There’s a priceless CSPAN BookTV clip of Prothero answering questions after a talk at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, during which he firmly but politely informs the theologically-illiterate, insufferably-smug liberal-Episcopalian head of the place, that, no, in fact, all religious really aren’t the same — which the head of the place should have known, since his lot never tire of telling all the rest of us how Christian orthodoxy is “fundamentalist” and therefore inferior to every other kind of religion, especially their own.

I think that all religions have commonalities in two areas: one, in that the ethical codes of most religions are pretty much the same or very much similar (C. S. Lewis has a whole appendix on this in The Abolition of Man, and interestingly, in light of recent discussion here, calls that universal source of morality the Tao). Two, I think it would be fair to say that all religions are in some sense in search of the transcendent.
Of course, this would be something like saying that all vertebrates are made of cells and breathe. True, but that still doesn’t make a salmon very much like a zebra!
As to how religions can acknowledge the sometimes profound differences among themselves without becoming violent foes, I come back to a favorite quotation from the Koran (or Qur’an, if you want to be more precise) that I’ve quoted often here: “Had God pleased, He could have made of you one nation: but it is His wish to prove you by that which He has bestowed upon you. Vie with each other in good works, for to God you shall all return and He will resolve for you your differences.” (Sura 5:48-49). Would that not only radical Islamists but all of us could take such advice to heart.

I think that all religions have commonalities in two areas: one, in that the ethical codes of most religions are pretty much the same or very much similar
counter-example: Christianity and Voudon…
captcha: wahhabi two
make of that what you will

I heard Prothero speak about this on a radio call in show the other day. (Can’t remember which one — it was on NPR.) They also had on a theologian that was supposed to represent the “God is universal” argument. My impression was that they pretty much agreed on everything except perhaps the existence of God. (I’m not sure Prothero is a believer. He is certainly not a mystic, by his own admission. He dodged the question of ultimate belief.)
Really the guests were talking past each other. They were not addressing the same question. The theologian and many of the callers who believe in one God, were talking about spiritual reality — what is the reality that underlies all the various ways we conceive and worship and talk about God? The theologian conceded that the differences are real and significant, but believed in an ultimate Truth about God that no religion fully comprehends. (The blind men and the elephant theory, if you will.) Prothero, on the other hand, was pretty much only talking about the functional, practical reality of how to deal with people of different religions here on Earth. He was not addressing ulitmate Truth, or even whether such a thing exists. Both guests agreed that creating a false “sameness” and ignoring real differences was not helpful.
The callers who agreed with Prothero from a religious perspective tended to be of the “My religion has it right, yours has it wrong” variety. (Some callers agreed with Prothero from a secular perspective, i.e. “All religions are creations of man and they each represent a distinct world view.” I think this may be more or less Prothero’s view.)
So in a discussion like this, I think it helps to define what question you are asking. Are you asking how we deal with each other and our differences in day to day life, or are you asking what is God/Ulitmate Truth and who, if anyone, has the best handle on it? Those are two different questions which, while both important, take us in different directions for an answer.

I too rather like Prothero’s approach that all religions ask what is wrong with the world and how to put it right. The point is that they ask different questions rather than just give different answers.
Some of the points in the article are debatable. For example, Prothero says that Confucians and Buddhists do not believe in sin. However, they do believe in right and wrong, so, unless “sin” is given a definition specifically in terms of Christian salvation, making a tautological argument, Buddhists and Confucians do believe in sin. Buddhists and Muslims also believe in sslvation, in a sense, although they do not use that term.
Also, Prothero illustrates the irreducible differences between religions with the example of Confucianism and Daoism. However, that undermines his case, because most Chinese people have accepted both teachings, and found to combine or balance them.
I’m also not sure I agree with Turmarion that most religions have similar moral teachings, except on the level of things that virtually all secularists also agree with, such as that murder (at least of members of one’s in-group) is wrong – but that is just because society would immediately disintegrate were such a rule to be relaxed.

naturalmom, I heard that program as well and it was NPR’s On Point. Here’s the link:
http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/04/is-there-an-interfaith-god
You can download On Point’s podcasts to hear back episodes.
In college I took a comparative religion class. In analyzing religions they always start with the “something is not right in the world” and then ask “what does this religion think is the solution”
I left the class with the impression that while not all religions were the same, they served the same needs, and represented humans anthropomorphizing the larger universe. I also found that class depressing because it was when I finally admitted to myself I didn’t and couldn’t believe any of it.

Thanks for linking to this, Rod. I especially like this:
“In Confucianism, the rules and rituals of ancient Chinese civilization foster the religious goal of social harmony. But according to Daoists, these very rules and rituals cause the human problem of lifelessness.” Civilization is a vampire, Daoists claim, sucking the life out of us, depleting our qi (vital energy), and taking us to an early grave.”
That immediately made me think of Freud: “Neurosis is the price we pay for human civilization.” And also of Jesus, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” And I think it highlights that, while religions are not the same, they often offer complementary solutions to human problems, solutions that are really quite ingenious and deep. One (Confucianism) is wrestling with what the rules should be to achieve an ideal society, while the other, Daoism, is critiquing those rules for what they do to actual human beings.
Fascinating stuff.

Obviously the different religions cannot all be right, there are too many points of variance. My personal hope is that they all do have one thing in common, in that they are all wrong.

