Defining religion and culture

[KC Destroyer of Worlds]

I've noticed a couple of threads debating the effects of religion eg "I don't hate Christians..." I would like to get some clarification, or a general consensus of where religion stops, and culture begins.

One point that has been made, was regarding the control that Muslim countries exert over women within their borders.

I posit, that the "hot issues" i.e. genital mutilation, birth control, standard of living for women, etc. Are in direct corrolation with the current social and cultural views at the inception of the religion.

[Nitefalle]

Hm...do you think, then, that the religious aspect introduced then "freezes" the cultural / social aspects at that point so that they do not change with time, leading people to then assume that the cultural / social aspects are part of the religion?

[KC Destroyer of Worlds]

Hm...do you think, then, that the religious aspect introduced then "freezes" the cultural / social aspects at that point so that they do not change with time, leading people to then assume that the cultural / social aspects are part of the religion?

In short, yes.

In long, I'm not attaching any inherent value to that. I just want to open the floor for people to clarify and possibly identify the cultural roots of religion as well as the effects of religion on culture.

The chicken and the egg of anthropology if you will.

[Calli]

I think there's some validity to that, although I don't think it applies to Christianity. From what I've been told, the obnoxiousness that we sometimes see in American Christians isn't common at all overseas. I stand by my statement that it's a behavioral issue, not a religious one, although I do think that many churches encourage it.

[Avalanche]

Could you really draw a line between the two? Isn't religion a part of culture? I don't think they're always separable. Culture influences religion, which influences the culture, which influences religion...

[KC Destroyer of Worlds]

Could you really draw a line between the two? Isn't religion a part of culture? I don't think they're always separable. Culture influences religion, which influences the culture, which influences religion...

Very true, I would like to see where that line is, what cultural influences helped to build the religion. Which came first the sabbath, or the religious recognition of the sabbath?

"I think there's some validity to that, although I don't think it applies to Christianity. From what I've been told, the obnoxiousness that we sometimes see in American Christians isn't common at all overseas. I stand by my statement that it's a behavioral issue, not a religious one, although I do think that many churches encourage it."

The point isn't to justify the obnoxiousness, it's to examine, why old world views are so strictly adhered to when it's seems to be detrimental to the further development of the culture. Maybe the reason why Christians overseas aren't as obnoxious is because their culture has had more time to develop. They've been through the dark ages, they went through the inquisition, they saw first hand the effects of religious zealousness. America is a very young country and our culture is still on the very edge of becoming developed for all that we are technologically advanced.

(I will spell check this and go into more detail later, I have to run to work tah tah!)

[spiral]

Great topic! I also tend to see religions as a reflection of the society at the time they were created. For example, I often hear people complain that Christianity is somewhat sexist, and I think this is in part because it developed in a patriarchal society. But as Avalanche said, culture and religion have been very closely entwined throughout history, and I don't know that we could conclusively say one resulted in the other. I think it's probably been very dynamic.

[KC Destroyer of Worlds]

Great topic! I also tend to see religions as a reflection of the society at the time they were created. For example, I often hear people complain that Christianity is somewhat sexist, and I think this is in part because it developed in a patriarchal society. But as Avalanche said, culture and religion have been very closely entwined throughout history, and I don't know that we could conclusively say one resulted in the other. I think it's probably been very dynamic.

Very true as well. I know that we won't be able to draw any hard conclusions here. I believe, with some thought and consideration on our part, we can, however differentiate between the tradition of religion and the tradition of culture. At least to some extent.

[KC Destroyer of Worlds]

Take for instance keeping Kosher. Why is it that eating shellfish is not Kosher?

Intelligent guess: Given the climate of the middle east shellfish would spoil quickly, and could cause sickness to be spread among the Jewish people of the time.

Why is eating meat and cheese at the same time not Kosher?

Intelligent guess: It caused extreme flatulence, and was banned because people tended to live very close together. (Okay maybe a not so intelligent guess, just trying to lighten the mood with this one:toofless:)

[Nitefalle]

Kchoye said:
"Maybe the reason why Christians overseas aren't as obnoxious is because their culture has had more time to develop. They've been through the dark ages, they went through the inquisition, they saw first hand the effects of religious zealousness. America is a very young country and our culture is still on the very edge of becoming developed for all that we are technologically advanced."


