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

[Richard Hayes]

On Sep 12, 2013, at 23:59 , Dan Lusthaus <vasubandhu at earthlink.net> wrote:

> 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.

I'm not sure where you get the "one to a customer" claim. I know dozens of people who claim to be both Jewish and Buddhist. About half the Quakers I know claim to adhere to multiple traditions. The same is true of more than half the Unitarians I know. It is the norm for native Americans in the southwestern United States to follow both their own traditional religions and either Roman Catholicism or some form of evangelical Protestantism. I have been to large roman Catholic conferences at which the principal theme has been religious pluralism—not merely an acknowledgement that there are several perfectly legitimate religions but exploration of the notion that for any individual practicing a variety of religions is as spiritually healthy as following a varied diet is physically healthy.

Maybe I hang out with too many intelligent people and too few of Rush Limbaugh's listeners, but in my experience most of the people I know well enough to call my friend become anything but univocal when asked what their own religion is.

What is your religion, Dan? Any idea?

Please don't ask me mine unless you are prepared for a very long, complex and hideously unclear answer.

Richard