Usually in such affiliation hierarchies, there’s the Other to be found somewhere. This is the unacceptable alternative. They are the enemy no matter what the circumstances.

Griswold prayed with Graham because, though distanced, his religion is recognizable and minimally acceptable to her. One does wonder what it would take to cause a rejection though.

no shit. always bringing the caledonian mr. bizarro show, aren’t you?

Such grand “common assertions” are propounded by people who are stupid. The stupidity can at the root be due to ideological preference (i.e., they know that reality varies with their ideology, but they ignore reality), ignorance, or simple lack of cognitive ability which would allow for the ability to construct models with greater subtly and nuance.

What a ridiculous series of statements!

All systems of “revealed truth” are necessarily hostile to all other such systems, because difference is error; at best, a dismissive tolerance that acknowledges the reality of other religions but would prefer that they not exist is all that can be accomplished. The only way to get a more engaged acceptance is syncretism – corrupting one’s understanding of either or both of the systems so as to bring them into line.

In the case of Islam vs. Christianity, the two systems are not only different but conflict on fundamental points of doctrine, specifically the nature of primary religious figures within their traditions, and anyone who understands and follows those systems is not going to cope well with the other. (But of course, how many people understand anything of substance about their avowed faith?)

Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey

Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples

The Masque of Africa: Glimpses of African Belief

People like to talk about indigenous traditions as being Sufi-like with the assumption that everyone is a unitarian deep down. I think the modal theology is more Catholic, and what we’re seeing is an infection of rationalism.

I might have to pick up this book. I’m going to be spending a significant amount of time living in rural Indonesia, as and atheist “western” liberal this will be quite interesting…

well, fair enough, but most people aren’t intellectuals, nor do they want to be, nor can many be. i think it is a problem with religious and irreligious intellectuals discuss religion through their own personal conception of what should be, as opposed to what is. this is more of a problem for the irreligious though, because ostensibly the religious intellectual believes that there is genuine religious Truth, which he/she is getting at.

Perhaps by paganism I should have used supernatural.

yes, i think this is a useful conflation.

Yes there is a very interesting article on where a Zoroastrian from Yazd (either my ancestor or ancestor’s cousin) is discussing the signs of Prophethood and it was highlighted that his conception of religion almost overlapped his Shi’ite correligionist. I found it after digging through the net so here it is.

http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/conversion.html
Mulla Bahram’s self-understanding of his conversion is not an untypical one for Iranian Bahá’ís. He clairns that the Bahá’í religion confirrns the beliefs he held prior to becoming a Bahá’í. Yet the proofs he adduces to support this are not Zoroastrian in origin but rather are drawn from Shí’í paradigms. A prophet arises, he makes a claim, reveals a book, and is received by those pure ones willing to suffer in the path of God.

“as for your sense of what religion should be, as an irreligious person i won’t lecture people on the True Religion, but you seem to conflating mysticism with religiosity as such. i think mysticism is very much a minority taste empirically, and most religionists thrive on the communal-group aspect, which expresses itself in ritual and shared norms.”

Oh no I didn’t mean that; by personal journey its our conception of the universe and life be it spiritual, empirical, atheistic, religious. Religion purports to answer the meaning of our life, which at the end is a personal and individualistic journey. All human beings have to figure that out for themselves; some may just want to do good, some may just say that its “to be” and others that its divine will or finally that there is no purpose and that its a defunct question altogether.

My point is that at the end it should be a very intellectual and individual search for the “Truth” whatever that Truth may be, in what ever form. Religion is a comforting ritual to obscure that search or provide platitudes for it (nothing is more comforting that others hew to your line of thinking). I’m not for/against religion per se but its just my observation.

I just like dislike group think and want to encourage skeptical minds to emerge; not only of religion but all biases. I like the motto of Iranian.com; “nothing is Sacred”, everything should be up for discussion.

Also to explain my “Pagan” comment its just I find “strict” and dry monotheism so rare even very religious people tend to have very mystical and colourful beliefs. Perhaps by paganism I should have used supernatural.

