I think the spirit of this proposal is a good one, but I am not sure looking at the primary sources is going to be as rewarding as one might think -- at least when it comes to examining Christianity in the U.S.
[...]
What makes religion appealing (mostly) is its social dimension and the rituals it provides for various passages in life from birth to death. My hypothesis is that if you supply an adequate social dimension and ritual, the substance of the ideas you're selling -- no matter how ridiculous -- doesn't matter (see e.g. Mormonism).
[...]
.....................
Sigh.
Yes, I know.
This is why I wrote: "Read, listen and view the pop culture of the major religious sub cultures (GOOG Carmen + Christian singer, for example)."
In other words, try to understand the social elements of modern religious expression.
Michael Smith:
There's a mistake here -- an understandable one, of course -- to the effect that the foundational texts represent the 'substance of the faith.' But that's backwards. The substance of faith is praxis -- social praxis at that. It's an intellectual's deformation-professionnelle to overestimate text and dogma.
[...]
..................
Sigh again.
Yes, I know.
This is why, near the closing sentence of my post, I wrote: "What's needed is a concrete linking of source material to belief to action to the political consequences".
In other words, examine the praxis of modern religious forms.
Sometimes I wonder if anyone ever reads a post past whatever lines activate a 'teaching moment' response.
.d.