I don't think that the age of a culture / society is as important as you might think. Most people consider Africa to be the birthplace of humanity itself and the tribes there have been evolving for centuries - they've seen it all from simple tribal practices to the highly organized / ritualized practices of Kemeticism. By your theory, one would think that their religions have evolved beyond that of others, and yet there are still tribes / places in Africa where the priests / shamans (whatever they're called) tell men that to cure themselves of AIDS, they must rape a virgin. Not a very evolved or educated practice, in my opinion.

Perhaps it does support your original theory, though, about societal / cultural practices "freezing" at the inception of the given religion, but then that would mean that there would never be room for change in older cultures. Catholic Europeans would still be stuck in the mentality of the Dark Ages, which obviously isn't the case.

I dunno, it sounds as if there's nothing that could be applied across the board. :whatgives

[Philosophia]

I've noticed a couple of threads debating the effects of religion eg "I don't hate Christians..." I would like to get some clarification, or a general consensus of where religion stops, and culture begins.

One point that has been made, was regarding the control that Muslim countries exert over women within their borders.

I posit, that the "hot issues" i.e. genital mutilation, birth control, standard of living for women, etc. Are in direct correlation with the current social and cultural views at the inception of the religion.

I think the problem is not necessarily religion but rather the culture that influences the interpretation of any religious text. Using your example of controlling women, this has more to do with the culture of the country than the religion they preach. If we take religion out of the situation, it will still persist but they will use a different "tool" to control the masses. In my opinion, religion is a tool that is used, influenced or interpreted by cultures differently around the world.

[KC Destroyer of Worlds]

Kchoye said:
I don't think that the age of a culture / society is as important as you might think. Most people consider Africa to be the birthplace of humanity itself and the tribes there have been evolving for centuries - they've seen it all from simple tribal practices to the highly organized / ritualized practices of Kemeticism. By your theory, one would think that their religions have evolved beyond that of others, and yet there are still tribes / places in Africa where the priests / shamans (whatever they're called) tell men that to cure themselves of AIDS, they must rape a virgin. Not a very evolved or educated practice, in my opinion.



An excellent point. One that I hadn't thought of. Maybe religion has to do with a cultures ability to cope with outside changes? taking a look at this http://www.religionstatistics.net/statofrel1.htm, there seems to be a prevailing edge of orthodoxy/ heterodoxy in longer established countries. The nature of orthodoxy/ heterodoxy seems to be based more in the study of the religion than the practice, which may have something to do with the more civilized nature of christians in those areas.

In regards to the nature of shamanistic practices in Africa, IMO that may have to do with a cultures inability to cope with a massive influx of outside stimulae. African cultures have been kept under the thumbs of more "civilized" cultures for hundreds of years. Invariably "stunting" their growth. For a long time they weren't allowed to practice their own culture. Thinking back first to the Egyptian conquerors, up to the Dutch, English, and French in the 1800's - 1900's up to today with financial interests in the diamond trade and oil trade. With so much being taken from them, it seems like they would cling to the rituals of their tribes birth even more.

This is in no way an excuse for that behavior, I firmly believe that examining the why of dark things past and present can help us to further develop a brighter future.

[KC Destroyer of Worlds]

I think the problem is not necessarily religion but rather the culture that influences the interpretation of any religious text. Using your example of controlling women, this has more to do with the culture of the country than the religion they preach. If we take religion out of the situation, it will still persist but they will use a different "tool" to control the masses. In my opinion, religion is a tool that is used, influenced or interpreted by cultures differently around the world.

