Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!crm
From: crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: What is a religion: American Heritage exposed.
Message-ID: <5611@duke.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Mar-85 09:12:30 EST
Article-I.D.: duke.5611
Posted: Mon Mar 25 09:12:30 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Mar-85 02:43:06 EST
References: <657@pyuxd.UUCP> <304@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <702@pyuxd.UUCP> <327@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <730@pyuxd.UUCP> <5591@duke.UUCP> <742@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin)
Organization: Duke University
Lines: 77
Summary: 

In article <742@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) writes:
>> But when I looked up Buddhism (a non-theistic whateverthehellitis) in
>> *my* copy of AmHer (1979), it states:
>> 	Buddhism: 1. The doctrine atrributed to.... 2. The *religion* of
>> 	eastern and central asia... (Emphasis is mine.)
>> And when I looked up Taoism in the same book
>> 	Taoism: A principle philosophy and *religion* of China based on
>> 	the teachings of Lao Tzu...
>
>Thus, you've shown that the mislabelling I've referred to does exist.  If 
>a dictionary defined purple and mistakenly called turquoise a shade of purple,
>would that make it so?
>
	You're chasing your own tail here, Rich.  The only authority that
	I've seen from you for claiming that ``religion'' implies theism
	have been: 1) the dictionary definition, which we see clearly is
	inconsistent; 2) you speaking ex cathedra from your bellybutton.
	.(f trivia question: what is that a quotation from? .)f

	Clearly your dictionary has some mislabelling -- but the external
	evidence strongly suggests that it is in the single definition of
	``religion'' *not* in the word as it is defined everywhere else!

>> You know, Houghton-Mifflin has a department which handles errors;
>> you really ought to write them a letter about the bad definition of
>> religion.
>
>I'm not the one who thinks the definition of religion, either in the
>dictionary or in common usage, is "bad".  Who is any of us to claim that
>a common usage *definition* is "bad"?
	The common usage defintion is that Buddhism is a religion, as is
	Taoism, as is Christianity.  
	... I admit my choice of ``bad'' was incorrect; make that
	``incorrect''.
>
>> Alternatively, you must argue now that Buddhism and Taoism *do*
>> have a deity; you must have a considerably better authority than
>> a dictionary for that to convince me, as I have been a Buddhist
>> for some years, have taught both Buddhist and Taoist religions at
>> college level, and have yeears of sutra-study.
>
>1) I make statements about religion in an article.
>2) Laura says:  "Why did you make those comments when they don't apply to my
>   religion, which doesn't have a god?"
>3) I say: "I didn't make comments about your beliefs.  I was referring to
>   religions, those belief systems which have worship/concepts of a supernatural
>   deity."
	You made global statements about religion which are not correct 
	about Buddhism in particular; we believe Buddhism is a religion
	and we see that the word religion does indeed include Buddhism;
	maybe your statements are true about *theistic* religions?

>4) Laura: "How dare you make those comments about my religion.  They're false.
>   What's more my religion doesn't have a god!"
>5) I go back to definitions.
	Falsely.
>6) You [Charlie Martin] and others:  but you're wrong in telling Laura that
>   her belief system is not a religion.  In fact, it would seem that it fits
>   the definition in the broad sense anyway."
>7) Me:  "Fine.  If that's true, can we get back to the original discussion???"
	It's OK by me.  But how about we do so in definition that the rest
	of us agree on?
>
>> This sort of thing is why I stopped reading net.religion...
>
>How do you stop reading it yet continue writing to it?  And in response to
>something you haven't read (??)
	Well, no, I started reading again when Laura asked me to look back
	into it.  And I did read your message, just don't think I'm
	interested in the other points.


-- 
			Opinions stated here.

			Charlie Martin
			(...mcnc!duke!crm)