Foxy,

your flowery, version of faith is obviously your version of faith.
Faith does nothing for someone, it is intangible, it is a personal and spiritual creation within the minds of those who actually believe that having faith will actually translate into some form of epiphany from some spiritual entity, thereby guiding them through whatever problem they feel they are having to deal with.
And as for your belief that we need to have more conversations, well I'm not going to say what should be said about that, as a side I will remind you that, that's all everyone is doing, is talking.
No one has ever come up with workable solutions, and they never will, because of personal agenda and greed and averace, to name but three human failings that are part and parcel of ALL govt and institutional decision making.
So the moral of the story is; enough of the damn conversations, everyone just shut up, we all know what needs to be done in every situation, so shut up and just do it.
No more bloody talking, conversations and discussions, END OF!

Dear Foxy,

«Durkheim believed that the origins of religion were
social, not supernatural.»

Being a sociologist, Durkheim looked at the projection of religion on the social plane.

Then he found whatever he found regarding the social effects of religion and, not surprisingly, observed nothing supernatural about them.

But Durkheim never looked at religion itself - only at its reflection on the social realm; and of course, there was nothing supernatural about that reflection.

«His answer was that religion had a vital function in
maintaining the social system as a whole.»

Durkheim confused between the actual function of religion and one of its side-effects.
Another side-effect of religion is that society as a whole does not evolve in the long term, because those individual souls who evolve through religion, no longer find an interest in the world, so they do not return to it, leaving it behind and allowing it to fall.

ALTRAV,

I can only speak on my own behalf. Same as you.
Neither of us can speak on behalf of anyone else.
We are both entitled to our opinions. It does not
make you right however, or me wrong. Each of us
is different and we view things differently.

Relationships are more important than scoring wins
in arguments. Arguments come and go, but relationships
need to last, especially close relationships we care about.
Therefore I believe that talking is important - we need
to talk so we don't grow far apart from the people we
care about. So that we begin to
understand things from another's perspective.

You can't be that selfish and egotistical that you feel
only you have all the answers and that only your "truth"
counts. If that's your attitude - you'll end up
dying in your own arms - all alone.

That would be sad.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Durkheim has had his critics. However I found his
theories interesting and thought they would help broaden
this discussion.

cont'd ...

Being a sociologist of course he looked at religion
in a systematic way - not an emotional way.
And its effects on society and he tried to explain why
it was a universal concept.

His explanations make sense.

Dear Foxy,

«Being a sociologist of course he looked at religion
in a systematic way - not an emotional way.»

But Durkheim did not look at religion at all, systematically or otherwise, emotionally or otherwise.
What he looked at are THE EFFECTS OF RELIGION ON SOCIETY.

For example, the moon affects the ocean-tides on earth,
but studying the tides is not the study of the moon itself.
An oceanographer is not a researcher of the moon.
And the moon is not up there for the purpose of controlling earth's ocean-tides.

«and he tried to explain why
it was a universal concept.»

Religion is not a concept, but an actual and essential phenomena.
Religion existed long before the concept of "religion" was recognised and talked about.
In fact, religion existed long before human speech and human society began.
A systematic study of religion could reveal this.
A study that limits itself only to the period since the formation of human society, is not systematic.