> I'm saying that the modern Western prohibition on eating horse is a religious phenomenon, regardless of whether people are comfortable calling it one.
And this is contrary to what people understand as religion, which seems to avoid carving reality at the joints: All of a sudden you can dispute the notion that people can be irreligious by pointing to some social conventions they follow, and demanding that those conventions are religion. That does not seem very respectful to personal self-identity.
Re:Read Fewer Books
by thaumasiotes on Friday September 11, 2020 @09:13PM
(#24448995)
> And this is contrary to what people understand as religion, which seems to avoid carving reality at the joints
It's not. It matches exactly what people understand as religion in any context that doesn't involve themselves.
Compare the Roman Emperor, who was never referred to as a "king" -- by the Romans -- because the concept was taboo. The Greeks went ahead and referred to him as a king. Who was right? What would we gain by excluding imperial Rome from a study of monarchical societies?
For example, look at the scandal from some years back in which some European (Spanish?) meat products were found to include horse meat. Everyone agreed that (1) there was no risk of any kind involved in eating the "contaminated" products; (2) you could not taste the difference; (3) a recall was in order; (4) this was and deserved to be a HUGE scandal.
I'm saying that the modern Western prohibition on eating horse is a religious phenomenon, regardless of whether people are comfortable calling it one. If you are using a definition of "religion" that doesn't include things like this, your terms do not carve reality at the joints.