I was at church the other day (because living in my parents' household obligates me regardless of my actual beliefs) and there was a collection to benefit Catholic missionary work in Africa. I saw my mother put a five in the basket. I couldn't stop thinking about it for the rest of the mass.

Obviously, those people in church who were donating thought of the whole thing as good. The more people the better. Humanitarian work. Saving the natives' souls. Is this the reality?

OR... do you think it's just forcing your own culture and beliefs on people who probably don't need or want them? Is it brainwashing? Is it an attempt at too much homogenization of the world?

Also... I know that Christian factions are into evangelization as well as, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), Muslims. Do all faiths do it and to what extent?

Personally, I can see the benefit in organized faiths being open and welcoming to those who would voluntarily like to explore the religion and reaching out and informing and accepting those people. But I can't see how specifically seeking people out with the agenda to convert them is good. It sends the message of "what we can give you is a lot better than what you've been raised with". And targeting tribal people who have cultivated a rich and unique faith over hundreds or thousands of years in order to sway them towards the more mainstream just seems like destruction of culture and history. Like tearing down the rainforest and constructing a McDonalds (not that Christianity or any other large religion is necessarily the McDonalds. I have nothing against these faiths on most counts).

Well, please everyone tell me what you think.

(One little thing... anyone here read "The Poisonwood Bible"? Deals rather well with these issues, I believe.)

I think missionary work destroys people. It gets rid of their culture and any unique beauty they might have. People should be allowed to live the way they believe is right, not by what some preacher guy says. I'm a Christian and all, but I really don't think God's word should be spread to those who worship their own gods and or goddesses.

The author of that book! I knew she knew our family, or does still...I can remember being very young and my mother showing me "See, Barbara wrote a book!" Actually, I think she's related to us...a great-aunt's daughter, I think! I should ask my dad for that book.

Having grown up in a Jewish household, I know that as a whole, Judaism is NOT into converting or evangelism. It's very difficult to be converted to Judaism.

Personally, I feel they should be trying to fix most of Africa's horrible problems (at least the impoverished areas south of the Sahara) instead of being missionaries. I doubt most Africans really want to convert to a different religion, I see no point in preaching to their face and trying to get them to change. You should just let people decide for themselves. That's my point of view. Maybe, if you do want the person to change religion, give them a chance. If they refuse, don't bug them anymore. I get a bit shifty what with a couple very pious friends of mine trying to convert me once in awhile. It makes me nervous, but I think it's OK for them to try once. You shouldn't be setting up missionary buildings in other countries, especially ones as poor as Africa south of the Sahara (for the most part). Being a missionary to another country I guess is OK...but putting so much emphasis on it is too much. It's okay, but not in the extreme.

I don't know a whole lot about this, so feel free to correct me. As far as I know, missionaries in LEDCs do a lot of good work materially as well as spiritually for impoverished people. Also, see it from their point of view: they're saving these people from an eternity of suffering. What could be more important?

I can't deny that there is humanitarian aid in the form of medical attention, food, education, etc. connected with missionary work and that is certainly a good thing. As is perhaps the heightened morale that missionaries have the potential to bring to people who are possibly in despair. But what about those who aren't necessarily in the dregs of poverty? Do they also need to be 'saved'? Also, yes, missionaries do believe they are doing God's work, bringing those who would be outsiders into a community and the giving them the opportunity to enjoy the afterlife. Of course they believe it's the right thing to do. However, personally, I don't believe that one's position in the eternal afterlife (if there is one) is based upon what religion you subscribed to in life.

So, I do understand your point of view, Commie, but I don't know if the above things cancel out the bad things.

You're related to Barbara Kingsolver, gothictheysay? That's really cool...

Perhaps it would be nice for these people who are truely impoverished to have faith in something? Whether or not it's real or not?

So try and tell them that. They believe they're sending souls to Heaven rather than condemning them to Hell. Maybe they're wrong, maybe they're right. If they're labouring under a misapprehension, then I wish you luck in convincing them of the right position.

