+++
title = "宗教"
description = "宗教。地球上の人間と、地球上の生命の祖先であり創造者であるエロヒムとの間のつながり（「再びつながる」を意味するラテン語のレリガーレに由来）を育み、教える一連の実践と信念。親と子の関係が修養と敬意を必要とする絆であるのと同じように、宗教は創造者と被造物の間のつながりを維持することを目的としています。私たちを創造してくれた人たちに対する感謝の絆を育み、合理化しようと努めていない宗教は、まったく異なる社会文化システムです。"
template = "wiki-page.html"
toc = true

[extra]
category = "Theology & Traditions"
editorial_pass = "2026-05"
entry_type = "concept"
alternative_names = ["*religio* (Latin)", "*religare* (Latin verbal root, 'to bind/link')", "the cultivated bond", "the link between humanity and its creators (corpus-internal articulation)", "*Dharma* (Sanskrit, partial functional equivalent)", "*Dao* (Chinese, partial functional equivalent)", "*Din* (Arabic, partial functional equivalent)"]
timeline = ["multi-age"]

[extra.infobox]
type = "Foundational concept; the framework's specific definition of religion as the cultivated relationship between humanity and its extraterrestrial creators"
etymology = "Latin *religio* ('religious obligation, conscientious observance, sanctity'), most plausibly derived from *religare* ('to bind, to tie, to link'); Cicero in *De Natura Deorum* offered the alternative derivation from *relegere* ('to re-read, to consider carefully'); the *religare* etymology is the one the framework operates principally"
framework_definition = "The cultivated relationship between humanity and the specific civilization (the Elohim) that produced terrestrial life through deliberate scientific work; the bond requiring active cultivation across generations through ritual, instruction, textual preservation, architectural orientation, and broader institutional apparatus"
distinguished_from = "Mainstream academic religious-studies definitions (Tylor, Durkheim, Eliade, Geertz, Smart, Asad — operating principally through cultural-symbolic-experiential framings); the Marx/Lenin 'opium of the people' tradition (operating principally through ideological-functional critique); the New Atheist tradition (operating principally through cognitive-error and harmful-institutional framings); the perennialist tradition (operating principally through transcendent-unity framings); the various supernatural-theistic traditions (operating principally through divine-revelation framings)"
principal_source_articulation = "Vorilhon: 'Religion from the Latin religio means \"that which links\" or \"the tie\", which unites the creators to their creation' (*Let Us Welcome the Extra-Terrestrials*, 1979); Sendy: 'La religion vient du latin religare, qui veut dire relier... l'étymologie définit parfaitement l'objet initial des religions : maintenir le lien entre les cieux et la Terre' (*L'ère du Verseau*, 1970)"
raelian_movement_self_positioning = "An 'atheist religion' — religion in the *religare* sense (cultivated bond between creators and created) while atheist in the technical sense (rejecting supernatural divinity, since the Elohim are biological beings rather than supernatural gods)"
cross_cultural_pattern = "Priesthood-architecture-ritual complexes operating as link-maintenance institutions across virtually every major civilization: Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Vedic / Hindu, Greek and Roman, Chinese, Mesoamerican, various indigenous traditions"
status_in_framework = "Foundational concept; the framework's specific definition of what religion IS, supporting the broader integration of revelation, prophetic-tradition, sacred-text, ritual, and architectural-iconographic content across the corpus"
principal_corpus_treatment = "*Let Us Welcome the Extra-Terrestrials* (Vorilhon, 1979) — principal direct source articulation; *L'ère du Verseau* (Sendy, 1970), particularly the *La Religion* section — substantial pre-Raëlian articulation; *timeline.epub* — substantial subsequent corpus development with Noah's pre-flood community as the original religious community"
+++

**Religion** (Latin *religio*, derived from *religare*, "to bind, to tie, to link") is, in the Wheel of Heaven framework, the cultivated relationship between humanity and the specific advanced civilization — the **Elohim** — that produced terrestrial life and humanity through deliberate scientific work. The framework reads the *religare* etymology as preserving the actual original meaning of religion before subsequent cultural-historical accretions: religion is literally *that-which-binds* humans to their creators, with the bond requiring active cultivation across generations through ritual, instruction, textual preservation, architectural orientation, and the broader institutional apparatus that traditional religious tradition has elaborated.

The framework's distinctive position operates substantively differently from mainstream academic religious-studies definitions and from political-ideological critiques. Religion is not, on the framework's reading, a social-functional construct (Durkheim), a symbolic-cultural elaboration of underlying experiential phenomena (Geertz, Eliade), an ideological projection serving class interests (Marx), a cognitive error (the New Atheist tradition), or a transcendent-unity expression of perennial wisdom (Guénon, Schuon). Religion is the cultivated relationship between humanity and its actual extraterrestrial creators — preserved across millennia in forms that reflect the pre-scientific vocabularies of their authors but that can be decoded by a scientifically mature reader. The principal Vorilhon source articulation: *"Religion from the Latin religio means 'that which links' or 'the tie', which unites the creators to their creation."*

The framework's reading does not require dismissing the substantive contributions of mainstream alternatives. Religion does have social-functional dimensions; religion does involve symbolic-cultural elaboration; religion does involve experiential phenomena; religion has been used ideologically in various historical contexts. What the framework adds is the underlying-historical-reality dimension: there is something specific that religion is *about* — the actual extraterrestrial-creator civilization whose contact across multiple precessional ages is preserved in the religious-iconographic-textual tradition of virtually every major civilization globally. The various mainstream alternatives describe substantive features of religion-as-it-operates without engaging the question of what religion is *for* in the original sense the *religare* etymology preserves.

The **Raëlian Movement** specifically self-positions as an "**atheist religion**" — religion in the *religare* sense (cultivated bond between creators and created) while atheist in the technical sense (rejecting supernatural divinity, since the Elohim are biological beings rather than supernatural gods). The Vorilhon articulation: *"the Raelian Movement is a religion; it ties the creators of Humanity with their creation, even if it is in fact an atheist religion, in the sense that it does not believe in the existence of a God — atheist from the Greek atheos which means 'denying the existence of any form of divinity'."* This produces a structurally distinctive position that mainstream religious-studies typology has substantial difficulty placing — a position that operates substantively within the religious category while operating substantively within the atheist category.

The cross-cultural pattern across virtually every major civilization globally registers priesthood-architecture-ritual complexes operating as link-maintenance institutions: the Mesopotamian temple-priesthood, the Egyptian astronomical-architectural priesthood, the Vedic / Hindu priestly tradition, the Greek and Roman state-cult tradition, the Chinese imperial-cosmological mediation, the Mesoamerican priest-astronomer tradition, the various indigenous shamanic traditions. The substantial cross-cultural distribution registers substantive evidence for the framework's reading: religion as link-maintenance is not a peculiar Western-Christian invention but a global pattern with substantial structural recurrence.

