Complexity As A Sheild

[nemorathwald]

One of the last comments to yesterday's entry was an illustration of the problem. My buddy overthesun is a Buddhist, and he pointed out that not all religion is evil. Which, technically, is true. Take the non-supernatural practice of meditation. When it has no content of petitioning a supernatural being, calling meditation religious seems like a category error to me. Most of my problem stems from lazy, politically-incorrect verbal habits. I just don't regard a decent non-supernaturalist, such as many Buddhists, as "religious" in any sense that is meaningful to me.

overthesun mentioned that the absurd complexity of religion serves as a sheild for it. I can tell you one of the ways it serves that purpose-- it's so complicated that people are unable to talk about it coherently. Every time I have something to say on the topic, I have to write a preface to my comment which is thorough enough to make clear that I'm criticizing Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and James Dobson and new-age con men and trav13369's obnoxious co-worker, but also make clear that I'm not talking about overthesun or eposia or renniekins etc etc. Which I think ought to become obvious after a while and no longer need to be stated. By the time I finish covering the spectrum, the conversational attention span would go completely off the rails and the point would get lost.

This is why people from different communities with different assumptions about the meaning of vocabulary have so much difficulty communicating. It's just very difficult to do.

Comments

[eposia.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, I took the preface as understood, and didn't think you were referring to me in your post at all. *grin*

[overthesun.livejournal.com]

*I* knew you were not talking about me. . . . I did wonder how many others would not understand that clearly.

As for Vocabulary, you are correct. We need a deviding line between non-supernaturalist faith, such as many buddhists maintain . . . . . and super-supernaturalist faiths, which we both detest so.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

And that dividing line is the theme of Universism, the group of which cosette_valjean and I are a member. *grin* The movement was born from this recognition. It also mangles the word "religion" out of any recognizability by discarding that stuff-- it's an effort to change the language-- but I have decided not to complain.

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

Heh - you should try working at Crazy Wisdom sometime. After all, we're trying to sell crystals, ephemerides, candles, statuary, ad infinitum. It can be very tricky to offer assistance without advocating, or dis-advocating, any religion or lack thereof, while being courteous and helpful. It is entirely possible to have four or more religions represented in an afternoon's customers, none of them Christian varieties. What do you say when someone asks if that crystal really works? "Well, if you're building a radio, it's crucial?" Maybe not. I refer them to the shelf of books on crystals and their mystic powers.

Nope, you don't have to have a deity to have a religion. I have found that the best definition for "religion" is: The set of rules that an individual uses to guide his or her own life. Those rules may contain elements such as what foods they eat (or refuse to eat); what exercise they get (or refuse to get); sexual activity or lack thereof; cleanliness or lack thereof; ad infinitum. Dunno if it would work for anyone else, but it works for me.