Rite or Religion

I ran that one past SO, who is cross and says he isn't and nor are any of his friends. And MANY Quaker friends have pointed out that you can be a Friend (which is their term) without even believing in any kind of god. They can talk about meditative peace all they like, but not to worship God, he says - and as for so they are still worshipping. he says they jolly well aren't - they seek peace and the light within themselves. If you want, I'll see if I can get him to post in my name later...

He says sure they call it Meeting for Worship, but that they aren't worshipping anything as such, and locally they just call it Meeting, here. Nor is there any statement of faith. The Divine is very nebulous and is not necessarily any kind of deity anyway.

Definition just dug up:

Worship is an act of religious devotion usually directed towards a deity. An act of worship may be performed individually, in an informal or formal group, or by a designated leader. Worship asserts the reality of its object and defines its meaning by reference to it.

Click to expand...

They don't (mostly) refer to any object of worship - some Quakers are Christian - some aren't - I know two who are Buddhists... Nor do I see how that can POSSIBLY apply to tarot as a religion, though. I don't think anyone has suggested worshipping TAROT, but the (allegedly) divine some people say they are in touch with through it.

I certainly am not in touch with anything divine when I read, I assure you !

This Quaker stuff is OT though - if you want to look further, daniel, I will put you in touch with my SO....

Thank you guys for the discussion so far, this is exactly what I was hoping for.

As far as defining terms. I think of a Rite as a behavior or ceremony that people use within a religious or spiritual context. Wiccans, Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians all have some rite that joins people together in an intimate relationship. It has different names and different symbols, but marriage and handfasting aren't that different. Tarot might be a rite of divination like the rabbi using Urimand Thumim. A religion is a set of beliefs that a group of people share together about the way the world works. I realize that's a fairly broad definition, but it fits Shinto ancestor worship as well as it does Christianity.

I'm not saying that Tarot is a religion in the same way that People of the Books have religion. (Jews, Muslims, Christians) I am saying that we, as readers, share a set of beliefs and experiences that shape the way we think about the world. I realize that many of us are members of an array of religious groups or non-groups. I also realize that my Christian beliefs burned out several years ago, while my faith in the Tarot has not.

gregory said:

But I think that yes, actually you can use a religion as a tool within another religion. But I don't actually see tarot as a religion in itself.

Click to expand...

So, you think that you can use Christianity (Christianity, not Christ) as a function within, say, Zoroastrianism?

nisaba said:

So, you think that you can use Christianity (Christianity, not Christ) as a function within, say, Zoroastrianism?

Click to expand...

I will need time to work that one out - but I think that in theory such things are possible.

alchemist1248 said:

A religion is a set of beliefs that a group of people share together about the way the world works. I realize that's a fairly broad definition, but it fits Shinto ancestor worship as well as it does Christianity.

Click to expand...

I think your definition is insufficient, though. By this word-for-word definition, you could call any political affiliation a religion. Personally, if you want to work in this vein, I would suggest substituting Emile Durkheim's definition:

Emphasizing that religion is less an indivisible whole than a complex system of parts, he began by dividing these parts into rites (determined modes of action) and beliefs (collective representations); and since rites can be distinguished from other actions only by their object, and the nature of that object is determined by the beliefs, Durkheim insisted on defining the latter first.

[...]

Hence Durkheim's definition: " A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."

Click to expand...

(Taken from here, and actually I think the rest of the page would be very useful in narrowing down what we mean when we talk about religion.

By this definition, religion is a unified set of beliefs about the world (in line with your view), but specifically a set of beliefs about what is sacred in the world. Moreover, these beliefs have a social element to them, and result in the creation of rites to honor the profane--if not in a "church", then in a religious community.

I think that some readers see the Tarot as sacred, although certainly not all. (I, myself, am a marked exception to this generalization.) So Tarot would fit the first part of the definition, if you took a limited sampling. But as for the second part? There are no rites associated with Tarot, or at least not by Durkheim's definition. Once again, I return to the examples of rites of passage--birth, marriage, and death being the most notable--which are present in every world religion I can think of. None of those exist in Tarot, so the social and ritual aspects of religion don't apply. And for that, I don't think Tarot can be called a religion.

Working from a different angle, French sociology makes a distinction between la religion and le religieux. The best English translation of this would perhaps be the distinction between "spirituality" and "religion". The former fits only the "belief" criterion of religion, and is a wholly personal connection to whatever form of divinity or transcendence one believes in. The latter, however, has a distinct component of social organization and community to it, not only with rites of passage, but (often) with some form of clergy, sacred texts (present even in non-Abrahamic religions) and communal festivals. Looking at things this way, I think you can call Tarot a form of spirituality, but not religion; it doesn't address le religieux.

