At the beginning of this week, we learned about new trends in the sociology of religion, from changing gender roles to increasing awareness around LGBTQ sexuality. First, we heard about increases in unofficial religion. The subjects used by McGuire grew up within the confines of official religion but supplemented or replaced it with alternative practices. For example, one woman practiced gardening and reoriented her career and home around this spiritual practice. Another remained active within his church but focused on social activism as his main religious expression. Zimbauer also studies “nones” or “spiritual but not religious” people, who tend to have higher incomes and more negative attitudes toward religion.
In addition to increasing expressions of unofficial religion, we discussed LGBTQ and female religiosity. In “Queering the Dragonfest,” Neitz described pagans’ increasing comfort with gender-bending and same-sex relationships. Meanwhile, “Gospel Hour” allowed gay men a safe space to express their belief while healing from the harsh exclusion they had experienced from their churches growing up. Finally, in “Gendering Secularization Theory,” Woodhead described three different lifestyles modern women choose and how they affect their religious affiliation. Traditional domestic women, for example, often choose conservative religion, while career women generally stay away from it. Women who choose both paths may discard religion, but they may also choose to follow a liberal religious tradition as a way to help them manage their myriad responsibilities. In all, these articles helped us understand sociologists’ approaches and findings in new areas of religious expression.

Timothy Keller, founder of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan (1989), will receive the 2017 Kuyper Prize for Excellence in Reformed Theology and Public Witness on April 6th. An announcing the award, the seminary stated Keller “is widely known as an innovative theologian and church leader, well-published author, and catalyst for urban mission in major cities around the world.” Many critics aimed at how the ordinance of women and LGBTQIA promoted domestic abuse and discrimination, and the “censorship”, Barnes argued, was antithetical to the seminary’s mission: “…o be a serious academic institution that will sometimes bring controversial speakers to campus because we refuse to exclude voices within the church.” Conservatives defended Keller, stating that he “is not known as a culture warrior.”

Nike has recently published an add advertising their new athletic hijab to their clothing line. Considering all the hate both men and woman of the Islamic hate have been going through the timing of the hijab release has been both praised and condemned upon by the public. Many people of the public are very happy that Nike is becoming a more inclusive athletic line and are hoping that as an American country this shows to the Islamic community a more positive side than the discrimination going on as per the presidential election. However, there are also many that have the “Argument that the Pro Hijab is too late, too expensive, and not necessarily in demand by the Muslim athletic community shouldn’t be shrugged off” (Spector 2017). This article really got me thinking does Nike really have the best intention when making the athletic hijab’s, when they already are a company known for barely paying their factory workers enough to survive and employing child workers? Many companies to to be a more inclusive corporation but perhaps Nike could have partnered up with a smaller company that already makes athletic hijab rather than trying to take business away from them.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/nike-s-hijab-prompts-backlash-boycott-praise-n733171

In this article from Fox News 8, it states that Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion. In a recent Pew Researach Center study, it is projected that by 2050, 10% of all Europeans will be members of the Muslim faith. This study also states that from 2010 to 2050, those practicing Islam across the world will have increased by 73%, followed by Christianity, which is expected to grow by only 35%. Hindus are also expected to grow by 34% in this time period. This article is very interesting to me because in today’s society, there is a lot of fear surrounding the Muslim religion, but it appears to be the fastest growing. I previously assumed that Christianity was the most prominent religion in the world, but it appears that will not remain true for long. I wonder if the rise in Islam will make the American society, and society as a whole, more accepting towards this religion. If it is going to grow as much as Pew projected, I am hopeful for a future of acceptance and greater tolerance towards different religions.

http://http://myfox8.com/2017/03/19/islam-to-surpass-christianity-as-the-worlds-biggest-religion-by-the-end-of-the-century/

This article describes how Islam is the fastest growing religion. The study estimates that “from 2010 to 2050, Muslims will have increased across the world by 73%, followed by Christians who are projected to grow by 35% during the same time period, and Hindus at 34%”. The article then discusses why this could end up being true. It was said that Muslim women on average have 3.1 compared to 2.3 for all other religious groups combined. The Pew Research study also mentioned how “those of Muslim faith tend to be seven years younger than non-Muslims”.

Comparing this to what we have learned in class makes sense. We have noticed many changes within American religion and it only seems to be decreasing. Muslim faith could be increasing but with our new President Muslim faith may not have a drastic affect on American religion. Immigrant bans on major Muslim countries could hold back this shift in religion. There religion does not seem as secularized as Christianity.

http://myfox8.com/2017/03/19/islam-to-surpass-christianity-as-the-worlds-biggest-religion-by-the-end-of-the-century/

Last Thursday, the Mormon Church officially released a video about a Mormon family with a gay son. The six-and-a-half minute video profiled a middle-aged Mormon couple whose son had come out to them several years before. The video interviewed both the parents and the son, who had just graduated with his master’s degree. Ultimately, it highlighted the love the parents expressed for their son and their journey toward their acceptance of his identity. In the video, the parents even acknowledge his open relationship with another man and his move away from the Mormon Church, though they seem less at peace with these expressions of his gay identity.
The video engendered a variety of responses from Mormons on social media. Some welcomed the video unequivocally, saying that they were delighted to see the Church produce a video that discussed gay (former) Mormons in a relatively positive light. Others appreciated the Church’s fine line between a message love and compassion while stopping short of embracing his identity theologically. Others responded negatively, believing that using the word “identity” to discuss a “sin” was an abomination and represented a departure from Church teachings. In all, the video seems to reflect the Mormons’ increasing difficulty defending their position on gay marriage while retaining as many members as possible.

