🚀 go-pugleaf

[moderator note - I have set follow ups to the soc.history, soc.history.living and bit.listserv.history - Dave]

John Weirich <renny@mcs.com> wrote:
>However, I am more interested in the angle about unchurched people.

What is the definition of "unchurched"?  Does it depend on affiliation,
attendance, or personal inclination?  At what point does affiliation with
any institution, like a local bar for example, begin to define the
attitude of its attendees?  How much influence flows the other way such
that attendees create the personality that an institution represents? 

Mr. Weirich wrote that a church imparts some mass association with a
personality that is not self-absorbed or hedonistic.  His two examples of
New York City resident and Alaskans (in general) do not support this
hypothesis. 

>you go to the NW or Alaska you will find that the people are indeed
>different. Basically I would say they are more hedonistic and self-absorbed
>than say people who are from areas where church (or religious) influence
>is greater. 

Mr. Weirich needs to define: a) religion, b) church, and c) influence.  Is
it the intention of Mr. Weirich to suggest that the Jewish religion, or
the Catholic, or any number of religious associations in NYC has little to
no impact on the life of New York City residents? 

Mr. Weirich may have in mind the cowboy, or the mining town, or the cattle
town as his example of the "Old West".  This is not consistent or complete
with the majority of settlement that occured in farming, trading and
communication centers.  He might reflect on the earliest settlements, like
the New England colonies, to pursue his idea of the relationship between
religion and pioneering spirit.  Following that, a study of Indian
religion might shed further light on how land use affects religious
associations and personality development. 

>At the same time I have also found that a huge city like NY also exhibits
>these characteristics. Again, limited religious influence.
>-renny

Too simple renny.

Cheers,
Doug