I'm not saying that Tarot is a religion in the same way that People of the Books have religion. (Jews, Muslims, Christians)

Click to expand...

But it's also not a religion the way that Hinduism is a religion, or Janism, or Sikhism. The question of communal practice being as important as communal belief (orthopraxy versus orthodoxy) is relevant to all religions, not just Abrahamic ones.

I am saying that we, as readers, share a set of beliefs and experiences that shape the way we think about the world.

Click to expand...

But do we? Frankly, I find myself utterly disagreeing with almost everyone on this forum on a fairly regular basis. Readers with whom I share some opinions are the same readers to whom I'm vehemently opposed on other questions. There are readers who believe that angels speak to them through their Tarot cards, readers who believe that the cards themselves are sentient, and readers who see no supernatural element to Tarot whatsoever. Yes, my use of Tarot may affect the way I see the world to an extent, but it is definitely not the same way that anyone else uses Tarot, and therefore its effect on me is going to be completely different than what any other reader experiences.

JackofWands said:

I think your definition is insufficient, though. By this word-for-word definition, you could call any political affiliation a religion. Personally, if you want to work in this vein, I would suggest substituting Emile Durkheim's definition:



(Taken from here, and actually I think the rest of the page would be very useful in narrowing down what we mean when we talk about religion.

By this definition, religion is a unified set of beliefs about the world (in line with your view), but specifically a set of beliefs about what is sacred in the world. Moreover, these beliefs have a social element to them, and result in the creation of rites to honor the profane--if not in a "church", then in a religious community.

I think that some readers see the Tarot as sacred, although certainly not all. (I, myself, am a marked exception to this generalization.) So Tarot would fit the first part of the definition, if you took a limited sampling. But as for the second part? There are no rites associated with Tarot, or at least not by Durkheim's definition. Once again, I return to the examples of rites of passage--birth, marriage, and death being the most notable--which are present in every world religion I can think of. None of those exist in Tarot, so the social and ritual aspects of religion don't apply. And for that, I don't think Tarot can be called a religion.

Working from a different angle, French sociology makes a distinction between la religion and le religieux. The best English translation of this would perhaps be the distinction between "spirituality" and "religion". The former fits only the "belief" criterion of religion, and is a wholly personal connection to whatever form of divinity or transcendence one believes in. The latter, however, has a distinct component of social organization and community to it, not only with rites of passage, but (often) with some form of clergy, sacred texts (present even in non-Abrahamic religions) and communal festivals. Looking at things this way, I think you can call Tarot a form of spirituality, but not religion; it doesn't address le religieux.

But it's also not a religion the way that Hinduism is a religion, or Janism, or Sikhism. The question of communal practice being as important as communal belief (orthopraxy versus orthodoxy) is relevant to all religions, not just Abrahamic ones.

But do we? Frankly, I find myself utterly disagreeing with almost everyone on this forum on a fairly regular basis. Readers with whom I share some opinions are the same readers to whom I'm vehemently opposed on other questions. There are readers who believe that angels speak to them through their Tarot cards, readers who believe that the cards themselves are sentient, and readers who see no supernatural element to Tarot whatsoever. Yes, my use of Tarot may affect the way I see the world to an extent, but it is definitely not the same way that anyone else uses Tarot, and therefore its effect on me is going to be completely different than what any other reader experiences.

Click to expand...

This - especially the last bit.

I have never heard "People of the Books" before. It amuses me for some reason

I'm not really adding to the discussion here, but I do think that tarot can embody a set of religious and/or spiritual beliefs, but it isn't inherently tied to them and can certainly be used and experienced without any spiritual aspect at all. Tarot is flexible that way.

nisaba said:

So, you think that you can use Christianity (Christianity, not Christ) as a function within, say, Zoroastrianism?

Click to expand...

There's been quite a bit of debate about whether some of the basic tenants Zoroastrianism underpin Christianity, so perhaps it already does.

gregory said:

I will need time to work that one out - but I think that in theory such things are possible.

Click to expand...

Of course, and that is exactly what the GD or the Theosophical society set out to do, in a way. They were trying to find the common Hermetic denominators in different religions and to unite them under an intiatory system. Christianity's themes of fall, sacrifice and redemption were sanitized somewhat, and called by other names, but their influence is everywhere,

Laura Borealis said:

I have never heard "People of the Books" before. It amuses me for some reason

Click to expand...

Quite a hotly debated term, "People of the Book" (singular). Moslems believe it to describe adherents of all Abrahamic religions, Jews believe it refers only to them while Christianity doesn't accept it at all.