I was thinking about this today and how many legitimately 'religious' people I have known in my life. I've known a lot of christians (obviously) but they're always very uncaring and half-hearted about the entire thing. For the devout, I could probably count them on one hand.

What about you guys? What is it like where you live?

Australia is a predominantly secular country. Even the Christians I know well or work with are coy about their religion. Muslims appear to be more devout, but as they constitute a very small minority in Australia, their cultural religious impact is not significant.

I think that most Muslims are practicing Muslims, except maybe some Turkish ex-pats. Turks are Muslim in name only for the most part. I have enjoyed the scenery at a number of Turkish Adriatic beaches. Bikinis are the favoured attire there for Turkish women. It will be interesting to see if Islam survives the predominant youth culture in Australia in the long term, because current trends in youth religion will determine the eventual trend in Australian society.

Most Christians from the Anglican and Catholic faiths are not active. They don't pray or engage in any other activity, except for Marriages and Funerals. Many Catholics I know are living with a defacto or have divorced and remarried, so they don't really follow their religion, which they seem to regard as a attribute, almost like a name tag.

Most Catholic schools don't teach religion. The same goes for Lutheran and Anglican schools, although they do teach values consistent with their religions. Religion is taught as a kind of social science, and it usually discusses all religions.   As a non religious person, I think I'm a lot more spiritual than most so-called Christians.

From experience, the more evangelical faiths have a higher proportion of practising Christians. They include the Baptists and various similar fundamental churches such as Assembly of God, but they represent a tiny but growing minority. I think they get a lot of new adherents from disenchanted mainstream Christians.  

I would say that of the 25% of australians who call tehmselves catholic only 11-15% of them are devout.

that means that roughly 3% of australisn are devout catholics.

Not very thank God.  ;)

I'd be asking how "spiritual" they are, although I'm still learning what spiritual means beyond cliches like seances, crystal healing, various forms of counselling, and merely labelling anything you choose as "spiritual".

I've met Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists who I'd consider very spiritual (some in different ways, some in the same way).

I've met plenty of others who just go for the belief system and the odd ritual. I'd consider these the religious.

I've also met some with no religion at all who I'd think of as spiritual. I've met people who don't even use the word "spiritual," who I think are very spiritual.

And I've met many "spiritual" seekers who don't seem spiritual at all. We all have.

Religions are useful to teach a system of values and ethics. Some teach discipline. If you listen carefully to the core message of all religions, you'll find that they all teach the same thing. It's just that they don't usually teach this and people get hung up on the differences.

I'd say love, compassion, and awareness are the core of all religions. Continual self development and improvement, I think, are essentials too.

Unfortunately, many get stuck at the "belief" stage, and assume that you just need to intellectually believe something to be a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew. Many people intellectually mistake themselves as humans too, when often they have a very "animal" nature, and find it almost impossible to base their behaviour on anything more than instinct alone.

Most of us find it difficult, of course. The more you observe, the more you realise how trapped you really are.

So I'd define those as "spiritual" who are easy to forgive, who don't get hung up on things, who are generous and caring to all people they meet, and who don't care much about petty attacks on their egos. These are just the outward signs. Along with these gifts come inner strength and awareness.

Ultimately, I guess, the more humble, the more spiritual. I've met rickshaw pullers with more spiritual gifts than many educated, "religious" people. You can't teach "grace," you have to practice it.

Ultimately, I think Australia has no more or less actually "practicing" their religion than anywhere else. I have noticed one thing though: people seem to be more humble and compassionate in places with more poverty.

I think we're really religious if you include footy, rugby and cricket, work and TV.

Otherwise I feel we live in a secular culture. At least a culture without a clearly defined spirituality of its own. It may have something to do with the fact that we've disregarded traditional indigenous a valid existence and spirituality and this is now biting us in the bum.

Of course there are pockets of devout followers everywhere probably no different then any time or place in history I imagine.

Finally what I'd like to know is whether some 'devout' religions are confused with fundamentalism? I'm talking about all of them. What separates religion from fundamentalism? I guess spirituality is the domain of individuals whether religious or not.

