What is Religion?

Durkheim is thinking of taboo. Religious communities are united in their avoidance of one thing or another. In Judaism, work on the sabbath, idolatry, eating pork or shellfish, and ingesting blood would be examples. In Islam, pretty much the same; in Buddhism,violating any of the five precepts;etc.

The sacred, as opposed to the profane, is set apart for special reverence or devotion. It "transcends everyday existence, it is extra-ordinary, potentially dangerous,awe-inspiring,fear inducing.Sacred and Profane - Short Notes for Sociology.
sacred durkheim - Yahoo Video Search Results
sacred durkheim - Yahoo Video Search Results

So the creationists say.

You're right,. some have tried that, like the ones arguing that secular humanism is a religion (I happen to think it is, but not necessarily under the First Amendment.) Anyhow , they go a little haywire in seeing any manifestation of secularism as religious, without linking it to the community practicing a religion of secular humanism. The definition I've been advancing precludes this by making clear that some combination of code, creed, rituals, community and a sense of the sacred are prerequisites, and that religion is not just anything people feel strongly about. I'm also thinking of the lady who was always writing letters to the local paper that the Blue Demons, the team mascot of an OK, high school, violated the First Amendment as an establishment of religion (i.e., Satanism). But I still think the efforts of scholars in the field of comparative religion have been more influential.

It doesn't explain people seeking answers in science or secular religion. It explains how people, left without a sense of meaning or belonging because of science and secularism, are vulnerable to secular alternatives to traditional religion that can fill this emotional void.

 

Don't scoff. The vision you describe isn't that different from John of Patmos' visions in Revelation. The Johanine community it came out of seems to have been deeply into Merkabah mysticism. We don't know exactly where their visions came from, but I have my suspicions that if truth were known Amanita Muscaria might have been involved. John Allegro lost his scholarly reputation for suggesting an influence of that mushroom on Christianity. (The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross.) BTW, I've never used hallucinogens. I come by my moments of clarity naturally.

 

I've been watching the CNN special on the Jan. 6 insurrection. I'm struck by the mob's rhetoric :that they're "the people" and chants of 1776. Makes me think of some of ShyOne's forays into American government, which, incoherent as they are, suggests that the whole chain of court decisions on governmental powers from 1819 to the present may be illegitimate. The danger of allowing individuals to decide, on the basis of "conscience", what the law is seems particularly high at this time. Same goes for religion. I don't think it's what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

 

or adherence

People are tired of living under our democratic dictatorship.

Meanwhile Im thinking how much history you have gotten incorrectly or simply refuse to acknowledge as I have corrected you on the previous pages which in turn causes you to be lead around on a leash.

Science/secular 1000% cannot fill the void and the void you speak of is not based in emotion, its based in valuation, neither secular nor science can respond to the sacred, "valuation".

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck what is it?

your family is community! You cant be born and survive without it.

In that family continues in general to embody such attributes as supportiveness, solidarity, and identity, it is sometimes represented as a form of community in itself. However, an essential aspect of community is that it exists on a more inclusive level than that of family.

Family and Community - Sociology of Family - iResearchNet
https://sociology.iresearchnet.com › sociology-of-family

Every 'single' person on the planet has a creed/code, with or without community.

creed. noun. ˈkrēd. : a statement of the basic beliefs of a religious faith. : a set of guiding principles or beliefs.Dec 23, 2022

Creed Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › creed

You seem to be stuck on some large community even though Durkheim unequivocally stated that what is part of the whole is part of the single.

Here again what is constantly being bypassed is that Durheim a sociologist was looking at this through a social lense, Like said above he pointed out once again that what is true of the whole is true of the individual.

there is no difference between H2O and a glass of H2O both are H2O

 

Since you were not able to deductively conclude the meaning of the explanations and citations I provided maybe this will help you to understand the importance of the individual and why reserved rights as stated in the Bill of Rights trump that of granted authority. Remember just because people use the word right in reference to the government, the government has no rights, only authority. I suppose one could say that the government has rights 'within' it granted authority. Rights cannot be taken away legitimately, on the other hand the whole government can be legitimately dissolved if it is not a dictatorship disguised by any other name.

We the People placed the 'Sacred' above the profane in the Bill of Rights.


The Cult of the Individual: Durkheim and Politics

The cult of the individual thus presupposes an autonomous individual endowed with rationality, born both free and equal to all other individuals in these respects. Belief in this abstract conception of individual creates the ideal around which the cult revolves, and influences both the society’s morality and its notion of truth.