The reading is grounded across multiple source families. The principal Vorilhon articulation derives from *Let Us Welcome the Extra-Terrestrials* (1979). Substantial prior articulation derives from Jean Sendy's *L'ère du Verseau* (1970), particularly the *La Religion* section. Substantial subsequent corpus development engages the *religare* framework across multiple corpus entries, with Noah's pre-flood community articulated as "the first religious community in the corpus's framework" through the bond-of-shared-work-with-the-alliance reading. The framework's epistemic status is **substantial-source-grounding-with-substantial-corpus-extension**.

## Etymology and naming

The framework's specific position operates principally through the etymological content of the term *religion* itself.

### Latin "religio" and "religare"

The English word **religion** derives from the Latin **religio**, a noun with substantial semantic depth in classical Latin usage. The principal classical meanings:

- *Religious obligation*: the binding sense of obligation to a superior power
- *Conscientious observance*: the careful, scrupulous observance of religious duties
- *Scruple* or *qualm*: a sense of inner conscientious restraint
- *Sanctity*: the quality of being religiously bound or set apart
- *Sacred place* or *sacred object*: the locus of religious obligation

The Latin *religio* derives from a verbal root that has been the subject of substantial debate across two millennia of etymological discussion. Two principal etymologies have been proposed:

**The *religare* etymology**. The verb **religare** ("to bind, to tie, to link," from *re-* "again, back" + *ligare* "to bind") produces *religio* as "the bond" or "that which binds." This etymology is registered by **Lactantius** (c. 250-325 CE) in *Divinae Institutiones* IV.28: *"hoc vinculo pietatis obstricti Deo et religati sumus, unde ipsa religio nomen accepit"* ("we are bound and tied to God by this chain of piety, whence religion itself takes its name"). The *religare* etymology operates as the principal medieval and early modern Christian-tradition derivation, with substantial subsequent influence across Western religious-cultural thought.

**The *relegere* etymology**. The verb **relegere** ("to re-read, to gather again, to consider carefully," from *re-* + *legere* "to read, to gather") produces *religio* as "careful re-reading" or "scrupulous observance." This etymology is registered by **Cicero** in *De Natura Deorum* II.72: *"qui omnia quae ad cultum deorum pertinerent diligenter retractarent et tamquam relegerent, sunt dicti religiosi ex relegendo"* ("those who carefully reviewed and as it were re-read everything that pertained to divine worship were called religious, from *relegere*"). The *relegere* etymology has substantial classical-philosophical advocacy, particularly within the Roman intellectual tradition.

The framework operates principally through the *religare* etymology — both because the framework's specific reading aligns substantively with the bond-and-link content of *religare*, and because the *religare* etymology has the substantial cultural-historical advocacy that has shaped the broader Western religious-cultural understanding of what religion IS. The Vorilhon source articulation explicitly engages the *religare* derivation: *"Religion from the Latin religio means 'that which links' or 'the tie'."*

### The verbal root *ligare*

The Latin root *ligare* ("to bind, to tie") produces a substantial cluster of English words that share the binding-and-linking content:

- **ligature** — a binding or tying
- **ligament** — a connective tissue binding bones
- **liaison** — a linking or connecting relationship
- **alliance** — from *alligare*, "to bind to"
- **oblige** — from *obligare*, "to bind toward"
- **rely** — from *religare*, "to bind back"
- **religion** — from *religare*, "the bond, the link"

The semantic field is consistently about **active binding** — the maintenance of relationship through cultivated connection. Religion in the *religare* sense is therefore not a passive belief-state but an active relational practice: the ongoing cultivation of the bond between humans and their creators.

### Cross-cultural designations and partial equivalents

The concept of religion-as-link has cross-cultural designations and partial functional equivalents, though the *religare* specificity is principally Latin / Western. Several principal equivalents:

- **Sanskrit *Dharma***: the principal Hindu and Buddhist concept registering the broader cosmic-ethical-religious order; partially equivalent to religion but with substantial additional content (cosmic law, ethical duty, the proper functioning of reality)
- **Chinese *Dao* (道)**: the principal Daoist concept registering the broader cosmic-natural way; partially equivalent to religion but with substantial additional content (cosmic principle, natural order, proper conduct)
- **Arabic *Din* (دين)**: the principal Islamic concept registering the broader religious-legal-ethical order; partially equivalent to religion with substantial additional content (way of life, judgment, religious-legal framework)
- **Hebrew *Dat* (דת)**: a later Hebrew term (not biblical) for religion or law; partially equivalent
- **Sanskrit *Sanatana Dharma* (सनातन धर्म, "eternal dharma")**: the substantial Hindu self-designation registering the broader cosmic-religious order
- **Greek *eusebeia* (εὐσέβεια)**: classical Greek term for "piety" or "religious reverence"; partial functional equivalent
- **Greek *threskeia* (θρησκεία)**: classical Greek term used for religious worship and observance; the term used in the New Testament Greek of James 1:27

The cross-cultural-conceptual landscape registers substantial conceptual proximity across multiple traditions while preserving substantive cultural-religious specificity. The framework operates principally with the Latin *religio* / *religare* designation, recognizing the substantial cultural-historical specificity while engaging the broader cross-cultural content through systematic comparative engagement.

### Corpus-internal usage

The Wheel of Heaven corpus uses **religion** in the *religare* sense as the principal designation, with substantial cross-references to broader cross-cultural designations where comparative engagement requires them.

## The framework's specific position

The framework articulates a specific position on what religion IS that operates substantively within the broader religious-studies landscape while distinguishing itself on several principal dimensions.

### Religion as cultivated relationship

The framework reads religion as the **cultivated relationship** between humanity and the specific civilization that produced it. The relationship has several principal features:

**It is actual, not metaphorical.** Religion is not a metaphor for human collective experience, a symbol of cosmic mystery, an expression of psychological archetypes, or a cultural elaboration of underlying experiential phenomena. Religion is the actual relationship between actual humans and the actual civilization that produced them through actual scientific work. The relationship has specific historical-temporal coordinates (the Elohim civilization, the twelve-precessional-age project, the various contact moments preserved in the religious traditions) and specific operational content (the prophetic missions, the textual preservations, the ritual instructions, the architectural orientations).

