How Religions are Responding to Ferguson (SumBlog 11)

I think something any sociology class can and should be talking about right now, and for the past few months, is the event's of Ferguson. A flying red flag to all who would claim racism is dead, the events taking place in that town harken back to the struggles of the black communities across America in the 1960's. 

In this article two journalists from PBS talk with dean of the Howard University School of Divinity and president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Pollard and Dr. Moore, respectively, talk about how both in school and in the church there is outrage, and opportunity. 

Black churches in the 60's were key to the movement, Moore comments, and churches can be key again. However, she says that the segregation we still see in churches today is unnecessary. 

We've often talked about religion being something that brings people together and Dr. Moore talks about it too, "One of the reasons why Martin Luther King was able to speak to white people, especially white evangelicals... is because he was able to speak to the conscience, a conscience formed with certain biblical ideas, such as the fact that every person is made in the image of God, Jesus died for every person, the gospel is to go to every person." This idea that even with our differences, that our religious ideals can bring us together is important. 

Another thought shared by both is that the non-violent protest that Dr. King Jr. favored should continue. I wholeheartedly agree. Race is a social construct, but if the majority says that blacks are violent and they then protest violently, they only reinforce a damaging stereotype; not that they media isn't portraying their protests as violent anyway. 

Both say that one of the things we can have in common and share with the black community is religion; even if we can't understand their hardships we can connect with religion and use it to create a relationship with them. Religion may have a history of worsening these situations (KKK, slavery in the bible as an argument to keep it, etc.) but in our day and age I think it's time to use it as a bonding agent with other people instead of as a hammer driving the wedge between us deeper and deeper. 

America and Secularization (sumblog 8)

One thing that we said way back in week one when we were talking about Marx and Weber and Durkheim was that they agreed all societies would progress, and in the progression they would move away from the religious. Now looking at secularization in depth, I can agree with them to a point. I think by and large that religion as a concept won't die; change and adapt yes, but never completely be removed from society. I think looking at history and how religion had progressed it would be easy to say that society is more separated from religion, but I'd also say it serves a different role. Historically I'd say religion was the glue of society; it provided a social binding in thought, in belief and in answers for the big questions. In a more scientific age, I feel religion is still a glue but no longer in the mainstream of society. Now we can socialize in more ways than we can possibly keep up with and we turn by and large to science to answer those tantalizing questions about life. Religion is still there though, acting as a home for beliefs, a place to turn to when times get rough and a family bound by something stronger than blood.

Many religious Americans may look at where we've come from and panic from the shrinking influence of the church and its very heavy privatization. However I think secularization is the best way for these religions to hold onto their place in societies. This privatization give the people choice and freedom to come to the church and the differentiation give the church room to grow and change to fit society best. And while we may see declines in church goers it doesn't mean belief is being eradicated, just becoming more personal and done at home in a society where 5 minutes really is to much to spare.

This article goes into the secular trends in America, the big reactions to it and comes to the same conclusion; it's not inherently a bad thing. It gives religion its own space to grow and change in a society that is still growing and changing. 

Ground Zero Mosque and In-Groups versus Out-Groups (sumblog 7)

The video we watched in class, about the "Ground Zero Mosque" was very interesting and it got me thinking; what if, everything else the same, it had been a Christian extremist group, instead of Islamic, that held responsibility for the acts on 9/11? Would we have this knee-jerk reaction against an unrelated denomination of Christian faith building a church? I think that we wouldn't, and I think the reason why it wouldn't is because of in-groups and out-groups. Most likely, every believer of a Christian faith would immediately cast this fiction extremist faction into the out-group category, however, unlike Islamic faiths, there is the link to the in-group due to the overall religious "umbrella" of Christianity. So while, yes we would still hold outrage, hurt and confusion toward the acts of terrorism, we would not so quickly lash back with the idea that all Christians are terrorists in the same way America lashed out against Muslims. Also, as they said repeatedly in the film, this was to be a cultural center; not just a place of worship; and how many cultural centers with ties to the christian faith have popped up in the mean time, not only in New York but everywhere?

This article from CNN, Four ways 9/11 changed America's attitude toward religion, was an interesting read. It talks about some reactions you maybe wouldn't expect. One of the more perceivable reactions would be the rise in "out-of-the-closet" Atheists; due to the religious ties of this act, they came out in force to criticize not only those religious groups tied to 9/11, but all religions. Another change was an increase in interfaith ideology and the promotion of a more pluralistic ideal; and along with this came a sudden increase in overall education about Islam. Sadly this didn't stem the violent backlash of the American opinion on the Islamic peoples... they are still singled out in airports, accused of being terrorist and all around shunned and discriminated against. Finally this article talks about our self perception as a largely christian nation and how we believe nothing is left to chance; yet the randomness of who would live or die depending on if they were sick or their flight overbooked, took us from our idea of invincibility.

"We had this sense of specialness and invulnerability that 9/11 shattered," he says. "Given that a large section of the world's population deals with random violence every day, one of the outcomes of 9/11 should be a greater feeling of solidarity with people who live in cities like Karachi in which violence is a part of everyday life." Recognizing that vulnerability, though, is difficult for some Americans because of how they see their country, Schmalz and others say. They say Americans have long had a triumphalist view of their place in history. Certain beliefs have been ingrained: Tomorrow will always be better; we're number one. The term "American" even reflects a certain arrogance. It casually discounts millions of people living in Central and Latin America. The 9/11 attacks, though, forced many Americans to confront their limitations, says Rev. Thomas Long, a nationally known pastor who has been active in post 9/11 interfaith efforts."To me this analysis once again brings home the in-group verses out-group mentality and shows yet another reason we blame all Muslims, not just those with Al-Qaeda. We view ourselves as American, the center of our world, the greatest country on Earth... and with this attack not only is it us versus them, but it showed us that we are a lot closer to the rest of the world than we like to think, it's not us versus them; just all of us. 

