The presence of religion in politics and questioning of its presence has been a relevant issue in American politics for some time now with the rise of the religious right movement. The religious right and the Republican party’s platform were thought to have truly aligned with one another in response to the many social liberation movements that stemmed from the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. An issue that has remained relevant throughout the decades of religious and political discourse is abortion. In chapter 8 of Chaves’ American Religion, he discusses the controversial presence of religion in politics and vice versa. Chaves writes, “A second cause of the increasingly tight connection between religious service attendance and some kinds of social and political conservatism is that people have been changing their religion to match their political and social views.” (pg. 104). With recent shifting bipartisan political tensions, many people have been looking to and relying more on the views of those that are of the same religious affiliation. Some individuals who do not have a clear stance on a political issue may look to the views of their religious organization for clarification on what “their people” believe. On the other hand, there has also been an increase of some individuals who abandon or even discredit their childhood or previous religious affiliation because their views on social and political issues do not align. Because of political and social tensions that many religious organizations show their stances on, the lines of the political and the religious often blur, which can be especially worrisome when these religious political stances are preached by individuals in high public offices.

In certain groups, there always seems to be a separatist mentality, one that distinguishes members from non-members, insiders from outsiders and the such. In chapter six of McGuire, she touches on conflicts with outsiders and boundaries between religious groups and the supposed outsiders. The dichotomy that McGuire presents in religious communities of an “in-group” and outsiders seems to be present in many of the more intense and sectarian religious communities which intimidate those on the outside. Although the exclusivity of certain religious communities and organizations function well for the power dynamic and hierarchy of the organization, how can they expect to gain more members? Or do they even wish to have new members if they are so closed off, anyhow? McGuire states, “‘Born-again’ Christians consider their religious experience an important distinction between themselves and others, and their ways of witnessing to their special experience of being ‘born again’ symbolize this difference.” (pg. 204). To some exclusive forms of religion, these distinctions are extremely important, and as we saw in class last week in watching “Born Again”, it is also very important for such individuals to impose their own beliefs on others. In the film, we saw the beliefs and the extremes that some born again individuals go to in trying to persuade others to convert to their own beliefs. Seeing the pressure that one of the born again members put on his brother who had not converted or found Jesus as his personal savior, seems to me to be intrinsically wrong. Although I believe that everyone should have their right to worship and believe whatever it is that works for them, being pushed in to converting to a religion like Ted was by his brother does not seem like and personal religious decision, and more that of appeasement.

Distinguishing between official and nonofficial religions at first may seem simple, however there are many different factors that go into making those distinctions. The term “nonofficial religion” does not sit well with me, simply because I believe that there are endless ways in which an individual can show their reverence.  Although official religious traditions and staples make it appear that there most definitely is a way in which to live one’s life according to their religion, and display their religiosity, there are countless different ways in which people worship. No matter the size or spectacle of a religious act, an individual’s beliefs are valid. Skepticism and judgement of different and less known “nonofficial”religions are present in many different sects and denominations of official religions, who may look down on the small scale and unorganized religious beliefs of others. For centuries beliefs and rituals that did not fit the status quo of the dominant religion were invalidated and claimed as heretical, feared and therefore persecuted. What is so often forgotten in regards to “official vs. nonofficial religions” is that dominant religions such as Christianity were once persecuted and thought of heresy just as many new nonofficial and untraditional religions of today. In chapter 5, McGuire quotes Emile Durkheim, stating, “It is life itself, and not a dead past which can produce a living cult.” (pg. 186). The liveliness and unique aspects of new religious beliefs and sentiments should be celebrated, no matter if official religions choose to accept them as religions, or cast them aside as a new spiritual youth trend. Differences between official, nonofficial, old, and new religions, no matter their status should be respected and validated.

In chapter 4, McGuire assesses official and unofficial religion and different interpretations of what the former entails. An aspect that is addressed is the importance of children’s socialization in terms of learning about or becoming part of a religion. Growing children in religious communities learn what it means to be a member of a religious community or organization through information that has trickled down to their level from interpretations of superiors and elders within the religion’s hierarchy. How can a religion, or a certain interpretation of what a religion means be authenticated when it is all a subjective matter of opinion? Just as literature can be interpreted and analyzed to find different meanings by different people and audiences, so can many of the fables and stories from religious texts be found to mean different things in different contexts. Because of different interpretations found by varying audiences, how can religious teachings be considered “official” if they are taught in variety of ways? As McGuire quotes from one woman who states, “I was in my thirties before I realized that a lot of the stuff I learned about religion in grad school wasn’t the official church teaching.” (pg. 105), teaching styles vary. It seems as though many individuals who were raised as members of an official religion fall out of touch with their religiosity once they are allowed the opportunity to make their own life choices. Although this certainly is not the case with all people, it appears that a child’s first impression of religion as an enforced part of their life causing them to lose touch with the faith of their parents later in life. McGuire presents high proportions of Americans who believe that, “…the individual ‘should arrive at his or her religious beliefs independent of any church of synagogue’” (pg. 106). Perhaps if children determine which religion, if any at all, suits them as they grow and mature, they might feel as if they are making their own choices, instead of being forced to follow their parent’s religious beliefs.