Yes, they want to save people, but that's just their opinion. If they can't see beyond that (that everyone will practice what they want) then they probably need to talk a step back. I'm trying to think of an analogy here. You can have an opinion, that doesn't mean that you always get a situation where your opinion is the leading one.

I think people should decide their faith for themselves rather than have others shove it down their throats. Missionary work is good, really, with the building of schools and medical centers, etc. etc. etc., but perhaps in some cultures, the efforts are misguided. If spiritual knowledge of a religion is wanted, great; if not, stop killing other people's gods.

I understand Commie though--usually people zealous enough to become missionaries "know" in their hearts that their faith is the faith. For many people, religion is not simply an opinion; it is their very way of life, their way of thinking, and their idea of helping others is to spread this.

Anyone else think life was a lot better before organized religion? Once upon a time, we were all very ignorant and happy, and whenver lightning struck and thunder sounded, we were scared that "Some Thing" was angry, and that was it. Life is simpler when everyone is scared of the exact same thing I guess...

</tangent>

Missionary work has incredible positives and incredible negatives.Absolutely. Missionaries run programs in countries such as Haiti, they are building schools and curing the sick. The work they do there is miraculous. However the "soul saving" of missionaries is utterly disgusting to me. They go to impovershied nations and tribal peoples, and basically offer a burger and a bible. If they are starving, of course they will take the burger. Plus these people are very religious, hence why they were easy to convert. Original American religions had no concept of hell, but when it was described, the natives saw the big ships the missionaries came on and said "anyone this technologically advanced can't be wrong".Some of the lebuvitures(spelling?), the really orthodoxical jews do very actively try to convert people. They will stop people on the street. They seem more interested in converting more lax jews to orthodoxy, but they are not beyond harassing(and they are harrassing) gentiles. But yes, judaism is not as in your face.They had faith, in their own beliefs. They clung to them incredibly strongly, even more so in times of poverty. The poor tend to be very religious, whether they ask a witch doctor or a priest for help makes little difference.Organized religion was around during fear of lightning. Secondly, to appease the thunder gods, some peoples sacrificed virgins. Not cool. I don't like sacrificers. Judaism and christianity don't do that, however they lack the ability to fully capture a people like more close knit religions do. Granted this is not an impossibility, just more difficult than believing in ancestral spirits. A happy medium, of thunder worship without the sacrificing would be nice.

I do not believe a Catholic Missionary, I can't speak for anyother type of missions, should be judged unless the work they do is seen in person. They may talk about the Catholic faith to the people who are interested, but they certainly do not try to convert the native people or push the bible down thier throat. For a lot of people around the location of the missions it is their choice to go towards the faith because the doors are always open.

So what about when a mission provides food and encourages you to learn about the bible in school?

And remember the damage was done years ago when missionaries first arrived. The indiginous peoples are now in a state of total flux.

A tribe in brazil called the Cannelas were very sexually open and had little to no problems with jealousy and the like. Then come the missionaries with their moral codes and breed jealousy and now the society is falling apart.

Their intentions are good, but they are too closed minded to know the full extent of what they are doing.

Encouraging is not forcing.




That certainly could be true....

Of course faith is good for people who need it. But I have to agree with Sir Maxerpopple in that they probably had their own form of it to begin with. There's the possibility that Christianity will be better for them or offer more hope... but not necessarily. And I just don't think people have a right to tell other people what's good for them all the time.



Oh, I know. I'm not under any illusions that missionaries will bend under my personal will any time soon or ever... and they shouldn't. They have a right to believe what they believe and I guess it's sort of hard to hate people who are doing what they think is best. But I'm just asking the question on a personal level... I know reality doesn't always correspond to ideals. Personally, I wish missionaries would focus more on humanitarian work and less on "soul-saving" because I believe it degrades native culture. I didn't ask if we could change the world, I just asked it what's happening is right (from an objective standpoint, not necessarily that of the missionaries themselves). Um... I guess that's all...

