In message <f1h5fc$tu1$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>In article <1178337503.478140.112590@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>psychohist <psychohist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>I think many do see religions as things they can ride to power and
>>influence, rather than methods of reaching spiritual understanding and
>>fulfillment. Or am I missing your point here?
>
>Even as a way to power and influence it seemed awfully shallow,
>not up to real-world churches. But yes, I'd like it to see something
>numinous or spiritual in the religions, as well as the secular
>organization--otherwise it seems to me a waste to make them religions
>as opposed to guilds or fraternal orders or mages' colleges.
If I understand Mary's sense correctly, I tend to agree. It's all
very well recognising the secular power that religion confers on its
leaders, but for it to qualify as religion and not simply politics
there has to be a spiritual element (or so it seems to me).
The leaders themselves may not buy into the spiritual element - they
may be in it purely for the secular power. The rank and file, on the
other hand, must be getting more from it than a set of laws for it to
be considered a religion, surely?
|
