What do you guys here think about this approach to the study of religion?
The straight dope only, please.
First, you make a list of everything that can be put in the big big basket called religion.
What are these things?
Well, like places, objects, actions, words, persons, ideas, the “quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando” of everything, which includes everything, like all the thinkables and all the unthinkables.
O.K., now find out what is it in all these things that can be put in the big big basket called religion, that is peculiar to them but not in all the things not includable within the big big basket called religion.
All things in the basket of religion, for examples: churches, prayers, priests, nuns, crucifixes, Mass, baptism, Holy Friday, Easter, curses, blessings, etc.: you get the idea?
Now, what is that component qualifying all these things to be includable in religion, the absence of which excludes other things from religion?
For example, garbage, not being irreverent, but just being down to earth realistic, is not includable in religion. Another example, genitals, but circumcision is includable under religion if you connect it to the Jews.
O.K., all you guys, figure out what is that component which makes all those things in the basket of religion qualifying them for such an inclusion; and you will get the essence of religion.
The straight dope, please.
Susma Rio Sep