Written November 2022 for REL 3203
It doesn’t feel right to critique a definition of “religion”, because by assigning it a definition, I am acknowledging its existence and submitting to its divisive power. This has been a point of contention for me during this unit, because it is so simple to dilute a complex idea down to a single word; however, with this simplicity comes a disregard and erasure of vital connections, relationships, identities, and practices. As my ideas about the concepts of cultures and religions have been warped in this unit, the flaws in my preliminary definition became glaringly obvious. In an attempt to address them all, I have divided the definition to focus on each part independently:
Preliminary Definition: Religion encompasses a set of beliefs or a general doctrine and related customs, practices, and supplemental materials (like Holy books or objects) that its follower(s) abide by to some extent
“Religion encompasses…”
This introduction is inherently problematic because the very word “religion” has been fabricated in favor of its writers. In episode 103 of the “Keeping it 101” podcast, the hosts repeatedly mentioned “the men with the pens” as those who wrote the documentation and legislation delegitimizing, oversimplifying, and perpetuating violence against certain groups of peoples. As they succinctly stated, “…major, minor, and world’s religions as a model–even if we use it every day–ignore plurality across religions and also within them.” So, religion really doesn’t “encompass”, it ignores. If anything, isn’t religion itself encompassed in culture, identity, and lifestyle?
“… a set of beliefs or a general doctrine…”
In many of our readings, we have seen this idea that belief is necessary for or even defines religions time and time again. Similarly, almost all of our preliminary definitions, mine included obviously, used the word belief. Why is it so ingrained in our thinking that a religion must center around belief? In his first chapter of the book we read, Martin addressed this, revealing that the reason begins with the creation of religion as a concept, in much the same defining practice that ignores the plurality of groups. Imperialistic ideals involved homogeneity, a way of life that was within what was considered right to a select group in power, so then, Christianity. Each aspect of a religion could be dissected to determine if it aligned closely enough to this blueprint. With Christianity largely based around a belief in the Holy Trinity and dealings of the bible, assessed “religions” that contradicted this idea were deemed illegitimate, and were disregarded by, again, the men with the pens. But then, I wonder, where does this idea that beliefs and religion are synonymous stop? By this definition, Jediism is a religion because they follow a doctrine. I’m a biology major, so I of course believe in biological concepts like evolution. Is this my religion? I would even go so far as to, under this definition, describe atheism as a religion. Vehemently denying a belief in God is comparable to a belief in God or Gods; they both come down to beliefs. This idea that religion requires belief is so incredibly ingrained in us; religion as we think of it is the result of drawing a definition around one group, and is filtered through the ink of a pen.
“… related customs, practices…”
The induced homogeneity of cultures and dismemberment “religion” ingrained in societal and cultural structure drew a line haphazardly. To expand upon my biology example, one could say that my customs include studying and taking certain classes. And, brushing your teeth seems just as customary as praying before meals; so what makes the latter religious? What differentiates these customs from cultural ones? The line is again drawn, and people are forced into categories that can disregard and damage their identities.
“… and supplemental materials”
When one thinks of materials in accordance with religion, they probably think of religious texts. Once again, though, we plainly see that this is the expectation, because the blueprint tells us to. Even further back, however, we can ruminate on the fact that at the time when “religions” were founded, all or many of a religion’s followers were illiterate. After venturing this point in his chapter that we read, Russel T. McCutcheon proceeded to explain an incredibly simple opposition to Holy books as necessary for religion: that the Sacredness of an object is called into question as a response to the fact that its followers couldn’t interact with it due to illiteracy or lack of access to said materials. Further, the origin of such materials can often be traced back to oral traditions or are transcribed by outsiders, meaning that again, these definitions and binaries are filtered through countless corrupting societal filters.
“… its follower(s) abide to some extent…”
I have come to question the use of the word “follower”, because it inherently implies some belief or doctrine and practice to follow. While I originally thought I was leaving room for lesser thought out “religions” when I wrote this, the broadness expands the definition to the point of nonsensicality. Really, this only exemplifies the problem with attempting to define something that was not meant to be confined to a single word, a single idea.
Throughout this unit, and while writing this response, I have struggled with how to refer to “religions”. I think that Martin describes this nicely in his first chapter and provides some guidance for how we can combat this. He writes, “…even if we attempt to set aside the problematic history for the definition of religion, our common… use of the word “religion” is relatively sloppy, arbitrary, and unsophisticated. … as scholars we must be aware of the normative baggage associated with the term, resist making generalizations, and avoid positing any fundamental distinctions between “religion” and other types of cultural traditions” (18). Moving forward with my studies, I can acknowledge that the modern concept of religion is the product of years of European imperialism created with the purpose of claiming the superiority of Protestantism; however, I can use this newfound clarity to continually reassess my own thoughts biases as I continue to revise my interpretation of “religion” and learn how that shapes my studies in this class.
Comments