This week was a very eventful one. On Monday we presented our congregation visits. It was truly fascinating to see the wide variety of differences, not only between the sectarian congregations and the denominational ones, but between the sectarian congregations and each other. The congregations held many positions on the spectrum between giant, loud services and very small congregations with no more than fifteen parishioners to their names. This highlighted an incredible diversity in the forms of religious worship.

On Wednesday we attended a symposium led by the teacher, which provided an interesting look at the religious lives of the catholic workers’ union and how their social activism tied into their methods of worship. This was a unique opportunity to learn more about an even more unique organization, and I greatly enjoyed the talk. The other two talks, while not as relevant to the class, were also interesting, and overall the symposium was an engaging event that I’m glad to have been given the opportunity to attend.

This next week the class is going to be discussing their religious interviews, and I can’t wait to see what people learned from the religious experts they chose to interview. I know that my interview, for one, gave me some fascinating insights into the life of the religious specialist and their worldview, and I greatly look forward to comparing what my interviewee said with what was learned by the rest of my classmates.

I interviewed Dr. Mirci for my interview. He is Associate Professor, Department Co-chair in School of Education. He is ordained as deacon and then as priest.

When I was asking questions, the thing I thought interesting is his answer when I asked “what does it mean to be religious to you?”. I was kind of surprised when his expression became bitter. I wasn’t sure why for first, but then he said, “Being religious has negative aspect for me”. I asked him what does it mean by that, and he said the word “religious” for him has idea of thinking one’s religion is unique or superior one comparing to others. It sounds almost like churchly oriented group in religious organization. He said he will rather use the word “faithful”, not religious. Person who says that one is “religious” tend to have that way of view, which is not  what Jesus is trying to do, he said. I think it is interesting because I thought that Roman Catholic, as religious organization, is churchly oriented, however he sees things more like denominational way. He also said that even people who are not “religious”, do not belong in religious organization, do not go church, or even do not believe in god can be “faithful”.

I very much enjoyed our class this week and the sociology conference that the class attended to on Wednesday was perhaps the highlight of my week. In the informational session I was able to learn about the many people in congregations that go outside their belief in God and stick up for those who have no voice. Protesting the Catholic Cathedral that was built instead of giving the money to charity, and providing soup to anyone on Skid Row are one some of the many acts that are done to better the name of the church. Interestingly enough when reading the quotes of the activists, they believe in doing good in God’s name and feel as though the churches and congregation they belong don’t do enough which is why they feel the responsibility to do more. I relate to this as I feel like my Catholic church does not emphasize how important it is to give back and pay it forward.

After visiting with my religious expert Pastor Don, it is evident that Redlands Christian Center believes in helping themselves before helping the community. They were very one minded on the path to salvation and he expressed several times that if not followed properly a person would not have eternal salvation. The beauty of this class is that as a student I am given the opportunity to see a wide breath of perspectives without asserting my bias on to their choices.

Last week, we attended the Wellness Symposium in the Orton Center. During the time we were there, we were able to see 3 different presentations: one about a new wellness festival, one about Catholics fighting for social justice, and lastly, social justice and the difference between just and unjust . I specifically found Dr. Spickard’s presentation most interesting because I feel that it related a lot to the topics in the course that we have covered and also some of the articles I have read on my own. The topic coincides with the idea of modern religion. Personally, I have older family members who are very devoted to their Catholic beliefs. They would never think to stray from the Bible and its teachings, but I think that as generations have progressed, we are taking the Bible less literally and fitting it to our own lives. While my grandparents are still devout Catholics, my mother considers herself Catholic but does not attend church, and my brothers do not consider themselves to be religious. This is not the case for all families, but it shows that religion with an individualized interpretation is growing. The Catholics that were represented in the presentation represented people in the faith who are willing to go further than most I know. They stepped out of their comfort zones to do something that they truly believed and thought was right and godly. While they do not practice traditionally, they fulfill the duties that they believe belong to them. An individual’s level of religiosity cannot be measured by an outsider because the way everyone follows a tradition is different.

Last class period, we got the chance to sit in on a sociology conference session in which we heard three speakers. I was very impressed by the content that we were given that day, all three speeches were able to give me new knowledge. My favorite speaker was definitely you though, Professor Spickard. The topic you talked on of homelessness was something that intrigued me. I think that the idea that religious groups play a big role in the lives of the homeless is interesting. The interconnection between those that feel it is their God given duty to do something and those who are in desperate need. When I was in high school I was very actively involved in teaching my area about being aware that the statistics prove that there are homeless people everywhere and we need to step up and do something about it. I was inspired by some of the different active players in your speech. Those who made the effort to create the shelter and pass out carts. I think that the issue of what religious folks ought to be doing in this situation is something we need to continue to reflect on. Is peacefully getting put in jail a smart move? Will being in jail benefit these people who truly need active help? I think in the grand scheme of things you have a wonderful topic that you can continue to grow. We live near one of the best cities to study this movement so it makes sense that this is a perfect project for you.

