>ok, i know you're not this dense. which leads me to infer that you're
>trying to distract me from the fact that you (apparently) don't want
>to define "religion". did i miss your definition?
i don't honestly think she should have to. you're the only one who really cares in this conversation. and, aside from which, it's unfair. it's like asking a sociologist to define society. it's a gotcha. Every single def. of religion is controversial and Yoshie probably knows that you can do a gotcha on her or may suspect that's what you're up to (though I concede that this isn't your goal).
So, you see why no one would want to answer the question. You only have to have half a .... oh my dog .... I don't believe what I almost typed.... anyway, most people are going to understand that "the def of religion" is inherently controversial
>why don't you try taking on the rest of my argument, because i believe
>i have set out workable beginnings of a useful definition of religion
>(which no one has yet challenged).
becaues they don't study religion. it's expecting a level of expertise folks here don't have or necessarily care to have.
I'm enjoying the discussions and you're argument, I just don't think it's fruitful to expect people to answer those questions or, at least, I think I'd like to explain why others may be interpreting your question as actually a hostile question.
Kelley
"Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."
-- rwmartin