Mormons’ reactions to LGBT video reveal the LDS Church’s mixed messages about gays

The article “South Dakota Allows State-Funded Adoption Agencies to Turn Away Same-Sex Couples” by Mark Joseph Stern  is an example of the United States government allowing for “religious freedom” in government institutions. However, as the article points out, there is a fine line between religious freedom and discrimination based on religious ethics. This article raises an interesting point about the role of church and state. In a “secular” society, there is a separation of church and state, and at first glance, allowing state-funded adoption agencies to chose who the adoptive couples can be is an exercise of religious freedom. However, in a truly secular society, the state would not allow for discriminatory policies based on one’s sexual orientation. This law is more of a reflection of the feeling towards same-sex couples in South Dakota rather than “religious freedom”. This law not only prevents sam-sex couples from adopting at select adoption agencies, it also provides grounds for agencies to prevent someone who is divorced, an interfaith couple, or a couple who engages in pre marital sex to to adopt as well. America is no where near a “secular society”, as much of the values and ethics that are found in certain areas are based on people’s interpretations of Christian scripture. This law is based on someone’s idea of Christian values, and not religious freedom.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/03/13/south_dakota_allows_state_funded_adoption_agencies_to_turn_away_same_sex.html

The World Council of Churches vs. the Jewish state, once again

The news was Israeli parliament did the vote that would deny entry visas to activists who call for the boycott of the Jewish state, and World Council of Church is attacking that action although WCC was part of reason for this law. WCC has been having negative influence over Israel/semitic-state by leading harsh political warfare. It has biased opinion towards Israel, and has been acting against Israel for while. It also uses Israel open tourist visa policy to promote anti-Israel campaign, so this action can be reaction of Israel.

However, The Economist claimed this ban clearly has possibility of harming relations between the Jewish state and Christianity.  Isolating or banning itself from outside is not good solution, I think, because I feel like that’s what WCC was aiming for. If Israel takes action towards WCC, WCC can raise more voice against Israel “to isolate and demonize Israel internationally”. Since that’s WCC’s campaign is about, Israel should have not taken intense action like this because it just creates more tension.

After reading Marti’s, “Affinity, Identity, and Transcendence: The Experience of Religious Racial Integration in Diverse Congregations”, I began to question the diversity of my own childhood congregation back home and the other congregations I have attended in the past. Marti describes “Affinity with the Congregation”, “Identity Reorientation”, and “Ethnic Transcendence” as three moments that involve the acceptance and acknowledgement of mixing backgrounds within a congregation. I grew up in a traditional Roman Catholic church which was predominately white with a few Hispanics and African-Americans. I did not notice the lack of diversity in my church until I attended my friends Hare Krishna (ISKCON) temple in Laguna Beach. In elementary school, I spent many weekend there and I began to realize the diversity there than at my own church. Their temple was made up of an almost equal mix of whites, Indians, Asians, and a few African-Americans. Although not all races were equally represented, it was more mixed than what I had experienced before. For this course, my first congregational visit was at a “progressive” Christian church. The demographic of the church was nearly all white, but they expressed the importance of standing with our multiracial “brothers and sisters” through times of trouble and success. I think that as time and beliefs progress, some churches will grow more mixed and others will become more strictly defined by the attendance of one race.

It is obvious that Trump’s immigration ban was designed to prevent Muslims from moving to the country. This article delves into the idea that the President’s racism and discrimination is partially founded on an unfair stereotype of gender-based killings in relation to Islam. An example of this is his adamancy of Homeland Security to provide America with information regarding the number of U.S. immigrants who commit gender-based violence towards women. It has been noted by people nationwide that Trump is not interested in protecting the safety of women, only when it is at the hand of a foreigner so he may further ingrain his unfair discriminations. Heather Barr, a member of the Human Rights Watch, has commented on the fact that the President has spoken approvingly of sexual assaults and may have actually assaulted women himself.

I relate this back to the class article From a Community of Believers by Caitlin Killian, which discusses the French rejection of Islamic traditions in their country. The French government blatantly says that a person can either be a good French and a bad Muslim or Jew, or vice versa, but nothing in between (Killian 314). The author explains that some of the racism and intolerance may stem from a defense mechanism and serve as “a way to reassert national identity at a time when France is feeling threatened by globalization, the European Union, and immigration” (Killian 308). I read this and find the part about globalization and immigration striking similarity in the intolerance of our President and some of the country. Trump, and others, are nervous that America will not be the supreme country forever, and their fear of losing power results in an intolerance for anyone or anything that does not support American’s perceived superiority. I feel that reading this article about discrimination in France helped me better understand discrimination in America.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-muslim-ban-gender-violence_us_58bd9496e4b033be14670400?section=us_religion