Religion and groups (Sumblog 6)

I decided for our task to look into the Catholic church setting here in Stevens Point. Just googling "stevens point catholic churches" gives me 7 different options in and around Stevens Point. Of those I chose the one closest to my residence; Saint Peter Catholic Church. This church does have a website and on it one can see some boundaries as well as the ethnic link as we talked about in class Thursday; specifically Greenway's two-way flow where religion is pronounced by ethnicity. This particular church originally served the Polish community; which isn't shocking considering the history of this town. 

The site says that the church specializes in Eucharistic Adoration; which I had to look up. Understood simply, Eucharistic Adoration is adoring or honouring the Eucharistic Presence of Christ. In a deeper sense, it involves "the contemplation of the Mystery of Christ truly present before us". During Eucharistic Adoration, we "watch and wait", we remain "silent" in His Presence and open ourselves to His Graces which flow from the Eucharist ... By worshiping the Eucharistic Jesus, we become what God wants us to be! Like a magnet, The Lord draws us to Himself and gently transforms us. In its fullest essence ... Eucharistic Adoration is "God and Man reaching out for each other, at the same time!"

The site doesn't explicitly state any boundaries or reasons why one could not join the parish. In fact on the bottom of the welcome page the pastor writes, "If you are interested in joining this parish, or have any questions, please get in touch with me or the parish office (715-344-6115). We will be very happy to welcome you with open arms. Sincerely, Father Arul Joseph V."

On the site they have listed the times of Mass, the pastor's office hours, events the church is holding and so forth. Overall the website gives a feeling of welcoming and acceptance, rather that pushing away any specific groups. I'd say this church appears very open to any potential "outsiders." However having not visited the church or knowing anyone who attends I cannot say if the church is trying to portray an atmosphere that is accurate to the congregation or not. 

Rational Choice (Sumblog 5)

So on Tuesday we talked about Rational Choice theory, and I have to say I simply don't like it; not for Religion or Economics or anything related to people really. Why? Simple, people with emotions are not rational beings and even if we try to be we can't just shut out our emotions. We aren't TV or book characters after all. Now the Rational Choice theory tries to justify some of our "crazier" choices by saying that the higher the cost, the higher the benefit; but it just doesn't do it for me.

This woman was imprisoned, forced to give birth in jail with chains around her ankles, all to keep her religion. Okay, maybe it's that important to her and thus the benefit is high enough. However; she states that it's her right to choose her religion and that she isn't suffering alone. To me, that last bit throws Rational Choice theory on it's side. From my perspective this theory is very self centered: what's best for me overall? However, people aren't selfish; they are altruistic, they care, they feel and all of that flies in the face of rationality. 

Everyday Religion (Sumblog 4)

I think that one of my favorite topics we've discussed so far is that of Everyday Religion. It takes a step away from the institution of religion and looks at it with a more human perspective. Instead of religion being this undefinable thing, it's a part of people's everyday and it brings it from the concept of the sacred into the profane. I found a very interesting article about wearing the symbols of one's religion everyday and how that affects the people and how they feel about their religion. 

The article, titled Wearing Faith on your Sleeve, looks at several religions; Islam, Sikh, Chistianity and Judaism and symbols such as the crucifix, Sikh turbans, hijab and more. The students that speak in the article talk about why they wear what they do and how it affects perceptions of them. One student, a member of the Sikh faith, feels that the perceptions of the Sihk give him a large expectation to live up to and it molds his character. Another student, of the Muslim faith, says that she tries to smile all the time so people don't perceive Muslims as withdrawn or rude. All in all I really enjoyed the article and definitely recommend reading it; it's not too long and gives some pretty interesting insights. 

On a more personal note, I realized that while I wear my Pentacle most days, I often have it tucked into my shirt. Growing up in a heavily Christian area and family I always feel like it may be unacceptable to walk around with it openly. I also feel a lot of people have misconceptions about Paganism and I don't want to be associated with those misconceptions. So while I keep my faith with me everyday, I don't do it openly like those in the article I read and reading their experiences gave me some interesting insight into myself.  

Conceptualizing Religion (Blog 2)

I think that a major problem that arises out of the operationalizing of religion is the fluid idea of what religon is and how it is not standard across cutures, societies or even individuals. Like we showed in class when looking at the information about "religion" in Japan; religion need not be exclusive, and a traditional practice, something that is simply a part of thier lives may not be considered "religious" to them. They also stated the 65% of them never visit holy places; is this because what we see as a "hloy place" they simply see as a facet of everyday life? Were I asked the same question I would also answer no; yet some who share my "religion" as a Wiccan might say the only answer is yes because our world, the Earth, in and of itself is sacred and to be revered as holy and how can one not visit the Earth everyday?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lQm_mJKoO50" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here is a video  I found on youtube, and the youtuber says "With the goal of increasing awareness about five of the major world religions, I filmed nineteen in-depth interviews with leaders and members of congregations representative of Buddhism, Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant), Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, as well as faculty experts from the Religious Studies Department at Missouri State University." So these are the authorities wa go to when we have questions on religion; either the religious leaders are academic professors, and not one of the says the same thing when defining this topic we are studying. So until we either can reach a consensus on what religon is, which I find unlikely because it is so personal for so many, or we create a better system to name a catagorize the current "religions," I think we need to be careful when we go to operationalize it. We need to clearly spell out for participants in studies what we mean when we say "religion" and leave no room for confusion for ourselves or others as we set out to study "religion." That being said, like all good scientists we must also be open to change and differring interpretations of the facts found in our journey.