Its an interesting view of concept formation in eastern and western societies and could be related either to their social structure based on their religious belief or their language.
Social structure and language evolve together. Language is very adaptable. Slang and jargon become institutionalized within a couple of generations, which is about as quickly as societies change without external influence. (At least in the past. Change was faster in the 20th century, e.g. communism, and will probably be even faster in the Post-Industrial Era.) Language can even mirror changes in fundamental constructs in one century, such as the creation and abandonment of formal forms for "you."
Nonetheless, it's definitely true that one's language shapes one's thoughts to a certain degree.
I consider modern day Christianity to be more polytheistic in its practice than Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism or Sikhism, which are closer to the monotheistic pattern.
Members of other monotheistic faiths are fond of saying that, perhaps as a competitive way of demeaning Christianity, but IMHO it's not really true. The Trinity is simply three views of God, on the principle that he's too big and complex to grasp in a single view. It's analogous to a blueprint: you have to look at the front, side and top view before you've really "seen" the object.
As for the saints, well not all denominations of Christianity even have them. And when Catholics pray to saints they know they're simply asking them to put in a good word with God. The miracles that saints perform come directly from the power of God, which he deems them worthy of channeling in well-defined circumstances. (One is the patron saint of fiberglass-hull catamarans, another of ferret trainers for the telephone industry, or something like that.) This is nothing at all like a polytheistic pantheon where each god or goddess has his own individual power. Zeus may be the Chairman of the Board of Olympus, but Apollo and Diana have their own legitimate powers that he can't stop them from using as they see fit. The Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Norse gods can and do quarrel among themselves and get into serious brawls. (I don't know enough about the Hindu gods.) The Christian saints DO NOT do that. God is not the Chairman of the Board, he is their boss.
Among other things, one of the strengths of monotheism to me, is the individuation of women [individuation: from Jung, a process of psychological maturation]. In Christianity women can choose to forsake the married status altogether and are respected and protected by society. In Hinduism, they become prostitutes or starve.
Yet in these phallocratic societies where God and all his priests are--what a coincidence!--MALE, for all the rights and privileges their men so generously bestowed on them, they were second-class citizens until very recently, and still are in many places.
- Women were only GRANTED the right to vote in New Zealand in 1893, in the USA (universally) in 1920 and in the UN in 1948.
- De facto discrimination against women is still common in the USA and to a lesser extent in many other nominally Christian nations.
- It's been virtually stamped out officially in Israel where women are even subject to compulsory military service, yet Orthodox Jewish men everywhere still thank God in their prayers for "not making me a woman."
- Women are still third- or fourth-class citizens in many Muslim countries, where fundamentalist interpretations of Sharia prevent them, variously, from appearing in public without covering their hair or even their entire face, from leaving home without a male escort, from driving, and, arguably worst of all, from attending school.
- In some Muslim jurisdictions the victim of rape is punished rather than the attacker.
I would say that monotheists have a hell of a long way to go before they can start bragging about the status of women in their communities.
To say women are treated better in Saudi Arabia than in India is as lame as saying cows are treated better on farms where they're allowed to graze freely than in factories where they're stacked like books--but they still end up being eaten.
Christianity also I think, [but could be mistaken] was the first religion which broke the barrier of birth as a prerequisite to salvation. An African slave could be saved by Jesus as easily as a Roman Emperor.
Sure, but only by buying into the "group think" you decry elsewhere in your argument. And he was still a slave!
The problem with Christianity, and to an even greater extent with Islam, is that they brainwash their followers into believing that what happens to them in life isn't so important because they'll be rewarded for their suffering after they're dead.
For all its faults, Judaism at least concentrates on life in this world rather than in an imaginary world after death. For one thing, their bodies are going to rot in the ground for thousands, millions or billions of years before God deigns to come down and sort the heaven-bound from the hellbound, and as any good businessman knows, the present must be given priority over the far distant future. For another, many of them do not strongly believe in the supernatural component of their faith at all, since Judaism is a religion of laws rather than doctrine, and all you have to do to be a good Jew is win the respect of your highly critical fellow Jews.
You'll never hear a Jew say, "It's okay if you suffer now, because you'll be rewarded in the afterlife." This, IMHO, is one of the key things they hold against Christianity and Islam: they've lost their connection to the present and to reality.
Well I know what polytheistic societies are like. They are based on ritual, class structure and conformity. All such societies create strictly demarcated work strata with clear dilineations of whose place is what. People from such societies are more structured in their thinking and more accepting of their predefined roles in society. Its why it was easier to enslave barbarians than Christians, Africans rather than Arabs.
But it was the Christians and Muslims who were doing the enslaving (the Muslims played a major role in the slave trade). Even after they converted their slaves to Christianity, the Christians in America continued to maintain their class structure. This even endured after Lincoln emancipated them and they were, at least according to the law, free!
Considering the way women, Africans, Chinese, Mexicans and Indians were treated in America, and still are today, it's a little hard for me to buy your argument that monotheism is a force for the breakdown of social classes.
England had a very rigid class system up through the 19th century, and it has still not completely collapsed. If you speak Cockney, there are innumberable opportunities that will never be available to you. They even invented an artificial language, Received Pronunciation (Americans call it Oxford English or BBC English), to make sure that the children of the upper class could be easily identified and given their "rightful" privileges.
. . . . I think polytheistic societies are dominated by group think, monotheistic societies are inherently individualistic.
I don't think you've looked closely at the group think in the nominally Christian nations. And for the goddess's sake, Sam, you're Israel's most outspoken critic. Is the world's only Jewish nation one giant group-think-tank, or what?
