This week we learned about how political views can coincide with religious beliefs. In recent debates, the separation between church and state has become something of question. With the proposed cancellation of funding for planned parenthood, the nation has divided into pro-life or pro-choice. Already on my own, I was able to recognize that it was more common for religious conservatives to support pro-life and non-religious liberals to support pro-choice. After reading, chapter eight of, “American Religion”, I learned that this assumption was true. Chaves writes, “Actively religious Americans are more politically and socially conservative than less religious Americans” (Chaves 94). I find this interesting because it makes me question what “actively religious” could be defined as. In most cases, I would it to consider to mean that they personally follow what their religion guides them to do, but religion can be taken literal or it can be interpreted. This also makes me question how much separation there is between the church and state and how much there really can be. It is more common for people with conservative beliefs to be in the Republican party (Chaves 95), so when the presidential seat changes parties, I think the gap between church and state would shift. However, because a person’s opinions and beliefs are influenced by religion (or absence of it) it is very difficult to keep the church completely separated from state. Whether we intend to or not, religion has impact on who we choose to be and how we make decisions.

When thinking about religion, we all know that there is a lot of conflict between different religions, their beliefs, and the society to which we belong, for example, the social viewpoint of Islamic Muslims and how that has brought conflict between the Islamic religion and society as a whole. But what we don’t necessarily always think about is how much conflict there is within each sect or denomination, both similar conflicts and different. McGuire points out that issues of deviance, control, authority, and heresy dictate the conflicts that are common within the church, within the synagogue, within the mosque, etc.. Issues of deviance arise when members don’t follow the beliefs to the standard that religions want them to, for example, I was always raised to believe that Christians aren’t to partake in common trends like tattoos and that anyone in the church who had them were seen as sinners in the eyes of God, but as I grew older I became a part of this trend myself and felt unsure of whether I was really a sinner, or the fact that the church couldn’t control my actions made me a sinner in the eyes of the church, but not necessarily in the eyes of God. As far as the issues of heresy, McGuire states that it is more than deviance as it is almost a complete change in beliefs and ideas that were set forth by authority figures in the church, which again, brought me to question whether the church was really led under an authority working for God, or just a figure of authority wanting to showcase that form of power, which is something I was witness to at an old church where my family was shunned because my mom was following through with a divorce and our pastor told her that she was wrong and needed counseling because it wasn’t right in the eyes of the Lord, although the pastor was also co-workers with my ex-step-father. So taking into consideration all issues of conflict within the church, I wonder whether the same issues are seen from and cause issues outside of the church.

McGuire discusses civil religion as legitimating myth, and how at times the same civil religion could be a significant source of cultural conflict. She states that “If Americans are in conflict over basic notions of ‘what it means to be one of us’ and ‘what kind of people do we want to be’, opposing civil religious sentiments are likely to be stirred in debates about abortion, capital punishment, immigration, civil rights, family values, and economic justice, among others” (McGuire 205). This prompted me to think of how the political beliefs of American are becoming increasingly polarized, with primarily young millennials arguing for liberal stances, and older baby boomers trying to maintain traditional and conservative values. While this appears to be political, perhaps this is an outcome of a religious disparity between the generations, and has created a sort of mini-crisis of values. With a very controversial president, many people have questioned the values of America, and what it means to “be American”— it seems that our identity as a nation is being heavily questioned. I wonder, then, if this is rooted in a religious turnover where more people are distancing themselves from religious institutions, not affiliating with any religion at all, or are deviating from traditional religious stances on social topics like abortion or homosexuality. This then leads me to wonder, if politic is a branch that deals with law making and protecting in order to establish order in a society, they must be basing their laws off of some moral code. Is it possible that there is no political view that does not derive from a religious conviction?

The religious conflict in Northern Ireland between Protestants and Roman Catholics is one regarded as much more political than I expected. McGuire writes that “between 1970 and 1998, the sectarian strife claimed between 3,000 and 4,000 lives (or about one in 500 citizens), more than half of whom were civilian noncombatants”, it is sad to see the repercussions this rivalry has on the innocent civilians of Northern Ireland (McGuire 220). Other than the obvious tragedies that result from this religious conflict, what stood out to me most was the similarities between the two groups. As McGuire describes, “the opposing sides in Northern Ireland appear to share the same racial stock, language, and social class”, this is quite unlike the conflicts seen in America which usually revolve around issues of race and segregation, which do revolve around both social and physical dissimilarities. After watching the documentary Born Again in class, I saw an “us versus them” mentality as described in the reading. Though there are no outward distinctions between the members of the fundamentalist Baptist church and most other Americans, once pastor John starts describing the practices and intensity of the church, it is clear as to why this particular organization is referred to as sectarian. Though I do not identify with any specific religion, I have somewhat assumed that other Christians and Baptists who have watched this documentary probably do not see eye to eye with the way this church and its members conduct themselves. There are many conflicts and differences within particular religions that I had never taken notice to before, both the reading and the documentary have helped highlight those.

