I think one of the more important issues we discussed today is that there are certain axioms that come with Durkheim’s argument about how religion and society serve the same purpose. We could spent a lot of time needlessly discussing the “why” questions about his argument. We had an example of a “why” question today when someone asked about asocial people who are not morally compelled to follow the rules of society. Why would Durkheim say that each person has an innate compulsion to follow society or religion if there are asocial people? Though this is an important question for an individual person, it is easier to understand his argument if looked at with a broader scope and with certain axioms taken as true, like each person is morally inclined to obey societal rules. Once I realized this, all the pieces of his argument started to come together and make sense in my head.
One thing that I wish we discussed a little more was Durkheim’s statement that sacredness is not intrinsic. It is instead something that we add to an object. I feel like this statement is important in his overall view of religion and society. Religion has no meaning if humanity does not ascribe meaning to it. As a sacred idea, religion itself has the same function as a totem for all of humankind. It is an ideology that serves to explain the intangible force that brings people together to society.