Indeed, maybe digging deeper, what practice or belief did the current religion supplant? In the middle east we look and see pretty far back Zoroastrianism, then the worship of Sol Invictus or Mithraism, then Judaica, then Christianity, then Muslim. (I could be wrong about the order, I'm at work so little chance for research I'm going off of foggy memories of college religious history courses!) Each time one of these religions is supplanted, the culture changes with it, the new religion accomodates a change in the times, and the people have to meet it in the middle. We are seeing this very slowly in Christianity. It was practically unheard of 150 years ago for a woman to be unmarried after the age of 25. She would actually have been ostracized for it. Today, as our world culture is changing, we are seeing the religions adapt, or fail. Look at the church attendance vs. adherance over the past four decades. http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/US_2000.asp

[Attila_the_Honey]

I think the problem is not necessarily religion but rather the culture that influences the interpretation of any religious text. Using your example of controlling women, this has more to do with the culture of the country than the religion they preach. If we take religion out of the situation, it will still persist but they will use a different "tool" to control the masses. In my opinion, religion is a tool that is used, influenced or interpreted by cultures differently around the world.

I think there's a great deal of accuracy in this statement. Religious texts aren't necessarily inherently sexist or racist in their writings or in their basic beliefs. What adds the sexist/racists/homophobic leaning to these texts are the people who are interpreting them and the culture they come from. Even today you can go to several different churches and get a different interpretation on the same block of text from each one. This is borne from the culture the interpreter was raised in, thereby coloring their understanding of the texts with their own psychological biases, and then reflecting apropriately to their surrounding culture - as in coloring the words in a way that will best appeal to the masses.


Indeed, maybe digging deeper, what practice or belief did the current religion supplant? In the middle east we look and see pretty far back Zoroastrianism, then the worship of Sol Invictus or Mithraism, then Judaica, then Christianity, then Muslim. (I could be wrong about the order, I'm at work so little chance for research I'm going off of foggy memories of college religious history courses!) Each time one of these religions is supplanted, the culture changes with it, the new religion accomodates a change in the times, and the people have to meet it in the middle.

There's a great deal of evidence worldwide of cultures throughout time changing and editing certain beliefs of theirs when they were conquered by a different culture. If you're being dominated by a larger power then you are going to be more apt to try and blend in as best you can.

[RLFaller]

A good example of culture influencing religion is the bible. The passage "Suffer not a witch to live." is not a literal translation. The original text was something along the lines of "Suffer not a poisoner to live." The change was made with King James printed his translation.

[David19]

Take for instance keeping Kosher. Why is it that eating shellfish is not Kosher?

Intelligent guess: Given the climate of the middle east shellfish would spoil quickly, and could cause sickness to be spread among the Jewish people of the time.

Why is eating meat and cheese at the same time not Kosher?

Intelligent guess: It caused extreme flatulence, and was banned because people tended to live very close together. (Okay maybe a not so intelligent guess, just trying to lighten the mood with this one:toofless:)

I'd say that's pretty much correct, also, one of the reasons pig aren't Kosher are 'cause, when the ancient Jews were developing as a people, they were trying to differentiate themselves from their neighbours, and their neighbours farmed pigs, so, it was a good way of saying "we're not like them, we don't keep pigs", it was more about forming an identity.

[David19]

A good example of culture influencing religion is the bible. The passage "Suffer not a witch to live." is not a literal translation. The original text was something along the lines of "Suffer not a poisoner to live." The change was made with King James printed his translation.

Also, from what I've read, the line doesn't mean "kill witches", but, it means don't make your money off of magic, or don't let those with amazing powers bleed you of your money (you can read more in 'Magic of the Ordinary Recovering the Shamanic in Judaism' by Rabbi Gershon Winkler (http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Ordinary-Recovering-Shamanic-Judaism/dp/1556434448), you can also read part of it on Google Books (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sSOoV7bB7bMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0), I intend on getting this book, it's definitely very interesting and quite cool, IMO).

[KC Destroyer of Worlds]

I'd say that's pretty much correct, also, one of the reasons pig aren't Kosher are 'cause, when the ancient Jews were developing as a people, they were trying to differentiate themselves from their neighbours, and their neighbours farmed pigs, so, it was a good way of saying "we're not like them, we don't keep pigs", it was more about forming an identity.

Indeed, I think that politics is another thing that I would like to examine regarding this thread.

[David19]

Indeed, I think that politics is another thing that I would like to examine regarding this thread.

It would probably be interesting.