I think there seems to be a slight misconception of what missionaries do (please, by all means correct me if I'm wrong). Having once gone to a private, religious school, I find it hard to believe that missionaries would try to "shove religion down their throats". Missions are open for people of a community to go to; they aren't forced to meet with the missionaries and be preached at. For that matter, us Westerners are also exposed to missionaries. I don't know about you lot, but over here in the Netherlands we get the occassional soliticitor (Jehovah's Witness, Cancer fund, etc); they haven't managed to brainwash me...yet.

Secondly, I don't think mission work destroys cultures. Over in Mexico, many of the indigenous people have incorporated aspects of Catholicism into their traditional ceremonies (granted, the "mission work" performed by the Spaniards back then was quite different from the work that gets done today. I'm just stating that there exists the possibility that two very different beliefs can be reconciled). For purposes of discussion, suppose an African tribe did take these missionaries seriously and ended up abandoning their culture. In that case, if the culture was so weak to begin with, then it was bound to die out sooner or later anyway.

I'm not against mission work as long as the missionaries know how to take "no" for an answer.


Muslims have managed to spread Islam through many parts of Africa that lie above the equator. Within a couple years, half of the continent's population will be Muslim.

I have very mixed feelings on missionaries.

First off, what the missionaries used to do was pretty terrible, in the scheme of colonialism. Historically, missionaries really were "Believe this, and we'll bring you material happiness, medical aid." Although, at the same time, they really honestly were trying to bring spiritual salvation to a people they believed were spiritually impoverished. So, they had honest motivation. At the same time, they were almost forcibly converting people.

Today, the situation changes depending on where you go, and what church's teachings you follow. Evangelical Fundamentalists are still going to try to do what they've been doing all along (bringing along, of course, all the intolerances that have become manifest in Evangelical Fundamentalism). At the same time, I know that many churches are simply trying to improve the living conditions of the underdeveloped nations, often without an attempt at conversion. Admittedly, religious undertones are always present, although in many cases this is more a result of underpinning feelings in the missionaries themselves to do good work because that's what God wants you to do.

On the other hand, both my uncle and aunt (physician and dentist, respectively) were missionaries in Zaire/the Congo for 20 some years. Although they were involved in the church that existed there, their "mission" was strictly health-science related. They healed the sick. Their resources came from the church, but they didn't hand out pamphlets, or anything.

In addition, I know the United Church of Canada's big kick right now is putting money into stopping the AIDS crisis in Africa, and stopping the (medical) misinformation that circulates there. As far as I can tell, they don't attempt conversion -- but, admittedly, the UCC is one of the most liberal Christian Churches around (as I've said many times).

As for Jews proselytizing -- I'm sure it happens, but not very often. They have no "Great Commission" like there exists in the Christian church.

It's a very complicated phenomenon, from my perspective. I could never support a church that was forcibly converting... but... *shrugs* I understand why people try to convert. They feel so *very* happy in the context of their religion, and want to share that with the world. Also, they are scared for those that aren't "saved" -- it really comes out of a genuine concern for those who aren't part of their religion. In my opinion, it's a flawed concern, but I understand why it occurs.

Encouragement, unfair presentation, same thing to them. Burger and a bible is not fair.Believe it bub. Now that the west is established in these nations, it is not done so as much. Now they come willingly. At first however, that was exactly what it was.Quite true. However how many Mayans are left? Do we have any people who still worship the mayan gods? I think not.That is no excuse. We need to preserve culture for historical backround, even if it will eventually die out that gives you no right to destroy it prematurely.

Calling a culture "weak" is a very dangerous thing to do in a post-modernist world... What is weakness? Why is one culture "stronger" or "better" than another?

However, indeed the spirit of syncretism (when two faiths reconcile) is very much alive in the world. Most European and North American Christians would barely recognize the forms of Christianity that exist in Africa. My religious studies prof once said that the majority of Christians in the world have extra-Christian beliefs that "orthodox" Christians would have major qualms with. Two religions that just pop into my head are the Haitian religion of Voudoun and South American religion of Santeria -- both are extremely syncretic religions, incorporating very varied beliefs in saints, in spirits, and in gods from Roman Catholicism and from African religious practices.



