This article interviews many individuals who marched this weekend, and each person elaborated on why their faith has made them feel inclined to march. For example, one woman who is Muslim said her religious beliefs prompted her to march because Islam calls her to speak out against oppression. Another woman who is Sikh says that her religion states that the Divine is within everyone, thus she is marching for a just, fair and compassionate society for all people. A Roman Catholic lay woman says she was influenced to march by Pope Francis who said that the “life of Christ ought to be courageous”, and she wants to be a courageous Catholic. These many women and men’s religious views prompted them to fight for equality and freedom because each religion promotes these rights. These people of different faiths merging together to prompt social change could be viewed as a progression from a churchly stance to a denominational stance. Typically, those with a churchly stance believe their ideas are legitimate and that those of other faiths are not. However, as these people come together to march for rights there is a shift toward a denominational stance because they believe in their ideas but are coexisting with others enough that no one is dismissing other religion’s beliefs. In fact, it seems the people have found common ground by realizing that they are fighting for the same cause because their religious beliefs have prompted them to.

As I read McGuire’s chapter 4, I am struck by the fact that she blatantly says that sociological studies of religion are often inaccurate because people’s personal beliefs are not typically synonymous to the religious organization that they identify with. Attempting to understanding an individual’s meaning system through their religious affiliation seems slightly counter-productive because most people do not strictly conform to a particular religion’s ethics. This is can be case for a number of scenarios, and the author highlights a couple of them. One being that of which a person affiliates with a religious organization but does not accept the organization’s stance on social issues. An example of this would be a Catholic who differs with the Catholic Church concerning particular social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, women’s rights etc. Another scenario could be when people who identify with an official religion adopt practices or beliefs from nonofficial religions or draw on bits and pieces of other official religions. An example of this might be someone who considers themselves Christian but engages with Zen Buddhism, modern psychology and meditates. Religious beliefs and following on an individual scale are clearly very complex and difficult to pinpoint, thus, I wonder: “Why try to understand humanity on a large scale through surveying them on their religious beliefs or affiliations if there are so many possibilities and inaccuracies?” It seems that the purpose of understanding religion and the people’s following through a sociological view is to better explain people’s opinions, beliefs, and behaviors. I suppose I am left confused with how productive this can be when research is relatively incapable of drawing accurate representations of people’s true inner beliefs.

Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Hindu leaders gathered inside a Planned Parenthood Center to bless the space. This gathering is important because it began to change the dialogue about women’s rights to their anatomy from one of dehumanizing and stigmatizing to one that is supportive and invites spirituality. The leaders from each of the religions came together to reconfirm women’s reproductive freedoms and overall health. This brought me back to McGuire’s reading that explained how many people decide their moral values and ideas of right and wrong through their religion. It seems that in this Planned Parenthood event, people were given the thumbs up to support a controversial issue in which something that was viewed as wrong (abortions) are now on the path to being viewed as something that is to be accepted. I see this as a huge leap in different religious systems of meaning coexisting with one another and with a society that values freedom of the individual. The fact is that religious beliefs deeply sway people’s ideas about what is right and what is wrong, and for some of the major and conflicting religions of the world to come together to support a cause like this could greatly affect how society accepts the idea of abortion.

Chapter two of McGuire’s text has made me curious as to how much individuals actually internalize the meaning system of the religion they belong to, and with how much conviction they believe in the meanings provided for them. I draw back to our second class session in which I learned that almost a majority of the students have strayed away from the religion they grew up believing, and wonder “how would this shift in religious beliefs result in a panic or crisis of meaning?” The person who is struggling with what religion they identify with (and to what extent) would likely experience anomie— a term defined as “a crisis of moral order” (McGuire 35). Although not explicitly said, the text suggests that practically all aspects of a religious person’s life are given meaning through their religion. I then wonder if young people who experience a shift in religious beliefs are then more prone to having some sort of existential crisis in which the meaning of their life is being severely tested. There are far more suicides among young people than there are of people in mid to late life— could religious inner turmoil be a factor in this? Are systems of meaning implemented in society to sustain people’s wellbeing so that they don’t break down from the lack of meaning? I wonder, what becomes of people who do not adopt meaning from a religious system? Do these people suffer from this or have stronger sense of value if they single handedly choose their meaning system rather than adopting it from a religious institution?

The terminology of the immigration ban has been up for discussion, as Donald Trump stated on Wednesday morning, “Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!” Yet on a Tweet on Monday, he called it a “ban” when referring to it. “If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the “bad” would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad “dudes” out there!”

That takes away from the focus of what the executive order actually did and what it means. The more actively religious individuals in the US tends to be more politically and socially conservative than non-active religious individuals (Chaves, pg. 94), yet some of many critics of the ban came from Christian leaders, stating in a letter with eight Christian leaders’ signatures, “Their lives matter to God, and they matter to us.”
While I believe Chaves’ observation has truth behind it, I’m curious as to wonder how much that will change over the next 4 years.

