta do this.

Bring it baby!!

I would like to make a counter-recomendation NOT to join any kind of secret society. Particularly if you fall into one of these categories:

#1. Your a Catholic.

#2. Your a Christian.

#3. You don't believe in elitism.

Well, I fall into at least one category at any rate...

There is an entire spirituality and way of thought that is specifically anti-Catholic. In terms of Christianity, the spirituality of freemasonry (especially beyond the 3rd degree) is contrary to most Christian Doctrines.

And you base this on what? Are you a Mason, or a member of either York or Scottish Rite Freemasonry? Or, rather, do you base your knowledge and understanding on what other anti-Masonic writers (all of whom have an agenda of one sort or another) have written on the subject? I'd say that that kind of information is like asking giraffes about zebras... If I want to know about giraffes, I'll ask a giraffe not a zebra.

An extreme example would be this would be in the official organ of the italian masonry: "The formula of the Grand Architect, which is reproached to Masonry as ambiguous and absurd, is the most large-minded and righteous affirmation of the immense principle of existence and may represent as well the (revolutionary) God of Mazzini as the Satan of Giosue Carducci (in his celebrated hymn to Satan); God, as the fountain of love, not of hatred; Satan, as the genius of the good, not of the bad".

After delving into Masonic origins as well as some other topics, I'd have to agree with Heretic on his assertion that Masonic "spirituality," which doesn't actually exist but is actually a generalized admonishment (consistent with Biblical admonishments) to "seek God," rather than turn away from Him, is a variant of Gnostic belief - something Mother Church has sought to eradicate over the centuries (enough so that one Crusade - the 7th or 8th, I'd have to check my books - was sent against Christians, not "heathens," who split from "accepted" Church teachings and were later labeled as heretics; this was the Albigensian Crusade, during which loyal French subjects were slaughtered because of their Gnostic beliefs).

On elitism; the basic belief is that the freemasons are "enlightened" over other "profane intruders." In American rituals members are considered, "The greatest and best men of all ages. (note also that this means "white men" as there are other lodges for "colored" men).

Two things -

1) See Heretic's comments above on the "elect" and "gentile" separation by Christians... Isn't defining one's self as "saved" and others as "not saved" the same thing?

2) The issue of "white" and "non-white" lodges stems from the Old Charges of Masonry that a candidate must be a man of lawful age, good reputation, and freeborn. While this applied to the first generation of freed slaves who were made Masons incorrectly by Union Masons, it doesn't/didn't apply to men made Masons after that point. However, unfortunately, the racism that remained/remains in the South (and other parts of the US) is what assisted the two lodge tradition to continue. Most Grand Lodges have made, or are in the process of making, agreements with Prince Hall Lodges to break down the barriers that have been in place for so long...

However, Most had not gone past the 3rd degree, and were still considered to be "groveling in Egyptian Darkness." [Pike]

It needs to be understood, though, that while many Masons regard Pike as an authority on Masonic academia, he is/was only one man... I don't believe he alone speaks on behalf of the entire Fraternity, nor do I believe that one wealthy man's "research" into areas he was already inclined to dive into necessarily implies those areas were Masonic to begin with...

In regards to papal decrees against the masons; In 1738 the Masonic "Old Article" or fundamental law changed to be in contrast to the churches teachings, and the organization openly attacked the church then as it does to today. At the time of the decree of excommunication, Freemasons were clearly against the church teachings. There is no manditory excommunication for that sort of thing today. I'd say the church was protecting it's beliefs rather then "usurping civil authority," and if anything, I am more suspiscious on the influence of secret societies on our government then the churches.

If Masons were trying to take over the world, they would have by now... Mother Church's leaders recoiled against Masonic criticism because the light of public knowledge was shed upon Church excesses. It was political, not spiritual, rebellion by the Masons.

So, I said my piece. We can agree to disagree on these views here and move on...

So be it. Enjoy!

 

[Phoenix44]

If we do allegedly have separation of church and state, then how come a few Episcopalian ministers in upstate NY were arrested and charged for "sanctifying a marriage without a marriage license"???

To the gays who want so badly to be married, I say, "Be careful what you wish for. It might come true."

Marriage IS a legal contract. A BAD legal contract. When you buy a house, get a job, or take out a loan, you get a written contract that you can read. Maybe you run it by a lawyer and amend it a bit. Marriage is the ONLY contract you sign without even knowing what the provisions are...UNTIL you try to break it! How incredibly ridiculous! The most important contract you'll ever sign, and YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS!

 

[Tgace]

Divorced?

 

[loki09789]

As I explained before in my last thread when I categorized beliefs, I feel that the government should only be protecting us so we can have our own morals and values, and so society can have it's own ethics. Sure, there is the Moral definition of marriage from religious belief, and a legal definition of marriage. Problem is, the same word is being used. So, if the word "marriage" in the legal definition doesn't match the moral definition for some people, then people get upset. If you changed the word, then religious people wouldn't feel that their morals were being intruded upon by the state by allowing Gays to marry. Sure, they'll still disagree with gay partnerships as before, but I would bet that there wouldn't be the same drive to make the government outlaw it.

You can disagree with me if you like. We'll just have to see what happends.

Or people could just recognize that forcing the government to change a term because they don't want to recognize the distinction between a legal definition that the state is using as different from the religious connotation is another form of imposing a specific 'church' on the state and therefore the rest of us as well.

Look, we all balance personal ethos and morallity with citizenship. As a citizen, I am suppose to be educated and understand what the state means by any terms they use so I don't end up accusing the state of things that it really isn't doing.

If I refuse to recognize that the state definition of marriage is just as valid and inclusive for all citizens of 'state' (which is it really isn't right now) and that my religious definition of the term is really only meant for my chosen religion (or lack of one) the problem isn't with the state but with me.

Legal marriage laws, generally deal with issues of supporting/recognizing the joining of individuals to make a family regardless of religious denomination. They codify inheritance and family lineage and are basically nothing more than a general framework that most any religion can fit itself into. If you get married and are not religious, it at least outlines a moral responsibility between the people involved. Changing the term to 'civil union' is a technicallity that will not change anything but to reduce any significance of marriage (whether religious or not by inspiration or intention) to nothing more than a 'living arrangement.'

I do disagree and think this is hair splitting and a refusal to acknowledge the use of marriage outside of religion. Personally, whether the law or religion agrees with me or not, I think that marriage has a spiritual and a physical component. I will let the spiritual component be defined and specified by my faith and I will let the state define the legal physical component. If I don't like how either institution defines things I can take steps by leaving a will that over rides any estate law or canonical laws after my death in dealing with how my body will be laid or how my properties will be distributed. The state definitions generally deal mainly with how estates will be distributed in the absence of a will.

While I live, I will do so as I see fit without trying to force the rest of the world to give up ownership of a word that I am claiming exclusive meanings to.

Whether truly Christian or just Constantinian influence there is a line in the bible where Jesus said to give to God what is his and give to Caesar what is his (paraphrasing). So even within our own christianity, there is the recognition that there are things that we leave to the gov./physical components and things that we leave to the spiritual.

Enjoy.