MH:
“I left the class with the impression that while not all religions were the same, they served the same needs, and represented humans anthropomorphizing the larger universe. I also found that class depressing because it was when I finally admitted to myself I didn’t and couldn’t believe any of it.”
While I sympathize with this somewhat, I can’t help but be reminded of that other university undergraduate cliche; that is, the Nietzschean second year philosophy major.  
Learning about religion from a comparative religions class is like learning about being a father from a Family Guy episode.  You’d be better off just spending the night at a Holiday Inn Express and waiting to see what happens.        

While my religious beliefs may be right for me, they are taken on faith and cannot be proven to be correct, so how can I dare to question the validity of someone else’s beliefs? Let’s concentrate on respecting each others’ rights to believe or not believe, live our lives accordingly, and stop using religion to polarize people.
I think we may all be surprised when we pass over to the next life.

I actually have precisely this difficulty with the concept so often bandied about of “Judeo-Christianity” – I tend to think that the blurring that this concept does is both destructive and positive – positive in that American Christians and the dominant culture have come to mostly give up the idea that Jews are fundamentally alien and started assuming that Jews basically believe all the same things they do, minus a slight disagreement about Jesus, and this has led to a great deal less anti-semitism and a great deal of support for American Jews. But it does it at the cost of a mythos emerging that there are fundamentally common worldviews, at the cost of some alliances I think may end up not working in the long run, and most of all, the potential for a worrisome backlash when and if that falsely established common ground falters.
That said, however, I wouldn’t go back to the bad old days for Jews if you paid me. So it makes me wonder whether the lie that we have more in common or not is, in fact, the necessary price of religious toleration. I don’t disagree with the argument, I just wonder – can we fully articulate and understand our differences and allow other faiths full civil rights, and not kill each other? Just a question.
Sharon

Yeah, well, the next time Pagans have an open, public ritual that features local Christians using bull horns and “you’re going to Hell!” to disrupt us, we’ll remember that it is all about understanding before tolerance and respect.
Perhaps the missing element is the willful ignorance practiced by the One Way crowd. Their ears are as closed as their minds. They don’t care to know anything beyond God made them the true believers, and all others are worshipping Satan.

Of course, Prothero makes good points but, as naturalmom says, these two perspectives are really talking past each other. Everything Prothero says can be true and also from a mystical (if you will excuse me) point of view, there is truth to the idea that all religions are the same. All religions are different and all religions are the same. Is it really that hard to hold both of these ideas at once?

To say fundamentalism or any unpleasant “religious” belief is “wrong” implies some concept of religious exclusivism, or else a belief in atheism, “irony” or some ethos like that. We have to debate religion like every other Idea, to help society make good, safe choices. If there were a God, then that would make it even more urgent to debate…
…
Tumarion mentioned that all religions have a similar basic ethos; I know Razib Khan had a post relating that to the psychology of morality, but also mentioning that culture-specific taboos and thought patterns could effect the character of a religion (inclusive vs exclusive relig’s, Western vs Eastern, etc)

Sorry Rod, but IMHO, what you “like” isn’t really of any consequence. What matters, what’s relevant, is what you “recognize” (your cognitive agency) as coherent — are you claiming there is anything coherent in the author’s POV to a common “something” and thereby abandoning the certain logic of your Christian faith in a sovereign “someone”? Pulleeze! What’s wrong with the world? I am! [Tip-of-the-hat to G.K.Chesterton] That humility is what’s at the heart of “religion” proper.
If Episcopalian Prothero is at a loss for what “we” need, he should dip into the pages of Anglican convert Christopher Dawson who put to pen half-a-century ago here to chart the — for a professed ‘confused Christian’ murky — waters “Wherever and whenever man has a sense of dependence on external powers which are conceived as mysterious and higher than man’s own, there is religion, and the feelings of awe and self-abasement with which man is filled in the presence of such powers is essentially a religious emotion, the root of worship and prayer”, my emphasis, re: subjugal relationship (aka “under God” in our nation’s founding documents) to draw readers attention to the sovereign good claims of Christianity’s superlative merciful redemption in a conjugal relationship of “union with God.” This isn’t triumphalism. Its common sense, to be shared as the “good news.”
The Stages of World Religion -
part 1 Stage I. Primitive Religion — Stage II. Neolithic Religion — Stage III. Religion of the Archaic Culture at [_catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0097.html_]
part 2 Stage IV. Development of the Higher Religions at [_catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0098.html_]
part 3 Stage V. Divided Course of Development in East and West (Continued) at [_catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0099.html_]
part 4 Stage VI. The Break-up of the Catholic Synthesis [_catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0107.html_]
Now, when we’re all up to speed let the discussion begin! Otherwise this thread isn’t anything more than an attempt to mimic a kindergartener’s moralistic therapeutic deism rules for conduct in sandboxes… human life’s horizons reach a little higher than the toddler crawling stage, no? As I mentioned on MarkShea’s blog yesterday, the teen arrested-development phase of American culture isn’t pretty:
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/04/quiz.html
which is why we’re sending our young men and women off to die for this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1269463/Afghanistan-PowerPoint-slide-Generals-left-baffled-PowerPoint-slide.html

So it makes me wonder whether the lie that we have more in common or not is, in fact, the necessary price of religious toleration. I don’t disagree with the argument, I just wonder – can we fully articulate and understand our differences and allow other faiths full civil rights, and not kill each other?
Sure – as long as there is a credible secular force that punishes murderers without respect to religious beliefs or membership.