So how does it work if you have a different religion every day? Is it some kind of multiplying effect?

I prefer religions that are not selfish, like, there is no god but....<for example Wayne> and < for example Raelene> is his prophet. They just don't like sharing their supernatural domain with other deities. Pretty antisocial if you ask me.

Elephant gods, such as Sri Ganeesh and water spirits are fun, and  Sao-Ts'ing Niang who rides a dragon in the clouds is pretty amazing.

The Etruscan Tuchulchu is pretty grim, but would make a good watch-god.

Probably my favourite of them all is the laughing Buddha. He never seems to take anything too seriously.

muso wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 3:53pm:

Probably my favourite of them all is the laughing Buddha. He never seems to take anything too seriously.

He can't. That would involve caring.   :P

muso wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 3:53pm:

So how does it work if you have a different religion every day? Is it some kind of multiplying effect? I prefer religions that are not selfish, like, there is no god but....<for example Wayne> and < for example Raelene> is his prophet. They just don't like sharing their supernatural domain with other deities. Pretty antisocial if you ask me. Elephant gods, such as Sri Ganeesh and water spirits are fun, and  Sao-Ts'ing Niang who rides a dragon in the clouds is pretty amazing. The Etruscan Tuchulchu is pretty grim, but would make a good watch-god. Probably my favourite of them all is the laughing Buddha. He never seems to take anything too seriously.

My dear Mr Musician, you display all the pathologies of western relativism, with that mandatory self-conscious irony. If I were a Muslim - or an aborigine or anyone with any conviction, really - I, too, would want to sweep you away.

Soren wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 9:02pm:

My dear Mr Musician, you display all the pathologies of western relativism, with that mandatory self-conscious irony. If I were a Muslim - or an aborigine or anyone with any conviction, really - I, too, would want to sweep you away.

Damned relativism!  There is no good or evil - just appropriate or inappropriate.

To hell with shades of grey! Bring back good old black and white. At least everybody understood the old monochrome existence of the 50's that you yearn for, when blokes were blokes and sheilas minded their own business. Aborigines were in their rightful place back then too - Didn't have a hope of sweeping anybody away. Everybody ate steak and eggs for breakfast and thanked God for being so bloody lucky.

I was thinking of a name for the religion that worships Raelene as a prophet. You could call them Raelians I guess, but maybe that's too off the planet?

Soren wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 9:02pm:

My dear Mr Musician, you display all the pathologies of western relativism, with that mandatory self-conscious irony. If I were a Muslim - or an aborigine or anyone with any conviction, really - I, too, would want to sweep you away.

Presbyterians   ::)

I always thought that "trainspotters" were 'Railians'?

muso wrote on May 13^th, 2010 at 9:42am:

Soren wrote on May 12th, 2010 at 9:02pm: My dear Mr Musician, you display all the pathologies of western relativism, with that mandatory self-conscious irony. If I were a Muslim - or an aborigine or anyone with any conviction, really - I, too, would want to sweep you away. Damned relativism!  There is no good or evil - just appropriate or inappropriate. To hell with shades of grey! Bring back good old black and white. At least everybody understood the old monochrome existence of the 50's that you yearn for, when blokes were blokes and sheilas minded their own business. Aborigines were in their rightful place back then too - Didn't have a hope of sweeping anybody away. Everybody ate steak and eggs for breakfast and thanked God for being so bloody lucky. I was thinking of a name for the religion that worships Raelene as a prophet. You could call them Raelians I guess, but maybe that's too off the planet?

See what I mean? Even Muso doesn't take you seriously. No matter what, you can't stop jumping in and out and around, in perpetuity. Rather like Kafka's cossack, dancing between two houses where he goes on scraping and throwing aside the earth with the heels of his boots until his grave is dug under him.