Most faiths do, to some extent. Some more than others. I would say Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam are the three most common proselytizers. Judaism (as noted above) is almost entirely free of the practice, however. As is Wicca, but that's a fairly non-traditional religion, and then we get into another area altogether.

Oog.

Missionaries over to heal the sick and help with aid or nice. But not preaching about the religion. If you asked for it, they'd give you information on the church...if not, they'd just give you aid. That sounds extremely nice.

I've been on a few missionary trips myself. We don't try to devour anyone's culture. We go places to do good things in the name of Jesus and proclaim the Word. We don't force anyone into listening or believing or anything. I've helped to build houses for people in Mexico who signed up with this local church. We gave them a Bible and a crucifix and said something akin to, "Don't thank us; thank Jesus." That's about it.

well i have two schools of thought on this:

one school:
there are some missionaries who like the Christian missionaries of old that forced the indians to become Christian and give up their culture, etc. To me that is wrong, culture should in no way be affected by missionary work


the other school:

believe that missionaries serve a great good, well certain ones do. they are there today, they don't force religion, they just talk about it, and if the person the individual decides its something for them, then great. none of this signing up and then we'll help you crap...how about we'll help you regardless, and if you like what you hear us say, then welcome, let's talk AFTER we help you.

Reminds me of something that Thich Nhat Hanh, the renowned Buddhist monk and peace activist, once wrote,

"When you touch someone who authentically represents a tradition, you not only touch his or her tradition, you also touch your own. This quality is essential for dialogue. When participants are willing to learn from each other, dialogue takes place just by their being together."

(Not entirely relevant, I know, but...)

Too bad more people didn't have this type of attitude.

Burger and a bible still exists in many tribal areas that have yet to socially evolve into advanced(advanced for third-world anyway) peoples.

As I said, the worst was already done, largely during the age of imperialism and before. The Conquistadors represent one of the worst tragedies. Missionaries that go to places and build a church are not the ones I am concerned with, good for them, they are doing a great service.

I was focusing on the missionaries of the present, not the militant Christians found in history books.


(Wikipedia)
Granted, millions of Mayas, as well as Aztecs and members of other nations, were killed by the Spaniards; most of them were killed indirectly by means of disease. I have no figures at hand, however I'm guessing that "missionaries" were responsible for a small fraction of this genocide.


"preserve culture for historical background?" With all due respect, that sounds as if they belong in a musuem exhibit. Can they not also have a chance to evolve like our cultures have?

Nowadays, African cultures are not faced with fanatical Crusaders armed to the teeth with evil Western technology. They are faced with people who are offering "salvation". They can either reject or accept that.
How about we give them credit to decide for themselves what's best? I'm quite sure they're more than capable of doing that.


I don't consider "African" cultures to be "weak" as I know close to nothing about them. However, the sense of protectionism I've sensed in this thread gives me the feeling that a number of people subconsciously view them as "weak" since they assume that our Western culture will conquer theirs.

And yes, imo there is such a thing as a "stronger" or "weaker" culture. Natural selection is very much alive and well when it comes to the study of cultures. Those cultures that adapt to changes in their environment are more likely to survive than those that stagnate.


Just as I hoped/thought. Non-western cultures are more than capable of deciding what to reject and what to incorporate. =D

Natural selection exists and always will to an extent, but one would think that in a (supposedly) civilized and progressive world, people would not actively promote and encourage that kind of carnivorous "jungle law". And I don't know how anyone has the right to go about and label which cultures are "strong" and which are "weak". Just because one culture is larger or more prominent doesn't make it better or any more deserving to exist (I'm sure the Romans believed themselves superior to the barbarians and believed they would be on at the top of the food chain for all eternity. And look what happened there.) Just because the "strong" have the capability to overrun the "weak" doesn't mean they should. I think you're turning this into an overly "dog eat dog" situation.