Good to know on Manila and interesting to note on Kongo and wider Africa. Like the thoughts on Malay Chams want to read up on them.

the psychological raw material is the same. as i’ve noted, in theological incorrectness the author presents data that cross-culturally religious believers conceptualize the supernatural in a very similar fashion. the theological aspects which overlay the cognitive models seem to be superficial verbal formula which serve as group identity markers to which people have strong emotional attachment. as for your sense of what religion should be, as an irreligious person i won’t lecture people on the True Religion, but you seem to conflating mysticism with religiosity as such. i think mysticism is very much a minority taste empirically, and most religionists thrive on the communal-group aspect, which expresses itself in ritual and shared norms.

But anyway strange how Christian evangelism strengthened tribal identity in the face of a homogeneous national culture; can see why the Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim South/South East Asian cultures are so annoyed at Christianity. It gives these marginal populations rapid advancement and direct access to the West instead of assimilation.

right. the british sealed off large swaths of northeast india and basically gave missionaries the run amongst the hill tribes. this resulted in their christianization, and separation from lowland sanskritic culture. prior to this the general dynamic had been to slow but gradual assimilation. and yet the christian mizos have the highest literacy in india, along with the people of kerala.

I always assumed Christianity to be a “foreign” religion in Africa and Asia apart from some ancient presence (Ethiopia, Mid East, Kerala etc) now I’ve realized that evangelical imperial Christianity may have actually strengthened diversity and prevented tribal extinction, absorption and assimilation and that is a good thing.

i’ll hold off on passing judgement on whether it’s a good thing or not, but note that catholic christianity arrived with the iberians as early as the late 15th century in the kingdom of kongo in present day angola. it just seems that islam and christianity did not throw down deep demographic roots in sub-saharan africa aside from ethiopia and the horn of africa until the 19th and 20th centuries. why? i suspect ecology has something to do with it. african societies were too fragmented before for world religions to have the economic surplus from economies of scale which they rely on (and perhaps foster) to exist and perpetuate themselves.

In an alt-history it would have been fascinating if Islam had penetrated to the tip of Southern Africa and the Philippines

there were muslim warlords on manilla bay when the spaniards arrived. if they’d arrived 50 years later the philippines may have remained muslim, as once an organized religion establishes deep social roots it’s hard for outsiders to dislodge them (the philippines was actually ruled to a great extent through divide & rule, as spain was too far away). many filipinos i’ve met are aware that were it not for the spanish hegemony they would be muslims like rest of the peoples of maritime southeast asia. the ethnic affinity in the transmission of religion is very strong in southeast asia, the malay chams of vietnam and cambodia were converted to islam after their co-ethnics further south had become muslim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/world/africa/06madagascar.html?_r=1&src=twt&twt=nytimes

Mr. Rakotonarivo was in the midst of such a meaningful conversation on a recent afternoon. “I am asking them for good health, and of course if they would help me to accumulate wealth, this is good also,” he said.

But others considered such supplications contrary to their Christian beliefs.

“We do not believe we can communicate with the dead, but we do believe the famadihana strengthens our family between the generations,” said Jean Jacques Ratovoherison, 30, a manager for a technology firm.

Was reading up on the Shi’ites of Eastern Saudi; seems they blend into the Bahraini culture. Would love to form a “Tenth Parallel” tour group and visit fault lines around the world.

Perhaps everyone’s a little bit Pagan in the end? Organised religion is ultimately a tool to systematise and dogmatise what should be a very personal journey; understanding and making sense of your surroundings.

Like the bits on Haifa (obviously) and the Protestant population of Hungary.

Like the thoughts on ethnic markers; there is a very good article on how Pakistan is built on an “ethnic marker”. But anyway strange how Christian evangelism strengthened tribal identity in the face of a homogeneous national culture; can see why the Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim South/South East Asian cultures are so annoyed at Christianity. It gives these marginal populations rapid advancement and direct access to the West instead of assimilation.

What is interesting in your article that I have changed my perception. I always assumed Christianity to be a “foreign” religion in Africa and Asia apart from some ancient presence (Ethiopia, Mid East, Kerala etc) now I’ve realized that evangelical imperial Christianity may have actually strengthened diversity and prevented tribal extinction, absorption and assimilation and that is a good thing.

In an alt-history it would have been fascinating if Islam had penetrated to the tip of Southern Africa and the Philippines. At first I always thought that it was kind of strange that the Philippines was named after King Philip but then come to think of it quite a few places are named after individuals; Africa, Europe, Asia, America, Bharat, Saudi Arabia, Israel and of course the Philippines.