What is Religion?

...

 

This is all very interesting, but it reads like a string of historical factoids in search of an argument. So what? What's your point, teach? What is all this supposed to show us about religion and government? You told me I failed history, but I think you failed communication. I'm sure this all fits together in your mind as a brilliant argument, but keep in mind we aren't clairvoyant. If we take a stab at what you might be trying to say, I'm sure you'll claim we're deliberating your position--which is what?

Let me just tell you what I think I get out of your materials so far. The English Magna Carta was a great influence on our Founding Fathers and helped inspire our Bill of Rights. Many provisions of our Bill of Rights came from there, but not the establishment clause. That seems to have been home grown, to safeguard against an established church, like they had in England and some of the colonies. We ended up with three provisions pertaining to religion in the new Constitution:: the prohibition against religious tests for office, the establishment clause, and the free exercise clause. There is also the clause of the Fifth Amendment protecting against denial of "liberty" without "due process". One thing all of them had in common was that none of them defined "religion", and none went into any detail about what would constitute a violation. School lunches and textbooks for parochial schools? Moment of silence in classrooms of public schools? "Under God" in flag salutes? We can only guess, since they couldn't anticipate any of those issues.

This is often praised in American government textbooks as showing the Framers' wisdom in providing flexibility for the Constitution to adapt to changing circumstances. Conservative "originalists" would cringe at the notion, but their efforts to read the minds of the Framers are questionable. What the Framers did was to leave it to the courts to figure it out, which they did in cases too numerous to mention. Probably, the Framers thought of religion the way Meagain does: worship of God. It's unlikely they had in mind Buddhism , huimanism, ethical culture, etc. But who knows? One thing seems likely. They weren't thinking of strongly held personal ethical convictions about whatever that some individual thought was a matter of conscience outside of a defined community of believers--unless you think your theory is something any reasonable person should have been able to figure out on their own, which it isn't. Some of the framers were slave owners and could cite chapter and verse in the Bible defending the practice. Some folks today think good Christians must oppose contraception, abortion and gay sex.

Can the U.S. government protect contraception, abortion and LGBTs without running afoul of opponents claiming religious protection for their bigotry? Some are white supremacists, Christian nationalists, and outright Neo-Nazis and Neo-Confederates. Must we empower them by telling them they're relgious, enjoying protection from government interference, Civil Rights law, etc. ?

Oh, and mustn't forget "separation of church and state", a phrase that appears in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, who didn't attend the Constitutional convention and wasn't one of the delegates. I agree that several of the framers thought that way. It isn't clear though how far they meant to carry it, or what things they would have considered to be violations, other than requiring religious tests for office, establishing a national church or prohibiting religious practices. Again, this had to be worked out, and the basis for reading "separation' into our Constitution is unclear. The notion that it meant accommodating any strongly held individual ethical practice in a diverse population is hard to believe. Now what did I get wrong? And in what way did the U.S. "fail" to separate church and state in practice?

 

Okay, eccentric then. (I can think of stronger words but don't want to get banned.) It's eccentric to think that any strongly held individual belief or philosophythat a person is willing top act on, be it anti-vaxing, white supremacy, gay-bashing ,etc., is religion, that the Founding Father meant that as "religion" in the Constitution, and that everybody should have known that, even though you made it up from a misinterpretation of Durkheim. If I'm misinterpreting you, please explain how. It's complete nonsense to believe agreat pluralistic nation could operate on that basis. If you can show me another source that shares such a view as yours about what a religion is,(please don't say Durkheim) I might reconsider the "eccentric" label,

 

religion
noun
re·li·gion ri-ˈli-jən

1
a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2
(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
3
a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Merriam-Webster

 

So you dismiss the source of the organic law in the US as a "factoid"?

Not True!
The provisions of the Bill of Rights do not come from the Magna Charta they are drawn from the 1689 English Bill of Rights!

Not True!
False premise.
It is to guard against the establishment of a 'Religion'.

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution | The White House
https://www.whitehouse.gov › ... › Our Government

Yes Constitution NOT Court.
If thats not clear Constitution means adapt by Amendment!
The SCOTUS cannot amend the Constitution!

