yes.

[kaigou]

Religion is a circumstance of birth for most people. We're indoctrinated into it and that's where we hang out for most of our lives, wallowing in and out of varying degrees of fanaticism for it. ... Yeah, people convert, but outside of countries where [there's] Freedom of Religion or something, [for] the most part, generically speaking, you are what your parents taught you to be.

killermuff rocks my world.

Comments

[sintari.livejournal.com]

Well yeah, same with political beliefs. It's culture, baby.

[merith.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily culture ..more environment.

Parents teach their kids more than they know. Which is why some people should never become parents.

[sintari.livejournal.com]

Well, environment is culture in the anthropological sense. (We're agreeing here, I'm just throwing out some cultural anthropologist babble bcs I kinda miss school. Beh.)

Anthropological definition of culture - Habits, beliefs, morals, ethics, arts, laws, customs, blah blah learned by man in a society. Intrinsic in society. If you have a society, you will have culture. Even if there are two of you on a desert island. ^_^

Parents, of course, are the biggest conveyers of culture to a small child, but they are also enculturated by television, school, experience in the world, random things they see, etc. A kid can be "enculturated" from something as obvious as being taught manners to something as small as a poorly concealed frown from his father when he picks up a Barbie Doll. (I.e. Parents may say they are raising the boy and the girl equal, but then small cues like that tip the children off that boys play with trucks, etc.)

So yeah, culture/environment - same thing. ^_^

Which is why some people should never become parents.

*raises hand!!*

[merith.livejournal.com]

I was thinking culture more as a societal thing than environment. Yeah, we're saying the same thing (and my one class in sociology 13 yrs ago would NEVER compare to what you've been through), but in my mind the hierarchy is a bit different.

Sociology according to merith:

Environment can be the home/parental/care-giver setting for the child and provide the core base with reemphasis on their beliefs whether they be policial, racial, religious or even what brand of laundry soap works best. (I buy Tide because my mama did...and I do like it better than most other laundry soaps!)

Culture is all things interacting within the child's environment. These things can reenforce the parental/home/care-giver beliefs or counteract. And depending on the child's own make-up, culture can work against their environment/core beliefs.

So, in a nutshell, to me culture is part of a child's environment, but does not equal the same thing.

I really do like sociology discussions. I'm just not educated in it...more thought a lot about it!

[sintari.livejournal.com]

*nodnodnod* Yes - the only difference in our opinions is that I would lump what you call "Environment" into culture. And actually, sociologists and anthroplogists have a lot of little quibbles like that.

>_> We actually had a section in Anthropological Theory where we talking about how we ARE NOT sociologists! (And apparently sociologists keep braching over into our studies! How dare them!)

No matter how you cut it, the social sciences rock!

oh! And if you ever want to read a great book about the humanities, check out "Europe and the Peoples Without History" by Eric Wolf. It actually deals with the whole boundary between the social sciences and how we divide our knowledge base when we insist of indentifying our studies as anthropology, or sociology, or economics or political science instead of looking at all of this as part of the human condition. It's not really light reading, but it's one of those books that you're reading and going "I hate you because you are smarter than I will ever dream of being, Eric Wolf. Teach me all you know!"

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

And don't forget the inculturation process that we go through even as adults. Just moving from Point A to Point B, and there's a minor inculturation process (or major, depending on the variation between A and B). Hence culture shock, as we struggle against the unspoken rules of a new culture--unspoken because it's not like you get a stinkin' handbook when you move to a new city, state, or country.

I often suspect that the kids who are raised moving frequently are either less sensitive to culture shock--having gone through the acculturation process plenty of times as a child--or they're ten times more sensitive, due to the trauma of being uprooted so much as a child. Worst thing is you never really find out where you stand until that first big move as an adult.

Fffft. Is it time to go home yet? ;D

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Unless the culture you're raised in consists of Asking Questions. To date, the only subcultures that seem to do this with any consistency are Jewish households and academic households (where one or both parents are college professors). For some reason, the higher the level of education for parents, the more likely they are to raise heretical kids. Those folks lacking either of those early questioning-paradigms can (and do) catch up, but it's more of a self-taught culture, in that case, rather than one we're raised with.

In which case, I suppose, "asking questions" is in and of itself also a cultural thing. Am I such a heretical skeptical analytical bastard because my father and mother are like that? Do I just take for granted that I must quesiton everything, simply because that's what I was raised to believe?

