Before taking this class, I believed America was a pretty religious country but perhaps was becoming more secular because of modernization and education. However the articles I read this week articulated that the traditional model of secularization theory does not match up with the real data collected. The traditional model states that industrialization, urbanization, and rationalization came to dominate society, while religious loses it’s importance. However through Finke’s research, he ultimately argues that this model is false when looking at the US because the US is exceptional when it comes to its relationship with religion. His research and evidence show that religious organizations and commitment of individuals remain vital. The most rapidly growing denominations hold a firm belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible. The lack of religious regulation in the US have kept the country religious since the beginning. Because there is a separation of religion and state, sectarian movements formed quickly because there was no fear from the State. In fact religious leaders believed that sectarian groups benefited those with less privilege and the working class or “uneducated”. As a result, it has created a testing ground for religious innovation, have appealed to a large segments of the population, and held a special appeal to the working classes. So for those who believe the US is becoming less religious, guess again because the country remains religious for the most part, however beliefs and personal faiths have just shifted. Many people are not saying they are “spiritual” rather than religious.

Last week in class we focused on secularization in religion. We broke up into groups and each read a different article focusing on this topic. The article I read was “Secularization and its Discontents” by Warner. This article was very informative, although a little long and hard to follow. The main points of this article were sectioned off into five parts: empirical data of church decline, the intellectual context of church decline, social forces of secularization: individualism and rationalization, further socio-cultural dynamics of secularization, and secularization theory and the marginality of religion. This article talked about many reasons for secularization in Europe, but the point that stood out to me the most was about the Age of Enlightenment and how that affected the legitimacy of some people’s religious beliefs in the nineteenth century. I found that point to be the easiest to understand and the one that made the most sense to me. Religion has always been a way to explain the unexplainable, and the rise of reason and science took the place of religion in some sense. All of the articles that we discussed in class touched on different points about secularizaiton, but they were all very informative and shed light on a multitude of different theories. This topic is something I would like to continue to discuss in class, as it seems to have many layers.

After the presentations on Wednesday and the multiple readings for class, it is clear to see that we are learning about many opposing views. Many sociologists have different ideas about how religion affects society and this helps us shape our own views. Understanding the opposing views on certain things can be beneficial in making decision about personal views. It is interesting to see how Dr. Spickard’s views are different than McGuire’s or other sociologists that we have read. It is also interesting to see where a person’s bias is and how that may effect thoughts or results of studies. Reading the articles felt slightly unsettling because after reading one article and feeling good about it, it was weird reading another and not quite agreeing with it–I almost felt like I didn’t want to read any more of the articles I did not resonate with. Will there ever be something that everyone agrees on? Life and education would be so boring if all views were the same, and it wouldn’t even seen worthwhile, would it?

If we don’t understand opposing views, how can formulate our own? If we do not know what others believe and why they believe it, how are we then able to understand and formulate our own thoughts on the matter? As students, having the blog to post on and read each other’s work is very beneficial because it allows us to understand how our peers are thinking about the material we are learning together.

After the presentations on Wednesday, our class discussions, and the readings for tomorrow, I realized something important about our studies: sociological theories are nearly never identical. In Wednesday’s presentations, groups of classmates explained the main ideas behind their individual readings, with the ultimate goal of reiterating the main message to the rest of the class. What became apparent by the last presentation is that each reading, in some way or another, was about secularism. However, the theories regarding secularism varied dramatically from group to group. The analysis of the numbers of religiosity over time was unique for each sociologists, and thus drew very different conclusions. For one article, the author’s opinion on how pluralism affected religiosity made a complete 180 from a book he wrote on pluralism several years ago. This made me realize that although many sociologists are doing good, clean, research,  nearly no one is going to be in complete agreement, depending on what you’re looking at.

Doctor Spickard made this point at the end of class, and it rang particularly true as I continued with my readings for tomorrow. In Gendering Secularization Theory, Linda Woodhead explains how often times, shifts in gender roles are completely disregarded when studying secularization, and thus half of the world’s population is being ignored, resulting in accurate data. Woodhead explained how the shift of women in society since the 1960’s directly changes how religious shifts. She further explained how most sociologists don’t take this simple factor into account, which could potentially change the outcome of all of their research. This demonstrates how many researches are not on the same page in regards to what is being looked for, and how evidence is being analyzed.

Distinctions between what constitutes religion and what constitutes spirituality are topics that have become increasingly relevant and discussed in the field of sociology of religion. In a case study headed by Brian J. Zimbauer, et al. “several questions regarding the ways in which individuals characterized themselves and their beliefs with regard to religiousness and spirituality were investigated.”(Zimbauer, Religiousness and Spirituality: Unfuzzying the Fuzzy, pg. 551-552). Through different methods of study, Zimbauer gathered data on how individuals identified: spiritual but not religious, religious but not spiritual, neither spiritual or religious, or spiritual and religious. From these data, the social scientists of the study came to two significant conclusions. The first conclusion went with the idea that religiousness and spirituality are different concepts–a belief held by many who look to constructs that make religion a religion. However, the second conclusion presented the idea that although religiousness and spirituality appear to make of very different concepts, “they are not fully independent.”(Zimbauer, Religiousness and Spirituality: Unfuzzying the Fuzzy, pg. 561). For a case study published in 1997, it seems that the same issues of distinguishing the two concepts of religiousness and spirituality remain today. The problem with attempting to understand the complexities and differences–or similarities–between the two concepts remains that both are such subjective experiences. As I have undoubtedly stated before, I find it hard to make such distinctions between the two concepts in an empirical manner when they may be individualized and carried out in countless different ways. Perhaps differences between the two concepts will never be finalized or agreed upon; but the ability to understand individual experiences rather than define and categorize them are just as well.