All religions serve the same purpose, motivated out of the same need.
I attended the local appearance of Krista Tippet, creator and host of public radio’s “Speaking of Faith” and author of the recently released book “Einstein’s God”, and the entire enjoyable evening found its zenith in a simple statement: Different religions (insert cultures) ask different questions. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that the answers are not reusable across different religions?
Secular law is the codification of the common ground. It’s not that every tradition abhors murder, it’s that the secular government has elevated that to a definitional point for a pluralistic society. It doesn’t matter that there are variations of what constitutes murder amongst different religions, it’s that the secular law defines it for that society, and religious believers must either conform/comply with it, or be deemed criminals.
With due respect to Clare for attempting to give some (badly-needed) structure here, the comparison point is not amongst the differing religions, but withing the society in which they co-exist. Therefore, if a Christian (yes, I’m focusing on them, I live in the US, okay?) declares that my beliefs are against his, and elevates that declaration to a de facto force of law, then the response is what secular law states, not what my beliefs state.
This is the straw man behind all of the slippery-slope arguments. This is the motivation for if it’s legal my children will be forced to do it. It is the projection of the arrogant Christian view of what the law should be onto others, bypassing what the secular law actually is and not caring that when I take an action that is considered sinful, what matters is two things: I am not a Christian, and I have not violated a secular law. No one asks Christians to approve of, let alone like, what I do. The law requires that you do nothing beyond your secular right to speak about it.
That’s my definition of tolerance. I don’t really care to listen to the rebuttals that are made of the same straw as that straw man.

Charles Cosimano
April 29, 2010 10:41 AM
Obviously the different religions cannot all be right, there are too many points of variance. My personal hope is that they all do have one thing in common, in that they are all wrong.
*****
Yeah, if I were you I would hope that too.
Also, presumably Anton LeVay and Franklin Graham basically are not doing the same thing.

Also, presumably Anton LeVay and Franklin Graham basically are not doing the same thing.
Anton LaVey isn’t doing much of anything these days, being dead and all..

I had never heard about Anton LeVay, he looks like Max Von Sydow’s Ming the Merciless.
Well if the Hindus or Buddhists are correct LeVay and Graham are still stuck in the cycle of rebirths.

John E., I don’t think Voudun coutenances murder, theft, adultery, lying, random violence, etc.; or if you evidence otherwise, I’d like to see it. Different from Christianity, yes; morally far removed, no.
Rombald: I’m also not sure I agree with Turmarion that most religions have similar moral teachings, except on the level of things that virtually all secularists also agree with, such as that murder (at least of members of one’s in-group) is wrong
Well, that’s what I meant–members of pretty much all religions, and secular philosophies and unaffiliated secularists as well, all agree that murder, theft, untruth, and so on are not good things, although of course the applications vary (e.g. it might be OK to steal from the Clan of the Coyotes, since they’re obviously no-goodniks, unlike we of the Clan of the Wolves). No true “counter ethics” exists, else as you point out, society would disintegrate. That was my point–the ethical similarity is a trivial similarity.
Now CAPTCHA may actually come from a counter-ethical universe, come to think of it….

I’m reminded of what Mary Daly said when questioned about multiculturalism: “There is only one culture: patriarchy.” That’s one thing religions have in common across the board. Dianic Wicca and some aspects of neo-paganism are non-patriarchal–and they are held in contempt by all others for even daring to suggest the possibility of a feminine divine.
To generalize a bit from that, all religions are all about power–who gets it, how it is apportioned, and how its use is controlled. Jesus as reported in the Gospels suggested that the proper use of power was in service to others, but that soon went overboard, as it turned out that the Servant of the Servants of God really needed to live in a palace and collect tribute–for the good of the faithful, of course. Buddha practiced renunciation, though you’d never know it from the history of kings and warlords who claimed to be his followers. Naturally, adherents of each religion believe the supreme power should be theirs, and they all have slightly different rationales for their own superiority. That’s the major difference I can see.

Jan Hus, well there’s learning about religion while growing up. But then there’s asking yourself if you believe it. It’s possible to dodge that question for the sake of expediency. That class was what forced me to stop dodging that question.
re captcha: good dunked

Tumarion, from the ever-popular Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voudon
Contrary to its reputation, Vodun did not develop to be used for evil. However, there is a dark side to Vodun practice. Sorcerers and sorceresses called Botono (also known as Aze/Azetos) are believed to cast hexes on the enemies of supplicants. The Botono claim to call upon evil Voodoo spirits to bring misfortune or harm to a single person or a group.
I’m reminded of what Mary Daly said when questioned about multiculturalism: “There is only one culture: patriarchy.” That’s one thing religions have in common across the board. Dianic Wicca and some aspects of neo-paganism are non-patriarchal–and they are held in contempt by all others for even daring to suggest the possibility of a feminine divine.
sigaliris, I think you are a wonderful person and you and yours are welcome to join me and mine in our armed compound anytime, but sometimes I wonder if you aren’t pulling our legs here sometimes…