**It requires active cultivation.** The relationship is not passive belief or static doctrinal acceptance. It requires active cultivation across generations — through ritual practice, through textual study, through architectural maintenance, through priestly-pedagogical transmission, through community engagement. Religion is what humans do to maintain the link, not what humans believe about the link.

**It operates institutionally.** Religion principally operates through institutional structures — temples, priesthoods, scriptural canons, ritual calendars, pedagogical traditions — that have developed across millennia for the specific purpose of link-maintenance. The institutional dimension is not accidental to religion but constitutive: religion-as-cultivated-relationship requires the institutional apparatus to sustain itself across the multi-generational timescales the relationship operates on.

**It is preserved in pre-scientific vocabulary.** Religion's principal source content was articulated by humans across multiple millennia who lacked scientific vocabulary and conceptual framework for what they were preserving. The substantial cross-cultural religious content therefore appears in mythological-supernatural-theological framing — but the underlying content, on the framework's reading, is decodable by scientifically mature readers who recognize the actual historical-civilizational-technological reality the religious traditions preserve.

### The relationship between religion and revelation

The framework distinguishes carefully between **religion** (the cultivated relationship) and **revelation** (the specific moments of contact through which the relationship's content has been delivered). Religion is the ongoing institutional-cultivational practice; revelation is the source-event that produces the content the practice cultivates.

The framework's substantial revelation framework operates principally through approximately forty prophetic missions across human history (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, the Hebrew prophetic tradition, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, the Bahá'í founders, and various others), each appropriate to the specific cultural moment at which they appeared. The detailed treatment of the prophetic-revelation framework lives in the [Prophet](../prophet/) entry; the Religion entry's contribution is registering the institutional-cultivational practice through which revelation-content is preserved and transmitted across generations.

### The relationship between religion and the Elohim

The framework's specific position registers religion as the cultivated relationship with the **Elohim** — the specific advanced civilization whose contact across multiple precessional ages is preserved in the religious traditions. Religion is not the relationship with abstract divinity, transcendent reality, ultimate concern, or the sacred per se; it is the relationship with specific biological beings whose work produced terrestrial life and humanity. The detailed treatment of the Elohim civilization lives in the [Elohim](../elohim/) entry.

This specificity matters. Mainstream religious-studies engagement with religion frequently operates through abstractions (the sacred, the transcendent, the holy, the numinous) that allow cross-traditional comparison while obscuring the question of what specific reality the religious traditions are about. The framework's specific position re-anchors religion to a specific historical-civilizational reality, with the various religious traditions operating as substantively distinct cultural-religious receptions of contact with that specific reality.

### Religion in the *religare* sense vs. religion in the broader popular sense

A clarification is worth registering. The framework's specific position does not contest the broader popular usage of "religion" to designate cultural-symbolic-institutional systems generally. Various cultural-symbolic-institutional systems exist that have substantial features of "religion" in the broader popular sense without operating principally as link-maintenance institutions in the *religare* sense. The framework's position is that the *religare* sense is the original and proper sense, with the broader popular sense being the result of cultural-historical drift away from the original meaning.

The corpus articulation: religion in the *religare* sense is what the framework principally engages; cultural-symbolic-institutional systems that don't principally operate as link-maintenance institutions are something else, even if popular usage designates them "religions." The framework operates with substantial editorial discipline about this distinction without polemicizing it.

## In primary sources

The framework's principal primary-source material on religion is contained in several principal locations.

### The principal Vorilhon articulation

The principal source articulation appears in *Let Us Welcome the Extra-Terrestrials* (1979), within a broader systematic engagement with the etymological content of religious vocabulary:

> *"Religion from the Latin religio means 'that which links' or 'the tie', which unites the creators to their creation."*

The articulation operates within a broader systematic etymological engagement that the source articulates across multiple religious-vocabulary terms:

- **Apocalypse** (Greek *apokalypsis*): "revelation" or "uncovering"
- **Evangelize** (Greek *euagelion*): "good news"
- **Church** (Greek *ekklesia*): "assembly"
- **Pope** (Greek *pappas*): "father"
- **Pontiff** (Latin *pontifex*): "bridge-builder, link-maker"
- **Prophet** (Greek *prophetes*): "the one who reveals"
- **Religion** (Latin *religio* / *religare*): "that which links, the tie"
- **Catholic** (Greek *katholikos*): "universal"

The substantial source's principal interpretive move: when the religious-vocabulary terms are read in their original etymological content rather than in their later mystical-supernatural overlay, the underlying meaning becomes "the universal tie which unites Man and his creators" — a rationally comprehensible content that the broader religious-traditional elaboration has obscured.

### The Raëlian Movement self-positioning

The principal source-articulation of the Raëlian Movement's self-positioning as religion appears in the same source:

> *"Thus it becomes clear that the Raelian Movement is a religion; it ties the creators of Humanity with their creation, even if it is in fact an atheist religion, in the sense that it does not believe in the existence of a God — atheist from the Greek atheos which means 'denying the existence of any form of divinity'."*

The articulation establishes the substantial structural position: the Raëlian Movement operates substantively within the religious category (in the *religare* sense of cultivated bond between creators and created) while operating substantively within the atheist category (rejecting supernatural divinity). The position registers as one of the more conceptually distinctive self-positionings in the broader contemporary religious-cultural landscape.

The broader articulation extends to the substantial cult-practice content:

> *"Many people say that the practice of a cult defines the character of a religion. What is a cult? Derived from the Latin cultus meaning 'tribute rendered to a God', but we would then say 'tribute rendered to the creators', since Elohim is a plural."*

The Raëlian institutional cultivational practice — telepathic contact on Sunday mornings at 11 o'clock, daily Elohim-directed reflection, monthly meetings with regional Guides, annual celebration of the Age of Apocalypse opening on August 6 — operates as the substantive cultic-cultivational dimension of the Raëlian religion in the *religare* sense.

### The Sendy *La Religion* engagement

The substantial pre-Raëlian articulation appears in **Jean Sendy**'s *L'ère du Verseau* (Robert Laffont, 1970), particularly the section titled *"La Religion."* Sendy's substantial articulation:

> *"« Religion » vient du latin religare, qui veut dire « relier ». Or depuis que Lénine a dit que la religion est l'opium du peuple, l'usage s'est établi d'oublier que l'étymologie définit parfaitement l'objet initial des religions : maintenir le lien entre « les cieux » et la Terre."*
> 
> ("'Religion' comes from the Latin *religare*, which means 'to link.' Yet since Lenin said that religion is the opium of the people, it has become customary to forget that the etymology perfectly defines the original object of religions: to maintain the link between 'the heavens' and the Earth.")