[Morgaine_cla]

Greetings,

I would agree with Avalanche that culture and religion mutually influence one another, and may even be inseparable. If we define "culture" as being the art, literature (or myth and story lore), music, philosophy, cosmology, customs, beliefs, architecture and artefacts that define a particular people during a particular time, then it is almost impossible to separate the two no matter which people or period one examines. What spirituality or religion has not inspired and created its own culture (or sub-culture, as the case may be)? Societal systems and cultural expressions mirror (or arise from) spiritual cosmologies and motifs and is just as clear in native or traditional paths as it is in State religions. Yes, there may be some exceptions, but I would agree with Avalanche that culture and religion are most often one.

Interesting question! Thank you for sharing it.

[Faol-chù]

With the exception of so-called "world religions" like Christianity and the Muslim religion, historically, most cultures have not differentiated between their "culture" and their "religion". Most do not even have a separate name for the "religion" that they practice.

The historical function of (what we now call) religion in society was to UNIFY the social group spiritually, so the group could thrive in all areas of life. Inevitably, the "unification" involves shared stories and shared experiences. It also tends to chart a path for the future for the group.

Let's face it...this whole idea of "separation of church and state" is a relatively new concept...

Now...while Christianity has been recognized for a long time as a "religion", part of it's charm was that it (early on) raised people up spiritually whose cultures had been decimated by the Romans. Even in later years (and currently) it has tended to appeal to people who have been downtrodden in some fashion, and whose position in life (very often, cultural) has been 'at odds' with whomever happens to be currently in power.
The reflexes have still been there to want to tie spiritual 'tradition' to culture....at least FUTURE culture. That choice is certainly influenced by their past experience.

[KC Destroyer of Worlds]

With the exception of so-called "world religions" like Christianity and the Muslim religion, historically, most cultures have not differentiated between their "culture" and their "religion". Most do not even have a separate name for the "religion" that they practice.

The historical function of (what we now call) religion in society was to UNIFY the social group spiritually, so the group could thrive in all areas of life. Inevitably, the "unification" involves shared stories and shared experiences. It also tends to chart a path for the future for the group.

Let's face it...this whole idea of "separation of church and state" is a relatively new concept...

Now...while Christianity has been recognized for a long time as a "religion", part of it's charm was that it (early on) raised people up spiritually whose cultures had been decimated by the Romans. Even in later years (and currently) it has tended to appeal to people who have been downtrodden in some fashion, and whose position in life (very often, cultural) has been 'at odds' with whomever happens to be currently in power.
The reflexes have still been there to want to tie spiritual 'tradition' to culture....at least FUTURE culture. That choice is certainly influenced by their past experience.


This is an excellent point, one of the major influences Christianity has had on even the agnostic and atheist populations (at least here in America, not sure about other countries) is the martyrdom complex.

The idea of sacrifice is so ingrained in people that we "nice guy" our way into unhappiness. I'm not saying this is the case for all Americans. But I will say that if most of us take a good hard look, this is a behavior that is active in one or more facets of our lives.

Mind you this is only one effect of the "underlying Christian influence" ie self sacrifice. Whereas a good deal of (please correct me if I'm wrong I am not pagan please please please please please do not take offense at my ignorance) pagan/ alternative religions do not put such a heavy influence on it, or lean towards a material sacrifice.

Being that Christianity was so heavily touted, even forced on people, while other/ alternative religions were stomped on (personally I think this was more political than trying to find new converts), it's understandable the almost insidious need to see, and internalize self sacrifice and martyrdom.

[phoenixrising]

I think there's some validity to that, although I don't think it applies to Christianity. From what I've been told, the obnoxiousness that we sometimes see in American Christians isn't common at all overseas. I stand by my statement that it's a behavioral issue, not a religious one, although I do think that many churches encourage it.

Just the other day I was talking with my teachers about how BTW is different in the north and south, and how across the pond it is much friendlier beetween Trads. Religion gives us the beliefs, culture affects how we interpret them. (IMO)

[David19]

With the exception of so-called "world religions" like Christianity and the Muslim religion, historically, most cultures have not differentiated between their "culture" and their "religion". Most do not even have a separate name for the "religion" that they practice.