On Tuesday, January 31^st, Bishop Barres replaced Bishop William Murphy as the head of the Diocese of Rockville Centre in New York. Johnny Milano for The New York Times writes an article on the two figures of the church, giving readers an insight into who these men are and the ceremony that followed this change in leadership. Describing the two men in somewhat dissimilar ways, it is clear that a new way of thinking will come along with Bishop Barres’s installation as the head of the Diocese. Describing Bishop William Murphy as “a gregarious and outspoken man, is a doctrinal conservative who was not shy about wading into culture wars and politics. Before the 2016 presidential election, for example, he wrote a letter to be read aloud in all Sunday Masses that said support for abortion “should disqualify any and every such candidate from receiving our vote.” On the other hand, Bishop Barres has a rather differing personality than that of Bishop Murphy, Milano describes him as “…a different style. Naturally shy, he was described by his former flock in the Diocese of Allentown in Pennsylvania, where he had been bishop since 2009, as low-key, warm and personable. At the same time, he leans traditional in his Roman Catholic outlook. He is focused, he said in an interview, on what he calls the eternal truths of the church and has a deep personal practice of prayer.” While reading this portion of the article, I was greatly reminded of the shift we spoke of in class of the Catholic Church, starting as a “churchly orientation” and shifting overtime towards a “denominational orientation”. I see a sort of connection with the shift in the Catholic Church’s typology and the shift from Bishop Murphy to Barres.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/nyregion/bishop-john-o-barres-diocese-rockville-centre.html

President Trump has signed executive orders for building a wall on our Southern border, and later this week plans to issue an executive order that will dramatically restrict refugees from entering the country who come from countries Trump deems “high-risk”. The article quotes religious leaders such as Catholic Sister Simone Bell, Reverend Canon E. Mark Stevenson, Robert Bank (CEO of Jewish World Service) and many others who all agree that the President’s actions do not correspond with the values of America as a country, or the values of faith that many religious people of America hold. Bank acknowledges a historical time in which America was indifferent to helping Jewish refugees during World War Two, and regrets that “President Trump does not understand this lesson from the darkest chapters in world history”. Some of Trump’s religious advisers respond that the Bible does not command that everyone who wants to enter a country may do so, and that this is not a biblical issue. It is interesting how faith can be used as a political argument when it is convenient, and is dismissed when it is not. The Bible does not directly say “let refugees into your country”, but it does say to love and care for those in need. I reflect on the fact that this country is roughly 70% Christian, and find that not letting refugees into the country would not be in alignment with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Once again, religion and politics make for a very interesting combination.

The past week has been quite stressful for refugees of the Middle East as Trump’s ban on their entrance to the United States has come to light. His executive order put a 120 day ban on any refugee to seek entrance to the U. S as a way to give priority to Christians in the Middle East and Africa who have seen a lot of persecution within the Middle East over the past few years. This has put a damper on relations between Muslims and Christians as the ban has become more of a religious and cultural discrimination rather than political prosperity. Thinking about class discussions on religious status based on tensions with society, I believe that this ban has begun to put Islam on the high spectrum of tension as they are viewing the U.S as un-open to them physical as far as a place of refuge, but also as a place of discrimination against the beliefs and customs of Muslims, but also the association that Americans have given Muslims. Christians on the other hand, have most likely seen a decrease in social tension as they are being seen as more accepted and have begun to take priority within society.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-spicer-muslim-ban_us_5890ed19e4b0522c7d3da0bd

Last Friday, the President signed an Executive Order temporarily restricting travel from seven Muslim-majority countries and indefinitely prohibiting refugees from entering the United States. Huffington Post’s article on the Executive Order discussed the battle around terminology taking place in the White House Press Room. On Tuesday, Press Secretary Sean Spicer criticized a reporter for calling the Order a “ban” in his question. However, the reporter pointed out that Trump repeatedly called for a “Muslim ban” throughout his campaign and characterized his Order as a “ban” both on Twitter and in a press conference. Indeed, one day before Tuesday’s briefing, Spicer himself had told George Washington students that “the ban deals with seven countries.” After reporters pointed out these inconsistencies to Spicer, he blamed the media for using the term to make the President’s actions look more extreme. He did not address his or the President’s previous use of the term.
These contradictory statements reveal the complicated aftermath of the Executive Order. On the one hand, Trump wants to take credit for delivering on a major campaign promise and enjoy the soaring popularity ratings from his base of supporters. On the other hand, his Order triggered massive protests and worldwide condemnation, especially after the first ones affected by the ban were two Christian interpreters for the U.S. military in Iraq. Given the rampant inconsistencies noted by the press in yesterday’s conference, the Trump Administration’s attempts to celebrate with supporters and soften the Order’s tone are not working.

This ABC post reflected on Obama’s stance on foreign affairs and how he “fundamentally disagrees” with discrimination based on faith or religion. President Trump’s executive order on Friday calling for a suspension on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries  had people protesting in airports and on streets nationwide. In Obama’s last speech as President, he spoke about the important role of citizens and how all “Americans have a responsibility to be the guardians of our democracy — not just during election but every day”

I think this ties into what we are learning altogether because there is a lot of social change and it is all happening so quickly. I think we were at a point where many of us (the people of America) could overcome judgement when it came to others religious affiliations and race. We came a long way since a few decades ago; however, now we are shown that even the President of our country discriminates against people based on race and religion. This will be a great sociological change and it would be interesting to see years from know whether this presidency has made history repeat itself and made our country take 3 steps backwards.

I also wonder what will happen to the Muslims that are in America as of right now. How will their religion be affected by this transition if it is held in place? Will they create religious movements? If so, will they be forced with terror or will they be peaceful? What are we expecting as a nation in return by calling to this action?