Sendy's substantial argument operates through several principal moves:

**1. The Lenin polemical foil.** The famous Marx / Lenin formulation ("religion is the opium of the people") has produced substantial cultural drift away from the original *religare* meaning. Religion-as-opium operates substantively as ideological-functional critique; religion-as-link-maintenance operates substantively as the actual original content.

**2. The First Civilizations evidence.** The earliest documented civilizations (Mesopotamian, Egyptian, broader cultural complex) preserve priesthood traditions whose technical sophistication cannot be explained as mere social-domination tool. Sendy's articulation: *"Si les prêtres avaient cherché simplement à endormir leurs peuples avec un opium spirituel, afin de mieux les dominer, pourquoi se seraient-ils donné ce mal incroyable pour préserver les connaissances astronomiques zodiacales faisant partie de l'héritage allégué ?"* ("If the priests had sought merely to put their peoples to sleep with a spiritual opium in order to dominate them better, why would they have taken the incredible trouble to preserve the zodiacal astronomical knowledge that was part of the alleged inheritance?")

**3. The substantial priesthood-as-mathematicians content.** The First Civilizations' priests are mathematicians, astronomers, and architects: *"Les prêtres en sont des mathématiciens, astronomes et architectes, absolument convaincus de la nécessité de maintenir le lien entre les cieux et la Terre. Ils consacrent tous les instants de leur vie à l'étude de ces liens."* ("The priests are mathematicians, astronomers, and architects, absolutely convinced of the necessity of maintaining the link between the heavens and the Earth. They devote every moment of their lives to the study of these links.")

**4. The provocative substantial inversion.** Contemporary scientific research operates substantively as the functional successor of ancient priestly research. Sendy's articulation: *"si la religion des Premières Civilisations est un opium pour le peuple, l'équivalent actuel de cet opium est la recherche scientifique ; les prêtres-astronomes de l'Antiquité sont les pères spirituels des chercheurs d'aujourd'hui, qui eux aussi consacrent leur vie à l'étude des liens entre notre planète et le reste de l'Univers."* ("If the religion of the First Civilizations is an opium for the people, the current equivalent of that opium is scientific research; the priest-astronomers of antiquity are the spiritual fathers of today's researchers, who also devote their lives to the study of the links between our planet and the rest of the Universe.")

The Sendy articulation operates as substantial pre-Raëlian articulation of the framework's specific position. The detailed treatment of Sendy's broader engagement lives in the [Jean Sendy](../jean-sendy/) entry when written.

### The "first religious community" articulation

A substantial subsequent corpus articulation appears in *timeline.epub* in the broader treatment of Noah's pre-flood community:

> *"This community — the small group of pre-flood humans who knew the truth and worked with the alliance to preserve life through the catastrophe — was, in a real sense, the first religious community in the corpus's framework. 'Religion,' in the etymological sense of religare ('to bind together'), is the binding of humans to the divine. Noah's pre-flood community was bound to the Serpentine faction in the most concrete possible way: bound by shared work on a preservation project, bound by shared knowledge of the coming catastrophe, bound by shared commitment to the survival of the human species. The religious dimension that subsequent traditions would attach to Noah and his ark is, on this reading, the cultural memory of an actual operational alliance between humans and the exiled creators."*

The articulation establishes the framework's substantial historical-developmental reading: religion as institutional-cultivational practice does not begin with the much later religious-traditional formations (Mesopotamian temple-cult, Egyptian state-religion, etc.) but with the pre-flood community operating in direct work-relationship with the alliance. The detailed treatment of the broader Noah / Great Flood content lives in the [Great Flood](../great-flood/) entry.

### The broader source-material context

The Religion concept operates within the broader Raëlian source-material context with substantial supporting material across multiple passages:

- The substantial "atheist religion" articulation registers the framework's distinctive structural position
- The substantial cult-practice articulation registers the institutional-cultivational dimension
- The substantial "tribute rendered to the creators" articulation registers the proper devotional content
- The substantial ongoing engagement with prophetic-revelation content registers the broader content the religious institutions cultivate

## Application across the corpus

The Religion concept operates substantively across multiple corpus framework engagements.

### The Hebrew Bible engagement

The framework reads the substantial Hebrew Bible content as principal preserved content of the cultivated link between humanity (specifically the Eden-lineage genealogical line) and the alliance across the post-flood ages. The detailed treatment of the substantial Hebrew Bible content lives in the [Hebrew Bible](../hebrew-bible/) entry.

### The Kabbalah engagement

The framework reads the Kabbalah as one of the most direct preservations of the structured-plurality content of the alliance, with the substantial Kabbalistic tradition operating as substantial esoteric link-maintenance practice within the broader Jewish religious-textual tradition. The detailed treatment lives in the [Kabbalah](../kabbalah/) entry.

### The Raëlism engagement

The framework reads Raëlism as the explicit Aquarian-age religious institution operating through the framework's specific positioning. The detailed treatment lives in the [Raëlism](../raelism/) entry.

### The Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and various other religious-traditional engagements

The framework reads the various major religious traditions as substantive cultural-religious receptions of alliance contact across the various precessional ages, each preserving substantive specific content within distinctive cultural-religious framing. The detailed treatments live in the various dedicated entries when written (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, Bahá'í Faith, etc.).

### The Prophet engagement

The framework reads the prophetic tradition as the principal source-content delivery mechanism through which the religious institutions receive their substantive cultivational content. The detailed treatment lives in the [Prophet](../prophet/) entry.

### The Plurality of Gods engagement

The framework reads the substantial cross-cultural plurality content (preserved in the Hebrew *Elohim* plurality, the Kabbalistic *sephirot*, the various polytheistic traditions, the Mormon godhead plurality, and various others) as substantive cross-cultural preservation of the alliance's structured-plurality reality. The detailed treatment lives in the [Plurality of Gods](../plurality-of-gods/) entry.

### Various individual religious-tradition entries

The Religion concept operates as foundational reference for the various individual religious-tradition entries when written.

## Distinguishing from adjacent concepts

### Religion vs. spirituality

The contemporary cultural distinction between "religion" (institutional-traditional) and "spirituality" (individual-experiential) has substantial popular-cultural currency. The framework operates substantively differently from this distinction. The relationship is **distinct-conceptual-frameworks**:

- **Religion in the framework's sense**: the cultivated bond between humanity and its creators, operating principally through institutional-cultivational practice
- **Spirituality in the popular sense**: individual experiential engagement with broader transcendent or ultimate-concern content, often deliberately distinguished from institutional-religious framing

The framework does not principally engage the spirituality category. Substantial individual-experiential content within the broader religious tradition is registered as part of the broader institutional-cultivational practice rather than as a separable category.

