Hi Derek,
just as an afterthought. What about people who say of African religion that its not really religion its all just animistic 'spooks in the trees' stuff. An appalling thing to say but some people say that sort of thing, as if only the organised, theological traditions are religions. How do we take that sort of stuff? Or as one of students, a theology graduate who was studying religion "Aboriginal traditions are not really religion, its just ancestor worship". So, what about people who do not take tribal traditions 'seriously'? What kind of mistake have they made? 

What about cargo-cults? What do we say about these sorts of belief? Are they really religious or are they just superstitious mistakes. I can see that from a certain outsider view you could say that they were just superstitious mistakes, but then again you miss a really important reconfiguration of religiosity.

How do these sorts of things compare with the sort of thing we are talking about?

In my view anyone who was willing to start out their considerations of religion by throwing that sort of stuff out would be saying more about themeselves than the phenomenon concerned. Further they would just end up distorting their own engagement with religion. The string is about a theory of religion. What is the right perspective to bring to a consideration of theory of religion? One that determines in advance that 'animism' and 'cargo cults' are not religion? 

Philip