Are religion and culture are interrelated?
828064
You have asked this question earlier also. My answer is the same. The religious belief is an up shoot of the local culture. But conversion by missionaries and Muslims by forcible marriages, or application of fear and force as in Bangladesh to-day; how the culture suffers by getting converted to a religion which is a foreign product. Faith in God is one thing and religion is another. So long as Arabians have their own culture commensurate with their homeland religion, there is no problem. Similarly the Jewish culture in Israel and the Christians in Europe have a historical background to their collective faith. But what about the Muslims among the Germans, Americans, Indians etc. who are caught in Al Qaida terrorist group and the Christians in Kosovo, Timor, in North-East India who have sowed the seed of insurgency in their respective places in recent history. Such problems arise when we try to change the culture after getting them converted to another faith.
568571
To me, culture is a way of life, food, dress, mannerisms, religious beliefs, holidays, etc for a group of people or particular nationality.  Heritage has more to do with ancestry and the origination of your family tree.
1098634
Mentifacts are the ideas, values and beliefs of a culture. Religion has shaped culture more than any other trait in the history of the world. The ancient Aztecs sacrificed hundreds of thousands of people for their religion. Sunday is considered a day of rest in most Christian cultures. Language is also an important mentifact. Languages adapt to suit a particular culture. Eskimos lives are dominated by living primarily in the snow and ice. Their language has over fifty words to describe different types of snow. We would be at a loss to describe all of the types of snow in the English language since snow isn't an important part of our culture.
227219
if you add more details to your question and tell me what you mean by culture, then i might be able to answer your question. ill edit my answer.
882049
well first you have to know the difference and the difference is\n\nThere are many definitions of religion, and most have struggled to avoid an overly sharp definition on the one hand, and meaningless generalities on the other. Some have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions and others have tried to use experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.\n\nSociologists and anthropologists see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. Primitive religion was indistinguishable from the sociocultural acts where custom and ritual defined an emotional reality.\n\nOther religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that relegate religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy. For example Rudolf Otto's "The Idea of the Holy," formulated in 1917, defines the essence of religious awareness as awe, a unique blend of fear and fascination before the divine. Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as a "feeling of absolute dependence."\n\nThe Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way:\n\n    "In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."\n\n        (Winston King, Encyclopedia of Religion, p 7693)\n\n\nand the definition of a cult would be\n\n, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture. Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics.\n\nIn common usage, "cult" has a negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group by its opponents, for a variety of reasons. Understandably, most, if not all, groups that are called "cults" deny this label. Some anthropologists and sociologists studying cults have argued that no one yet has been able to define “cult” in a way that enables the term to identify only groups that have been claimed as problematic[citation needed].\n\nThe literal and traditional meanings of the word cult is derived from the Latin cultus, meaning "care" or "adoration", as "a system of religious belief or ritual; or: the body of adherents to same"32. In English, it remains neutral and a technical term within this context to refer to the "cult of Artemis at Ephesus" and the "cult figures" that accompanied it, or to "the importance of the Ave Maria in the cult of the Virgin." This usage is more fully explored in the entry Cult (religious practice).\n\nIn non-English European terms, the cognates of the English word "cult" are neutral, and refer mainly to divisions within a single faith, a case where English speakers might use the word "sect", as in "Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism are sects (or denominations) within Christianity". In French or Spanish, culte or culto simply means "worship"
920059
It should not be but it is. It should not be because religion is something to do with ones faith and way of worshiping his personal God in which he has faith. \n\nThe manner of worship is something prescribed by the religious persons concerned which may differ from country to country and from religion to religion. But the culture is something which has grown over many years of common history at a common place of stay and living.\n\n Due to conversion, specially among the Muslims and the Christians whose clergymen insist the followers of their respective faith to dress up in a particular way with religious brand and 'civilization' as western and Islamic brand to distinguish them from their previous where from they have been hijacked by conversion. It is an artificial method to alienate them from their root culture. Culture is a natural evolution. It is directly related to the geographical and historical factors. Religion is a matter of conversion to-day. The culture is invaded by the religion adopted which has led to disharmony in the name of assimilation.