On a different tangent, I'm glad to see that there's a lot of focus on the humanitarian side of missionary work. It's the best thing about it, in my opinion. And I probably do need to update my perception of the methods of conversion most groups use. I'm sure it's more voluntary then it used to be. And I'm well aware that those who are converted usually blend the new beliefs with the old. I still just have issues with the thing as a whole, though.

Saying a culture is "strong" or "weak" is completely different from saying it's "better" or more deserving of existence. ugabuga was just pointing out that some cultures will by their nature be more likely to survive and assimilate others - he wasn't saying they were better.

However it is still done. It just isn't shown since tv crews are much harder to get in the deep jungles with potentially dangerous tribes.Conquistadors went conquistadoring in large part to spread god. The Incan, Mayan, Aztec, and many other civilizations died shortly after they arrived. The remnants are shadows of their former selves, much of the culture has died. Don't forget the minor ones, the toltecs, the olmecs, etc.I am a historian, I hold a large value on preservation. Preservation is necessary to learn. If you think it is only museums that should be involved, then you are quite mistaken. Any culture can progress. However the origins of a culture should also be preserved. For example, let us take judaism, It has the preservation orthodox sects as well as the more integrated reform and reconstructionist.I think you know that people are not that logical. Let alone people who worship lightning. If missionaries want to spread the word of god, fine and good. However their original intrusion into other lands, the destruction of their societies which have lasting and very damaging effects shows a sense of their ignorance, they did not have cultural preservation, a necessary thing in history in mind. They were the spearhead of the conformist west.The culture is not what is weak. Westerners have technology on their side, primitives see technology and food, what do you think is going on inside their heads? "They must be right, they have ships". For example, the Hawaiin Alii(royalty) gladly accepted missionaries because they thought acceptance of their god would lead to increased power for them(a hawaiin trend that lasted since their conception). One could say christianity is weak since western society has been secularizing for 700 years, and now in the last 100 years influence of religion has waned incredibly. Western culture is not stronger because it can conquer the weak. Western technology conquers. African religions have been relatively unchanged for thousands of years. The same cannot be said about christianity.Animism, the primary african religion, is very adaptive as it focuses on spirit worship, it is much more involved in every day life, as opposed to the distant omnipotent god of christianity. Christianity is unadaptive. Polytheistic religions tend to be. The prime example? Temples to an egyptian god found in LONDON from the roman era.thes hybrid religions are ones of interest. They do provide good windows to the past. However not all peoples have had such circumstances so favorable as to pick and choose their beliefs. Some had them wiped out. The south east asian cultures are not experiencing a hybridization, they are simply being conformed.

Okay, I'm a bit confused here. In the first paragraph you said that African religions have remained unchanged whereas Christianity has changed, and in the second paragraph you said the exact opposite thing.

Also, you must understand that Western culture as a whole has been rapidly evolving over the last 1000 years (well, at least following the Renaissance). It's impossible that a religion would stay the same in those cultural forces, or it would simply die. As Christianity hasn't really been willing to adapt over the past 100 years, it is slowly dying out. Pre-Western influence, the African cultures were largely stable. Therefore their religions were also largely stable. However, as cultural forces changed, their religions changed with them.

I'm intrigued by you example of an Egyptian deity in Britain from the Roman era... I know the Celts were largely influenced by surrounding cultures, as all religions are (even Christianity, which picked up large numbers of "saint-gods," like the famous St. Brigid example, as it expanded into Western Europe) but I am unaware of a temple to Osiris or Isis in the London area. Perhaps you are thinking of a god that was equivalent to another god in another culture (like the influence of Isis on Diana and later Mary)?

