[Buddha-l] buddha-l Digest, Vol 103, Issue 6

[Dan Lusthaus]

> While I'm inclined to agree that "ethnicity" is a hopelessly murky term, 
> it is not at all obvious to me what the referent of "religion" is. If 
> anything, it is even more poorly delineated and more conducive to hopeless 
> confusion than "ethnicity".

We should probably just settle for agreement when it occurs and leave it at 
that.

I agree that nailing down a fully adequate "definition" for religion is a 
fool's task, but as an identifier of people, or by people for themselves, it 
remains fairly univocal. Usually one to a customer (though they may have 
integrated additional traditions), and when we ask someone what their 
religion is, it is pretty clear to all concerned what the question entails 
and what the proper answer would be. The same is not the case with 
ethnicity.

For instance, on a webpage that ignores the actual history of the term 
Uighur while treating it as a continuative identifier of a people with 2000 
year history, the concluding paragraph reads:

--
The Uigur did not convert to Islam until the mid-fifteenth century. For some 
five centuries before that the name "Uigur" referred specifically to 
Buddhist and Nestorian oasis dwellers in Xinjiang. Today, however, all Uigur 
are Sunni Muslims and adherence to Islamic teachings is one of the key 
markers of their identity.
http://www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eurasia-China/Uigur.html
--

Buddhist, Nestorian and Islamic have clearer referents than the term 
Uig(h)ur, even while there are different sorts of Buddhists, etc.

Religion is a broader term than theologians and some philosophers allow --  
I've written on that (e.g., http://tinyurl.com/myc5huy ) -- but its general 
contours, like pornography, are easily recognizable when it appears.

Dan