76398
Yes. But it is less a war of cultural diversity and more a war between right and wrong. The real culture war is between those who know God and follow His leading in their lives and those who don't know God and follow their own ideas about right and wrong.
323849
Yes and no.  Yes in that you can take basic psychological ideas(fight or flight, survival instincts, mother/child ideas, primitive responses, fear, anger, love etc...) that apply to humanity and then place them upon a culture superficially to analyze but you have to be careful of context. But you cannot place specific ideas of behavior, religion, rituals, tradition etc., upon different cultures because not only is that imperialism(and assumes your culture is the definition of what culture or normal/acceptable behaviors are) and just plain rude and out of line but inappropriately imposing.  Because each culture is so drastically different with different traditions and rituals that it wouldn't make sense to impose one philosophy upon another: ie...Christianity upon native peoples around the world, Euro-centric upon natives or Africans etc...It is inappropriate and arrogant to assume one idea makes sense for all people.  It's an ideal unrealisitic notion. \nAlso you have to consider economic and cultural systems in place that affect the way people relate as a whole society.  Japan from what I've learned is a group mentality society versus America is an individual mentality society.  They tend to think of the group and the affects upon the group first, and we tend to think effects upon the individual first.  Both have pros and cons.  \nAnd Japan does have a religious or rather spiritual foundation, Buddhism.  It's a brilliant and gentle philosophy that permeates much of their culture subtly but unlike religious dogma, is not obvious and in your face, reminding people of it's existence on a daily basis; There is no guilt by religion.  Because that contradicts the very nature of Buddhism, unlike other religions. Yet I know that shame is a much used idea to encourage modesty and humility amongst Japanese people.   \nSome cultures base their manners, traditions and overall culture upon ideas and history and not just religion or desires for conquest or expansion like many western cultures have.
844474
That is a simplistic view. I think there are more dynamics involved with there beleifs however. I think with any organized religion.....it cannot be defined with just one sentance.
922458
Yes, of one sort or another.  Considering that religion is really just a way of explaining the world around us, and considering that some branches of science require just as much faith as some religions, we can assume that (in one form or another) we will always have religion.
342925
Religion, and its social impact on morality and war.
436612
You can compare 'The United States' with other countries (don't forget that 'America' is one of two continents), and you can compare 'religion in The United States' to 'religion in other countries', but you can't report on 'the difference between America [sic] and other countries [sic] religion' because they aren't the same thing.
668264
You are correct, one can be religious, or one can walk in the spirit.  Religion is carnal indulgence.
960475
Culture: culture has to do with pretty much anything & everything it seems. It is everything from the music you listen to, the food you eat, the holidays you celebrate, how you celebrate those holidays, why you celebrate them, how you dance, or even sing, your mannerisms, the way you approach a situation, how you dress, etc. A lot of this can also sometimes just be individual personality traits; however, our cultures do have a large impact on how we think and act.\n\nAs far as can they change, I would definitely say yes. Look at how so many modern day European countries ( as well as the U.S.) were influenced culturally by how the ancient Greeks lived. I also think that, for example, when someone from another country emmigrates to the U.S. they take their culture with them, but a lot of times end up blending it with American culture as well and it becomes its own.  To me anyways, Asian-American culture is a lot different, but also very similar, to that of just an Asian or American culture; and so on. I hope you know what I mean ;-)
589124
of course I do.  what does that have to do with religion and spirituality?
1180983
If a people has a cumulative behavior and set of beliefs and traditions, yes.
9804
Islam is a religion not to be confused with culture.\n\nCulture is usually thought up by human themselves whereas religion is what God ask of you.\n\nJust my opinion  :oD