And liberals willing to give up all rights strive to rewrite the constitution to fit their naive whims.

No
Amending the Constitution was NOT left to the courts, neither were the courts put in place to circumvent Congress.

Yes they were, and scotus ruled accordingly.
Conscientious objector comes to mind, strange how you failed to mention that?

I assure you that no matter what matter of conscience / strong ethical belief that you throw out here, if we were to take a poll there would be a community in short order, your point falls apart and is moot.

Your personal 'spin' definition is not reasonable, I agree.

So in your opinion this is not a government of the people that have to live under it? On that note I agree.

Church? I think the word is 'Religion'
Pretty much everything has your own personal spin instead of keeping things in context as I continually complain about.

 

No god secular religions exist.

Secular religion - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Secular_religion
A secular religion is a communal belief system that often rejects or neglects the metaphysical aspects of the supernatural, commonly associated with traditional religion, instead placing typical religious qualities in earthly entities. Among systems that have been characterized as secular religions are Modern Satanism, Secular Buddhism, Secular Judaism, Religion of Humanity, Jacobinism, and the Cult of Reason and Cult of the Supreme Being that developed after the French Revolution.


Political religion

The theory of political religion concerns governmental ideologies whose cultural and political backing is so strong that they are said to attain power equivalent to those of a state religion, with which they often exhibit significant similarities in both theory and practice.[5]

 

Quite so. In Merriam-Webster's definition of the word, only definition 2(1) mentions "God or the supernatural".
Religion may also be defined as "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices", a "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance", or "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"; i.e., no appeal to imaginary friends with superpowers necessary; a religion may be non-theistic and secular.

Personally, I think that any faith tradition that can't seamlessly integrate advancements in human knowledge isn't so much a religion as it is mere superstition.

 

Yeah, we've been though that. That's the common, Abahamic man on the street definition. (and probably what the Founding Fathers had in mind with the First Amendment. For other views, see 1-13 of this thread.

 

No. I dismiss your name dropping without explanation of relevance as meaningless.

Oh? Magna Carta - The First Bill of Rights so what. This is an example of a factoid, until you can explain what it has to do with religion and/or your various peeves.

Oh. Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State) Same problem. Of course they wanted to guard against the establishment of a "religion". That's what they said. What does it mean? They don't say, but my guess is it was more like Meagain's definition that anything approximating yours.

Duh. No shit. What does it mean?

Immaterial, incompetent and irrelevant. (lawyer talk for What is your point?) You can't seem to grasp that you haven't made a connection between the stuff you're giving us and the topic.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Framers didn't expect the courts to interpret the Constitution? Do you think it's self-interpreting? Read Federalist 78.

Where? CITATION NEEDED

I thought we were talking about the Constitution.Conscientious objection in the United States is based on the Military Selective Service Act, as implemented by the Selective Service Commission, and by the Department of Defense. This is the only definition that comes close to yours, but is confined to the matter of exemption for military exemption on conscientious grounds.

I have no doubt that, in this age of internet technology, you could find a bunch of like-minded nuts to support just about any position. But if you tried to take it to court , they wouldn't let the case in the door, cuz the courts have NEVER interpreted the First Amendment that way.

In my opinion, this is a democratic republic in which the people play a meaningful role by electing their representatives in a system that was never designed for direct democracy or government by popular referendum. That's as close to government of the people as we get in a large nation-state in the real world. The Constitution was proposed and ratified in a manner that can reasonably be described as "of the people', and at the time that was something quite new in the world.

The phrase is "separation of Church and state.". It was Thomas Jefferson's, Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. in 1802.
Pretty much everything has your own personal spin instead of keeping things in context as I continually complain about.[/QUOTE]Likewise, I'm sure

 

to answer that we have to turn directly to Durkheim



Nonmaterial valuations held close to the heart would qualify.

Collective means the community between conscience and conscious

More:

The sacred refers to those collective representations that are set apart from society, or that which transcends the humdrum of everyday life. The profane, on the other hand, is everything else, all those mundane things of our routine everyday life.

