This week in class we talked about religion and its value to society by talking about the idea of religious cohesion. (Durkheim, McGuire, 196-197) A few hundred years ago, people didn’t need each other as much for things. People could do everything themselves and they were all alike so they didn’t really interact much. Society could not be held together this way. Religion, however, was the one thing that connected them and brought them together. (Durkheim, McGuire, 198) It made people feel like they were part of a group and a part of something bigger than themselves. (Durkheim, McGuire, 198) This made religion more important to society back then because it held society together. (Durkheim, McGuire, 198) However, at the same time, religion could also tear society apart. (McGuire, 215-216) Two groups who believed in two different religions often times fought over whose way was right. (McGuire, 215-216) Now in modern times, religion doesn’t play such a pivotal role in holding society together. (Durkheim, McGuire, 198) This is because people in general need each other more and interact more on their own now. This comes from the fact that there are more specialized jobs now and not everyone knows how to do everything. Hence, religion has somewhat declined in its value to society. However, that doesn’t mean it’s no longer important. Religion still brings people together and tears them apart. It can still give people a sense of unity, community and comfort through good times and bad. At the same time though, it can also still create violence and conflict among people.

The presentation of Passionate Journeys really changed my perspective on “cults” or new age religious movements. From mainstream media, the story of Bhagwan Rajneesh and his followers was one of “brainwashing” and poisoning of some of Organs people, but in reality that was only one women that the media focused on. The reality of the majority of the people on this commune was just about finding yourself without the limits that society has placed on people. The stories of the Rajneesh’s followers were rarely told to the public. I knew the story of the poisoning but I never knew anything about the other people on the commune. I now have a whole new understanding of what drew these women to leave their lives and their families to become a part of this movement. Their lives in the “normal” world were unsatisfying and they wanted to break away from the idea of traditional women and find themselves. The idea of “always searching, always seeking” really stuck with me because I think majority of people do spend their live searching for something larger then themselves to believe in. These women broke out of the cages that society had put them in, and then never looked back. Even after Rajneesh fled the United States, many of his followers still practiced his teaching and never really assimilated back into society completely. Rajneesh’s teaching gave them a sense of purpose that mainstream religions just couldn’t give them. The presentation gave me a new perspective on new religious movements.

I have not had much experience in interacting with people from sectarian faiths because I grew up in a more denominational community. In high school, I learned that people who were fundamentalists and believed in the literal truth of the Bible were unintelligent and stuck in old, traditional values. I always viewed people with conservative ideologies because of their religion as people who were opposed to social change. I now understand because of classes like this religion and sociology class and cultural anthropology classes that there are reasons for certain faiths and religious organizations. Rather than to judge the way these people live, it is more interesting to observe how and why they live and believe in the way they do.

In “Born Again”, the daughter of the pastor describes her Christian school as very close-knit and “everybody knows your business”. In the “Social Context”, McGuire explains that this primary relationship is important part of the sectarian orientation because is supports the believer in the face of real or perceived opposition (183). Similarly, many people often criticize Baptist churches for their belief in creationism rather than evolution. This church criticized public schools that taught evolution. It depicts what McGuire calls “cognitive minority” – a group of people whose worldview differs from that of the dement society. Close-knit relationships provide a structure within which the believers’ distinctive worldview  is plausible, whereas outside the group that worldview is disconfirmed (183).

It is easy to criticize certain religions for having values that might not line up with that of your own. However, as a sociologist it is important to recognize that there are explanations to this and the reasons for people believing in certain things says a lot about society as a whole.

This week in class we discussed religious organizations, typology, and trends in American religion. Within Christianity there are different polities. These power structures and hierarchies range from being run by elected and elevated officials to simply a group of people following someone. As noted in class, there is a similarity between the religions(Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism) in which once they migrate and settle in America, the polity becomes congregational. The term that is used to described with polity is autonomous, or self governing. The churches, temples, and mosques no longer belong to an outside governing power. I think this is interesting because it is somewhat mimicking the “American dream.” Thry are becoming separate to do the best for each individual organization; this is something only seen in America.

McGuire presented her own religious typology. The chart which we saw in class describes where each organization or sect can fit. Throughout time these can shift and change. Some more traditional denominations have become more lenient. Other trends that have appeared in America is the increase in spiritual, but not religious and a decrease in the Bible being literal. These trends continue to appear despite their source. It makes me wonder if we will see a rise in religion after this period of decreasing religion. Throughout history this has happened before, such as the first and second Religious Awakening.  It is intersting, however, to learn America is more religious than other countries. Maybe it is only the Western European countries that we have talked about, but I still think it is surprising.

When watching Born Again: Life in a Fundamentalist Baptist Church, I was intrigued by the story of the youth in the Church. The pastor’s daughter, Valarie, was talking about wishing she was not the pastor’s daughter, and she wanted to experience what life outside of the church would be like. The kids in the school felt suffocated because they all know each other and they all know each other’s business. They were also talking about how they did things that their parents didn’t know about: they went on secret dates, they lied (very minor white lies), and they talked about things that would be considered “sinful” by their parents or other members of their community. I found it interesting to hear what the kids had to say when their parents were not around. They were able to say what they probably would not be able to say with their parents there. Do their parents know that their kids feel this way about their school and religious practice? It seemed as though the kids felt like their on a rather tight leash and would like some freedom.

I wish the film spent more time on exploring the lives of the youth. I want to know more about their own beliefs, and how much their parents have influenced them. Do they have the same religious views if they are born into it rather than being “born again” like their parents? If not now, will they develop them in their future? I also wish we could have heard what the parents have to say about their kids.

For the Fundamentalist Baptists in the movie Born Again, one needs to be a part of the Church in order to be saved. Before watching this film, I associated Born Again Baptists with political issues. As discussed in Chaves’ “Polarization”, religious involvement has become increasingly tied with political stance. As religious involvement has softened, those who still attend a weekly service are more likely to be conservative.

In my politically aware lifetime, I have known Baptists to be rather vocal about political issues. Particularly in the South, there is significant preaching to the public from the Baptist community in regards to gay rights and women’s rights. Born Again showed a different story.  In a Fundamentalist church in Massachusetts, God’s word is the only word that should really be considered, and following the word of God is the only way to salvation. Conservative politics are not particularly preached by the pastor. Rather, the pastor speaks about things such as how he has been “liberated by my wife” and says that “my wife knows something, and so does yours”. The pastor is heavily involved in counseling members of the church, and we frequently see scenes of him sitting down for coffee, helping husbands and wives through their marital issues. He serves as a source of wisdom and a reference to the word of God.

Born Again was released in 1987, which is an important factor to consider. It would be interesting to see if a similar church in the modern day would focus more on political issues, rather than providing personal advice to members of the congregation, and getting “non-believers” to be Born Again.

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.