Talk:Religion and spirituality

The religions of Africa and the Aboriginal religions in most of the world seem to be missing. Let's mention Yoruba religion (Vodun/Santeria/Voodoo), for example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I just don't know a lot about them. The indigenous religions of the Americas could be interesting too, as could the traditional religions of the Australian Aboriginal people. Of course, the caveat is that most Native Americans, Indigenous Australians, Maori, etc. today are Christians and no longer practise their traditional religions, while in Africa, most of the Africans are either Christian or Muslim, and don't practise their traditional religions either. The dog2 (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't have to go into a lot of detail but shouldn't ignore the religions of hundreds of millions of people or more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I made a start on a couple of West African religions that also have adherents in the African Diaspora, but I hope someone more knowledgeable than I, such as an adherent, edits suitably and adds something useful for travelers, like maybe markets to visit to see Vodun-related objects or places to see dancing or hear drumming or whatever that's related to these religions and traditions. I also added a little about Siberian and Mongolian shamanism but didn't say much about it. In terms of Native American religions, there are traditional ones of the various tribes and there's also the Native American Church. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And speaking of which, should we mention anything about voodoo and the Rastafarians? And if we mention anything about the Rastafarians, should they be considered a separate religion or a branch of Christianity? The dog2 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rastas are a separate religion for sure and definitely should be mentioned. I don't understand your question about Voodoo - you mean in relation to the Rastas? By the way, Rastas oppose isms. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They were two separate things. But I see you have mentioned stuff about voodoo in the article, so disregard that question. The dog2 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I do hope we get better and more travel-related content on these West African/African Diaspora religions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

On that note, I'll add it to the Africa expedition project page. The dog2 (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Native American
Can you think of a better heading. To my knowledge, the term "Native American" only applies to people indigenous to what is today the continental United States, while "pre-Columbian" refers to people indigenous to anywhere in the Americas? I recently added content about Mexico, Guatemala and Peru, so those would not be "Native American" according to the typical definition. The dog2 (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Religions of North and South American Indigenes", if you like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if "Indigenes" is a term that is commonly used. "Indigenous peoples" is better. It is commonly used in Canada, at least. Ground Zero (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, it's commonly used in Latin America, but I'm totally fine with your alternative. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My knowledge is quite limited though, so please expand if you know. Of course, the vast majority of indigenous people in the Americas today, save for the uncontacted tribes deep in the Amazon, are Christians, but if people know any specifics on how their traditional religions have influenced the way they practise Christianity, please add that information to the article. The dog2 (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Aboriginal people in Australia
Do you think it would be accurate to describe most of them as "nominally Christian"? When I was living in Australia, there were many people who identified as "Christian" but only go to church maybe twice a year, perhaps for Easter and Christmas, or in some cases even less frequently than that. The dog2 (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * From having lived near some Aboriginal communities in Queensland, none of them went to church, nor did they even say that they were Christian, but from experience in some parts of Western Sydney (so not Redfern or Waverley) as well as Adelaide, they went to church a lot more often. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I did meet a number of practising Christians in Australia, and they told me that Aboriginal people are in general very devout Christians (considering that I lived in Adelaide, I guess this is in line with your experience). My general experience though is that generally, born-and-bred Australians tend to not be very religious, while the people who attended church regularly were mostly immigrants from Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong and South Africa. The dog2 (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To add to the list, some people from Eastern Europe were also quite religious as well, but this is mostly in Sydney and Adelaide. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

