Do you see religion as a clash of cultures?

Regardless of whether any particular religion is true, the adherents to that religion seems to comprise a separate culture. Is organized religion more about the maintance of a culture than about worship?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Organized religion is a way for people to monopolize their understanding of God and the mysteries, and then make money out of that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are the tribal religions for which you need to be a member of that tribe to participate in their sacred mysteries, and then there are global religions which allow anyone of any culture to join, particular examples are Christianity, Islam and Buddhism (I know Buddhism is more philosophy, but meh).

I don't think that religion is more about culture, it just happens that many religions have the same borders, because they don't suit members of other cultures.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Doesn't religion foster an association following similar rules and philosophies, which naturally leads to an indentity of the members of that association which we can label as culture? Aren't a lot of faiths more interested in preserving their culture, as opposed to keeping the faith? Doesn't thinking of a church as a culture give insight into the actions of that church?

 

I see it as a way for the ruling elite to pit the pathetic, stupid, lower classes against each other and forget how they are getting fucked by the ruling elite.

You know the same (human) story since someone wrote down what's been going on(history).

 

True, religion can be used to support a power structure, but it also provides a sense of identity.

 

Maybe for you. Culture is a lot more than particular religious beliefs.
Religion can be a part of culture and culture may be a part of religion.

 

Yeah an identity of bullshit - that conflicts with another identity of bullshit. People forget how much they share in common, the more bullshit they attach themselves to.

Samething nationalism, samething regionalism , ad nausalism.

 

A culture cannot subsist on the basis of religion alone -but must be broader? Says who? Why can't a person be part of more than one culture - say the American culture and a religious culture?

 

Because culture IS more than religion. Check your definitions.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

 

I just checked the definition. Did you? One of your sites defines culture as "the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious or social group". Note the word "religious" in the definition. Change your mind?

 

No, culture is how people live based on their history, society, aesthetics, environment, beliefs, laws, favourite past times, tradition, arts, etc.
Read the wiki article, it's more elaborate than the dry webster definition.

 

That would be one culture, like American culture. However, there are other cultures also present in the United States besides American culture. One of those is a vast array of religious cultures.

 

Pretty much.

 

If religion is more about the maintance of a culture than about worship, why focus your attack on the tenants of belief instead of the organization itself?

 

Because then maybe people will feel like questioning the whole premise of their culture.

 

So you say it is more effective to attack the tenants of belief than the culture itself? Why would attacking the by-laws of a civic association be more effective than attacking the members?

 

Because I couldn't care less if people have a Christmas tree, it's the movement to alter government and society based on the authority of a holy book that is more troubling. Cultures by themselves can get along, intermingle, evolve...

 

But isn't governement and society the American culture? Aren't you really defending one culture over another?

 

I guess you could argue that having a secular form of government is part of American culture, even though some would deny it.