Sharon Astyk, @ 11:12 AM, writes:
” I don’t disagree with the argument, I just wonder – can we fully articulate and understand our differences and allow other faiths full civil rights, and not kill each other?”
Remember, Sharon, that you’re talking about Human beings. This particular species happens to be really, really good at killing—and, furthermore, will indulge that talent at virtually each and every available opportunity, for the most specious of reasons. In addition, when they do kill, they do it with relish, skill, imagination and style. It’s the one thing they really do well.
So, dear lady, the answer to your question is: “You’re kidding, right ? Of COURSE not !”
Your servant,
Lord Karth

“Dianic Wicca and some aspects of neo-paganism are non-patriarchal–and they are held in contempt by all others for even daring to suggest the possibility of a feminine divine.”
Actually sig, after years of familiarity with the Neo-Pagan community, I can assure you that Dianics and similar “Goddess Spirituality” types are quite mainstream and celebrated — if they are held in contempt by anyone, it’s mostly for their spiteful misandry, promulgation of pseudohistorical nonsense, and utter humorlessness.
As to the fact that religious doctrines wind up enmeshed in power dynamics — why, yes, they do. So does EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF HUMAN CULTURE. Hierarchies and social power structures are part of our basic inheritance from our primate ancestors. Part of what it means to be human is to have a place withing these structures.
“Naturally, adherents of each religion believe the supreme power should be theirs, and they all have slightly different rationales for their own superiority. That’s the major difference I can see.”
Perhaps, but again, this is true for every idealogy, philosophy, and worldview ever conceived. It’s also inescapable — some ideas are superior to others, by virtue of being true where other ideas are false. Decisions and judgments are better made from the basis of true ideas than false ones, therefore the people with the power to make decisions and judgments should be those who hold true beliefs as opposed to false ones. Each of us participates in this struggle at every level of social arrangement — from the individual and the family all the way up to our species as a whole.

Sig, forgot to mention earlier – if you do come down, bring a jumpsuit…
Captcha: jaunty guest

Allen, I cede to you superior knowledge of the Neo-Pagan community (and thanks for correcting my failure to capitalize). But I don’t think you’re disproving my comment. You say “IF they are held in contempt,” but then state as a fact that Goddess Spirituality “types” are, without exception, full of “misandry, promulgation of pseudohistorical nonsense, and utter humorlessness.” I’d say there’s no question that YOU hold them in contempt, since that is your description. So, thanks for serving as an excellent example of my point.
You then inform me that every aspect of human culture is about power dynamics, and that this is an inevitable genetic inheritance. Well, duh–those are two of patriarchy’s most basic tenets. So, you may be showing that you think patriarchy is a good thing, but you’re certainly not giving evidence that it isn’t the ruling paradigm, and one that you embrace.
I would agree with you that “decisions and judgments are better made from the basis of true ideas than false ones.” However, that’s rather different from asserting that members of one’s own group are, by definition, always right, and therefore should always hold power by whatever means necessary. If some ideas really are better than others, shouldn’t that become apparent from observation? And yet, religious hierarchies cling, sometimes violently, to outmoded or discredited ideas simply because those ideas are the basis of their power, and not necessarily because they are “better” in any real sense. This is especially irrelevant to the discussion because most religious ideas are not testable as “true.” What is the point of shedding blood over the Trinity as opposed to the idea of one God in one Person, or a variety of Gods? In what sense can an all-masculine Trinity ever be proved to be “true” or “better” than any other concept of a divine being? Your final paragraph does not really follow from the others.

John E., thanks for the invitation. I think my humor comes across better in person . . . I’m seldom pulling legs, but I do like to advance a poisoned pawn or two. It’s so much fun to watch people fall for it and begin gibbering apoplectically. ; )
Ah, memories! I used to own a sleeveless jumpsuit that prompted my mother-in-law to ask me repeatedly if I was not “cold,” and if I didn’t “need a sweater.” I guess what she meant by that was that there was too much skin for Grand Rapids. I’m sure she was thinking only of the climate. Alas, that was when I was young and more conformed to patriarchal stereotypes of femininity. At present, I would modestly demur from trying to live up to the jumpsuit already in residence at the John E. compound!

Sig: “To generalize a bit from that, all religions are all about power–who gets it, how it is apportioned, and how its use is controlled. …. Naturally, adherents of each religion believe the supreme power should be theirs, and they all have slightly different rationales for their own superiority. That’s the major difference I can see.”
As opposed, of course, to secular institutions and ideologies?

Of course all religions are not the same, but they do have one thing in common: they all make a lousy basis for government…

Speaking of inter-religion dialog and comparison, it occurs to me that I have been remiss not to mention and recommend a new book by my friend Teri that is a really interesting take on the subject, called The Bishop and the Seeker (http://bishopandseeker.com/). Basically, an inter-faith dialog between a fundamentalist preacher and a “New Ager.” Lots of stuff out there on inter-faith dialog, but I can honestly say that this is a really unique take on the subject, not to mention a very fun read. It would be great of readers of this blog can check it our and I would just love it if you would read it Rod.

