A muslim woman, Alisobhani, is currently engaged to her fiancé, Justin Yanuck, who is a Jewish man. They plan to be married May 20th, 2017 and Alisobhani is mostly looking forward to having both families together for the first time and she’s thrilled about it. However, President Trump’s immigration ban might come in-between this and may not allow the families to be able to travel to the United States to attend the wedding. This ruling bans seven Muslim major countries from being able to travel into the United States for a minimum of 90 days. Unfortunately, part of Alisobhani’s family has Iranian citizenship, so they will be for sure banned from getting into the United States. With Trump’s presidency, America is undergoing a priestly civil religion, which is the country coming first and it’s religion being it’s appendage. Trump is looking at the country’s well being first, before thinking about how it is affecting people of certain religion. He is molding the country to be mostly God-Believing in their religion. For Alisobhani, the wedding for her is more of a celebration of their families coming together and because of Trump, it may not be able to happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-iranian-american-wedding_us_589362cce4b06f344e4057a7?section=us_religion

During his weekly general audience, Pope Francis made some remarks that seemingly pointed directly at Donald Trump, a rarity for a man who usually speaks more generally about world leaders. His planned statement posited that Christians should “not raise walls but bridges, not to respond to evil with evil, to overcome evil with good.” The Pope then went off of his planned remarks to add, “A Christian can never say, ‘I’ll make you pay for that.’ Never! That is not a Christian gesture.” These remarks follow several months after Francis responded to a reporter’s question about the border wall by saying that a man who thought of building walls was “not Christian.”
This latest statement comes days after Trump’s conversation with Mexican President Pena Nieto, during which Trump reportedly echoed his promise to make Mexico pay for a border wall and further threatened to send U.S. troops to Mexico if Nieto’s army cannot eliminate its “bad hombres.” Although Pope Francis did send the President a Jan. 20th message urging him to care for the poor and outcast, he had pledged not to form an opinion of Trump until after Trump implemented specific policies. His Wednesday statements, if they truly were targeted at Trump, suggest that the Pope has seen enough of the Trump administration to share his public opinion.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/08/pope-francis-walls-bridges-donald-trump

On Thursday, Trump vowed to “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law that prohibits churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates at the risk of losing their tax-exempt status. This is an interesting argument because many churches would like to remain tax-exempt and don’t care about endorsing political figures. On the other hand, some larger churches would be pleased to be able to speak freely without being fearful of retribution. The interesting part of the argument starts when we talk about the separation of church and state. Should the government be able to intervene churches finances and require them to pay taxes? Should churches be able to endorse political figures in their favor?

“Many clergy members say they see no reason to lift the prohibition, making political endorsements could divide their congregations. They say the law in effect shields them from pressure by advocacy groups and politically active congregants to make endorsements”. This relates to our topic of civil religion and the idea of social cleavages that can create conflict. This overturn of a law will create religious and political boundaries that will overlap each other, causing underlying conflict. It will cause cross pressures with the participants because it will conflict their “loyalties that individuals feel when they identify with several different roles and reference groups”. Many issues could arise that could hurt churches across the nation. It could cause internal conflict, question the bases of their authority, and even create a heresy.

In my opinion Trump should not uplift this amendment because it will create unnecessary conflict and will get people worked up over something that doesn’t need to be changed. We have many other issues to deal with and this is just something to help his candidacy.

MARK LANDLER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN FEB. 2, 2017  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/trump-johnson-amendment-political-activity-churches.html?_r=0

Two-Thirds Of Democratic Voters Say Islam Isn’t More Violent Than Other Religions

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/07/two-thirds-of-democratic-voters-say-islam-isnt-more-violent-than-other-religions/

Here it says,  CBS poll asked people what extent Islamic religion encourages violence, and two thirds (66%) of democrat voter said it encourages same amount of violence as other religion. Before anything, I don’t think religion should not “encourage violence” at all, but anyways I think it’s not too bad because if we include answer that Islam encourages less violent than other religion, 9%, it’s 75%. However, if we look at republicans, it’s other way: 63% said Islam encourages violence more than other religions, when only 25% said same amount of violence.