Tribal religions never for example went under such things as the protestant reformation. Their relative stasis shows their fortitude. However such religions were very meldable to one another. The diversity of the ancient world often had melding of religions. However this was not a huge change. Some romans worshipped certain foreign gods in conjunction with their own. The same was true with previous civilizations. However heresy was not the concept there(with the notable exception of the monotheistic jews). The relationships with the gods of just about all the ancient peoples were far different than those of today. They did not regard their gods as soul saviors, but more as things to ask for help when crops were bad. They were all very meldable, however this is not huge change, since many gods were really the same one. The mention of African religions in the first paragraph is true, the inference that they were melded in the second paragraph is just poor writing on my behalf. Animism was not the religions of civilizations like Egypt, maybe a bit in the southern neighnor, Nubia. It was the religion of the "uncivilized people" who still lived in villages. Local areas had local gods, they shifted from place to place, but animism as a whole was relatively stable. It was isiolated from the rest of the world, thus it was not one of change. The middle eastern and ancient european religions were the melders. The adaptiveness of animism comes from its ability to span most of the continent, while it may have different gods in different places it was relatively stable. They various tribes melded with each other to form animism.I was responding to strong versus weak cultures point, using christianity to prove it. The unwillingness to change from christianity has been a relative constant, hence why it has been dying.I believe(but don't quote this) the temple was either dedicated to Isis or Osiris. However I do know for certain that it was an egyptian god, not an inspirtation.

True, Christianity has been unwilling to change/evolve, which I think is something that is very tragic about Christianity in general. Although it *has* changed, dramatically, over 2000 years. The Christianity we practice today is very far from the Christianity practiced following the death of Jesus.



As far as I'm aware, the Celts never built "temples." If you could find a source for this, I'd be intrigued to read it. I'm afraid, however, that it's probably not terribly relaible, but I could be wrong.

Also, I would argue that the relative stasis of tribal religions doesn't show fortitude, only that the culture itself isn't changing at a very rapid rate.

Also, I would argue that heresy and "my god is better than your god" arguments have been around a lot longer and are a lot mroe prevalent than just among the ancient Hebrews... Zoroastrians, Babylonians, Buddhists... all have had traces of this attitude in them. But you're right, it does become more prevalent in the Judeo-Christian and later Islamic strains of religion.

The celts never did build them. The romans did. That doesn't mean that native english people(not just celts) didn't worship there.I see that as a strength for the culture. Lack of change means stability, and stability is very good.

Oh, okay, I understand you know. Romans would do that, indeed. Sounds very much like the Romans. They were also big into assimilating new gods.

For me, change is strength. Lack of change means stagnation.

The Egyptian temple in London sounds familiar to me. I believe I heard about it in a History Channel documentary about the Roman influence in Britannia... and I'm fairly sure it was Isis that the temple was dedicated to. Can't remember specifics, however...

Bit off topic there... whatever...

The mission I went to, El Templo del Pacto Nuevo, told us that there is no catch to the building of the houses. The signing up part is really just for logistical perposes. They need not be Methodist or even Christian for that matter; all they need to do is ask.

Post-modernist world? What world are you living in? The amount of people who truly stand by post-modern 'values' is pretty damn small. And I would'nt say politically correct either - the term is disgusting as it suggestst hat there are actually two kinds of correct, actual truth and (you've guessed it) political truth. Why would any want that? (apart from people trying to manipulate truth)

Back to the topic...

The world is not just divided in one way, in this example christians and non-christians. To actually go to a foreign country and spend your life working to improve the lives of people in extreme poverty and engaging the people with your own beliefs when you could be, say, being a perfectly good christian back in a comfortable 1st world country does'nt mean you a culture burning zealot. Most of the time it means you are a very very nice person indeed. Without missionaries alot of people would be living (or just dieing) in terrible conditions. It is a shame to lose culture but Christianity isn't technically at odds with most African cultures today. People talk about the loss of 'tribal religioun', to the actual members of the tribes this 'religion' is more akin to myths being passed down by word of mouth.

I'm not a christian and I see many problems with it as a religion and way of life but missionary work is the most praise-worthy and important venture in Christianity's name.

i'm sure there are alot that do ask, Ri, but how many people over there are too proud to ask or too shy even? an act of kindness like rebuilding someone's house or giving out food should happen just to show those people that there is some good in the world, and your no obligated to sign up or do anything. i'm not saying that they ARE obligated but in their eyes, signing up or whatever, even if you tell them there's no obligation or anything, will still seem suspicious causing a lot of them to not even bother asking. go over and show them kindness, and they'll remember that. then they'll know that the missionaries are not just over there to count how many converts they can make, but there just over there to help, and they'll be around to talk about God if the subject comes up.

