Good question.
What do you think about identifying with multiple religions?
Identifying with multiple religions sounds like more like an individual realizing he or she has a plethera of moral and practices that one label can't define. I think that is with most people to one extent or another. I don't believe that we are "one-religion-only" as many say they are. It's just that many religions have an overlap in their goals; however, the said person has a preference and calling to a particular practice and belief of a specific religion over another Identifying as multiple religions could be someone realizing that they are not put in a box or on the other hand, it could mean that one is maturing until an appropriate belief system (if he so wants to find) comes along and is able to identify with not the label but the belief (rather than beliefs) itself.
I personally feel identifying with multiple belief systems is pretty much confusing. Some beliefs/morals can't be defined and trying to define it by selecting "all the above" pretty much defeats the purpose of what the word identity is. For example, I'm African American, Cherokee, Blackfoot, Cauracsion, Mexican, and Asian. It doesn't make sense for met to identify myself with all of these enthnicities. I am mixed, sure, but my culture, worldview, and lifestyle is African American.
In a religiou point of view, that is how I see it. I am pagan, neopagan, buddhist, folk practitioner, and, what's the other one.. anyway, I forgot. However, like the ethnicities, even though a lot of these are my worldview, there is usually one identifying mark that is "all of the above" summed up in one.
Can I identify with these multiple religions? Yes, I can; and, I find it direspectful. What religion I identify with is one that defines ALL of me. It's not "I believe in multiple spirits" so I'm a pagan, I believe in, I don't know, creating my own spells, so I'm neopagan. I use holistic means of doing magic I l;earn and create so I'm a modern folk practitioner, I believe everything comesm from the mind, so I'm a Buddhist. That doesn't make sense to me.
That's why people have "none of the above" or "I'm the exception to the rule" all the time.
We can identify with multiple religions; however, they are like saying this
part of the pie identifies me as a whole pie. Then this other piece identifes me as the whole.
When the pie is only made up in pieces when we cut it into them. If we don't cut it, it's just a pie. Why not call it that?
Anyway, I disagree with using multiple religions as identifiers. However, because the way our society (in America) is built up of wanting people to name who they are in one or two phrases, it's hard to get around.
Do you find the idea of that objectionable in some way?
Pretty much what I said above. It's direspectful. It's influenced by culture. Why base who you are in pieces rather than the whole.
Is it something you do yourself?
I didn't before until I came on RF. Didn't know anything about what
actual Pagans believed. Didn't know that folk traditions are religions that people call "traditional". Never identified myself as a religion based on everyday practices. That's why it sounds like I'm "looking down" on people; and, I'm not.
I'm basically a blank slate. When people ask me my religion, I can't really reply right away. It's not that I have multiple religions, it's just that one label doesn't describe the full me. So, really, why use it?
