Did  baning start with the church?
91178
Its mostly a Christian thing dating back to the Midieval era.\nIf something like Huss's work on the circulatory system, or Gargantua by Rablais,( his publisher was burned at the stake),\nor Galleleo's heliol centric orbital theory conflicted with the doctrines of the Catholic Church then to the extent that knowledge conflicted with the claim of infallibility, yes maybe banning did start there. \n\nAt that time the Christian faith was managed like an organzied crime ring more powerful and pervaisive than the C Cosa Nostra, but remember, in China in 500 B C all the Confucian Scholars the emperor could arrest were behaeded and their works burned.  This is the same emperor who built the wall of China. \n\nEvery theocratic society, even Athens with the execution of \nSocrates, had a tendency so suppress what the ruling elite did not like.
326330
Christianity and specifically Roman Catholic because when Christ established his church, he set up a living, continuing authority to teach, govern and sanctify in his name. St peter(who Jesus gave a new name to Simon{which means rock}) was made the head of the church as Matthew 16:13-19 tells us.  The catholic church is the only one that can trace it beginnings in an unceasing line, straight back to St Peter.
105223
The abstinance until marriage stance taught to children is religious...the banning of gay marriages/rights is religous.  So yes, the government does fund religious practices.
773291
It is not a double standard.  I am not a Muslim, but the prohibition sounds a lot like the Ten Commandments, followed by Christians and Jews, prohibiting "graven images."  There is no prohibition about other types of statues or images in these religions, either.  It is one of the unifying tenets of all these faiths.
769854
Hi captain, I have got some thing for you which goes down to early history.\n\n" Charles only spared the lives of those Saracens[Muslims] who consented to be baptised, the rest he put to the sword."--[History of Charles the Great and Orlando, by Turpin, Vol-I, ch-ii, pg-5]\n\n"....460 years later, when the Holy land reverted to the Christian rule of crusading knight of Europe, the oriental Christians regretted the tolerating Govt. of the Arabian Khalifs."--[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON]\n\n"....A bloody sacrifies was offered by mistaken votaries to the God of the Christian resistance might provoke, but neither sage nor sex could mollify, thier implacable rage, they indulged themselves 3 days in a promisenous massacre. After 70,000 muslims had been put to the sword and the harmless JEWS had been burned in thier Synogogue, they could still reserve a multitude of captives whom interest or lassitude persauded them to spare."--[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON]\n\nThe critical Gibbon coclusively proves that, "...to his Christian subjects, Mohammad readily granted security of thier persons, the freedom of thier trade, the property of thier goods and the toleration of thier worship. This profitable principle of toleration was observed with more or less strictness, not only by all the immediate successors of the Prophet, but over the whole period of Arabic ascendency."--[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON] \n\nOn the other hand..........\n\n"....when Jerusalem capitulated to Khalif Omer, the inhabitants of the vanquished city were left in possesion of thier worldly goods, and allowed the freedom of worship. A special quarter of the city was allotted for the residence of Christian population with thier Patriarch and his clergy."--\n[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON]\n\n"....And Islam was tolerant not simply to the Jews but also to the Christians. The Christian church in muslim Spain was given large lands and considerable revenues, christian envoys were recieved with courtesy and allowed to take away relics of christian saints and martyrs from the muslim territory. GIBBON says in his Decline and Fall [of Roman Empire], that muslim rulers even transcribed an Arabic version of the canons of the councils of Spain for the use of BISHOPS in the Moorish kingdom. Haroon al-Rashid, the hero of the "Arabian Nights", planted in his kingdom a large number of schools, the head of these schools, his Director of Education, was a chritian named John."--[ The Spirit and Struggle of Islam by Prof. T.L.Vaswani, Ganesh & Co., Madras-1921]\n\nYou can judge it yourself as to whether muslims inflicted more violence or the Christians ? \n\nAnd you know about modern history and who is responsible for killing lacs of people in Hiroshoma and Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan..