Lord Karth, I’m being perhaps a bit rhetorical in my statement, but I think we can definitely say that some approaches to religious difference are better at not getting at least some members of some religions killed than others. That is, I think the distinctions matter, at least to me as one of the potential victims. It isn’t that hard, I think, to make a credible case that societies as a whole benefit from intellectual approaches to other faiths that minimize the kind of othering and hostilities that lead to religious conflict, whether low grade or high.
No, we’re not all going to stop killing each other over religion, but there is a difference say, between the occasional murder and the systematic genocide that matters a whole lot.
Sharon

Sig
– Your initial post asserted that Dianics (I added the Goddess Spirituality folks in because not all of them identify as Dianic Wiccans, but they are closely related) were held in contempt specifically for believing in a Divine Feminine. I was attempting to point out that this is incorrect. Almost all Neo-Pagans would agree that the Divine contains and sometimes manifests in Feminine form. Some would even posit that the ultimate nature of the Divine is feminine. The bad reputation (“contempt” is a word you introduced, not me) Dianic and GS folk sometimes have isn’t about believing in the Divine Feminine. It’s about the things I listed — misandry, false history, and humorlessness. These are generalizations, certainly, but the fact within the community is that these sectors have generated some ill will against themselves, but not so much that they could reasonably be described as “held in contempt”.
– You’re writing off key insights of anthropology and primate evolutionary biology about the nature of human social interaction and group structure as “two of patriarchy’s most basic tenets” without even stopping to ask if these ideas are true, or put forth counter-arguments. On what bsais am I or anyone else to have a discussion with you if you’re just going to lash out when disagreed with?
– That an idea is untestable doesn’t change the fact that the people who hold it to be true will remain motivated to act based upon it, even if it leads to tragic absurdities such as “shedding blood over the Trinity as opposed to the idea of one God in one Person, or a variety of Gods”. I didn’t say this was preferable, only that it is reality, and therefore should be grappled with as such.
–”And yet, religious hierarchies cling, sometimes violently, to outmoded or discredited ideas simply because those ideas are the basis of their power, and not necessarily because they are “better” in any real sense.” — You’re imputing motives that are convenient for you to believe to people you don’t like in order to discredit them without dealing with the arguments they’re actually putting forward. How wonderfully oppressive of you.

Rombald: As opposed, of course, to secular institutions and ideologies?
Hahaha, yeah, because I totally give a free pass to secular institutions and ideologies, as evidenced by how uncritical of them I’ve always been on this blog. Not! Secular institutions do have the advantage of being somewhat easier to dislodge from people’s hearts and minds, not to mention elective offices, when they become counter-productive. On the other hand, not all religions are the same, because some of them have guns at their disposal. Strange how God seems to favor Truth of a higher caliber.

Q: How many Dianic Wiccans does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Just one, and it’s NOT FUNNY!!!

Prothero, no doubt channeling Wittgenstein, writes:
“A sports analogy may be in order here. Which of the following — baseball, basketball, tennis, or golf — is best at scoring runs? The answer of course is baseball, because runs is a term foreign to basketball, tennis, and golf alike. Different sports have different goals: Basketball players shoot baskets; tennis players win points; golfers sink putts. To criticize a basketball team for failing to score runs is not to besmirch them. It is simply to misunderstand the game of basketball.”
True, true. But there remain many valid questions we may ask about these sports as a group.
Which have greater health benefits for the participants?
Which have greater entertainment value for spectators?
Which are the oldest? The most recent?
And guess what, there are common factors we can have meaningful discussions about. All four are based on the idea that there there are winners and losers. All four involve propelling a round object through space. All four have social, economic and sometimes even political implications (look up “footbal war” on Wikipedia – OK, I added a fifth sport there).
And to return to the analogy, we can ask perfectly valid and meaningful questions and make assertions about the religions as a group. In fact, this is what Prothero does for a living: http://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/bios/prothero.html
He is correct when he points out that confusion sets in when we take a term from one religion, like “salvation”, and bluntly apply it to another one. Buddhists are not interested in salvation *as Christians understand and use the term*. Conversely, to followers of the Abrahamic traditions, the Buddhist nirvana comes across as a rather complicated way of committing suicide.
But Christians do not have a copyright or registered trademark on the English word “salvation”. Heck, they stole it from the Romans to start with. Language is a fluid, developing entity, and as long as you are careful to define your terms, you can make sense somehow. Or if not, someone is sure to ask “what do you mean by ‘salvation’?” A lot of interreligious dialogue consists of just this kind of hairsplitting.
Languages also have a history, and while they are always changing, they also have a conservative streak. Case in point: a number of religions have the institution of men withdrawing from the world and dedicating themselves to fulltime religious practice. In English, we use the word “monk” to describe such a man. Why, well, because English has a specific history and has been entangled with Christianity during that history. There are major differences between a Catholic monk and a Buddhist bhikkhu. But rather than add “bhikkhu” to the English vocabulary we stretch the meaning of “monk” to include the (to us) new phenomenon, with an optional adjective to show what is happening: “a Buddhist monk”. It’s a maddeningly imprecise process, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
So if we say that both Christianity and Buddhist have an interest in salvation, we are NOT saying that Buddhists are interested in salvation *as Christians understand and use the term*. We are using the new, stretched meaning of the word. It is perfectly possible to argue that in this case, the term has been stretched too far. But you are not asking the equivalent of “which sport is best at scoring runs?” (the answer, by the way, is cricket). You are asking something like “Do both these sports have a scoring system of some kind?”