### Religion vs. mythology

The framework operates with substantial care about the religion-vs-mythology distinction. Mainstream comparative-religion scholarship frequently uses "mythology" to designate religious content treated as non-historical narrative, with "religion" reserved for living institutional-cultivational practice. The framework reads substantial mythological content as preserving substantial historical-civilizational content from earlier religious-cultivational practice — the substantial "myth" categorization being the result of cultural-historical drift from the original *religare* link-maintenance to subsequent symbolic-narrative elaboration.

### Religion vs. philosophy

Mainstream Western intellectual tradition frequently distinguishes religion (operating principally through revelation, faith, ritual) from philosophy (operating principally through reason, argument, systematic engagement). The framework reads the distinction as substantively less sharp than the mainstream tradition registers — substantial religious tradition operates substantively rationally (the Sendy "priests as mathematicians, astronomers, architects" articulation), and substantial philosophical tradition preserves substantive religious-cultivational content (the broader Platonic, Hermetic, Neoplatonic traditions).

### Religion vs. science

The substantial mainstream cultural framing of religion-vs-science (often treated as fundamental opposition or as separate magisteria) operates substantively differently in the framework's specific position. The Sendy articulation: contemporary scientific research is the functional successor of ancient priestly research — both operating substantively as link-maintenance practice between Earth and the broader cosmic reality. The framework reads science and religion not as fundamental opposition but as distinct historical-cultural expressions of the broader link-maintenance impulse.

### Religion vs. cult

The popular-cultural distinction between "religion" (legitimate, traditional, established) and "cult" (illegitimate, marginal, deviant) operates substantively as social-political designation rather than as substantive analytical distinction. The framework reads "cult" in the *cultus* etymological sense (Latin *cultus*, "tribute rendered, devotional practice") as a constitutive component of religion-in-the-*religare*-sense rather than as a substantively distinct category. The Vorilhon articulation: *"What is a cult? Derived from the Latin cultus meaning 'tribute rendered to a God', but we would then say 'tribute rendered to the creators', since Elohim is a plural."*

### Religion vs. ideology

The Marx / Lenin tradition treats religion as ideology in the technical sense (false consciousness serving class interests). The framework reads this as substantive critique of certain historical-religious-institutional practices without registering the framework's specific position on what religion IS. Religion can be ideological in particular historical contexts; that does not exhaust what religion is.

## Modern reinterpretations

The Religion concept has substantial mainstream academic engagement across multiple disciplinary contexts. The principal scholarly engagement:

**Religious studies definitions**. Mainstream academic religious-studies scholarship has produced multiple competing definitions of religion. The principal definitions:

- **E. B. Tylor**'s *Primitive Culture* (1871): religion as "belief in spiritual beings"
- **Émile Durkheim**'s *The Elementary Forms of Religious Life* (1912): religion as "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things"; the social-functional account
- **Mircea Eliade**'s *The Sacred and the Profane* (1957): religion through the sacred-vs-profane distinction
- **Clifford Geertz**'s "Religion as a Cultural System" (1966): religion as a system of symbols establishing moods and motivations
- **Ninian Smart**'s *The Religious Experience of Mankind* (1969): the seven-dimensional model (doctrinal, mythological, ethical, ritual, experiential, institutional, material)
- **Talal Asad**'s *Genealogies of Religion* (1993): the genealogical critique that "religion" is a Western-Christian construct

**Sociology of religion**. The substantial sociology-of-religion tradition (Max Weber, Peter Berger, Robert Bellah, José Casanova, the broader contemporary sociology) operates principally through engagement with religion's social-functional and historical-developmental dimensions. The substantial secularization debate (Berger, Casanova, the broader contemporary engagement) operates substantively within this tradition.

**Cognitive science of religion**. The cognitive-science-of-religion tradition (Pascal Boyer, Scott Atran, Harvey Whitehouse, Justin Barrett) operates principally through engagement with religion as cognitive-evolutionary phenomenon. The substantial position: religious belief and practice operate through evolved cognitive mechanisms (agency detection, theory of mind, the broader cognitive substrate).

**The Marx / Lenin tradition**. The substantial Marx / Lenin tradition treats religion principally through ideological-functional critique. The famous Marx formulation: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." The Lenin formulation extends Marx's content with substantial subsequent polemical development. Sendy's *L'ère du Verseau* directly engages this tradition as the principal polemical foil for the *religare* framework reconstruction.

**The New Atheist tradition**. The contemporary New Atheist tradition (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett) operates principally through engagement with religion as cognitive error, social harm, or institutional pathology. The framework operates substantively differently: the framework's "atheist religion" self-positioning operates within the atheist category (rejecting supernatural divinity) while operating substantively within the religious category (the cultivated bond between creators and created).

**The perennialist / traditionalist tradition**. The perennialist / traditionalist tradition (René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon, Huston Smith, the broader school) operates principally through engagement with religion as multiple expressions of single transcendent reality. The framework operates substantively differently: religion is not principally about transcendent unity but about the specific cultivated bond between humanity and its specific creators.

**The framework's relationship to the broader scholarly landscape**. The Wheel of Heaven framework is positioned within this scholarly landscape as follows: aligned with mainstream religious-studies engagement at the descriptive level (the substantial documentation of religious-traditional content); operating substantively beyond mainstream religious-studies engagement at the interpretive level (the framework's specific reading of religion as cultivated bond with actual extraterrestrial creators); engaging the Marx / Lenin tradition principally through Sendy's substantial polemical engagement; operating substantively distinct from the New Atheist tradition through the "atheist religion" structural position; substantively distinct from the perennialist tradition through the specific-creator-civilization framing.

## Comparative observations

The cross-cultural pattern of priesthood-architecture-ritual complexes operating as link-maintenance institutions registers across virtually every major civilization globally. The pattern produces substantive evidence for the framework's reading: religion as link-maintenance is not a peculiar Western-Christian construct but a global pattern with substantial structural recurrence.

### The Mesopotamian temple-priesthood tradition

The Mesopotamian religious-cultural tradition preserves the most documented ancient religious-institutional system globally. The principal features:

**The temple as cosmic-link institution**. Mesopotamian temples (Sumerian *é*, Akkadian *bītu*) operated as the principal institutions for maintaining the link between the gods and the human community. The temple was understood as the *literal dwelling-place* of the god — the *bīt ili* ("house of the god") — with the divine cult statue at the center as the focus of substantive devotional practice. The principal Mesopotamian religious-institutional vocabulary: the temple as the cosmic-link institution; the priesthood as the link-maintenance personnel; the ritual cult as the principal link-maintenance practice.