"Asian religions"
Could we find a better name for them, seeing how the Dharmic religions and the Abrahamic religions all are of Asian origin? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes please. The name sounds ethnocentric at best, if you ask me. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 07:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's that bad to call them Asian; it's just that all those other religions are also Asian. If we can't think of anything that unifies them all, I wouldn't oppose "Other Asian religions." Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any opposition to the idea of calling or not calling them "Asian religions" but the point to be noted is that even though these're originated from Asia, these religions have been embraced by other continents of the world at the massive level. And religion is considered as a part of their own culture. For example, Christianity is now an integral part of the culture of Europe and America.
 * And for referring to the remaining religions as "Other Asian religions", I don't think it's nice. I am saying this because the term "Other" sometimes makes a sense of these topics (remaining religions) seeming to be inferior than the former ones. Instead of that, if we want to mention the term "Asian" on the basis of their origin, let's divide them as East Asian religions (Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Korean Shamanism, etc.), South Asian religions (Hinduism, Sanamahism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism), West Asian religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity), etc. --Haoreima (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Other" is a really useful word in the English language, so it's very problematic to get rid of it as supposedly implying inferiority, which it does not do except when "other" is being contrasted with "normal." And if the spread of religions is an issue, we should call the Abrahamic religions of "Middle Eastern origin" instead of Middle Eastern (West Asian is also fine with me, but we unfortunately don't use West Asia in our breadcrumb hierarchy, though I think we should). Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you ok with East Asia and South Asia? --Haoreima (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Only if we include the dharmic religions, which all originated in India. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think "Other Asian religions" is fine. I don't think the term in and of itself implies inferiority. If we choose to use the term "Middle Eastern religons", I presume that would include Zoroastrianism too since it originated in pre-Islamic Persia, but it is not an Abrahamic faith. The dog2 (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this tentative list ok?
 * (1) Religions of East Asian origin - Shinto, Tao, Confucianism, etc.
 * (2) Religions of South Asian origin - Dharmic religions + Sanamahism + ...
 * (3) Religions of West Asian origin (Note: Middle East is geographically super problematic, it includes Egypt and excludes South Caucasus & many other conditions. Middle East is more a complex cultural term, but West Asia is a simple geographic term. We can't even dump Middle East inside West Asia) -
 * (a) Abrahamic faiths - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, the Baháʼí Faith, Druzism, Samaritanism, etc. (There are more than just 3 in the Abrahamic faiths).
 * (b) non Abrahamic faiths / other West Asian religions - Zoroastrianism, pre Islamic Arabian polytheism, Canaanite polytheism, Babylonian religion, etc.
 * (4) Religions of North Asian origin - shall we add it or not?
 * This geographical section creation will make readers more understandable and easy to grasp the information in my opinion. What are your thoughts? --Haoreima (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Religions of North Asian origin - Shamanism. Your divisions make sense to me, but so far, we haven't been including dead ancient religions, although we could and maybe should. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If not appropriate for modern day travellers, we can leave dead religions. --Haoreima (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth considering whether to add them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Religion and spirituality... SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 07:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Both Polynesian and Australian religions are kept under the section "Oceanian" for better understanding. Haoreima (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I keep a very complex section under the title "Eurasian" untouched. In this section, almost every paragraph has mixtures of information on Asia and Europe. Someone, please disintegrate the information and redistribute them in their respective sections. Haoreima (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The religions mentioned are merely examples, while the theme is general. Thus I think it is better to move the section into the lead or Understand (much of the former could join it in the latter). It still needs rewriting, but I think the fragments left if "disintegrated" will not work well in the "respective sections". We might not want to create a section on European paganism, but instead just provide pointers to Vikings and the Old Norse, Mari El, Roman Empire etc., developing the content there a little. –LPfi (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I brought up that example since most Polynesian religions have died since the era of colonialism in response to Ikan's comment about including dead religions. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 12:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, most Polynesian and Australian aboriginal religions have died out, and these days they're overwhelmingly Christian (if only nominally in the case of Australia), but I think they're still relevant because some elements of their now-extinct religion have been woven into the way they practise Christianity. And ditto for the native peoples of the Americas. The dog2 (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, but it's also fair to point out that now-dead ancient European religions have also been woven into Christianity. For example, the red holly is an allusion to the sacrifices of Midvinterblot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Plus, some places like Tonga, Samoa or Nauru are one of the few places to have almost their entire population (almost 98% for the former two, and about 92% for Nauru) follow some denomination of Christianity without any government incentive or involvement. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 23:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Rastafari
Right now, it's listed as of African origin. That's not true: it's an African diaspora religion from Jamaica. So where should we put it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to put it in "Religions of North and South American origin," but we're using that section to describe the religions of Indigenous peoples, which is not what the title indicates. The title could include Mormonism, Scientology and so forth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many words that may render different meanings, like "Religions of African origin", "Religions native to Africa", "Religions native to African people", "Religions practised by African people", "Religions of Africa", "Religions of African people", etc. I am saying all these because we need to choose the least problematic and the most versatile one that can make all its contents suitable to stay within its section. It's not only for Africa but for other continents as well. In my opinion, "Religions founded by the African people/Africans" will be the most versatile one, because any religion can be practised by anyone from anywhere but its founders will remain the same. Same for other regions too. If anyone thinks the term "founded" isn't good for certain religions, then we have substitutes like "developed by", "established by". --Haoreima (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't founded by African people and isn't of African origin; it was founded by Black Jamaicans, so I don't agree with any of those phrasings. I'd be OK with "African and African Diaspora religions," which is accurate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Candomblé and Umbanda ("Brazilian Vodun") should have isonomy here, per WV:Be fair at least: as above the Equator, so below; the same the same, just for the record. By the way, this article seems to be going too convoluted for the needs of a laicist travel guide. IMHO. Ibaman (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should. How should the article be streamlined? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Having read the entire article again, I think it's fine and balanced, per ttcf. I'm familiar with the "Ayahuasca" practices in South America, which ought to be mentioned in time, together with the botanic implications of Rasta liturgy, but I don't think I'm comfortable with the task of making these delicate topics fit in the prose of this article. Ibaman (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I realized I didn't know what isonomy meant and looked the word up. Is this good? If not, please edit any way you think best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"Religions of Eurasian origin"
What the heck does that mean? We're arbitrarily covering only certain religions that originate from that huge landmass in that section. All the Abrahamic religions, all the Dharmic religions, all the Chinese religions, etc. come from Eurasia. What more focused title would encompass this content?

''Some religions have gone extinct and been revived, such as Celtic, Old Norse, and even Greco-Roman paganism. Even disappeared ones may have left a mark on subsequent religions or "secular" traditions, but the exact extent is often hard to gauge as many cultures abandoned their former religion before the introduction of writing, and missionaries often tried to hide the fact that "the feast of Saint Whatshisface" bears some striking similarities to the former "feast of Goddess Whatshername". Hinduism is believed by many modern scholars to share a common origin with many pre-Christian European mythologies, as well as pre-Islamic Persian mythology.''

''Similarly, many stories in today's religions are believed to have been influenced by stories from now-extinct religions. For instance, the story of Noah's Ark in the Bible has striking similarities with the story of Utnapishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh in Ancient Mesopotamian mythology.''

I'm really not sure, because we are already covering the influence of traditional Polynesian and Native American religions on the practice of Christianity in the relevant regions, but not in this section. But I know the section header is no good. Your thoughts? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

JW and Adventist holy scriptures?
[Started on wrong talk page, copying from Talk:Christianity. –LPfi (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)]

We now say that Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists are called post-Christian because they hold a post-Biblical text sacred, in addition to the Bible. I know Mormons do, but the two others? –LPfi (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Seventh-day Adventists have the standard Protestant Bible. I don't know about JWs. The dog2 (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Apparently not, per Jehovah's Witnesses. Christian Science does. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Still the Bible, just their own translation, if I read the same section. –LPfi (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Christian Scientists have Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, a post-Biblical scripture. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)