Q: How many Professors of Religion does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A:Call Campus Maintenance and don’t bother me with trivialities.

Allen, rather than take issue blow-by-blow with the several ways I think you’re misinterpreting what I said, I’ll be content for now with just one question. You seem to be saying that all of human culture is motivated by power dynamics. That includes religious organizations–correct? And then you call me “oppressive” because I conclude that religious leaders are motivated by power dynamics, rather than altruistic benevolence and philosophical interest in truth. This does not seem logical. Either you can argue that the struggle for dominance is a universal feature of human culture, OR you can argue that religious leaders are an exception to this fact, and therefore are NOT motivated by power dynamics. I don’t think you can believe both of these things at the same time. So, which cause do you want to argue?

Watching a Dianic Wiccan trying to screw in a lightbulb can be hilarious if she falls off her broomstick in the process.
There was a book, compiled I believe in the 1930s but I am probably wrong about the date, called, “The Essential Unity of All Relgions.” It is unreadable, being a collection of disconnected scriptures pulled out of all their respective contexts and stuck side by side in a truly bizarre format.
And that is the only way such a case can be made.

Gee, in 1943 C.S. Lewis wrote a very readable book, /The Abolition of Man/, in which he did something similar: “While he’s at it, Lewis refutes the postmodern, and generally unexamined, truism that the historic moral principles of Western Civilization are fundamentally different from other cultures’ norms, and thus are arbitrary and nonbinding. In a lengthy appendix, Lewis shows that the great moral principles are timeless and have been generally accepted by all civilized societies, at all times (until ours).” (http://cslewis.drzeus.net/bookstore/) So maybe there’s more than one way such a case can be made.

John E., I’m actually aware of Botono; but is it any more fair to paint it as characteristic or or normative for Voudun that it would be to conflate Christianity as a whole with abortion-clinic shooters or crusaders, or all Muslims with Al-Qaeda?
Funny to be defending Voodoo! Maybe I need to mix up some pufferfish powder and start making zombies….
clasqm, excellent posts.

All religions are different and all religions are the same. Is it really that hard to hold both of these ideas at once?
The mystics have the metaphor of climbing a mountain which has a thousand different trails leading up from its base. They slowly get narrower and less trodden and less distinct the higher the climber gets. Near the peak all merge together. The people hankering righteously about which particular trail(s) to take and why tend not to be far up the mountain.

John E., I’m actually aware of Botono; but is it any more fair to paint it as characteristic or or normative for Voudun that it would be to conflate Christianity as a whole with abortion-clinic shooters or crusaders, or all Muslims with Al-Qaeda?
Beats the heck out of me – I honestly don’t know.

I’m afraid we’ve already veered wildly offtopic, so this will be the last I have to say on the matter.
You’re setting up a false dichotomy. Religious people are of course engaged in the power dynamics of society. As I’ve said, those dynamics are inescapable. What I’m challenging is your implication that all people who are engaged in power struggles are seeking power for power’s sake, as opposed to the motives they themselves are putting forth. Some times, I would go so far as to say a majority of the time, a group of people (whether motivated by religion, economic theory, scientific expertise, or even presumed genetic superiority) seek power because they really and truly believe it’s best for society that they hold it.
Yes, religious people are engaged in a struggle for power within society. But that doesn’t mean that they aren’t seeking that power for what they honestly believe are good reasons. That doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t oppose them vigorously, we should always do so respectfully and in good faith. Assuming people you dislike are simply power-hungry and wicked isn’t good faith. Telling people you know what their motives really are but they won’t admit them doesn’t move the discussion forward, it just makes you look closed-minded.

Sorry, the above comment was intended to address sigaliris.
captcha: firm praising hehehe

Great Mother of us all! Teh ignorance, it burnzz..! Charles, Dianic Wiccans don’t use brooms… to fly. And they don’t need light bulbs…
Allen, as a member of the modern Pagan community for about 35 years at this point, I respectfully ask you to clarify your familiarity. Is it from study, from having Pagan friends, or from erstwhile membership in some group? My direct acquaintance with current and former Dianics confirms your criticism of some of them (there being little success in imposing their dogma on women who don’t already agree with them), but generalizing the criticism to “Goddess Spirituality” is disingenuous at best. My personal, anecdotal experience is that misandry is about as prevalent in GS groups as it is in the general population.

Franklin — my familiarity is that I was a young, practicing Neo-Pagan in Eastern and Central NC for about 10 years, during which time I was reading and participating in Pagan online forums and sites like Witchvox, participating in local groups, as well as studying pretty much everything I could get my hands on. I’m certainly willing to accept correction, however, if I’m extending the label of Goddess Spirituality incorrectly, but I have in mind folk like Starhawk and her Reclaiming movement. They may not hate men, but they certainly infantilize them in my view. Incidentally, I often find the men involved in these groups much more tiresome than the womenfolk.
captcha: think toucans

Allen: sorry you won’t reply any more, but i must point out that sig is speaking of “religious hierarchies”, not “religious people”. Many students of people and hierarchies are well aware of Acton’s principle that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, and of course Michel’s Iron Law of Oligarchy. Wise people don’t, because of that toxicity, seek power. But most members of hierarchies do. As often do those who are in thrall to them.

Your Name at April 29, 2010 8:12 PM (likely Turmarion)
Will those be philosophical or brain hungry zombies?
Re: Dianic Wicca, never heard of it before today. Now I can not believe that as well.