Durkheim: Sacred and Profane
https://www.govtgirlsekbalpur.com › Sociology › D...

 

Ditto!

Oh and before I forget Durkheim also said that the sacred, morals etc are part of the community [religion] they are also part of the individual, and that it can be no other way. Contrary to the argument put up by T earlier in the thread

 

Clear communications depend upon mutually agreed upon definitions. For the effect of idiosyncratic language, reference "Tower of Babel."

Don't mind me; carry on with your babbling.

 

Don't mind me; carry on with your babbling.[/QUOTE] I appreciate your comments. Yes, clear definitions are vital to meaningful communication. The context in which we use terms is also important.

Popular usage is not always the best guide to meaning in the context of our discussion. I think there are at least three contexts in which "relgion" commonly comes up: (1) the institutionalized phenomenon addressed in Webster's first definition. Religion is about what church or temple you go to; (2) the comparative religion context, as in: are Buddhism, Taoism, Secular Humanism, , etc., relgions; and (3) the metaphorical usage, Webster's third definition,"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"--as in "Hockey is Canada's religion" , or the one given by Funk and Wagnall's :"His work is a religion to him". A problem we've been encountering is keeping our contexts straight. Shy, as I understand her, seems to be using meaning #3 as the primary meaning, and trying to argue that therefore First Amendment and other constitutional provisions pertaining to religion apply to any "cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". Presumably that would include anti-vaxers, anti-science advocates,white supremacists, MAGA enthusiasts, Jan.6 insurrectionsits, etc. As a practical matter, such groups might get the same protection from the free speech provisions of the same amendment, but I can forsee a lawyer claiming that his insurrectionist client can't be denied the right to hold public office cuz he was just practicing his religion.I think such a broad definition is inapplicable and unworkable in democratic governance, and not useful in discussions of comparative religion.

I agree with you there, but that's another thread.

 

Part: "a portion of a whole".

And if you read carefully, it was T (presumably me, who said what you said was contrary to my argument. It is Meagain who takes the position that religion must be about gods or the supernatural . He said :"Can't we recognize similarities without claiming they are the same thing? If they are all religions then they are not similar, they are the same?" I said: "We can. Can't we also recognize that they are similar enough that we can accept them as religions?... 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. "
In other words, the idea that religion doesn't have to be about god (s) is something we've always agreed on.

 

We agree on what the sacred is, but Durkheim sees it integrally connected to society and the religious community.

 

Ammon Bundy, who led the 2016 occupation of Oregon's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is at it again.
Far-Right Activist Ammon Bundy Threatens ‘Shotgun’ Standoff Over Hospital Lawsuit
Ammon Bundy Vows To Meet Damage Collector With “Shotgun” If He Loses Suit
Bundy is one of a growing number of gun-totin' western folks who think they have a right to take up arms and exercise vigilante justice when they feel strongly about their "rights", in this case an anti-vaxer's legal wanglings ith a hospital. This is what I'm afraid of when people get it into their heads that everything they feel strongly about is "sacred" an gives them a religious right or mandate to take the law into their own hands.

 

I think you're spot on in much of what you say, and I appreciate your knowledge and effort in putting it together. I have just a few quibbles.

I'd add a third alternative, the one I've been pushing for: : “A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden–beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community..., all those who adhere to them.” Durkheim, Elementary Forms of Religious Life.

Actually, I think it developed in ancient Roman times, from the Latin religare "to bind fast", referring to the bonds between humans and their gods. (See Servius, Lactantius, Augustine).

Actually, the ancient paganRomans also used the term, to describe inter alia, Christians: those pesky people who refused to worship the Roman gods or participate in the state religion.Why did the Romans consider Christians to be atheists? - Quora

Who were they, or what were these groups? Durkheim, to my knowledge, was the first to define religion this way. He wasn't a member of a secular religious group. He was a sociologist, a scholar, who was trying to understand the phenomenon of religion and saw something missing in th work of the leading anthropological/sociological studies of his day: Tyler, Spencer, and Mueller, who tended to be more individualistic in their world views. It doesn't seem to be secular religionists who came up with this approach, but rather social scientists interested in oriental and primitive religions.

