Hi, Susan, Nice hearing from you.
At 01:17 PM 12/10/2003 -0600, you wrote: >>We have understood the sacred and the ways of creation since the beginning of time. >>Now, we accept Jesus and Christianity, too. You are wrong, for they are alla >>same!"<< Sure, `Abdu'l-Baha discussed the intuitive recognition of truth. However, I don't think that makes the unqualified statement, "All religions are one," any less ludicrous. IMO, there is little sense in having an academic discussion about "religion" or "religions" per se. These words are, or should be, far too general to be empirically useful to anyone. For my part, I prefer to speak of specific religious organizations. For instance, one of the possible questions on the final exam in my Introduction to Sociology class required students to examine their own religious organizations, or another with which they were familiar (or would need to become familiar for testing purposes), in relation to certain concepts, e.g., religious organizational typology, civil religion, fundamentalism, sacralization, secularization, and liberation theology. I insisted that they must not discuss "Christianity" (for instance) as a religious organization (since it isn't one). Instead, they would need to focus on the Church of the Nazarene, the United Methodists, Reform Judaism, etc. Religious organizations are *restructurated*, or formed and reformed, through a constant dialogue between existing structures (ideologies) and historically contextualized actors. The structure of Unitarian-Universalism, though rooted in American Protestantism, has more in common with Ethical Culture, which arose out of Reform Judaism, than do either of these organizations with the numerous orthodox or traditional expressions of Christianity or Judaism. Would the Native Americans you discussed recognized the oneness of her or his beliefs with Ethical Culture? What about with the Church of Satan or the Temple of Set? My point, in other words, is that the term, "oneness of religion," on face value, makes little sense. In those few instances where `Abdu'l-Baha was reported to have used this phrase, He generally did so in connection with something like "the foundation of ...." Without a qualifier, this term is, IMO, nonsensical. Mark A. Foster * http://MarkFoster.net http://CompuServe.m.foster.name ---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
