> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>> Yes. Jim explains my point precisely. And no, religion is _not_ a mass
>> _movement_; neither is watching television or wearing clothing -- though
>> huge masses of people do both. Every so often Doug says something which
>> makes me wonder if he has ever read a page of political history.
>
>
> Nope, not even a paragraph.
>
> Why isn't religion a mass movement? It involves large groups of
> ideologically and organizationally affiliated people with common goals
> who affect social life profoundly. Is it just that you don't like it?
Doug, I'm not agreeing with Carrol, but you're missing a distinction here. A _particular_ religion, sect, or cult is certainly a mass movement. But saying that "religion" _in general_ is a mass movement is like saying that "politics" or "science" or even "eating" are mass movements. They're practices that humans engage in, and _within_ those practices, movements (or theories, or ideologies, or tastes) emerge, gain influence, wane, etc.
(Just as an aside to anyone who's thinking of replying that science is a recent invention: it isn't. Not unless you presume that no one prior to Francis Bacon wanted to figure out how things worked.)