**The substantial priesthood**. The Mesopotamian priesthood (Sumerian *en*, *sanga*, *gudu*, *ishib*; Akkadian *šangû*, *eššēšu*, *kalû*, various others) operated as substantial professional class with specific liturgical, scribal, astronomical, divinatory, and architectural responsibilities. The substantial priestly tradition preserved the *MUL.APIN* astronomical compendium, the substantial omen literature, the substantial cult-textual tradition, and the broader religious-textual corpus.

**The substantial astronomical-architectural integration**. Mesopotamian temple architecture operated through substantial astronomical-orientational principles, with ziggurats (stepped platforms) registering substantive cosmic-celestial-symbolic content. The substantial *eklil shame* ("crown of heaven") concept registered the temple's cosmic-axial function as the link-maintenance institution.

**The framework reading**. The corpus reads the Mesopotamian temple-priesthood tradition as substantial documented preservation of the religion-as-link-maintenance pattern within distinctive Mesopotamian framing. The substantial astronomical-architectural sophistication operates substantively as inheritance from the pre-flood Eden-lineage cultural transmission rather than as autonomous Mesopotamian invention.

### The Egyptian astronomical-architectural priesthood

The Egyptian religious-cultural tradition preserves substantive parallel content within distinctive Egyptian framing.

**The temple as cosmic-link institution**. Egyptian temples (*ḥwt-nṯr*, "house of the god") operated as the principal institutions for the *daily ritual* (*śr.t*) maintaining the divine presence in the cult statue. The substantial Egyptian theology of the cult statue: the deity's *ka* (vital essence) inhabits the statue through ritual activation, with the priest-king maintaining the link through the daily liturgy.

**The substantial priesthood**. The Egyptian priesthood (*ḥm-nṯr*, "servant of the god"; the *wʿb*, "pure ones"; the *ḫrj-ḥb*, "lector priests"; various ranks) operated as substantial professional class with specific liturgical, scribal, astronomical, calendrical, and architectural responsibilities. The substantial priestly tradition preserved the substantial Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts, Book of the Dead, and broader religious-textual corpus across approximately three millennia of continuous tradition.

**The substantial astronomical-architectural integration**. Egyptian temple and pyramid architecture operated through substantial astronomical-orientational principles. The substantial pyramid orientation to true north, the substantial temple alignments to specific stellar phenomena (Sirius / Sothis, the circumpolar stars), the substantial Dendera zodiac: all register substantive astronomical-link-maintenance content.

**The framework reading**. The corpus reads the Egyptian priesthood tradition as substantial parallel preservation of the religion-as-link-maintenance pattern. The substantial astronomical-architectural sophistication operates within the broader pattern of post-flood civilizational link-maintenance practice. Sendy's substantial engagement with Egyptian religion in *L'ère du Verseau* particularly registers the substantial precessional-zodiacal content preserved within the Egyptian priestly tradition.

### The Vedic / Hindu priestly tradition

The Vedic / Hindu religious-cultural tradition preserves substantive parallel content within distinctive Indian framing.

**The Vedic ritual tradition**. The Vedic religious tradition (c. 1500-500 BCE in its principal textual development) operated through substantial ritual-sacrificial system (*yajña*) maintaining the cosmic order (*ṛta*) through link-maintenance between the human community and the *devas* (cosmic beings). The substantial *Brahman* concept registered the cosmic-priestly-ritual link-maintenance function.

**The substantial priesthood**. The Vedic and subsequent Hindu priesthood (*brāhmaṇa*) operated as substantial professional-hereditary class with specific liturgical, scribal, astronomical, calendrical, and pedagogical responsibilities. The substantial four-Veda corpus (*Rigveda*, *Yajurveda*, *Samaveda*, *Atharvaveda*) operated as the principal liturgical-religious-textual foundation, with substantial subsequent development through the Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads, and broader textual tradition.

**The substantial cosmic-link content**. The Vedic substantial articulation of *yajña* as cosmic-maintenance practice registers substantive parallel content with the framework's *religare* reading. The substantial *Ṛta* concept (cosmic order maintained through ritual) registers the broader link-maintenance function.

**The framework reading**. The corpus reads the Vedic / Hindu priestly tradition as substantial parallel preservation of the religion-as-link-maintenance pattern within distinctive Indian framing.

### The Greek and Roman state-cult traditions

The Greek and Roman religious-cultural traditions preserve substantive parallel content within distinctive classical framing.

**The Greek polis-cult tradition**. The Greek religious tradition operated principally through polis-specific cult systems (the Athenian Athena cult, the Delphic Apollo cult, the Eleusinian Mysteries, etc.), each operating substantively as link-maintenance institution between the polis community and its specific divine patron. The substantial Greek temple architecture (the Parthenon, the Delphic complex, the broader temple tradition) operated through substantial astronomical-orientational principles. The substantial Sendy engagement with Greek sacred geography (Jean Richer's work) registered substantive precessional-zodiacal content preserved within the Greek tradition.

**The Roman state-cult tradition**. The Roman religious tradition operated principally through state-cult system, with the *pontifex maximus* (the principal state-religious official) literally being the "bridge-builder" — *pontifex* from *pons* ("bridge") + *facere* ("to make"). The substantial Roman religious-institutional vocabulary registers substantive link-maintenance content: *religio* as the principal religious-relational concept, *pietas* as the proper devotional disposition, *cultus* as the substantive ritual practice.

**The framework reading**. The corpus reads the Greek and Roman state-cult traditions as substantial parallel preservations of the religion-as-link-maintenance pattern within distinctive classical framing. The substantial *pontifex* etymology directly registers the link-maintenance function, with the term itself meaning "bridge-builder" between heaven and earth.

### The Chinese imperial-cosmological tradition

The Chinese religious-cultural tradition preserves substantive parallel content within distinctive Chinese framing.

**The *Tian* (Heaven) concept**. The Chinese substantial *Tian* (天, "Heaven") concept operates substantively as the cosmic-religious-ethical principle, with the Chinese emperor (the *Tianzi*, 天子, "Son of Heaven") operating as the principal link-maintenance figure between *Tian* and the human community. The substantial *Mandate of Heaven* (*Tianming*, 天命) registered the broader cosmic-political legitimation through link-maintenance function.

**The substantial cosmological-ritual integration**. The Chinese imperial ritual system operated through substantial cosmological-link-maintenance practice: the substantial Temple of Heaven (天壇) in Beijing (Ming and Qing dynasties), the substantial *Fengshan* (封禪) imperial sacrifices on Mount Tai, the substantial *Jiao* (郊) suburban sacrifices, all registering the substantial imperial cosmic-link-maintenance function.