Allen: your views, as restated above, are somewhat clearer to me. But I still find your approach very puzzling. You believe that we should always debate each other respectfully, and presuming good faith? I haven’t experienced the language you’ve used to me as respectful. Nor have you spoken respectfully of the groups you dislike in the Pagan community. You want me to assume good faith on the part of religious leaders who promote genital mutilation of women, honor killing, forced birth for raped girl children, etc. etc. I guess I’m supposed to assume that they aren’t doing any of these things to dominate and control women, but rather because they are sincerely convinced it is better for all of society if women are deprived of personal agency. No matter how much they harm me and my kind, I’m not allowed to think them wicked, because that would be “oppressive” of me. Yet you can diss Pagans who practice woman-centered spirituality. It’s not even because they have wrong ideas, apparently–it’s just because you think they are all terrible people . . . and “tiresome.” Yeah, there’s respect and good faith for ya. Such a lop-sided demand for respect will never fly–with or without broomstick.

Allen, thanks for offering an answer to what I hesitated to ask. Demanding “credentials” is a prying activity difficult to make appropriate in even the most civil contexts.
My general caution to anyone attempting to form opinions (let alone conclusions) about modern Paganisms in general and specific traditions in particular is that more than any other religious organization they are dependent on individual personalities. If a group of women are forming a support group out of a shared reaction to traumatic experiences, the group personality is going to be very focused, and not appropriately extended to members who join later. Time periods are critical in this regard, let alone forming quick impressions that are problematic if one is not at least aware of the history of the group in question.
As for offering correction… I tend to have at least personal sympathy for Sigaliris’ views, even while disagreeing with them in whole or in part. Her experience is personal, but long acquaintance has shown me that she is aware of her biases and will either go with them or hold them in check as she deems appropriate in any given context. I would offer the same benefit of doubt to you, but it comes with time and better acquaintance with you. No doubt you would want the same in viewing my stated opinions.
Be that as it may, my experience of individual Pagans and Pagan groups taught me to try very hard to distinguish between what the people believe (and how it drives their behaviors) and the beliefs themselves as abstracts. Other aspects of my life experience informs that, chief amongst them raising children (my eldest is 27). I’ll leave it at that, especially since I’m not intending to be patronizing with it.

What about Bokononism?

Well, Allen has bowed out, but perhaps he’ll be flattered to see that I keep responding to him in absentia. I just wanted to point out that I don’t have any particular animosity toward him or his views, and in fact find them quite interesting because there are too few Pagans to leaven the mix around here. Which is why I’m puzzled that he would take such exception to my opinions that he’d need to shout at me in capital letters, accuse me of “lashing out” and wanting to “oppress” people. I’m a movement of one, as far as I can see, so his chances of being repressed by me are pretty small!
My original statement, obvious to me, though apparently provocative to some, was that one clear similarity in most world religions is their placing of male concerns at the center, their rule by male hierarchies and emphasis on male-oriented imagery and language, male lineage and the type of dominance behavior that has traditionally been of interest to men. And their worship of and identification with male Gods. Or, to summarize all that in a word, they’re patriarchal.
There are several reactions that I expected I might provoke. The two most typical are:
1. “Oh, that’s simply not true. These religions only look patriarchal. Actually they are very beneficial to women and very concerned about women, and there is complete equality if it’s looked at in the correct manner. Er, well, at any rate, MY patriarchal religion is actually a religion of respect and equality.”
2. “Yes, indeed religion is patriarchal, and that’s how it should be, world without end. Religion that treated women equally would be lousy, inferior religion so we won’t have any of that, no thank you.”
Allen’s reaction was a novelty to me, which is interesting, but it was confusing, as it seemed self-contradictory on several counts. Perhaps he thought he was defending Pagans? But it’s still unclear to me why he felt I was attacking them, or which him. I guess I’ll never know, since I must now drive to Pittsburgh and leave the discussion myself. Oh well . . . I’m sure we’ll meet again.
(captcha says, “unionized iron,” so I guess they knew I was traveling in the Rust Belt!)

John E – Agn Stoic
April 29, 2010 1:43 PM
Also, presumably Anton LeVay and Franklin Graham basically are not doing the same thing.
Anton LaVey isn’t doing much of anything these days, being dead and all..
****
LaVay is dead? Didn’t know that. Well, they’re still not doing the same thing.
captcha = our flukey

captcha says, “unionized iron,” so I guess they knew I was traveling in the Rust Belt!
Unless they’re my chemistry students, who’d better be thinking in terms of “un-ionized” iron, as opposed to iron(II) or iron(III). I think it was Asimov who said that you could tell an (inorganic?) chemist by how s/he pronounced that word.
Captcha: chops- snifters. Isn’t this fun?

MH: Your Name at April 29, 2010 8:12 PM (likely Turmarion)
Will those be philosophical or brain hungry zombies?
It was indeed I. As to the kind of zombies, depends on whether or not they have qualia….
Btw, I think CAPTCHA may be a zombie…or maybe an oracle. Think we could set up a business using what it spits out to give mystic advice? Like right now: “cell singing”–”You will have a wonderful day–even the very cells of your body will be musical….”