Soren wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 12:51am:

muso wrote on May 13th, 2010 at 9:42am: Soren wrote on May 12th, 2010 at 9:02pm: My dear Mr Musician, you display all the pathologies of western relativism, with that mandatory self-conscious irony. If I were a Muslim - or an aborigine or anyone with any conviction, really - I, too, would want to sweep you away. Damned relativism!  There is no good or evil - just appropriate or inappropriate. To hell with shades of grey! Bring back good old black and white. At least everybody understood the old monochrome existence of the 50's that you yearn for, when blokes were blokes and sheilas minded their own business. Aborigines were in their rightful place back then too - Didn't have a hope of sweeping anybody away. Everybody ate steak and eggs for breakfast and thanked God for being so bloody lucky. I was thinking of a name for the religion that worships Raelene as a prophet. You could call them Raelians I guess, but maybe that's too off the planet? See what I mean? Even Muso doesn't take you seriously. No matter what, you can't stop jumping in and out and around, in perpetuity. Rather like Kafka's cossack, dancing between two houses where he goes on scraping and throwing aside the earth with the heels of his boots until his grave is dug under him.

Soren1 to Soren2... Come in Soren2... Over.

relativism:

1. there is no absolute truth. (except the statement "there is no absolute truth.")

2. all oppinions based on differring perspectives are equal. (except the oppinion that not all oppinions are equal, which is clearly a bigoted falacy.)

ahh relativism...

"The man who tells you truth is merely relative is asking you not to believe him. So don't."

I would love to know where you get your definitions from pender. The understanding of relativism is pretty standard stuff, which like anything, can be taken to ridiculous extremes, but pretending the extreme is the norm, is extreme in itself, isn't it?

What is funny is that the religious among us seem to be the ones that find relativism objectionable, whilst relying on the demand that we respect "THEIR" truth.

The sad answer to the original question is, TOO.

Classic Liberal wrote on May 28^th, 2010 at 9:19am:

relativism: 1. there is no absolute truth. (except the statement "there is no absolute truth.") 2. all oppinions based on differring perspectives are equal. (except the oppinion that not all oppinions are equal, which is clearly a bigoted falacy.) ahh relativism...

Well my version of relativism includes the understanding that "appropriate versus inappropriate" is superior to "good versus bad".  It's all about context.

I also believe that having 10 religions makes me more religious than a Christian - or is just that a bigoted fallacy?

The bigoted fallacy is that 'my appropriate' comprehension of the pertinent elements is good while 'your inappropriate' comprehension of peripheral, if not outright impertinent,  elements of what you take to be the context makes your opinion bad.

This relativist crap simply shifts the hierarchy of values but of course does not, because it cannot, abolish them. The pretence of being hierarchy and value free is the offensive, lying heart of relativism.

That we are all speaking out of our stanpoint goes without saying. 'Here I stand, I can do no other.'

"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
(Mohandas Gandhi )

Morality is necessarily defined by a society, even when that society is predominantly Muslim or Christian. All that the religion does is to distort societal values.

The values of society vary significantly even from generation to generation and if we sampled it through the ages, we'd find that within a given society at a given time, it also depended very much on life stage, regardless of generation. In other words, attitudes change as we get older, regardless of which historical period we're looking at.

O tempora o mores! was uttered by Cicero as a crusty old man. We still have crusty old men condemning the morals of today and longing for the old days which were never quite as idyllic as they remembered them.

It might have been quite morally acceptable for a 2nd Millennium BC tribe to invade a city (eg Jerisho), kill most of its inhabitants and subject the women and children to slavery.

In the 21st Century, such an action would cause immediate intervention, especially if it was happening in an oil producing area.

As well as temporal relativism, even within a single religion, there is spacial relativism. Different societies have different values.

Morality is dynamic. That's how it is, that's how it has been, and that's how it will probably remain.

It's not so much whether there should be a hierarchy of religious and/or societal values, but rather who determines the rank.

muso wrote on May 29^th, 2010 at 7:53am:

It might have been quite morally acceptable for a 2nd Millennium BC tribe to invade a city (eg Jerisho), kill most of its inhabitants and subject the women and children to slavery. In the 21st Century, such an action would cause immediate intervention, especially if it was happening in an oil producing area.

You mean immediate intervention in the sense of the massive international intervention in Darfur, Sudan?? That kind of immediate? That kind of intervention?

The funny thing is that morals do not change as much as you make it out. Otherwise neither Gandhi, nor Cicero (and a whole host of others) would still make sense to us.