CAN HARVARD afford to have a department devoted to study such a subject which is basically very vague Comparative Religion.

whether a prestigious institution like Harvard can first afford to have a department devoted to study such a subject which is basically very vague Comparative Religion.

This very subject ‘Comparative Religion’ is so vague, for, what is the definition of religion?

Does it indicate the many ways in which the human beings try to grasp the spiritual dimension of their lives?

Does it refer to institution manned code of conduct if so which institution and on what authority?

Does it refer to merely following some scripture/any scripture /any scriptures deemed as a word of god /sages/messiahs which when followed to the word in letter and spirit is supposed to improve one’s life?

Does it refer to the many unlabeled and /or label less journeys and searches of the human beings to get deeper into discover their soul and spiritual moorings as a species?

First religion must be defined and its role in the life of the individual and society

Whether it is a purely spiritual activity?

And / or is it an academic enterprise?

And / or is it materialistic economic activity?

And / or is it socio cultural entertainment involving many rituals?

And / or is it entertainment meant to divert the attention of the people from their miseries?

And / or is it used as a source of relaxation?

And / or is it an imagined source of comfort?

And / or is it a wonderful art and science of answering many of the mysteries of human life philosophically, logically and spiritually?

And / or is it some political activity masked with a different label and a very easy tool to politically and culturally manipulate the masses?

And / or is it something that humanity has been following because it is socially acceptable and fashionable to follow some religion?

And/or is it a favorite time pass for the activity less elderly with gift of the gab to unleash their verbosity on the hapless generation of people who would rather prefer doing activity which can deliver concrete utility to them as well as to the society around?

And/or is it an irrevocable historic blunder which is being followed by many for want of better alternatives? What is that is called religion?

Having entertained these skeptical questions I wonder, and I am sure many others would do as well, whether a prestigious institution like Harvard can first afford to have a department devoted to study such a subject which is basically very vague whatever be the academic vindication put forward to protect the survival of those manning such departments. Worse still is how come people manning such undefined and indefinable subjects like Professor Diana L. Eck have gained so much of importance to question and pass judgments on people who teach subjects which are well defined and are of real and tangible utility to the society. What has happened to the liberal and qualified voices at Harvard.

Religion in general can neither be clearly defined nor any particular brand of it can be categorically stated as the only one or best human beings can do anything in the name of religions only thing is it would be better if it does not harm or injure another physically. That’s why these things have cropped up for the good

http://contentwriteups.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-religious-movements-nrms.html