This week, we learned primarily about shifting patters of religious life in America. The clearest pattern is that no symbol of religiosity in American life has increased, but most of the time, any declines have been gradual and/or not statistically significant. A few trends do stand out, however. First, childhood and youth involvement has declined, decreasing the possibility that they will become religiously involved adults. As a result, the church population is growing considerably older, and the number of young people interested in a religious career has plummeted. Finally, congregants have consolidated themselves into a small number of very large churches, which means that smaller churches are closing more quickly.
In terms of shifts among different kinds of Protestantism, Chaves distinguishes between liberal and conservative Protestants. Conservative Protestant denominations have grown partly by siphoning off members from liberal denominations but more importantly by merely keeping their young people involved at a higher rate than liberal denominations do. However, Chaves believes that liberal religious sentiments have not declined, only their expression in the form of church participation. On a national stage, the polarization of Republicans and Democrats has contributed to increasing polarization between liberal and conservative Protestants. As the religious conservatives aligned themselves with the Republican party in the 1980s, the liberal conservatives in turn allied themselves with Democrats. While Chaves posits that our society has not yet engaged in a “culture war,” he believes that it may be headed in that direction if the political parties continue to move further apart.

Growing up Catholic I did not know much about belonging to a Sectarian church. As we watched the film Born Again I was able to have an inside view of the way religion shapes the members of a Born Again Church. What stood out to me the most was the way the Christian school day differed so much from the elementary and middle school I attended. I attended a Catholic elementary school and thought that because they were both schools that integrated religion and academia that they would be similar when in fact there are many differences. From the start of the school day the children pledged allegiance to the bible and to the Christian faith using a Christian flag as a symbol of their faith. I thought this was was both fascinating and scary. The fact that the children pledged to the Christian faith before the US was something that I have never seen. It also got me wondering do children that young really the understand what they are pledging? How many of the churches with a strict mindset have members who grow up and question their faith? Although I saw a great passion in the members of the Born Again community, I feel as though they were not as welcoming to other ideas that they might not believe in such as divorce. This notion that the Born Again way is the only way really got me to question why people give other’s the power to speak on “God’s” behalf.

This week’s viewing of the film Born Again was a very fascinating and intimate look into how religion affects people’s personal lives. It was interesting and rather off-putting to see how comfortable the parishioners were with their pastor inserting himself into their lives and affairs. These people surrendered basically every aspect of their lives to the church, and they did so with complete willingness. This was a very bizarre process to watch as someone who is almost entirely divorced from religion, but for the people being recorded, it was just the way of things.

Another fascinating process was the conversion of the man who did not accept his brother’s faith at the beginning of the film. The conversation he had with his brother, which culminated in him breaking down and crying, was very powerful. It was a huge reminder of how much of a person’s identity is based around their own sense of religion and spirituality. Watching this sad, broken man accept a higher power into his life and perceive a noticeable difference in his quality of living was an incredible transition to see.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the man who turned to religion after his wife left him made for a fascinating story. The conversation between the pastor and the ex-wife was unnerving – it cannot be stressed enough that I’m not used to this level of contact between a religious leader and their parishioners, and to see that relationship unfold was an entirely new experience. All in all, it was a very fascinating look into a world I don’t know.

This past week, our viewing of Born Again in class had me asking myself a lot of questions about just how much power a pastor truly has. As I watched the film I was uncomfortable by the presence of the pastor involving himself in personal life situations of everyday people. He was immersed in the relationship between Bob and Emma and was controlling whether or not Emma could see her children. Considering he is not a lawyer and he is not the father of her children, why did she listen to him? If all he is, is a pastor, then why couldn’t Emma just disobey his “order” and see her children? I did not understand why she was so threatened by that order, if it were me I would find a way to see my children. I go to church so I know that you are supposed to respect your pastor, just like any other person, but you do not have to treat him like a God who guides our paths. What I have noticed is that many pastors develop a mindset that they are above everyone else, this may be only pastors from certain denominations but I have picked up on this attribute. If you understand your religion, whatever it may be, then you should understand that as men and women we are imperfect. Only God can be our judge, so I believe Emma should have prayed about her situation, instead of completely leaving her life choices up to her pastor to decide. This documentary is the kind of thing I want to discuss because it left me with a multitude of questions.

This weeks readings and class discussions really focused on the typology of religious organizations. We were able to unfold many attributes related to certain religions and compare them to others. We also studied the trends and changes Chaves reported on, for example, the increase in 18-39 year olds who are spiritual but not religious. It was interesting to see how religion as a whole has changed over time. I thought McGuire’s typology table of the thirteen religions was very useful. The table was able to pin-point  where each religion generally stood in terms of each religion’s churchly, sectarian, denominational, or cultic orientation by their “Tension with society”,”Responsibility for society”,”one way”, and “many ways”. McGuire also explained how religion can be responsible for social cohesion as well as conflict. It was interesting to think of Durkeim’s concept that “wherever there is social cohesion, it is expressed religiously”. Meaning that “religion is the very essence of social”. Before reading this I never thought of this perspective and I wonder if it’d be true for the average American today. I thought about the social encounters I face daily and tried counting how many of them are religious–not very many. McGuire makes it clear that in the past immigrants looked to religion because it gave them a mutual aid, friendships, or a sense of belonging; yet in the U.S. it helps people differentiate themselves and locate themselves in a larger society.  Then the next area of topic explains the conflicts and social cleavages of religion. There are many areas that religion may overlap that could create conflict; like social class, race or ethnicity, and political or national allegiance. Understanding this area gets tricky for me and raises many questions and uncertainties.