Hell yeah. *smirk*

[sintari.livejournal.com]

*grins* You grew up in a good CULTURE. :p

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Hey, you're biased, cousin! ;D

I find it amusing when people assume that because I studied theology, I must've been getting "this is what I believe" from any of my professors. To date, the only professor who made that statement was the Rabbi. Even then he only spoke with the general qualification that he gave his answer as a Reformed Jew, and even then spoke in general terms, not personal.

My entire life I have never discussed any of the family's political leanings with either of my parents. The only information I ever had about their political views was a comment my mother made back prior to the Reagan/Carter election. She only said, "your father and I have always voted on opposite sides." She didn't specify who was which, and later made a comment that made me suspect these sides may have changed at times, but to this day I don't know which parent voted for whom. I know my sister registered as a Democrat in HS, but switched her registration to Republican so she could participate as a Girl Scout in the Bush Sr inaugural parade. *snickers* This was met with much amusement by the extended family, which still gives me no clues to my part-time curiosity about my parents' and grandparents' political views.

When it comes to religion, I think--like politics, in some ways--people don't apply this, because it's an socio-emotional aspect of one's identity, and not something most can/will pick apart and put back together again. And it is easier, in the long run, to remain where you were raised, unless you were raised in an environment where the socio-emotional rules changed somewhat regularly. This is why I envied my military and foreign service friends, who were immersed in widely varying cultures, especially those who lived off-base overseas and did not attend the local (military) American School. I suppose my parents did a smaller version by sending my sister and I to a variety of churches through our upbringing, from Jewish synagogues to every form of Protestant up to Greek Orthodox. Then again, my parents were raised Methodist and Presbyterian, so becoming Episcopalian was a compromise, not a life-long allegiance prior to my baptism.

And yes, Russian Orthodox services are amazing. You want ritual? They've got ritual in spades. Gorgeous, gorgeous. But I've also been to a tent revival, complete with little kid preaching (screaming is more like it). Talk about a one-eighty from the first example. Hell, tent revivals are a one-eighty from the standard Anglican service, let alone the pomp and majesty of Russian Orthodox.

[I have yet to attend an event at the local Hindu temple, and the only thing keeping me is that attendance is usually around two hundred plus people, yegawdz. And I would like to go for the next Ganesh Chaturthi. Because Ganesha: god of learning and elephant!, and you can't get cooler than that.]

[pixiepilot.livejournal.com]

Well, both my parents are college grads, and we were raised to ask questions about everything, yet my family remains highly religious. *grins* Then again, my religion encourages us to ask all questions as well. Asking questions isn't just a necessity for religion, but for all life experiences. I think it's a really good habit to get into, and will teach my kids the same. ;) The cool thing is that all of my question asking has brought me right back to my religion. I'm not bragging, I just think it's pretty neat. I am really grateful to live in a country of religious tolerance and freedom.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I think the key difference is whether or not the parents provide the answers.

I meant college professors--and by that I mean, advanced degrees (masters and phd)--but perhaps I should qualify that further as 'those who teach in branches which rely on statistical sciences'. Psychology, industrial management, economics, anthropology, sociology, etc--all of these, at some point during the course of grad school--will have to do extensive comparative studies on the information gathered.

From a lifetime of knowing college professors of various ilks (including both parents), it seems that gathering information is the numero uno stage, and is not to be stopped once you've reached a satisfactory conclusion, but continued to the point that the evidence is unsatisfactory (in the sense of disproving one's theory). Those in the analytical sciences begin a hypothesis, in part, to test whether this hypothesis will/can be disproven. If it can, it's amended and tested again, or thrown out and something new is tried. The long-term submersion in the academic culture means this 'gathering information' is never left behind. With every new class of students, the teacher's process begins again. That's going to have a huge impact on how one parents, IME.

Given that my parents believe that "being called An Authority doesn't make someone Right," I'm not surprised my father likes to say, "check your sources." That necessarily includes all those who may/do disagree with your pet hypothesis. If you only read up on agreeing sources, that's not research. That's just mental masturbation.

*snerk* Yes, that last sentence is a quote from my mother.