With this sacred object at its core, the cult of the individual also contains moral ideals to pursue. These moral ideals that define society include the ideals of equality, freedom, and justice. The specific moral code that translates these ideals is built around the inalienable rights of the individual; any disenfranchisement of an individual’s human rights or any violation of an individual’s human dignity is considered sacrilege and is a moral offence of the highest order. With society becoming more diverse, the respect, tolerance, and promotion of individual differences become important social virtues. It is by protecting the rights of the individual in this way, somewhat paradoxically, that society is best preserved. Modern democracy, which encodes, institutionalizes, and protects the rights of the individual, is the form of government whereby Western societies best express their collective belief in the dignity of the individual.

Rationality is also of primary importance to this religion. The cult of the individual has as a first dogma the autonomy of reason and as a first right free inquiry.

Authority can and must be rationally grounded in order for the critically rational individual to have respect for social institutions. Durkheim, Emile | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[

No. it doesn't. We were talking about a quotation from Durkheim.“A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden." His wording may be confusing (remember, this is a translation from French) but if you read the whole thing in context, it's clear that he's talking about two things: those that are "set apart" from the profane and those that are forbidden. "Sacred' is a relatively common term. I find it unusual that anyone could have no idea what it means. For further reference,See Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy.

Science deals with things that go way beyond what ordinary folks know, even scientists themselves. (think QM). This doesn't make it "transcendent".i.e.,"beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience": especially since it is a firm conviction of science that the things they study are not beyond the range of physical human experience, and ultimately these things can or might eventually be understood by applying scientific methods. And although the approach by science toward them is not to worship them but to figure them out.The potentially dangerous, awe inspiring, etc. properties are not those of science itself, but of the awesome natural phenomena they study.

Great!

I'm sure it didn't fulfill everyone's needs in that regard. Life was hard, and there were doubters even then, who probably kept it to themselves or got toasted. I can't imagine monolithic, externally imposed belief systems being satisfying for everybody. I'm speaking in relative terms.

 

...

 

The Meeting at Jekyll Island | Federal Reserve History
https://www.federalreservehistory.org › essays › jekyll-i...
by G Richardson · Cited by 1 — A secret gathering at a secluded island off the coast of Georgia in 1910 laid the ... Frank Vanderlip and Paul Warburg – met at the Jekyll Island Club, ...


Simple titles have little meaning after deep state cancer sets in.


A deep state[1] is a type of governance made up of potentially secret and unauthorized networks of power operating independently of a state's political leadership in pursuit of their own agenda and goals. In popular usage, the term carries overwhelmingly negative connotations.[2] The range of possible uses of the term is similar to that for shadow government. The expression state within a state is an older and similar concept. Historically, it designated a well-defined organization which seeks to function independently,[3] whereas the deep state refers more to a hidden organization seeking to manipulate the public state.

Potential sources for deep state organization include rogue elements among organs of state, such as the armed forces or public authorities such as intelligence agencies, police, secret police, administrative agencies, and government bureaucracy.


then:





Kennedy had to go!

He outed to the american people the deep state control of both parties.

 

Relatively speaking, in the world today, where Putin, Xj jinping, and Kim jong-un are in power, the U. S. is one of the most democratic major powers. But it was never designed to be a direct democracy. The Framers established a republic--a representative democracy hemmed in by all sorts of checks and balances, including the Bill of Rights and judicial review.

When you say "the people", who do you have in mind? Yourself, obviously, but who else is tired of living under our system of government? Your cronies? The MAGA maggots are far from a majority, but the system the Framers set up amplifies their power, by over-representing rural areas in the Senate and the Electoral College.

Your history lessons have been sketchy and non-specific, consisting of terms that you drop without specifying how they relate to anything. Until you prove your credentials as a historian, or at least somebody who passed History 101 in college instead of a cut-and-paster from the internet, I see no reason to take your assessments seriously.

I think I can agree on that, but without further elaboration, it isn't clear.

Where the First Amendment is concerned, it is what the courts say it is, presumably in response to facts, sound arguments, and what they think the Framers had in mind. The definition I've put forward is useful in comparative religious studies, and I happen to think that groups like the secular humanists and Buddhists are entitled to First Amendment protection and protection from religious tests for holding federal office. So far, thank God, they haven't gone so far as to hold that the provisions apply to "conscientious devotion, scrupulous care, or "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"--the tertiary, metaphorical definitions in dictionaries and the ones you seem to be angling for. Amon Bundy and Stewart Rhodes are not really guided by religion when they take up arms against the government, no matte how devoted, ardent or faithful they are to the cause.

I thought you were talking conscientious individuals before. Now are you talking families? So the courts should recognized family religions? I think that's as unworkable as your previous definition, for similar reasons. Ordinarily, family is a group of people who are tied to one another by blood or marriage, while communities are broader , sharing a common understanding without being relatives.Community vs Family - What's the difference? But even if we accept it as a community, I think it would be unworkable to regard it as a religion from the standpoint of legal rights and safeguards. The homophobic Phelps family of the Westboro Baptist church might squeak by, since they're primitive Baptists. The family seems to be badly split though.

