All of this raises an interesting question: is Preslianity a religion? Martin Southwold (1978) in his article "Buddhism and the Definition of Religion" (Man 13: 362-79), discusses the attributes that distinguish religion from other social institutions and practices. Southwold states that a single definition of religion is not possible, because "a religion is not a homogeneous system responding to any single need or inclination. . . . Religion is polythetic because of the diverse origins of the forms of behavior which constitute it (p. 371)." Southwold then lists twelve (12) attributes of religion, which he states are very strongly associated with one another in human societies around the world. These attributes are: 1. A central concern with godlike beings and men's relations to them. 2. A dichotomization of elements of the world into sacred and profane, and a central concern with the profane. 3. An orientation towards salvation from the ordinary conditions of worldly existence. 4. Ritual practices. 5. Beliefs which are neither logically nor empirically demonstrable or highly probable, but must be held on the basis of faith. 6. An ethical code, supported by such beliefs. 7. Supernatural sanctions on infringements of that code. 8. A mythology. 9. A body of scriptures, or similarly exalted oral traditions. 10. A priesthood, or similar specialist religious elite. 11. Association with a moral community, a church. 12. Association with an ethnic or similar group. A specific set of beliefs and practices does not have to possess all of the above attributes on order to qualify as a religion, according to Southwold. Rather, our confidence in calling a particular set of beliefs and practices a religion is simply increased by the number of these attributes it possesses. Based, then, on Southwold's list of attributes, might not Preslianity qualify as a religion? Indeed, at what point does a set of beliefs and practices become a religion? How many of the above attributes must it possess? Do Judaism, Buddhism, Islam or Christianity possess all of the above attributes? If not, would we refuse to call them religions? If so, did they possess all of the attributes immediately, or did they acquire many of the attributes over time? Furthermore, did they emerge as full-blown religions, or did they, like Preslianity, begin as disparaged beliefs and practices associated with the more marginalized segments of the societies in which they originated? Didn't they all become accepted as legitimate religions only later when they became linked to dominant political systems?