Thanks for the link to the article, Rod. The one problem I had of it was in his criticism for Christians who hold out hope that those of other faiths can be “saved.” He’s quite right to say that for Buddhists, “salvation” is not the issue – they hope to reach Nirvana, which is quite a different concept. But a Christian does not just believe in salvation or damnation as his own destiny: he believes that that Buddhist is wrong about Nirvana, and that either that Buddhist will be “saved” or go to hell. From the Christian’s point of view, it makes perfect sense to hope that the Buddhist will be saved, even though the Buddhist doesn’t care much about “salvation.”

Sig, go carefully and safely.
My personal view of modern Pagans allows for two broad categories: Those who come to it by way of reaction to their previous tradition(s), and those who find it as seekers before they’ve been indoctrinated into a tradition. I am of the latter group, the vast majority are of the former group.
Many (far too many, I sadly note) are reacting to a personal, emotional trauma (sometimes accompanied by physical trauma, but not always and I opine the minority of the cases). If their trauma was identified in some aspect of patriarchy (again, many if not most, but nearly all of them if they are coming from a Christian tradition), their attitudes — especially their hostility towards the previous tradition — will be shaped by it. My experience of Dianics is that final minority, women who were hurt both emotionally and physically, and primarily by the male authority figures in their lives.
Many of the ex-Christian Pagans who have honored me with details of their personal stories seem to find a common strain: They grew up believing they deserved to suffer (be punished, be oppressed, expand it as you will), but hit a climactic point in their lives that forced them to question why they deserved it, and soon after learned that the correct answer was that they did not, in fact, deserve it. Some tried to get their treatment changed and failing left, some just left. All bear the scars.

Some great comments, particularly Naturalmom’s pointing out of the way people talk past one another’s perspective on this, and another commentators point that it’s quite possible to hold the two persepctives at once – that religions are different in expression, but exist within a single spiritual reality.
What I’m reminded of is how religions themselves tend to migrate to one or another of these perspectives. The “rivers all leading to the same ocean” analogy, for example, is very much a Hindu notion, which also teaches that there is “one Self with many faces and many expressions”. It sees all religions as many streams of truth that all, eventually, arrive at the same goal, and if one looks past the superificial cultural and personal aspects of religion, one will find a unifying core, because reality itself is a unity, and as expressions of reality, we cannot go far from our true Self, and will eventually find our way back, even if we all do so by different routes.
And then there are religions like traditional Christianity, which insist that only one particular religious expression and cultural tradition is the true way, and all others are either false, or must give way at a certain point in time to the Christian Truth. They reject the “many paths, one truth” in favor of “only one path, only one truth”, and thus require that all other religions reject their traditions and convert to the one true path. This creates conflict in religion, not peace, and the Hindu-types can’t help pointing this out. In response, religions like Hinduism will say that Jesus was as much an Incarnation of God, and Christianity a true expression of the Self that will lead the faithful back to God if followed in the true spirit of love and compassion, but the feeling is not reciprocated by the orthodox.
The thing is, it’s pretty much only the Abrahamic tradition of monotheism which insists upon this exclusive, proprietary system of religion. Most religions around the world don’t insist that theirs is the only true one. Which is why I am not personally inclined towards any orthodox version of any of the Abrahamic religions. Nor, for that matter, do I think Jesus was a believer in that approach either, but that’s another issue.
But it really is possible to see religion as essentially linked together in a grand unity as long as one doesn’t grant exclusive truth to any one religion, which unfortunately the two biggest religions in the world do claim. So the conflict goes on. Rod is an example of why this conflict will continue: he, like most members of the Christian religion, really does believe that only his religion is a true expression of God, and that all others must take this particular river to the ocean, otherwise they will never make it there.

Orthodox, institutional religions are quite different, but their mystics have much in common. A quote from the chapter “Mystic Viewpoints” in my e-book at http://www.suprarational.org on comparative mysticism:
Ritual and Symbols. The inner meanings of the scriptures, the spiritual teachings of the prophets and those personal searchings which can lead to divine union were often given lesser importance than outward rituals, symbolism and ceremony in many institutional religions. Observances, reading scriptures, prescribed acts, and following orthodox beliefs cannot replace your personal dedication, contemplation, activities, and direct experience. Preaching is too seldom teaching. For true mystics, every day is a holy day. Divine revelation is here and now, not limited to their sacred scriptures.
Conflicts in Conventional Religion. “What’s in a Word?” outlined some primary differences between religions and within each faith. The many divisions in large religions disagreed, sometimes bitterly. The succession of authority, interpretations of scriptures, doctrines, organization, terminology, and other disputes have often caused resentment. The customs, worship, practices, and behavior within the mainstream of religions frequently conflicted. Many leaders of any religion had only united when confronted by someone outside their faith, or by agnostics or atheists. Few mystics have believed divine oneness is exclusive to their religion or is restricted to any people.
Note: This is just a consensus to indicate some differences between the approaches of mystics and that of their institutional religion. These statements do not represent all schools of mysticism or every division of faith. Whether mystical experiences vary in their cultural context, or are similar for all true mystics, is less important than that they transform each one’s sense of being to a transpersonal outlook on all life.

Those who believe the kinship of faiths should join the social network of the Parliament of the World’s Religions. Look at http://www.peacenext.org/profile/RonKrumpos and I would be happy to be one of your first friends there.