That's your assertion. We've heard it often enough, but having it doesn't make every individual's convictions a religion.

Durkheim was talking about society, which was identical to the communities he was talking about: tribal society.The individual is integrally part of the whole in such societies. That was his main point. I'm beginning to doubt you've ever read Durkheim.

True.

Untrue, unless you mean that individual belief is completely conditioned by society and thus inseparable from it.

Actually, there could be, depending on the state: liquid, solid or gaseous. Those are meaningful differences, although the chemical composition is the same.

This is typical of the approach you've take throughout these discussions, possibly refliecting your inability to understand what you're reading. You cite an article on Durkheim's sociological analysis of the transition from communal to individualistic social patterns, and seem to extract from it individualistic, libertarian ideas you want to put forward as normative or prescriptive.arguments about the way rights and government should be. Not valid. "In opposition to the Cartesian model, Durkheim views the self as integrated in a web of social, and thus historical, relations that greatly influence their actions, interpretations of the world, and even their abilities for logical thought." What, pray tell, do you think that means?

 

Ah, at last it comes out. Q-Anon. stikes again!
No further point in talking to you, as far as I'm concerned. You drank the Kool Aid. Dealing with conspiracy theorists is a waste of my time.

 

I have to respond to the extreme complexity of "religion" as as a reality in an enlightened world. I hope to settle myself in some sort of Spiritual Niche within society, before I die. I still consider my self as a Christian even though I do not participate in any theological practices. Lately I have been trying to analyze Jesus or Yesua as a human being of some sort of spiritual advocate. There its no reason to not believe in God, but to take him as the spiritual advisor for the development and reinforcement of Humanity. I once read a humorous statement that said "The second coming of Jesus is near and he is really pissed off." I thought that I read some time ago that Yesua was skeptical of organized religion, because it was managed by Mortals and they are too vulnerable to "Corruption." I am using Yesua rather than Jesus (The Latin Form) to make the distinction. The only change is the replacement of Y for J and using the Feminine a rather than the Masculine used in Latin (First declension M or F). I also thought that Yesua taught followers to pray directly to god and possible use a "shrine" in your residence in order to communicate directly with God without the influence of other Mortals. Doing this would simplify the responsibilities of faith and make them compatible with the realities found on the planet. If the followers of God adopted this religious concept there would be lot less blood and suffering in society.

 

The distinction between divine directives and Buddhist precepts is tenuous. I think both would fall into Durkheim's concept of sacred and taboo. Durkheim explicitly says that taboos and the sacred don't have to be divinely inspired. It is true that Buddhism doesn't have "to do's" and "must do's", but it does have precepts: general principlles intended to regulate behavior or thought: "Sila is the most important step on the spiritual path. Without morality, right concentration cannot be attained, and without right concentration, wisdom cannot be fully perfected. Thus, morality not only enhances people’s ethical values and fulfills their noble status as human beings, but it is crucial to their efforts toward the highest religious goal of Nibbana"Home - Fifth Precept Sangha also Buddhist Blood Taboo: Mary Douglas, Female Impurity, and Classical Indian Buddhism

What science studies is nature or physical reality, which is, potentially dangerous, awe-inspiring, fear inducing. all that. But the attitude science takes toward it is to try to cut it down to size by reductionism and the assumption that it will behave in a lawful manner. That is desacralization: to divest of sacred qualities or status.Definition of DESACRALIZATION Although some scientists, when they aren't doing science, have expressed awe at the wonder of nature; e.g., Einstein, freeman Dyson.

Yes. I'm just suggesting that they don't have to be about deities or supernatural beings. Transcendental, sacred, or spiritual is good enough. Mahayana, Pure Land and Vajrayana Buddhism place significant emphasis on the transcendent; Theravada and Zen, not so much, but are spiritual in orientation--i.e.,not concerned with material or worldly things.:

Secular humanism and ethical culture are admittedly borderline in this regard. They emphasize "inner peace", personal growth, and shared experiences of awe.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2752/175183411X12968355482330 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2752/175183411X12968355482330. Robert Solomon (2003) Spirituality for the Skeptic. Atheist phiopsopher Daniel Dennett thinks that 'awe, joy, a sense of peace and wonder are spiritual enough. Daniel Dennett Discusses Secular Spirituality According to the Dali Lama (1999), an emphasis on love, compassion forgiveness, harmony and concern for others qualifies as sprituality. Ethics for the New Millennium.

 

You seem to be off to a good start. I'm struck by the differences between Christianity as it's evolved and the teachings and example of Jesus recorded in the gospels. To me, "Christians" fret too much about whether to be baptized or dunked, to allow gay marriage, etc., and being "saved", and not enough on peace, love, understanding and the social gospel. Good luck on your journey.