The historical function of (what we now call) religion in society was to UNIFY the social group spiritually, so the group could thrive in all areas of life. Inevitably, the "unification" involves shared stories and shared experiences. It also tends to chart a path for the future for the group.

Let's face it...this whole idea of "separation of church and state" is a relatively new concept...

Now...while Christianity has been recognized for a long time as a "religion", part of it's charm was that it (early on) raised people up spiritually whose cultures had been decimated by the Romans. Even in later years (and currently) it has tended to appeal to people who have been downtrodden in some fashion, and whose position in life (very often, cultural) has been 'at odds' with whomever happens to be currently in power.
The reflexes have still been there to want to tie spiritual 'tradition' to culture....at least FUTURE culture. That choice is certainly influenced by their past experience.

That's very true, a lot of ancient (and some modern) cultures had no seperation of religion, it influenced every act of life. For example, in ancient Rome (and, I believe, Greece), you had to pray to the Gods of the State, in order to be a citizen, that's one of the reasons why the Romans persecuted the Jews and early Christians so badly (and my guess is, anyone who claimed to be an Atheist, as there were ancient Atheists). The same was true in other cultures (Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc). Personally, I'm glad we live in a modern culture, where no religion dominates, and where we can have true freedom of religion ('cause bowing before Gods of States isn't true freedom of religion, now matter how anyone tries to defend it, would anyone here want to bow before Jesus, if it was suddenly made law?).

[KC Destroyer of Worlds]

Just the other day I was talking with my teachers about how BTW is different in the north and south, and how across the pond it is much friendlier beetween Trads. Religion gives us the beliefs, culture affects how we interpret them. (IMO)

The earliest cultural influences in America were literally puritanical. Politically America is somewhat fair minded. Spiritually, up until (I'm being super generous with this) 150 years ago, alternative religion was not on the map. You either went to church and upheld the Christian tenants of faith, or you were quite effectively ostracized.

The family unit was of supreme importance to pioneers in America. Settlers would band up to cross large stretches of land then take off into single our double family units to start homesteads. Part of the way Americans think is based on that.

IMO the "stranger danger" mentality, is what binds traditionalists into a destructive mentality. The "melting pot" of America is terrified of homogenizing.

[KC Destroyer of Worlds]

That's very true, a lot of ancient (and some modern) cultures had no seperation of religion, it influenced every act of life. For example, in ancient Rome (and, I believe, Greece), you had to pray to the Gods of the State, in order to be a citizen, that's one of the reasons why the Romans persecuted the Jews and early Christians so badly (and my guess is, anyone who claimed to be an Atheist, as there were ancient Atheists). The same was true in other cultures (Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc). Personally, I'm glad we live in a modern culture, where no religion dominates, and where we can have true freedom of religion ('cause bowing before Gods of States isn't true freedom of religion, now matter how anyone tries to defend it, would anyone here want to bow before Jesus, if it was suddenly made law?).

I swear I'm not spamming, I just haven't figured out how to double post!!!!

You make great points here David19. Considering the number of years humans have spent running around in circles were doing pretty good.

Looking at it from a global view, will cultural selection take over?
Will the pattern of the strongest culture surviving continue?
How will we reconcile the 3rd world with the 1st?

[Penny Dreadful]

There are so many good points in this thread!

I'm nearly finished with my B.A. in cultural anthropology and am off to a good start towards another degree in Middle Eastern studies, so the question--especially as it pertains to Islam-- is very dear to my heart.

In defining culture, my first anthropology teacher said: "Culture is everything that people think, say, and do as members of a society." So, religion is a part of culture, but different societies interpret theology ("text", although not necessarily a written text) in different ways ("context") For example, Catholicism in the Phillipines is very, very different from Catholocism in Ireland.

Islam is practiced quite differently in Iran than in Indonesia, which is not located in the Middle East and which is the country with the largest population of Muslims in the world. (Only about 20% of Muslims live in Arab countries, although remember that that figure doesn't count Turkic or Persian areas such as Iran, Turkey, or Afghanistan)

Anyway, every society interprets religion through its own cultural lens.