I could be wrong, but I do not think Tigersong meant it in a political correctness way. Different cultures have different degrees of adaptability. In a changing world, an adaptive culture is needed. In a static one, a rigid one is needed. It's all relative.

Unfortunately for the Church the rate at which thelogical policy changes is not fast enough to keep church turn out as high as it once was. In Britain football has replaced religioun for many, I'm being deadly serious. Alot of people like church for its regularity and the nature in which it transcends a hard working life. Now football can replace this regularity and the obssesive nature that it encourages provides the welcome anaesthetic for the working classes.

I know there are a lot of crazy people out there who take sports as seriously as a religion, but I'd like to be able to think that there's a little something more to faith than the "routine" of it... that's a very shallow reason to believe in something. Although, I suppose a lot of people are in it for the stability and ritual aspects. However, I don't really think a game will be completely replacing the influence of religion any time soon.

I'd hope not. However England is notorious for creating its own religions. First the Anglican church, and now? What? The church of football? Saint Beckham perhaps? I wonder what the official curch dogma would be. Furthermore, I wonder if they would hold true to Eddie Izzard's analysis of the anglican's cake or death concept or spread in a new direction.

/spam

No, I didn't mean it in a politically correct standpoint at all. All I'm saying is, who are you to judge whether or not a culture is strong or weak? That is akin to making a distinction between high and low art, with "high" art ultimately being better than "low" art. You *can* make value judgments, but ultimately those value judgments are only one person's perspective.

And whether you like postmodernism or not, or agree with its tenets is kind of irrelevant. We are living in the postmodernist era, where plurality of views is becoming more and more acceptable by all. I agree that the majority of people probably haven't accepted the ideals of postmodernism, but the fact remains that we have moved past modernism and are becoming ever more tolerant of pluralistic views.

A perfect analogy for what I've been saying or trying to say for a while. Thank you.



EDDIE IZZARD RELATES BACK TO EVERYTHING. Really. Everything. An answer to every problem you'd ever have. Like a Bible. Oh, wait... am I catching onto something here? Weren't we just talking about creating religions? I give you Izzardism. See?... EDDIE IZZARD RELATES BACK TO EVERYTHING.

/spam

So you would see a post-modernist era more as an era literally where we are done with modernism and a plurality of views is becoming more widely acceptable. I can agree with this, though one must be careful when using the term postmodernism.



I think what it shows is how when the main factors that draw the working classes to church every sunday generation after generation can be provided by something you can watch in your living room or standing up in an arena where you are allowed to talk as loud as you want, or even in your local pub on a widesceen TV the attraction of church or any kind of conventional religion significantly decreases.



Why is taking sports seriously as a religion crazy? I don't personally follow any sport and I'm not bound to any particular religion, nor have I been forced into either at any point in my life really. It seems less crazy to me if someone becomes immersed in a sport, its tactics, players and history and takes it extrmely seriously than if someone read the bible, and decides that they believe in God and takes God seriously.



Of course there was more in the faith than the 'routine' of it, there was cold hard tradition. If your family has been going to church regularly for generations then you will be wanting a damn good reason to stop and yes, alot of people are in for the stability and ritual. Many humanists are recognising the need for ritual even in an atheistic life and have so-called 'naming ceremonies' instead of a christening for example.

As for a game completely replacing the influence of religion, I am sure that will not happen, at least not for a very long time. But I do think things like football are becoming more influential than for example, the Church Of England, it's easy to be blinded by that name and picture a strong influential organisation and I'm sure if you asked many football fans what they thought was more influential they would think the CoE aswell but in truth the number CoE members is dropping, attendance at church services is dropping, even the number of clergy in the CoE is dropping and more importantly the CoE's influence on Goverment policy and the media is bascially nothing now, not that it was ever huge.