I was kind of angry about that fact, but then I remembered, that religion can be source of conflict but also of cohesion. I am not saying I accept that result of survey, but what is happening might tie people together and eventually find solution to this problem.

My group’s case study book, God needs no passport, by Peggy Levitt, actually talk about this (not about the travel ban, but about Islam), such as how people recently think that it’s dangerous, just like people who answered Islam “encourages more violent”. Actually, the book was all about to prove that it’s wrong. Terrorist group is dangerous, doesn’t matter whatever religion it has, but Islam as religion, and muslim as immigrants or refugees, are actually benefitting the country by just expressing their perspective and ideas. After reading her book, I feel like I do not understand people who discriminate against race and religions, because people just closing themselves from receiving the merit.

       The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife, an article by Ariel Sabar published about 7 months ago in the July/August Issue of The Atlantic is a Da Vinci Code-like adventure following the trail of a ‘hotly contested, supposedly ancient manuscript’. Though I didn’t find this article recently, I went back and re-read it online since it’s probably my favorite written piece on the historical mysteries of early Christianity. The journey starts with “a 1,300 year old scrap of papyrus that bore the phrase ‘Jesus said to them, My wife’” (Sabar). This fragment was first presented at a conference in Rome during September of 2012 by Karen L. King, a Harvard historian for early Christianity. Critics and skeptics fell in line after the finding was made public, noting different reasons as to why this scrap was a forgery, the most notable of them being a bizarre typographical error within the Coptic grammar on the papyrus. The piece underwent countless lab tests (almost more than any other papyrus in history) and passed them all.

The story really starts when Sabar writes “[w]ith King and her critics at loggerheads, each insisting on the primacy of their evidence, I wondered why no one had conducted a different sort of test: a thorough vetting of the papyrus’s chain of ownership” (Sabar). Sabar takes this task on himself and leads us through a whirlwind journey through Florida, East Germany, and more, collecting data and insight on the people whose paths intersected this piece of papyrus. I see somewhat of a connection between the diligence of data collection of both King and the authors we’ve been reading this semester (McGuire, Chaves). The mentality King has throughout this story comes off as very systematic and fact-based, relying only on her findings and not what she wants to see within the search for legitimacy. Though it’s a bit of a longer read, I truly recommend giving it a try whether interested in the topic or not. It is a fascinating read with an ‘answer’ to one of the most remarkable scholarly mysteries in recent decades.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/485573/

The article I found this week, is pertaining to the new pick for Betsy DeVos to become the next Secretary of Education for the United States. DeVos is a believer in using federal taxpayer dollars for private education. The reasoning behind her strong desire for more private education comes from her religious background. The feedback on her viewpoint goes both ways. Some say that her religion comes on too strong as a deciding factor, while others think this would be good to help families have equal choice. I felt that introducing this article was convenient considering we just watched the movie Born Again, that stressed the utter importance of children getting a Christian education. I completely understand wanting to send your children to a private Christian school, so that they can get the education you want them to. I do however not understand the purpose of it, if they are just going to tell you that this is the only way life can be. I believe that elementary aged children are very easily influenced and forcing them to get a Christian education can be looked at as a form of brain washing. As a Christian, it is hard to think of how I will eventually raise my children because I want my family to be full of individuals who make their own decisions, but of course I hope they have faith. The whole idea of religion coming into play with education, creates a big picture of just how much religion can influence a society and how the government tries to play a role in its growth.