Another thing, which is related to the research I want to pursue, is how beliefs that may be categorizable as religious, or relating to magic, aren't necessarily recognized as such. This idea really fascinates me. For example, the rhetoric surrounding advertising women's cosmetics explicitly treats their products as magic, but many Westerners who use those products and believe wholeheartedly in their efficacy scoff at charms or spells that may occupy a similar niche in another society. My point is not magic vs science or what "works" or what doesn't, but that nobody calls their own beliefs "superstitious junk"-- they call it science, or magic, or mojo, or whatever.

I feel that religion is the same deal: just as an American woman wouldn't think of her skincare products as being magic charms, someone who is passionate about, say, football, may jokingly call it their "religion" but not mean it...but in a way, it is.

Or at least, that's MY nutjob theory.

[KC Destroyer of Worlds]

There are so many good points in this thread!

I'm nearly finished with my B.A. in cultural anthropology and am off to a good start towards another degree in Middle Eastern studies, so the question--especially as it pertains to Islam-- is very dear to my heart.

In defining culture, my first anthropology teacher said: "Culture is everything that people think, say, and do as members of a society." So, religion is a part of culture, but different societies interpret theology ("text", although not necessarily a written text) in different ways ("context") For example, Catholicism in the Phillipines is very, very different from Catholocism in Ireland.

Islam is practiced quite differently in Iran than in Indonesia, which is not located in the Middle East and which is the country with the largest population of Muslims in the world. (Only about 20% of Muslims live in Arab countries, although remember that that figure doesn't count Turkic or Persian areas such as Iran, Turkey, or Afghanistan)

Anyway, every society interprets religion through its own cultural lens.

Another thing, which is related to the research I want to pursue, is how beliefs that may be categorizable as religious, or relating to magic, aren't necessarily recognized as such. This idea really fascinates me. For example, the rhetoric surrounding advertising women's cosmetics explicitly treats their products as magic, but many Westerners who use those products and believe wholeheartedly in their efficacy scoff at charms or spells that may occupy a similar niche in another society. My point is not magic vs science or what "works" or what doesn't, but that nobody calls their own beliefs "superstitious junk"-- they call it science, or magic, or mojo, or whatever.

I feel that religion is the same deal: just as an American woman wouldn't think of her skincare products as being magic charms, someone who is passionate about, say, football, may jokingly call it their "religion" but not mean it...but in a way, it is.

Or at least, that's MY nutjob theory.

Penny Dreadful you are a person after my own heart!!!

You make excellent points, I am very interested in the "context" of religious interpretation in culture.

[David19]

I swear I'm not spamming, I just haven't figured out how to double post!!!!

It's quite easy, if you want to multiquote some messages, just click on the sign that has a + in it (around the right hand side of the post, near the quote button), you'll see it turn red, and a - will appear on it, then just do the same with all the other messages you want to respond too, and just click the quote button, like you'd normally do. Hope that helped explain it :).


You make great points here David19. Considering the number of years humans have spent running around in circles were doing pretty good.

Looking at it from a global view, will cultural selection take over?
Will the pattern of the strongest culture surviving continue?
How will we reconcile the 3rd world with the 1st?

I'm not sure, I'm guessing the really weaker cultures and languages will die off (some languages are in danger of being forgotten today), but, I think in this global world, we will have more of a diverse world, maybe with one culture/language being the dominant one (like an international language), but, with more cultures coming to the spotlight and sharing information. Although we may see more cultures changing as they add influences from other cultures. That's just my own opinion, though.

[KC Destroyer of Worlds]

It's quite easy, if you want to multiquote some messages, just click on the sign that has a + in it (around the right hand side of the post, near the quote button), you'll see it turn red, and a - will appear on it, then just do the same with all the other messages you want to respond too, and just click the quote button, like you'd normally do. Hope that helped explain it :).



I'm not sure, I'm guessing the really weaker cultures and languages will die off (some languages are in danger of being forgotten today), but, I think in this global world, we will have more of a diverse world, maybe with one culture/language being the dominant one (like an international language), but, with more cultures coming to the spotlight and sharing information. Although we may see more cultures changing as they add influences from other cultures. That's just my own opinion, though.

Why thank you David19 you are a dear.