One of the discussions that Prothero provides us is one of his concern about perennialism as a particular perspective on the study of religion. (For what it is worth, most people in my generation, which is one behind Prothero, were more often preached out about the evils of perennialism by our mentors than told about the fundamental unity of religion.) He does make a point, though, that there is a difference between seeing fundamental patterns in religion, and saying they are fundamentally reflections of the same path. As he states: "No one told me that economy systems or political regimes were essentially the same." We do see common patterns in different political and economic systems, but political scientists, sociologists, and economists also note fundamental differences in the way that different systems organize economic or political life.

The question is how much the analogy holds for religion. Why do you think Prothero includes this caution and do you see any issues with it? What is the value of emphasizing some level of difference in our study of religion? What kinds of similarities do you think, nevertheless, we should keep our eye on?

Please write 5 sentences