2 ms·
> allowed people to self-identify as non-religious, somewhat religious, and very religious. The word 'religious' has enough negative connotations that even man
by kybernetikos 12y ago
> allowed people to self-identify as non-religious, somewhat religious, and very religious.
The word 'religious' has enough negative connotations that even many religions like to challenge its use to apply to themselves.
I did a module of comparative religion a while ago which involved interviews with deeply devout practitioners of a number of religions. All of them said something like 'it's not really a religion, it's a way of life', or 'it's not a religion, it's a relationship', or words to that effect.
This poll, at least avoids that problem.
- Udo 12y agoThis really baffles me. Does that mean it's impossible to refer to a person's religiosity in general without offending them if you don't provide the exact name of their faith? So the majority of religious people don't actually acknowledge their religiosity and the only way to talk to them about it is to outwardly treat every religion as if it is a huge special case?
- kybernetikos 12y agoWell, religious people have to realize that even if they wouldn't use the term to describe themselves, it's pretty normal for others to, so I assume most of them can cope without getting offended, but if you ask them if they self identify as religious, they might well say no despite being extremely devout. I think the argument with the word 'religious' is probably that it is perceived to have connotations of dry rule-following without any kind of meaning. It's not surprising that people want to avoid that sort of image, because they almost certainly don't see their own religion in that way.