I think that a major problem that arises out of the operationalizing of religion is the fluid idea of what religon is and how it is not standard across cutures, societies or even individuals. Like we showed in class when looking at the information about "religion" in Japan; religion need not be exclusive, and a traditional practice, something that is simply a part of thier lives may not be considered "religious" to them. They also stated the 65% of them never visit holy places; is this because what we see as a "hloy place" they simply see as a facet of everyday life? Were I asked the same question I would also answer no; yet some who share my "religion" as a Wiccan might say the only answer is yes because our world, the Earth, in and of itself is sacred and to be revered as holy and how can one not visit the Earth everyday?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lQm_mJKoO50" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Here is a video I found on youtube, and the youtuber says "With the goal of increasing awareness about five of the major world religions, I filmed nineteen in-depth interviews with leaders and members of congregations representative of Buddhism, Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant), Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, as well as faculty experts from the Religious Studies Department at Missouri State University." So these are the authorities wa go to when we have questions on religion; either the religious leaders are academic professors, and not one of the says the same thing when defining this topic we are studying. So until we either can reach a consensus on what religon is, which I find unlikely because it is so personal for so many, or we create a better system to name a catagorize the current "religions," I think we need to be careful when we go to operationalize it. We need to clearly spell out for participants in studies what we mean when we say "religion" and leave no room for confusion for ourselves or others as we set out to study "religion." That being said, like all good scientists we must also be open to change and differring interpretations of the facts found in our journey.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lQm_mJKoO50" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Here is a video I found on youtube, and the youtuber says "With the goal of increasing awareness about five of the major world religions, I filmed nineteen in-depth interviews with leaders and members of congregations representative of Buddhism, Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant), Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, as well as faculty experts from the Religious Studies Department at Missouri State University." So these are the authorities wa go to when we have questions on religion; either the religious leaders are academic professors, and not one of the says the same thing when defining this topic we are studying. So until we either can reach a consensus on what religon is, which I find unlikely because it is so personal for so many, or we create a better system to name a catagorize the current "religions," I think we need to be careful when we go to operationalize it. We need to clearly spell out for participants in studies what we mean when we say "religion" and leave no room for confusion for ourselves or others as we set out to study "religion." That being said, like all good scientists we must also be open to change and differring interpretations of the facts found in our journey.