This week we were able to share our experience on attending a sectarian church  as well as listen to Dr. Spickard give a presentation, amongst his colleagues, focusing on the central question of “how do people sustain life?”  Our first class of the week seemed to have a certain pattern to the congregation visits. Many of the congregations that were visited seemed they were desperate for new attendees. The message many churches portrayed seemed to take a more conservative view of society and took the text from the bible literally. Many churches integrated the idea that their belief is the only right belief within their sermon, comments, or songs. These churches also believed and preached that if you don’t follow their beliefs (the right belief) you’re going straight to hell. This seemed to make many people uncomfortable including myself. It was definitely an interesting experience and seems to be hindering their religion within the younger community.

On Wednesday, professor Spickard gave a presentation at a symposium about the way in which people sustain their lives. He focused on Catholics and their social justice actions. There were four main points of interest–rituals, symbols, experience, and results. It was interesting to hear him describe the difference between ritual and experience. He gave the example of women who describe themselves as Catholics but don’t like how masses are ran or the clergy running it. Their rituals are different from the people attending Sunday morning services and but may have similar experiences as these people. They may volunteer at the same soup kitchen or believe in similar beliefs but they don’t have the same rituals. Overall, it was interesting to see how Catholics affect society in a positive way and that there are people out there that truly care about the well-being of others; it made me want to be apart of something greater.

This week, we first learned about the variety of students’ experiences at sectarian churches. In some respects, the our experiences in sectarian churches were similar to our experiences in denominational churches. For example, both kinds of churches often seemed desperate for newcomers and vigorously welcomed young adults into their community. On the other hand, the theology of the sectarian churches differed sharply from the that of their denominational counterparts. Generally, these churches espoused a Biblically literalistic point of view that spawned conservative social and political values. Some of them also embraced an eschatological worldview that focused on right belief leading to heaven or hell. While the denominational churches usually hosted 50-300 people, the sectarian churches fell on either side of this spectrum, hosting anywhere from a dozen to thousands.
On Wednesday, Dr. Spickard presented on social justice Catholics. These Catholic workers tended to focus heavily on actions over belief or adherence to hierarchical standards. Their justice work took two forms: work with the homeless on Skid Row and larger political acts of civil disobedience. Wednesday night Eucharist helped fuel their seemingly endless energy for activism. The ritual centered around a narrative that took participants from despair to jubilance over the course of the hour, which they then funneled into their Wednesday night soup line. This progression from Eucharist to soup line underscores the fundamental connection for these Workers between faith and justice; many interviewees commented that one could not exist without the other. In all, Dr. Spickard’s presentation captured the unique position the LA Catholic Workers occupy, in the heart of the Catholic faith but on the fringes of the institution.

President Trump is hoping to appeal the Johnson Act which was passed in 1954 in order to stop  churches and non-profit organizations from having the ability to favor a political candidate by supporting them with money or by campaigning. Many in favor of abolishing the amendment believe that the first amendments rights of nonprofits and churches are being taken away, while the opposing side believes that because these types of organizations do not pay taxes, they should not be able to use their tax exempt money to endorse political campaigns. Churches and non-profit members can individually advocate for a certain political campaign but cannot “claim to be speaking on behalf of their religious organization” (Blumberg). There is a divide in statistical evidence as to how far the amendment should be changed. According to the article “60 percent of Republicans believe churches should express their political views [but only] 38 percent of Republicans think churches should go as far as endorsing candidates” (Blumberg). If President Trump is successful in taking away the Johnson Act than many might feel forced to vote or support whichever candidate their congregation chooses. America was founded on the notion of separation between church and state, so by taking away this act where would the dividing lines stand?

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-johnson-amendment_us_5893984de4b0c1284f24ece4?section=us_religion

For my site visit number two, I visited a Jehovah’s Witness church and attended a Sunday morning congregation meeting. In my site visit paper, the five concepts I drew on from the textbook were: proselytizing, sectarian stance, individual meaning system (conforms to group’s meaning system), dualistic worldviews, and the Bible as legitimation. After writing the paper, I realized that the terms and ideas I used to describe them created a generally negative picture of a group of people that I actually rather liked. I draw on Zimbauer’s  “Religion and Spirituality: Unfuzzying the Fuzzy” when the author discusses the need to interpret sociological data objectively. He claims that “contrasting the terms as good-bad or superior-inferior confounds the definition and measurement of these concepts with their outcomes” (Zimbauer 563). I then question whether or not it is possible to interpret data without any discrimination. Regarding concepts such as the ones used to describe JW, I find them to be negative off the bat. Then, I realize my opinion comes from a background that strongly values liberalism, inclusivity, and “spirituality” rather than “religion”. However, someone with a background that is just the opposite might interpret spiritual accounts as wishy-washy, and conservative religious accounts as legitimate or more likely to be factual. Is it impossible to discriminate data without imposing some opinion? As humans, we discriminate stimuli given our previous experiences, which in turn shapes our framework for interpreting new data. Thus, to what degree can we truly throw our opinions and past experiences out the window to analyze data?