As a Mormon[1], this is interesting. Not because I disagree, necessarily, I certainly see the similarity between Wokeness and religion. But I think an anthropologist would see a difference. At the heart of the experience of being a Mormon (and presumably other religions, though I'm most familiar with this one) is belief in a Prophet (capital P) and a collection of scripture. If you ask any Mormon who the Prophet is, they'll tell you, and they'll all give the same answer. So, who is the prophet of Woke, and what are the scriptures?

1 Culturally, at least, if not really religiously. I'm about as much of a Mormon as Larry David is a Jew.

EDIT: the article linked does partially answer my question:

> There is what we could think of as a triple-Testament tome, consisting of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ Between the World and Me, Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility, and Ibram Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist. A box set of the three would take its place on coffeetables and mantlepieces nationwide.

> But I think an anthropologist would see a difference. At the heart of the experience of being a Mormon (and presumably other religions, though I'm most familiar with this one) is belief in a Prophet (capital P) and a collection of scripture. If you ask any Mormon who the Prophet is, they'll tell you, and they'll all give the same answer. So, who is the prophet of Woke, and what are the scriptures?

I don't think the heart of a religion is a belief in a Prophet. Hindiusm is a religion, no one will dispute that, but that Hindus don't have the concept of a Prophet (big 'P'). Same goes for many other commonly accepted religions.

The only thing that all religions have in common is "A core set of beliefs, agreed upon among their followers".

> "A core set of beliefs, agreed upon among their followers".

What is the core set of beliefs agreed upon by Woke adherents?

One of the interesting things about wokeism is that the core beliefs - the things that you must uphold and recognise as absolute truth in order to be recognised as one of the tribe - are not actually codified anywhere. Not only that, they keep changing (though at every step, you must have complete faith that the current beliefs are absolutely true and correct). There's not some kind of formal process to be inducted into the truths either - you have to learn them through being continuously immersed in the community of believers. Oh, and it's vitally important that you also believe that these truths are obvious to every decent person, and that the only reason someone would claim to have trouble understanding them is because they're evil.

This is an absolutely brilliant statement.

And when the truths change, you have to remember that we were never at war with Oceania?

That you were born with and possess privilege and that acknowledging that privelege is morally necessary. That's the original sin parallel.

You can just read McWhorter, he draws a lot of parallels between Woke as a religion and Christian religion. It is somewhat amusing as an allegory. He's actually a fairly level headed critic.

People seem to be fine with religion for the most part. If you want to root out dogmatic thinking, then shun religious thinking from both the Woke religion and the socially expected Christian religion.

Of course, if conservatives were more welcoming to atheism this wouldn't be an issue to begin with.

> What is the core set of beliefs agreed upon by Woke adherents?

From the outside of the asylum, it looks like:

"Discrimination against $GROUP_THAT_IS_NOT_MALE_AND_NOT_WHITE is active and alive and is the most important fight we have".

Maybe there's others, but I'm not part of the religion so it's difficult for me to tell why the followers hold the beliefs they do, because I don't share their beliefs.

Neither a prophet nor scripture is a necessary component of religion. The classic religions of the Greeks, Romans, Germanic tribes, Africa, and the New World, had neither of these things, and the list is not exhaustive by any means.

GPs quote specifically calls out Mormonism, though, which is what piqued my attention. Mormonism absolutely does have those things.

Granted, but it's an anthropologist making the comparison, not a Mormon. I read "difference in kind" as religion vs. not-religion, where Mormon could just as easily be Ishmaeli or Shinto.

Then again, those religions where not absolutist as for example the Abrahamic religions are. I think especially the distinction between polytheism and monotheism explains a lot of that.

Religion is too broad a term, so there are subclassifications. You mentioned "absolutist" for one.

If one were to talk about religion in general, the definition would probably be close to encompassing nation states and corporations too: an intersubjective idea, that exists as long as people believe in it, and that evolves independently of any individual or group of believers.

This is too specific. Look for the Trinity and you'll see it plainly. What lives in everyone's heart, created the world we live in and gives society its structure, according to them? That's what they worship.