[pixiepilot.livejournal.com]

...it seems that gathering information is the numero uno stage, and is not to be stopped once you've reached a satisfactory conclusion, but continued to the point that the evidence is unsatisfactory (in the sense of disproving one's theory).

I'm not sure I understand, but it sounds like you're saying these professors keep gathering information until they go beyond what seems reasonable and continue until the reasonable isn't anymore. That seems to assume that gathering information is more important than making something of it, which just seems silly to me. Is there no end point where an answer is The Answer? I've tested a lot of theories personally - so if they withstand every testing, if they hold true and never let me down, do I continue to question them for the rest of my life? My reason to gather as much information as possible is to use it to make my life and the lives of those around me better. (That's not to say I'll ever stop gathering information, I'm here to learn as much as I can about everything I can.)

Given that my parents believe that "being called An Authority doesn't make someone Right," I'm not surprised my father likes to say, "check your sources." That necessarily includes all those who may/do disagree with your pet hypothesis. If you only read up on agreeing sources, that's not research. That's just mental masturbation.

*winces* Your mother has a talent for vivid metaphor, but I agree completely. Check sources, read differing opinions, ask tough questions and look at varying points of view. Otherwise it's merely a mental pat on the back, earned or not, but not learning. I like what your dad says, as well. So many authorities in the world, so few of them with anything useful to say.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

it sounds like you're saying these professors keep gathering information until they go beyond what seems reasonable and continue until the reasonable isn't anymore

No. It's not enough to prove one's theory; you must also disprove the antithesis of one's theory. So finding 'enough information' that satisfies your requirements: here, all this says my theory is true--that's not good enough. It's common in the analytical sciences to ask whether there's an opposite of the argument (is it falsifiable) and whether that can be proven/argued. The same is done in theological dialectic, where one argues the thesis, and then the antithesis, and thereby proves the thesis via synthesis.

That's what I meant by going past the point of satisfactory to unsatisfactory: reach for the point of digging up contradictory information, and then study it as keenly as the supporting evidence. It often reveals as much about one's theory as that which supports your theory.

I've tested a lot of theories personally - so if they withstand every testing, if they hold true and never let me down, do I continue to question them for the rest of my life?

IMO? Yes.

How will you know beliefs continue to hold true if you don't ask the questions that will test those beliefs and make sure?

[sarolynne.livejournal.com]

That's why I'm a heretical, skeptical, analytical bitch. XD My parents weren't even academics. But I had the good luck to be born to parents who encouraged us to question. They even encouraged us to question them. Both my parents would make my brother and I justify our opinions, even when we agreed with them, because they didn't want us to just parrot what they were saying.

My brother has still been known to mouth my father, though; as much as they don't get along, they have very similar opinions, and dad shaped my brother's opinions more than either of them realize, I think. Particularly on politics.

I grew up with good argument culture.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I grew up with good argument culture.

Eh, I love that quote.

My parents just demanded citations. "Go to the library and research that." And if you posited an opinion, you'd better have three sources to back it up, and be able to demonstrate that you're aware of all arguments against it. Fastest way to lose ground with my parents is to not be aware of the critiques against one's position. Second fastest way: to be aware of critiques, unable to refute, and unwilling to change your position in light of the new facts.

[mikkeneko.livejournal.com]

My dad believes that the only religion you can truly commit yourself to spiritually is one you've converted to.

But then, my dad himself converted, so maybe that's why he feels that way.

Actually, when I use the word 'converted' it gives the impression of a huge inter-cultural change, like from Judiasm to Mormonism or something. He grew up the son of a travelling Baptist minister, and in graduate school converted to Unitarian Universalism. I'm pretty sure he thinks that even just lapsing from your faith for a time, and then coming back as an adult and re-examining its values, then deciding that it's the right religion for you after all, counts.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Dude, I would totally consider Baptist to UU to be a major cultural shift!

My dad believes that the only religion you can truly commit yourself to spiritually is one you've converted to.

I suppose if you raise kids in an a-religious environment (or a omni-religious environment?) where no one POV gets more weight than the rest, than if the child embraces a religious (or political or social) mindset, this is a type of conversion. It's just movement from an apositional POV to preferential POV.

Or, uh, something. I have a chapter to edit. Bleah.

[mikkeneko.livejournal.com]

I would totally consider Baptist to UU to be a major cultural shift!

*laughs* I suppose that's fair. But I meant to say that even a less major shift, like say from Baptist to Episcopalean, would probably still fit what my dad had in mind.