Brittany De Lea “Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on School Choice, Vouchers and Religion” Fox Business. Published Feb. 7th, 2017. Web.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/02/07/education-secretary-betsy-devos-on-school-choice-vouchers-and-religion.html

In this news article from Switzerland’s The Local, the possibility of a new religious affairs office being opened is discussed. This office would tackle questions of religious tolerance and freedom, primarily concerning people of the Muslim faith. Examples of religious societal conflict are given, such as a student who took her school to court when it banned her from wearing her hijab, as well as a different school that attempted to fine the parents of a pair of male Muslim students who would refuse to shake their female teacher’s hand due to religious belief. The article mentions the reason for this increasing interest in religious ordinance: the percentage of Muslim population in Switzerland rose from 0.2 percent in 1970 to 5.1 percent in 2015. Issues such as the two mentioned above, as well as a third, where a popular swimming pool banned the “burkini,” (a type of swimwear designed to fit Muslim religious codes) have become much more prominent as the Muslim population of Switzerland has increased. This has led to religious conflict as Muslim traditions and beliefs clash with traditional Swiss beliefs. The proposed religious affairs office would help mediate this conflict much more effectively, and has gained the support of the Swiss Council of Religions.

Source: http://www.thelocal.ch/20170207/bern-calls-for-new-office-to-debate-questions-of-religion

In the movie “Born Again”, the lives of those who are engulfed in fundamental and conservative Christianity is shown. To them, their religion is not only the guide to navigate their lives, but it is also makes up the world that surrounds them. In “A Moment That Changed Me: Quitting the Jehovah’s Witnesses”, published in The Guardian, an anonymous writer recounts what it was like to leave her faith. Like the movie, the writer describes her religion and the boundaries that were set for everyone who was a part of it. They had their own schools that taught their own curriculum and were not encouraged to learn more than the bare minimum. They are all taught that, “once you leave you will become corrupted by the outside world and inevitably descend into selfishness, meanness and false happiness” (The Guardian). However, because her parents allowed her to make friends outside of the church and continue her studies at a public university, giving her a peep hole to the outside world, she realized that she simply did not believe in the religion anymore. Her mother was very hurt and she lost her closest friends, but she is happy with her decision because she, “began a life where [she] could decide what to believe for [herself], and [she] wasn’t afraid of someone telling [her] [she] couldn’t” (The Guardian).

In class last week we discussed the connection between politics and religion, and how Church and State affects American life. Recently, it has become very apparent in the US that religion heavily influences politics, with news stories about republicans defunding Planned Parenthood and conservatives walking for pro-life in the news. In the reading, Chaves talks about how Americans who are more religious tend to be more politically and religiously conservative. Their religious beliefs permeate politics and affect decisions based on their beliefs about human life, birth control, etc. Since we learned in class a few weeks ago that America is the most religious country in the Western world, it makes sense that religion affects other aspects of our lives, specifically politics. Since we are fortunate enough to have religious freedom in the US, the multiude of religious practiced by Americans today leads to a multidue of beliefs, and in turn, conflicts among religious groups/political groups. Perhaps the divide between political parties would be lessened if religion was taken out as a factor, or if everyone practiced the same religion. I wonder if religion will always affect politics, or if we will ever be able to distance ourselves from our beliefs in order to make the best decision for the majority of Americans.

As we saw the film Born again, I was amazed the way of religion they had. The way they have their religion was the sectarian way (they think only way to be saved is to believe and accept Jesus, and they had tension with society).

Honestly, I was feeling unconformable but at same time I was amazed. I was unconformable because the way they impose their belief on non-believer was exactly what I think of when thinking about bad side of religion (which never happened to me, luckily). There are so many ways of religions and ways of believing religions, and I don’t want to say anything about any of them, but I just didn’t like how pastor was too much caring about personal life. I think I will be freaked out if ex-boyfriend’s church’s pastor came up to me and say that you need to accept Jesus.

But also, I was amazed because how strong their belief is. I was amazed how strongly believe in God, which results them to separate themselves from non-believers. I am not saying that there is no God in this world, but personally, I can’t be that sure and believe that strongly.

Because they believe in God, the community was strongly and closely tied, like we saw pastor involving in believer’s personal life. I think it is strengthened not only because pastor’s characteristic but maybe also because the way they separate their community, from society. I think people feel strong bond in community when there is clear and deep discrete they  feel between two groups, themselves and non-beievers. In the film, it is whether believing and accepting Jesus, but also things like whether believing in science, which pastor said “un-godly”, or not.