>
>As for the "there's a lot of problems with data like this," reputable
>sociologists designed the survey, not mere journalists.
no, i meant comparing the piece yoshie forwarded with the data you offered. out of context, it's hard to say and it's conceivable that
>>other than that, what's the difference between deepok chopra, the
>>celestine prophecy, john bradshaw, that dip of men are from mars, women
>>from venus, etc and 'fundamentalism/evangelism'?
>
>I don't think Deepak Chopra practices snake handling, for one. Though from
>having listened to some of his nonsense, I think he might practice
>speaking in tongues.
well, i think my 'hint hint' is that we can demonize religious wackos all we want. but i don't think we escape the phenom at all since plenty of people engage in the above with an exhuberance and commitment that is absolutely astonishing. if one of the things religion does for people is order their lives, give them a sense of purpose and meaning, then it's difficult to discern between those who worship the iron god at the gym, those who worship at the alter of whatever pop psychobabble freak is hustling books and audio tapes at barnes and nobles and a evangelist's jesus.
speaking of which, i'm reminded of judith stacey's _brave new families_. stacey argues against the thesis that the bourg middle class family is on the cutting edge of changes in family structure by looking at white working class families in silicon valley during the mid 80s. stacey is honest and engages in quite a bit of soul searching as to how she feels about the fact that the women she studies (and their families) not only have tupperware salt and pepper shakers on their dining room tables, but they voice feminist sentiments while getting involved in fundamentalist/evangelist churches.
kelley
>Doug