**The substantial astronomical-calendrical integration**. The Chinese imperial astronomical bureau operated substantively as link-maintenance institution, with substantial calendrical-astronomical work (the substantial twenty-eight lunar mansions tradition, the broader Chinese astronomy) operating principally through cosmic-link maintenance rather than through autonomous scientific-investigative engagement alone.

**The framework reading**. The corpus reads the Chinese imperial-cosmological tradition as substantial parallel preservation of the religion-as-link-maintenance pattern within distinctive Chinese framing. The substantial *Tian* concept registers substantive parallel content with the broader cosmic-link-maintenance function.

### The Mesoamerican priest-astronomer tradition

The Mesoamerican religious-cultural tradition preserves substantive parallel content within distinctive Mesoamerican framing.

**The Mayan priesthood**. The Mayan priesthood (*ah-kin*, "he of the sun"; the broader priestly hierarchy) operated as substantial professional class with specific liturgical, calendrical, astronomical, and divinatory responsibilities. The substantial Mayan astronomical-calendrical work (the Tzolk'in 260-day cycle, the Haab' 365-day cycle, the Long Count, the Venus cycle calculations, the substantial eclipse predictions) operated substantively as link-maintenance practice.

**The substantial pyramid-temple architecture**. Mesoamerican pyramid-temple architecture (Teotihuacan, Tikal, Chichén Itzá, Palenque, the broader pyramid tradition) operated through substantial astronomical-orientational principles. The substantial Chichén Itzá pyramid (El Castillo / Kukulcán pyramid) registers substantive astronomical-architectural content (the equinoctial serpent-shadow phenomenon, the substantial chronological-calendrical encoding).

**The framework reading**. The corpus reads the Mesoamerican priest-astronomer tradition as substantial parallel preservation of the religion-as-link-maintenance pattern within distinctive Mesoamerican framing. The substantial astronomical-architectural sophistication operates within the broader pattern of post-flood civilizational link-maintenance practice.

### The various indigenous shamanic traditions

The various indigenous shamanic traditions preserve substantive parallel content within distinctive cultural framings.

**North American indigenous traditions**. Various North American indigenous traditions (Lakota, Navajo, Hopi, Iroquois, various others) preserve substantive shamanic and ceremonial-religious content operating substantively as link-maintenance practice. The substantial Lakota *Wakan Tanka* (Great Spirit) tradition, the substantial Hopi kachina tradition, the substantial Iroquois Longhouse religious tradition, the various other distinctive cultural-religious systems each register substantive link-maintenance content.

**Polynesian traditions**. The substantial Polynesian religious-navigational tradition operated through substantial cosmological-celestial-religious framework, with the substantial navigational-astronomical sophistication enabling the multi-millennial Pacific colonization. The substantial Polynesian *mana* concept registered substantial cosmological-religious content.

**Australian Aboriginal traditions**. The substantial Australian Aboriginal religious tradition (the substantial *Dreamtime* / *Tjukurrpa* complex) operated through substantial ceremonial-link-maintenance practice with substantial multi-millennial continuous tradition. The substantial Aboriginal astronomical engagement and the substantial sacred-site geographic system register substantive link-maintenance content.

**African traditions**. Various African religious traditions (Yoruba, Dogon, Maasai, various others) preserve substantive ceremonial-religious content operating substantively as link-maintenance practice. The substantial Dogon astronomical tradition (the substantial Sirius engagement registered by Marcel Griaule) registers substantive astronomical-link-maintenance content.

**The framework reading**. The corpus reads the various indigenous shamanic traditions as substantial parallel preservations of the religion-as-link-maintenance pattern within distinctive cultural framings. The substantial cross-cultural recurrence registers substantive evidence for the framework's reading.

### The "priesthood as link-maintenance" cross-cultural pattern

The substantial cross-cultural pattern across virtually every major civilization globally registers priesthood-architecture-ritual complexes operating substantively as link-maintenance institutions. The principal pattern features:

- **Specialized priesthood**: substantial professional class with specific liturgical, astronomical, architectural, scribal, and pedagogical responsibilities
- **Astronomical-architectural integration**: substantial temple and ceremonial-site architecture oriented through astronomical-celestial principles
- **Calendrical-ritual systems**: substantial calendrical frameworks operating principally through cosmic-link maintenance
- **Textual preservation**: substantial sacred-textual corpora preserved across multi-generational pedagogical traditions
- **Hereditary transmission**: substantial priestly traditions operating principally through hereditary or initiatic transmission
- **Cosmic-political-ethical integration**: substantial integration of religious-priestly function with political-ethical-cosmological framework

### The "religion as bound to specific source-revelation moments" cross-cultural pattern

A second substantial cross-cultural pattern registers religion as principally bound to specific source-revelation moments rather than as autonomous human cultural development. The principal pattern features:

- **Specific founding figures**: substantial religious traditions principally trace to specific founding-revelatory figures (Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, the various founders)
- **Specific revelatory events**: substantial religious traditions register specific revelatory-source events (the Sinai theophany, the Bodhi tree enlightenment, the Quranic revelation, the various founding events)
- **Specific source-textual canons**: substantial religious traditions preserve specific canonical textual traditions traceable to founding-revelatory moments
- **Specific transmission lineages**: substantial religious traditions operate through specific transmission lineages preserving the original revelatory content

The framework reads this substantial cross-cultural pattern as substantive evidence for the religion-as-cultivated-relationship reading: religion is not autonomous human cultural development but principally bound to specific source-revelation moments through which the alliance has communicated content to be cultivated across the subsequent generations.

### The convergence

The corpus's working position on the comparative-religion question is that the cross-cultural distribution of priesthood-architecture-ritual complexes operating as link-maintenance institutions, combined with the cross-cultural pattern of religion-as-bound-to-specific-source-revelation-moments, registers substantive evidence for the framework's reading.

The mainstream scholarly explanation generally treats the cross-cultural pattern through some combination of independent religious-cultural development (cultures developed link-maintenance institutions independently because the broader cosmological-religious impulse is universal), shared cognitive-evolutionary substrate (the broader human cognitive architecture produces religious phenomena), and substantial cultural diffusion (religious-traditional content spread across cultures through historical exchange). The framework reading: the cross-cultural pattern preserves common memory of the actual link-maintenance reality that the framework articulates — the actual cultivated bond between humanity and its actual extraterrestrial creators, with each cultural tradition preserving substantive specific content within its distinctive framing.

