Religion vs religious tradition

[Rodion Romanovich]

Religion vs religious tradition - do you think there's a difference, and how do you value these two different concepts?

My opinion is that religion are the teachings and ideas that define the religion itself, whereas the religious tradition has little or nothing to do with the ideas, or their connection to the ideas have been lost or misunderstood - they are merely magical rites that remain without purpose, since their real purpose has been forgotten.

For example, Ramadan has a good idea behind it - to experience poverty and starvation to respect the poor. But the rule of not eating before sundown has gone from being a rule to limit your food intake, into being interpreted as that you should have a huge feast after sundown to more than compensate that you didn't eat during the day. That IMO defeats the original idea and purpose of the Ramadan. The religious part of it is IMO that you should remember the starving and poor - if necessary by testing how it is to experience some of their pains, but this is no longer considered the primary purpose.

To take a similar example in Christianity: easter was first celebrated to remember the sufferings of Jesus on the cross and his martyrdom in the freedom fighting against roman oppression, and his rebirth and eternal life as in the sense of an idea such as the fight for freedom and justice never dies, but it has turned into a celebration which emphasizes his rebirth in flesh rather than eternal life in spirit alone. IMO the religious part of it is the victory of good over evil in the end, rather than an Pharaonic-like worship of eternal life in flesh, but the victory of good over evil is no longer considered the primary purpose.

1. Do you think religion should be separated from religious tradition?
2. Do you think religious leaders should avoid using their power as spiritual leaders to enforce earthen rituals and religious tradition?
3. Do you think a ritual is still purposeful when its purpose has been forgotten?
4. Do you think the purpose or the action is the most important when performing a ritual whose purpose hasn't yet been entirely forgotten?

[Fragony]

religious tradiitions are cultural traditions really.

[IrishArmenian]

Yes, religion and religious traditions--which, like Frag said, are part of culture--are different, very much so.
However, where "Easter's" emphasis placed on the physical rebirth of Jesus? The physicality is simply an example, proof where we have faith already, or should if one is celebrating this event.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Well I know there are many Christians who still think most about the rebirth in spirit, but I also meet surprisingly many who think most of the rebirth in flesh, and are more attracted to the idea of their own rebirth in flesh, than their own rebirth in spirit... which perhaps could be called heretical?

[Tristuskhan]

So if I understand well good things are from religion, and the more mitigated aspects are just "religious tradition". So nevermind?

Sorry, my virulent atheist nature emerges sometimes....
On the topic, it's hard for me to make a difference. Both are a part of religious behaviour, that is part of cultural traditions. The spectrum is wide, but grandma's bigottry and the firm discipline of eremitic monks, routine daily practice and litterate secular theological disputes... All those things I put in the same folder: religion. Itself inserted in another folder: cultural traditions.

[Kralizec]

1. Do you think religion should be separated from religious tradition?
2. Do you think religious leaders should avoid using their power as spiritual leaders to enforce earthen rituals and religious tradition?
3. Do you think a ritual is still purposeful when its purpose has been forgotten?
4. Do you think the purpose or the action is the most important when performing a ritual whose purpose hasn't yet been entirely forgotten?

I'm an agnostic (to cowardly to pick a side, I guess) so I'll just answer in a way that would make sense to me, would I believe.

1. Yes- tradition is really just man-made custom, not of divine origin. Some traditions are good for the community, and you shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. In the end though it's all just decoration.

2. How leaders run their religion is their own business. I don't like the idea of some ivory tower cleric dictating what the truth is from his own biases and guesses, so I wouldn't likely join a religion with a strict hiearchy.

3. Not really, except possibly as tradition.

4. The purpose, especially if it's a boring/difficult/otherwise not fun ritual. As a community-bonding thing, rituals may over time change function though.

[macsen rufus]

1 - yes, probably, but one adherant's "mere tradition" is another's "essential doctrine" - so who gets to decide?
2 - spiritual leaders should lead spiritually, and as much as ritual forms a part of the doctrinal practice of their sect I would expect them to uphold the rituals
3 - is an oxymoron
4 - too general to be meaningful - bear in mind some traditions entail rituals that are meaningless until they have been undertaken (eg Eleusynian Mysteries), sometimes the rituals are exercises (eg transcendental meditation) which are effective for what they are, not necessarily because of any doctrinal "explanation" or "justification" of them, and some rituals provide sectarian distinction to ensure you belong to the one-and-only-truly-ordained-by-God-particular-local-variant of the religion (eg the Transubstantiation of the Communion Host).

Generally, I've seen enough of a wide variety of religions to convince me that they are all man-made traditions, and that as long as they keep to themselves they're free to engage in any ritual they like, so long as they grant the rest of the same courtesy - and don't use their "holier-than-thou"-ness to deprive anyone of their fundamental human rights.