Religion and Social Networking

[mckitterick]

Over on Facebook, I got myself involved in a debate on religion. I know, I know; I should know better. But it's fun, y'know? Anyhow, what prompted the debate was this article on the BBC about how relgions go extinct. Good stuff.

Anyhow, it got me thinking about my interactions there and over here, and I'm curious about my friends' religious beliefs. Am I just living in an insulated bubble as described in that article, or are those national polls on religion just manipulated? So, a poll!

Here it is, a Google Docs poll so anyone can use it: Are you religious? What social networking tools do you use?

Thanks!
Chris

Comments

Re: Hmmm

[wyckedgood.livejournal.com]

Monkey of horror movie love maybe...glowing red demon possessed eyes lol.

If one believes a doctrine but doesn't practice it there could be a variety of reasons; laziness, apathy, or just turned off by the organization in charge. For example the bible says you should congregate with like minded others, but if you don't like church and choose not to go, that doesn't mean you don't believe in Jesus. Yes that results in belief contradictions and definite dissonance but I haven't met anyone who is completely enlightened and at peace. So is you believe but don't practice I would say you are a person of faith but not religious.

To answer your assumption yes to my attitudes, beliefs and practices around my spirituality. I am saying not that it isn't a religion because it is not one of the 4 listed but because there is no holy text, recognized deity, controlling organization, standard meeting place, heavily defined morality or any of the other trappings that go with what I would qualify as religion.

I completely agree with your stance on marriage and the government by the way. Separation of Church and State ..hmmm seems like that would mean all religious ceremonies.

In a public forum...always risky = Facebook is the only devil I actually believe in.

Re: Hmmm

[sdemory.livejournal.com]

Just. Doesn't. Scan.

- I think that we're colliding on the "doctrine" side, which is fair. Doctrine's a wide chasm.

That being said, I'm not sure that anyone says "I became a Christian because I like to tithe," and I don't recall the New Testament saying anything explicitly about going to church, who sits in what chair and who talks first. Yes, there's "keep the sabbath holy," but that's vague at best. The other books don't go into that ephemera either, that I recall. I'd point to the more specific "This stuff is good, that stuff is bad" side of things as the fundamental doctrine. The rest is just organizational bylaws.

(I've done my reading, incidentally. Because I got tired of staring blankly at people, I jumped into as many of the books as I could so I could get a cultural grounding.)

- To me, you've got as much religion as the Pope. You both have belief systems that (I assume) involve the numinous interacting with the material world in a substantive way. After all, lots of belief systems are oral traditions, many deal with various deities or forces rather than a single Sky-Daddy (Hinduism), lack a central overarching control structure (Judaism) or heavy moral dogma (Buddhism) and are performed in public rather than in a proscribed location (many sects of Islam.)

It seems that you're abandoning some degree of legitimacy by saying "It's not religion because it doesn't have Christian stuff." Your faith speaks to the part of your soul that cries out for connection with the numinous. The fact that you're not a dues-paying member of a club doesn't make it less real, and doesn't turn them into something that's less real for their believers because they do pay dues.

This is why, in my heart of hearts, I refer to it all as "the supernatural." Catholic Mass, snake handling, cartomancy or Goetic meditation, it's all an effort to touch the hem of the numinous and bring it down to the material world. Makes more sense to me, and results in less hair-splitting.

Re: Hmmm

[wyckedgood.livejournal.com]

I think we have come full circle to the definition of Religion and what that term both means and implies. The more I think about it the more I realize that I am truly hung up on that word and I pretty much hate it which is why my inner self is throwing a royal temper tantrum over being identified that way. While the text definition does apply, I think the modern cultural definition has changed. I don’t think religion to the masses just means a set of beliefs. I believe, like myself, that when people consider religion now they think of the major religious organizations.

On a strictly personal level I am very uncomfortable with any association to the word religion as it holds a deeply negative connotation for me. I am a southern baptist, raised in the buckle of the bible belt, minister’s daughter. Religion is about a lot of things and none of it good….manipulating the masses, controlling social behavior, thought and people in general. In fact I consider religion and government to both be “The Man” in no uncertain terms. There is absolutely nothing about religion as I define it that I like. I also think that the major religions continue to prove a huge detriment to our society.

Do I consider myself a person of faith? Yes. Do I consider myself a religious person? No. Were I answering the BBC poll, I would not classify myself as religious person which is why I thought the Poll was very short sighted. I would be very curious to see how many people such as myself classified themselves as a person of faith but not religious.

In the end, by your definition you are absolutely right….but I don’t like it, not tiny little bit.

Re: Hmmm

[sdemory.livejournal.com]

Well, then, you've got a fix. You were raised Southern Baptist, be Southern about it.

Religion's not your problem, it's Church. You're not a Church Person. C'est finis.