To expand slightly, I interpret "religion is never culture" to assert that religion and culture are orthogonal - independent of each other. (I am ignoring the islamophobic attempt at 'othering' Islam.)
For this to be true, culture would not affect religion and religion would not affect culture. Both claims are immediately and obviously false. -- Charles On Jul 28, 2012 8:16 AM, "Charles Haynes" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 28, 2012 3:35 AM, "ss" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Friday 27 Jul 2012 5:23:53 am Shoba Narayan wrote: > > > What will Indian culture (or any culture) be like without religion? > > > > I am not sure that I should reply to this because it typically launches > me off > > on one of my rambles. > > > > Religion is never culture. The exception in my view is Arab culture. > Islam was > > designed to fit Arab culture closely > > Religion is *always* culture. All you have to do is observe how religions > match their original cultural context and how they change when adopted by > new cultures. > > African Christianity is very different from European Christianity which in > turn is very different from South American Christianity. > Tibetan Buddhism is very different from Japanese Buddhism which is very > different from Sri Lankan Buddhism. In ways that reflect the local culture. > > The best example though is Judaism. Trying to claim that the Jewish > religion is not cultural, or that Jewish culture is not inextricably bound > to Judaism is ludicrous. > > -- Charles >