648178
Catholic Church (Catholicism) was first referred to in a letter in 107 A.D. by St Ignatius.\n\nThe Church of England traces its roots to 597 A.D.
944197
No one here has even attempted to address "appropriate penalty" which to me is a very vague and liberal phrase and can mean that any official of the Church can devise any penalty at any point in time as they so deem to be appropriate, which could be a slap on the knukles with a ruler as was once done, a slap on the face, as was once done, burning at the stake, which was once done.  Anything.  They would, however, have to obey the laws of a given land or be in violation of the conspiracy laws.
194332
From: Ask a Franciscan web page:\n\n"Q: Where did the law about not eating meat on Fridays originate? When was this changed to Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent? \n\nA: Already in the fourth century, there was a Church law about abstinence (not eating meat on certain days). Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays were once days of abstinence in the Western Church. By the 12th century, this was required only on Ash Wednesday and on Fridays—to remind Christians that Jesus died on this day. (Later, abstinence was added in connection with a few feasts.) \n\nThe U.S. bishops decided in 1966 to require fasting and abstinence only on Ash Wednesday, the Fridays of Lent and on Good Friday. Earlier that year, Pope Paul VI allowed conferences of bishops to select days of fast and abstinence. \n\nWhy abstain from meat? People like it and notice its absence. Christian fasting regulations once included milk and eggs. Fasting and abstaining show respect for God’s creation by using it more sparingly at times."
40315
Christianity officially began in 325 AD.  That is when the Roman Emperor Constantine made it legal.
737928
When God forbade it, as recorded in Leviticus.
1113298
yep, the church suppressed education, art, science, medical practices, etc.
1059018
If you protest the teaching of the catholic church and take another route while still believing in the same god you are a protestant, it started in the sixteen century with Martin Luther, who broke off of the catholic church and started a separated church following the teachings of the bible as he thougth was the right way. today there are many denomination and are call protestants: anglicans,bautists,pentecostalts etc...
242446
Church fathers changed the Scriptural mandate for traditions of men. Nowadays folks blindly follow instead of obeying the Bible.
1047783
To really be objective, you have to look at the reason that women have been mostly excluded from the clergy for so long. \n\nThe Episcopalian church has had female priests for a long time - and has never had an actual rule against female bishops. This is just the first time one has been promoted, and so it's the first time people have had to deal with it. \n\nSo why hasn't it happened sooner? Because the Episcopal church is closely related to the Catholic church, and the Catholic church does not allow female priests. Why is that?\n\nBecause when it was founded, and for a long (long) time after that, only men could be land owners. The church needed land. So, when a man joined the priesthood he brought with him whatever land he owned. He wasn't allowed to marry because that would give him an heir to the land. Since he had no heirs, he would leave the land to the church on his death, and the church's land holdings grew. It made a lot of sense.\n\nNone of that happens anymore, and so there is no practical reason for the prohibition of female priests or married priests. However, the dogma is still there that says only unmarried males can be priests. \n\nPersonally, I'm Roman Catholic - and I'd love the see my church do away with that antiquated law. The Episcopalians already have. And for that, I say, "Good for them!"  Hopefully the Catholic church will eventually follow. \n\nWayne
1160287
The separation between church and state was never meant to eliminate the church. the point was that the church and the state were to be separate entities, no single religion was to have control of any government body. It was not the point to say that the two could not be related, actually the idea was to govern in an ethical and moral manner.At the same time no single church would have any control over government, this was to eliminate the problems that King Henry the Eighth had with the Catholic church, they had too much sway in the dealings of governments.
199431
I don't know about bishops in particular but I do know that nuns at one time acted as a harem for the monks. It was a way to keep the monks from straying out into the outside world and commiting sins in the public. It's true, I swear.
802493
Religion and politics are a BAD combination! You should keep the two as separate as possible as often as possible. No church should have an official political stance. If it does, it should lose its tax-exempt status.