This week in class we talked about religion in modern times. Specifically, we talked about six different trends or narratives that different sociologists have put forth to explain what’s happening to religion in modern times. (Lecture notes) Those six trends are secularization, conservative resurgence, religions as local communities, increased individualism, religious markets, and globalization. (McGuire, Spickard, Lecture notes) Each of these narratives presented different ideas about which direction religion is going. One says religion is decreasing, one says it’s increasing, one says people are shifting how they practice religion, and so on. Also, all these different narratives reveal how not all sociologists are in agreement about what’s happening to religion. In the end though, all these narratives present valid arguments and cases for how religion in changing in modern times.

During the next class, we then focused in on secularization specifically. We got into groups, and we each presented different readings about secularization and what they were about. I noted that there was a lot of dialogue throughout these presentations specifically pertaining to Europe becoming more secular and America remaining more religious. Of course, each reading presented different arguments regarding these things, but it was still interesting how those places seemed to be the two main players in the question about secularization. Some of things that were talked about included what factors have made America more religious and Europe more secular. However, there were other things that were talked about in some of these readings as well. My group presented a reading about the different levels in which secularization occurs. (Chaves, Pg. 757, 765) This included the societal level, the individual level, and the organizational level within the religious institutions themselves. (Chaves, Pg. 765-769) In the end, this is all important stuff to know in order to paint a clearer picture of how religion in society is changing.

This week the class discussed the Secularization theory, with a focus on the United States and Europe. Secularization is the theory that religion is in decline due to modernization, urbanization and regulation of religion. In Finke’s  article, he argues that America is actually unsecular and religion has been steady since 1926. There is no evidence that religion in the United States is in decline. In fact strict and demanding churches have been experiencing a period of growth since 1972. The could be due to people searching for a community and answers. Strict churches dictate majority of things in peoples lives. As the world becomes more uncertain, people crave the stability that a strict church can provide. The only churches that have been experiencing a decline in membership are the liberal and modern churches. This is probably due to people finding other communities and no longer needing a church to be that outlet. Religion in the United States is different from many other countries because of separation of church and state. This mens that there isn’t a set definition of what a church is. The start-up cost of a church in America is so low compared to other countries, that people can create their own church. People in America are making their own religions or spinning off existing religions so that fits their needs. American religion is not declining due to secularization, in fact, the numbers so that the rate of religious people in urban areas never falls below that of the surrounding suburbs.

Last week in class we discussed religion and social change, while also preparing for our midterm. On Monday we watched a film documenting the role of religion in African Americans’ lives and its significant influence. I really enjoyed the film as I have never considered the role of religion in African Americans’ lives, and it was interesting to see how many funcitons religion really can serve. In the film, it was apparent that religion was more than just a way to become closer to God. Religion and the church provided a sense of community and a safe space for those involved in the church. The film portrayed the church to be a place of acceptance and a place everyone can come together as equal. Especially in a society in which African Americans have faced prejudice and unfair treatment, having a safe space like a church to turn to feel like you’re a part of a larger community really is essential. It was clear to see that religion to those documented in the film was so much more than just going to church every week.

The narratives discussed in Religion in the Modern World as well as in Narrative vs. Theory rang especially true to my experience with American religion and its landscape across our nation. The prominence of secularization got me thinking about how  different our world would be if religion had more cultural authority, and the morality behind that thought. This has made me wonder if religion has not been secularized, if the behaviors and actions of our communities would be less diverse. If religious organizations had more power, and communities subscribed to the same religion, and individuals were held accountable for acting in congruence with their faith, it seems that we would end up without much diversity in our society. In terms of our government, McGuire’s text discusses how the courts are independent of religion, and in the past, state and nation governments could make charges with a religious foundation. In this regard, secularization of religion has allowed for more religious diversity and freedom in our nation. That being said, although the United States does practice separation of church and state, our government still seems to have Christian morals at its foundation, and even mentions God in its pledge. I am wondering what the relationship between this civil religion and secularization is.

The sociology of religion asks: Under what conditions does religion have the greatest impact on society, and under what conditions is religion’s influence likely to inhibit or promote change change? The inequalities throughout history to modern time and institutions of oppression have stemmed from religious beliefs. Religion began with giving status to some while inadvertently creating levels of hierarchy, gender roles, and racial power dynamics. Ch. 7 of Mcguire’s “Social Context” conveys that religious organizations  have frequently vested interests in protecting their own alliance with dominant groups in political and economic spheres. Through religious belief the idea of the white supremacy has legitimized racism that is now imbedded in our institutions. Religious people supported colonization and imperialism which in the United States turned into legitimizing slavery. This has kept one power and privilege  to a certain group, while marginalizing others. 

Yet, religion can serve has a platform to create social change with their beliefs. In class we discussed that religion changes society when religious people act out of faith and moral sense of what it means to be human, paired with the social setting of the point in history. Out of all the pain the slaves endured during the slavery times in the US, the one thing they had was religion. As a result the civil rights stemmed from Black preachers in Black churches. MLK’s voice of a preacher made his speeches all that more powerful. Religions have the ability to organize hundreds if not thousands of people to have similar beliefs, and could influence change in society.