Myself, unfortunately, I don't see any such shift in my future. I'm not religiously motivated at the moment, but if I were, I can't really think of any religion more suited to my values and perspective than the one I'm already in.

[okaasan59.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure he thinks that even just lapsing from your faith for a time, and then coming back as an adult and re-examining its values, then deciding that it's the right religion for you after all, counts.

I think that's a pretty healthy thing to do, perhaps even necessary. If a person never questioned the faith they were brought up in, then IMO, they're just being mindless sheep. I'm still in the church I was born and raised in, though I've attended others and attended none for several years. I've done my share of questioning and feel that the church I'm in is the right one for me...at least for now. Current social issues and the resulting conservative backlash is making the grass look greener a few pastures over.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Current social issues and the resulting conservative backlash is making the grass look greener a few pastures over.

Are the Lutherans getting pulled into the whole Anglican controversy?

[okaasan59.livejournal.com]

The branch I belong to is one of the conservative ones--LCMS. They don't ordain women, are ambivalent at best on the issue of sexual orientation, and they get caught up in all kinds of 'legalistic' shit like having a hissy fit if a minister participates in a service with ministers of other faiths. I'm thinking of changing to ELCA, the more liberal branch of the Lutheran church, though my brother, who is an ordained LCMS minister might disinherit me. ^_~

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

But don't both branches co-recognize with Episcopalians? I know back about ten, fifteen years ago there was that whole Synod between the two, and the conservative branches of Lutheranism threw wrenches in the works. The liturgy is so similar between Episcopalian, Lutheran, and most Roman (American) Catholicism that it's almost like "different name, but same on the inside!" --except for those pesky issues of women priests, sexuality, and AIDS outreach.

And for the record, Rite I makes me break out in hives. Ehehehe. Rite II, man! ;D

[okaasan59.livejournal.com]

No, LCMS doesn't share pulpit privileges with any other branches, even with ELCA churches. Two LCMS leaders recently got in trouble--one for co-officiating at his niece's wedding with an ELCA pastor, and another for participating in a prayer service after 9/11 that included many different faiths. That sucks big time.

Um...what's Rite I and Rite II? (And yes, the liturgy is so similar that I feel right at home in a Roman Catholic church service.)

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Rite I is the formal, older style: It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should at all times, and in all places, give thanks -- while Rite II is the modern version: It is right, and a good and joyful thing, always and everywhere to give thanks...

Most often you see Rite I and Rite II contrasts in the LP. "For thine is the kingdom and the power" is Rite I; the modern version is "For the kingdom, and the power, and the glory are yours". The thing to note is that this isn't set in stone; I was raised in Rite II churches but some use Rite I during the Eurcharist for its more formal language.

And YES damn it I CAN still quote massive sections of the Nicene Creed. You hear this crap nearly every Sunday for the first eighteen years of your life and IT WILL NEVER GO AWAY.

Gimme bleach.

*snickers*

[habibti.livejournal.com]

I was raised in an Antiochian Orthodox family with a very religious mother (she still is). All the Byzantine chanting, incense, robes, gold crosses, processions, a 2.5 hour chanted liturgy, having to go entirely vegan over all of Lent, church every night during holy week, holy oil and water, candles and ashes, body and blood, blah, blah, blah.

My family enouraged reading and eduation but my mother meant becoming a doctor or a lawyer, not questioning her basic assumptions about life, as I mistakenly thought. When that led me far, far away from my religious upbringing, all was not happy in the household. Luckily, my mother still loves the sinner! And while my own particular brand of philosophy and spirituality has undergone quite a few changes over the years, I only have to go back to an Orthodox church for a wedding, etc and it's the only form of church worship to me that feels 'real' somehow. And it is incredibly beautiful.

That's inculturation.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

not questioning her basic assumptions about life, as I mistakenly thought

Silly girl!

*snickers*

Heh, Episcopalianism doesn't have the same high grand ritual, so that's not what feels 'real' to me. Instead, I tend to look askance at Xtian sects that don't permit women to the priesthood. I suppose growing up with women priests around just as much as men, I can't feel truly comfortable (and sometimes not at all) with any group that thinks one gender is more suited for a role just because he's got dangly parts between his legs.

Odd, where our comfort zones are, hunh.