Non-sequitor. Buddhism and Taoism have all of those things in common, and secular organizations come close also. But science lacks an essential element: the sacred. Desacralization and reductionism have been characteristics of science, enabling us to dissect corpses,re-examine heavenly bodies and make headway in questioning things that religions have held not to be questioned and sacred. Imho, that's a good thing, in its place.

Not quite. Although folks on the religious right have accused scientists and atheists who think science is the be all and end all of knowledge of believing in "scientism", I think the efforts to place religion on the same level comes from a belief that religion is scientifically grounded. "Scientific creationism" and "Intelligent Design" are notable examples.

I see no evidence for this. The traditionalists find it inconceivable that there can be religion without god, and I think most of them would like to re-establish this view nationally. We do have the strange example of ShyOne, who hasn't yet identified herself as religious in the traditional sense. She is quite eclectic in taking bits and snatches from Durkheim, articles, dictionaries, and any other source she comes across that seems to have ideas she can fit intto her framework. Her elaborate but difficult to follow theory seems to incorporate a far right view that our government was usurped early on (1819) by some cabal including Supreme Court Justices like Marshall an Story. She also seems to be a militant anti-vaxer and to share leanings with other elements of the radical right. I doubt/hope that there aren't a lot of others like her.

Stop the world. I wanna get off! I Although I don't agree with all of the efforts to come to grips with a changing world he details, I do think human understanding of religion has changed over the centuries, partly as a response to increased communication and our exposure to other cultures, past and present., and to the rise of new kinds of secular movements in our own society.our Buddhism was a response to general dissatisfaction with the empty rituals of Hinduism, with its animal sacrifices and detached, privileged priesthood. The French Revolution and Nazi Germany gave us virulent form of nationalism, complete with rituals, pagents, community bonding,and ideologies resembling religious doctrine. Stalinism gave us an officially atheist movement with a pseudoscientific doctrine of dialectical materialism, May Day parades, and devotion to a Dear Leader. And now we have a virulent resurgence of neo-facism, which seems to be merging with evangelical Christian elements to form the hybrid, Christian nationalism. Hegel and Marx would call this, in dialectical terms, synthesis. It scares the hell out of me.

As an alternative to your theory, another explanation for such phenomena is the vacuum theory, a product of mass society theory.
Giving Up on God
The Vacuum of Secular Humanism
Science and secularization have contributed to the decline of the old time religion,and ethical standards, leaving humans who seek belonging and/or higher meaning to their lives to turn to secular quasi-religions.and mass movements. Mass society theory builds on Durkheim's theory of anomie.or normlessness,resulting from modernization. 6Anomie and the theory of mass society | 10 | Politics and Social Insi Nature abhors a vacuum , so secular movements rush in where religious ones once held sway.

I don't endorse the vacuum theory completely--certainly not to the point of some Christians who think that without God and church people are destined to a life of crime and/or moral degeneracy. The atheists I run into in my fellowship group certainly don't fit that profile. That group probably wouldn't qualify as religious even by Durkheim's standards, but we do get together regularly for table fellowship and discussion of topics helpful to understanding the meaning of life. Even atheists who are not groupies can pick up a sense of meaning and morality from the society at large or on their own, and use it to lead decent lives.

 

I do not have all of the information on the justification for the unreasonable fine accessed to the bakery in question. My guess that there is more to the story. I have only two points to add to the discussion, and it deals with individual rights. Christians have the right to practice their religion in a "Free Society." Non Christians have the same rights as Christians. The problem with some Christians are hell bent to force everyone to adhere to the edicts of their chosen religion. The Supreme Court reversal on Roe vs Wade is and example of that. Now we find ourselves out of step with most of the nations on this planet. This country was founded on some beliefs identified in the Declaration of Independence that "All Citizens are endowed by their creator, the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The me that means that Gay Citizens can marry a person of their choice, without condemnation by extremist Christian Churches, who have blood on their hands throughout history. The Commandment of thou Shall not Kill comes to mind. The teachings of Jesus are taught by Christians, Muslims, and Jews. It is time for outlawing discrimination, in order for us all the rights of happiness.