Is recreation and religion separate domains as argued by Kottak (2013)?
From my personal opinion, I postulate that the pronouncement by Kottak (2013) is both ethnocentric and fabricated. Recreation can be depicted as period, tasks outside normal responsibilities for example regular household work, sports or nature walk. This is approached with reference to activity viewpoint. On the other hand, religion has been acknowledged by early historians who pronounced the factual right of kings and the slaves. Schilbrack (2012)claim that separate from the modern-day west, religion has infiltrated the culture of many people including the recreation aspects. For instance, the king deemed as a spiritual figure cannot be separated from the king as a party-political symbol. In essence, religion can be practice as a form of recreation.
Therefore, there can be a separate realm of the terms recreation and religion. However, there has an increase in recreation spaces as the religion space diminishes gradually. For instance, the native churches have been frequently utilized by the communities for spiritual activities and children’s groups. On the other hand, most modern people have developed urban, culturally and religiously behaviors that are dissimilar and less religion-oriented. The rise of recreation has subsequently welcomed the reduction of certain traits by individuals such as the cumulative levels of obesity among individuals and the public. On the positive side, recreation has been a big role in the re-generation of cities. For instance, development of recreational centre and parks by most developed countries. In essence, recreation facilities have been reserved as the multiethnic, generational meeting place for all people in spite of the different religious backgrounds. Therefore, religion and recreation can be understood as neutrality towards religion and essentially distinct from recreation