What is Religion?

[

The Boy Scouts are tax exempt under another provision, which won't work for the Buddhists, Taoists, Humanists or Ethical Culturists.

But the Courts will dismiss it unless they have a sound legal basis, like being a religion.

Petition for religious tax breaks?

Besides protecting the interests of godless religions, treating them as religions has merit from the standpoint of recognizing the similarities among theistic religions and non-theistic ones. Before there were gods, there were spirits, ancestors, and impersonal forces like mana, orenda, wakan, manitou, maat, dharma, etc.Surely we wouldn't want to shut them out.

 

Try McCulloch v. Maryland. The Constitution provided the necessary and proper clause. It also created a federal court system headed by the Supreme Court to interpret it. Chief John Marshall interpreted "Necessary and proper" as "convenient and appropriate." He gave what seem to be asound reasons for doing so: a constitution meant to last requires flexible interpretation. The important thing is that the Court issued the opinion and it became accepted as the law of the land. The authority of the federal government rests on it. You can rail against it all you want, but resistance is now futile.

Not everything. The Dred Scott decision, Lochner v. New York, and the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning Roe are examples of cases that were wrongly decided and socially harmful.

Okay, try this one on:The term "right" in a civil society is defined to mean that which a person is entitled to have or do,or to receive from others within the limits prescribed by law." Atchison & NR Co.v. Baty, 6 Neb.40.
Or Blacks Law Dictionary: a capacity residing in one man of controlling , with the assent and assisance f the state, the actions of others. "Holl. Jur. 69

The only way Durkheim's theory can be applied to someone on a desert island would be if that person had been well-socialized in the religion beforehand, and simply retained his previous learning, But he would have to have started with sacred objects, a set of beliefs and practices, and a moral community.

The OP doesn't contain Durkheim's complete theory of religion, only a peripheral point he was trying to make about the need for action or praxis.

Who else do you think is tuning into your posts? Meagain is the only other one lately, and he simply might not be intersted n your point, which doesn't make much sense as a definition of religion.Silence may man simply lack of interest in something that doesn't make much senes. It's essentially your own theory of religious individualism which you then elevate to an absolute level to challenge government actions that don't agree with your idiosyncratic opinions.

 

Sorry, the powers delegated to the government come from the constitution and you advocate Marshal degenerating it to "convenient". Apparently you dont understand the concept of where delegated powers come from or the process required to grant them to the government.

What is socially harmful was the traitor Marshal undermining the constitution, the letter of the law and the amendmant process and setting precedence for future judges to do the same.

Haha, yeh a legal reference, is not a websters, puhlease!

Absolutely not true.
He could be compassionate and not kill certain animals, instead eat plants, and pray to the moon every night and sun every day with no prior interaction from society what so ever, your position lacks imagination. I didnt say a man with preconceived socialization you did, another strawman you added to my position.

Always out of context!
If that tiny sliver of subject matter is all you got out of the OP then you completely failed to comprehend what the OP is about. Maybe thats why you are so confused, bedazzled, and shocked.

I havent taken a poll.

Hardly idiosyncratic, its complete nonsense to believe that a single individual does not posses the same characteristics of a like titled group of individuals as I have just shown again do not possess the same features.

In other words if there are 100 people in the ball religion that believe you must always have a ball in their right hand to worship God, its completely logically absurd to believe that each individual is not holding a ball which is paramount to your unreasonable worse illogical position. I expect more in a discussion than peg in hole xyz says so therefore it can be no other way.

 

This is very technical esoteric leaning material that requires fairly broad multidisciplinary background and its not for the faint of heart, that said I expect not too many people are all that interested. Especially when threads become littered with strawman and ad hom attacks as this thread and I have been subjected to. Theres always a few lurkers Im sure that are just curious in the sidelines hoping something interesting comes out of it.

 

I think there is one simple aspect that is so often overlooked as atheist and other muted variations of such are propagated and prevail in the personalities of our informed friends & families, or the internet, and are evident in the leanings (and cookies) of our pundits and professors...

Spiritual enlightenment & enrichment is real!

That has come to be the definitive aspect (at least in my life and the last few years) of religion that has me fixated!

I think people who have taken meditation (or even psychedelic experiences) seriously have the benefit of knowing that.

When you do this, you come back stronger! You become a new person who is rich with the rewards of knowing in your soul a happiness so free, and a confidence so profound that there really is no reason to keep searching! You've already found it!

There is something very special to be had with religion, and even as we see so many are frequently dismissive, we have only stop and acknowledge God... privately, personally, and with sincerity in our mind. No one has to know, and no one has to see... And then, weeks later when you look in the mirror and for awhile now it's been easier, you see.

 

I wouldn't, because they lack the essential element of the sacred or spiritual. They're all pretty profane, in Durkheim's terminology.
Of course if you wish to classify all of the above (such as business leagues and recreational organizations) as religions, then you would be right.[/QUOTE]I wouldn't, since they lack the essential element of the sacred or spiritual. They're all "profane", in Durkheim's terminology--unlike the Humanists and Ethical Culturists, not to mention the Buddhists and Taoists.

We can. Can't we also recognize that they are similar enough that we can accept them as religions? When scholars put together books on world religions and decide whether or not to include Buddhism and Taoism, I guess they could explain that not all the communities they're including are real religions--fellow travelers,maybe, close but no cigar. Lots of "Christians" I know think that anybody who isn't Christian doesn't have the real thing. It's a matter of inclusion or exclusion. It would be perfectly legitimate for you to say God is the distinguishing element. Lots of theists would applaud you. My problem would be with saying it has to be that way, only that way, and that it's wrong to say spiritual communities who don't believe in gods are religions. Definitions can't be right or wrong,--only more or less useful. .

I do find it fascinating that an atheist and Buddhist seems to be determined to make god the sine qua non of religion. Why? Christian evangelicals might welcome the effort, but they should be careful what they wish for. Sam Harris is another atheist/Buddhist, quite a militant one, who prefers fundamentalist versions of religions, apparently because it's easier to dismiss them as superstition. Does this God who is essential to religion have to be the bearded Dude in the Sky, who knows when we've been sleeping, knows when we're awake, knows when we've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake? Or will the Absolute, the Great Spirit, the Ground of Being, the Wakan tanka, etc., do ? Is Bishop Spong a Progressive Christian or an atheist? Does belief in an historical Jesus require belief in the Son of God who died for our sins, rose from the grave and will come again to judge the living and the dead? Or is it good enough to think he was an apocalyptic preacher who challenged Jewish purity laws, got himself nailed, and is portrayed as teaching peace, love, and acceptance of all people, even society's outcasts, as our neighbors. Sounds like some of the discussion we have in my church where people are debating who belongs.

 

Exactly!

 

Now the problem with that when talking about God or gods is:

Were the Greek gods based on real people?
https://www.quora.com › Were-the-Greek-gods-based-on-...
May 12, 2020 — They are Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Ares, Hephaestus, Aphrodite, Artemis, Apollo, Athena, Hermes, and either Hestia or Dionysus. All other gods are not ...


Many gods were real people that walked the earth.

 

How many? Who were the real people they were based on? Of course, Alexander would be one. What do you mean "based"? Greek gods were notoriously anthropomorphic, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were once human. Yahweh was portrayed in anthropomorphic terms, especially in the earlier parts of the Bible, as were the Canaanite gods. Can we conclude He was just a human who became divinized? These questions may be answered in the link you provide, but to open it, we have to agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy policy of Quora, and I'm reluctant to do that.

The Greek gods seem to have been Indo-European in origin, related to their Indo-iranian/Aryan cousins like Mitra, Varuna, Indra, etc. Were they also once real people, or did humans just serve as models for what humans thought the gods must be like? I suspect the latter, but it could sometimes be a combination of both. After all, Roman emperors became divinized after their death, Egyptian pharaohs before that--incarnations of Ra/Horus before death and Osiris afterwards. And the legend is that Osiris was once a real king. Egyptian gods, though, tended to be part-human, part-animal, and it's doubtful such creatures ever walked the earth. The Egyptians also had the concept of a force called Ma'at reponsible for the ordering of the universe. I came to be personified as a goddess. Hindus have a similar concept: Dharma, which is not personified. And their highest conception of God is Brahnman, the supreme existence or absolute reality, "the name from which all words recoil", of which we are all a part, our separate entitivity being illusion.

Why do you think that's a problem in talking about God or gods? I doubt that Soulcompromise had Zeus or Minerva in mind when she used the term the way many of us are used to using it. Religion has evolved considerably since then.
(BTW, this thread is starting to shape up!)

 

?

 

Its not a reversal, its devoid proper distinction....(categorical composition error)

Theism and Religion
MORE: Is Theism the Same as Religion

That theism only means "belief in a god" and nothing more can be difficult to understand at times because we don't normally encounter theism in such isolation.

Instead, when we see theism, it is embedded in a web of other beliefs - often religious in nature - which color not only that particular instance of theism itself but also our perception of that instance of theism.

The connections between theism and religion are so strong, in fact, that some have difficulty in separating the two, even to the point of imagining that they are the same thing - or at least that theism is necessarily religious and religion is necessarily theistic.

Thus, when considering and evaluating theism, we are normally engaged in considering and evaluating a variety of interconnected beliefs, ideas, and assertions, most of which aren't a part of theism itself. At least, that is what happens "in real life" when debating the merits of theism and/or religion - but to do that well and not make mistakes like those mentioned above, we need to be able to step back and take a look at theism in isolation.

Why? Because if critics wish to argue that something about a theistic belief system is valid or invalid, rational or irrational, justified or unjustified, we need to be able to identify what exactly we are accepting or criticizing. Is it something inherent to theism, or is it something introduced by something else in a person's web of beliefs? That, in turn, means that we need to be able to separate the different elements because we have to take the time to consider them both individually and jointly.


It looks like people here are unfamiliar with the comparative differences between religion and belief in some deity.

 

Sorry, I was in the process of replying to your ungodly long, complex post but lost it somehow, as happens quite often on this site. I may try later, if I have the energy.

 

Some may wonder who is Austin Cline, and does he know what he's talking about? He's the former director of the Council for Secular Humanism, with an M.A. from Princeton and an atheist blogger , with an M.A. from Princeton (I don't know what in) who writes a lot of articles about atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism. Naturally, he thinks religion is broader than just theism. Einstein famously said;"I believe in Spinoza's god". Spinoza was a pantheist. Spinoza didn't see it that way. Ricard Dawkins regards pantheism as "sexed up atheism". Marcus Borg, a Progressive Christian, is a panentheist (not a typo), who believes that God is immanent in all things as well as transcendent. I tend to be one of those myself, although I'm open to panendeism: the belief in a god who contains the whole universe but who is also bigger than the universe and takes a “hands-off” approach to the maintenance of creation".What is panendeism? | GotQuestions.org I tend to see God everywhere, but read a lot of atheist literature and take fellowship with atheists to keep my critical brakes on.

 

Im sure that would be very nice if any of it actually applied to what you quoted.

 

Actually, what I quoted was your post that seemed mostly to include an article by Austin Cline (although it's hard to tell the way you quote people and do links where others ideas leave off an yours begin). Since you didn't provide any background about the source you were linking and obviously talking about, I thought it might be helpful to do so, and provide some commentary of my own. I think that's the way it usually works on HF.