The corpus does not require rejecting all of the mainstream explanatory framework. Independent religious-cultural development certainly contributes to specific cultural-religious articulations; the cognitive-evolutionary substrate certainly contributes to the broader cross-cultural pattern; substantial cultural diffusion certainly operated across the historical period. What the framework adds is the underlying historical reality: the religion-as-link-maintenance pattern reflects the actual link being maintained, with the priesthood-architecture-ritual complexes operating as substantively functional institutions for substantive functional purpose rather than as autonomous human cultural elaboration alone.

## See also

- [Wheel of Heaven](../wheel-of-heaven/)
- [Elohim](../elohim/)
- [Yahweh](../yahweh/)
- [Hebrew Bible](../hebrew-bible/)
- [Kabbalah](../kabbalah/)
- [Plurality of Gods](../plurality-of-gods/)
- [Prophet](../prophet/)
- [Apocalypse](../apocalypse/)
- [Raëlism](../raelism/)
- [Raël](../rael/)
- [Cosmic Chain](../cosmic-chain/)
- [Cosmic Competition](../cosmic-competition/)
- [Doubled Signature](../doubled-signature/)
- [World Age](../world-age/)
- [Zodiac](../zodiac/)
- [Great Flood](../great-flood/)
- [Noah](../noah/)
- [Moses](../moses/)
- [Jesus](../jesus/)
- [Muhammad](../muhammad/)
- [Buddha](../buddha/)
- [Jean Sendy](../jean-sendy/)

## References

Vorilhon, Claude (Raël). *Let Us Welcome the Extra-Terrestrials* (1979); collected in *Message from the Designers*. The principal source articulation of the framework's specific position on religion.

Vorilhon, Claude (Raël). *The Book Which Tells the Truth* (1974); collected in *Message from the Designers*.

Vorilhon, Claude (Raël). *Extra-Terrestrials Took Me to Their Planet* (1975); collected in *Message from the Designers*.

Vorilhon, Claude (Raël). *Message from the Designers*. Tagman Press, 2005.

Sendy, Jean. *L'ère du Verseau*. Robert Laffont, 1970. The principal pre-Raëlian articulation of the *religare* framework, particularly the *La Religion* section.

Sendy, Jean. *Ces dieux qui firent le ciel et la terre*. Robert Laffont, 1969.

Sendy, Jean. *La Lune, clé de la Bible*. Julliard, 1968.

Lactantius. *Divinae Institutiones*. Trans. Anthony Bowen and Peter Garnsey. Liverpool University Press, 2003. The principal Christian-tradition articulation of the *religare* etymology.

Cicero. *De Natura Deorum*. Trans. H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1933. The principal classical articulation of the *relegere* etymology.

Tylor, E. B. *Primitive Culture*. 2 vols. John Murray, 1871.

Durkheim, Émile. *The Elementary Forms of Religious Life*. Trans. Karen E. Fields. Free Press, 1995 [originally 1912].

Eliade, Mircea. *The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion*. Trans. Willard R. Trask. Harcourt, 1959 [originally 1957].

Eliade, Mircea. *A History of Religious Ideas*. 3 vols. Trans. Willard R. Trask. University of Chicago Press, 1978-1985.

Geertz, Clifford. "Religion as a Cultural System." In *The Interpretation of Cultures*. Basic Books, 1973.

Smart, Ninian. *The Religious Experience of Mankind*. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969.

Smart, Ninian. *Dimensions of the Sacred: An Anatomy of the World's Beliefs*. University of California Press, 1996.

Asad, Talal. *Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam*. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

Weber, Max. *The Sociology of Religion*. Trans. Ephraim Fischoff. Beacon Press, 1963 [originally 1922].

Berger, Peter L. *The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion*. Doubleday, 1967.

Bellah, Robert N. *Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age*. Harvard University Press, 2011.

Casanova, José. *Public Religions in the Modern World*. University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Boyer, Pascal. *Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought*. Basic Books, 2001.

Atran, Scott. *In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion*. Oxford University Press, 2002.

Whitehouse, Harvey. *Modes of Religiosity: A Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission*. AltaMira, 2004.

Marx, Karl. "A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right." 1843. In various editions of Marx's collected works.

Lenin, V. I. "Socialism and Religion." 1905. Various editions.

Dawkins, Richard. *The God Delusion*. Houghton Mifflin, 2006.

Hitchens, Christopher. *God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything*. Twelve, 2007.

Harris, Sam. *The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason*. W. W. Norton, 2004.

Dennett, Daniel C. *Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon*. Viking, 2006.

Guénon, René. *The Crisis of the Modern World*. Trans. Marco Pallis et al. Sophia Perennis, 2001 [originally 1927].

Schuon, Frithjof. *The Transcendent Unity of Religions*. Trans. Peter Townsend. Quest Books, 1984 [originally 1948].

Smith, Huston. *The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions*. HarperOne, 1991.

Bottéro, Jean. *Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia*. Trans. Teresa Lavender Fagan. University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Black, Jeremy, and Anthony Green. *Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia*. British Museum Press, 1992.

Hornung, Erik. *Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many*. Trans. John Baines. Cornell University Press, 1982.

Assmann, Jan. *The Search for God in Ancient Egypt*. Trans. David Lorton. Cornell University Press, 2001.

Olivelle, Patrick. *The Early Upaniṣads*. Oxford University Press, 1998.

Doniger, Wendy. *The Hindus: An Alternative History*. Penguin, 2009.

Burkert, Walter. *Greek Religion*. Trans. John Raffan. Harvard University Press, 1985.

Beard, Mary, John North, and Simon Price. *Religions of Rome*. 2 vols. Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Pankenier, David W. *Astrology and Cosmology in Early China*. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Lopez, Jr., Donald S., ed. *Religions of China in Practice*. Princeton University Press, 1996.

Schele, Linda, and David Freidel. *A Forest of Kings*. William Morrow, 1990.

Aveni, Anthony F. *Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico*. University of Texas Press, 1980.

Brown, Joseph Epes. *The Sacred Pipe: Black Elk's Account of the Seven Rites of the Oglala Sioux*. University of Oklahoma Press, 1953.

Griaule, Marcel. *Conversations with Ogotemmêli: An Introduction to Dogon Religious Ideas*. Oxford University Press, 1965.

Richer, Jean. *Géographie sacrée du monde grec*. Hachette, 1967.

"Religion." *Wikipedia*. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion>

"Religion." *Encyclopaedia Britannica*. <https://www.britannica.com/topic/religion>

"Religio." *Wikipedia*. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio>