Within chapter four of Religion the Social Context, McGuire talked a little of paranormal occurrences throughout the American population. McGuire reported several differing yet popular incidences with these supernatural events throughout the American people, “[a] 1994 Newsweek poll reported 13 percent of Americans have sensed the presence of an angel (Kantrowitz, 1994). Various U.S national surveys have found a sizable proportion of respondents felt they had experienced being really in touch with someone who had died…” (McGuire, 120), McGuire goes on to discuss similar instances with events such as déjà vu and ESP (extrasensory perception). Whilst reading this portion of chapter 4 I had a difficult time creating a sizable connection between these paranormal occurrences and nonofficial religion. Though some of what McGuire talked about (i.e. feeling the presence of an angel) did in fact have a distinct correlation with religion, yet some other quite common incidences such as déjà vu and feeling close to someone who has passed away do not strike me as necessarily religious. I say this because I personally have felt déjà vu several times and by no means attribute it to a religious experience, I think of it as something that is occurring in the brain which is most likely linked to a sort of error within one’s memory. And though I cannot directly speak for others, I have had friends and family members experiences these manifestations and feel no direct link between them and a religious experience. Another question I asked myself throughout this portion of the reading was how many people who experience these incidences explain them through science yet still legitimize the occurrence at hand? I’ll keep on thinking about that.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/us/standing-rock-sioux-sacred-land-dakota-pipeline/index.html

The recent presidential inauguration has left all news panels flooded with coverage on Trump and speculation on the future. That said, while treading through the mass of Trump-related articles, I came across a familiar topic: the Standing Rock resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). In it I found interesting commentary on both the content of religious experience and the role of the sociologist in producing knowledge.

The activist context is not free of religious expression. In fact, it is central to the work being done at the Standing Rock Reservation. The reports in this article indicate that that spirituality is intimately intertwined with the land. It would seem that for the Standing Rock Lakota, the divine is manifest in the earth itself. Rituals, prayers, and ceremonies have been commonplace throughout the resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Individuals like a main interviewee in the article, Spotted Eagle, are pivotal in transferring spiritual knowledge to preceding generations. Just as narratives and imagery are used to preserve communal memory, individuals like Spotted Eagle, as well as shelters that are intentionally designed with symbolic resonance preserve that memory for the Lakota people.

The reservation also harbors a plurality of religious identities as demonstrated by signs like, “Muslims Standing with Standing Rock Sioux”.

The article additionally addresses the role of the university taught researcher. Spotted Eagle states, “Archaeologists come in who are taught from a colonial structure, and they have the audacity to interpret how our people are buried. How would they even know?”. The centrality of spirituality at Standing Rock fortifies resilience in the face of adversity. Another means of resistance as activists is the critique of conventional western knowledge. Indeed, historically, academic researchers like anthropologists studied other cultures to advance imperial agendas.

This article reminds us that the church or temple is not the only space that nurtures community spirituality. Spirituality manifests in sub zero degree weather and across distinct cultures. The article also implores us to, as sociologists of religion for two hours and forty minutes a week, approach this work with thoughtfulness. It also cautions us to realize the limits of our aptitude to explain social reality and to establish social facts.

Some people are religious. They go to the church. There people are not religious. They don’t go to church.

Obviously it’s not that simple. I felt that measuring religiosity is difficult as I was reading. As a research of official religions the book states some characteristics of religiosity, but I was more interested in individual religiosity. “the actual religion of the individual member may not correspond very closely to the official model”(104). What individual believe is from from who and what one was taught and what one choose to believe. For example people start to disagree on some moral issues such as birth control and homosexual behavior. Whatever one’s religion says, people should decide what to do. People can be religious without obeying teaching or going church every week.

I think believing religion is already individual decision, so one should decide what to believe according to what one needs and doesn’t need. In my opinion religion is something that people choose to believe in order to make their life easier, to find meaning in their life. But then at same time it sounds weird to me that you can be religious without obeying its own religion. If “religious” people are picking up what they want to believe, am I religious since I do pick up some ideas to believe and not from different religion?(well I don’t consider myself as religious anyway)

Before reading chapter four of McGuire’s “Religion The Social Context” I was never aware of the segregation influenced on our society because of religion. McGuire discusses several instances of religious inequality between men and woman. Growing Catholic I never understood why it was that woman could not hold any position of power. Now as I think about all the injustices the one question that comes to mind is, how can men decide and speak on behalf of a god who we are told treats everyone equally? Throughout the chapter McGuire goes on explaining that it’s just not the Catholic church that holds different standards but many other religions including Buddhism and Islam. On page 134 she then gives her opinion as to whether or not things will change in the quote “Groups that emphasize orthodoxy to literally interpreted religious traditions are resistant to any kind of change”. If a religion interprets everything in a literal sense than the changes in context between when the text was written and now, is lost and old ways of thinking are going to be implemented on a forward thinking society.
In the documentary we saw both character’s showed some aspect of gender roles established by religion. Susie was forced to be a stay-home mom like many of her church friends and Glenn was a male bible studies teacher. From the outside they both seemed content with their gender roles receiving their communities respect. Susie behind doors heavily questioned her lifestyle and faith.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the first three chapters in Mark Chaves’ American Religion this past week. The Table showing the continuity in American Religion was one of the aspects of the chapter I was most intrigued by, because I find the idea of compiling data about religion so complex. I believe that it is very hard to establish a meaning to certain beliefs. Belief in God, Heaven, Hell, Faith, Prayer, each one of these aspects expresses a different definition and meaning depending upon the person whom is in question. In class you mentioned that a situation occurred, in which a census asked two very similar questions. The phrasing was different and both received about 30% of people saying they believe in it, but those groupings were completely different people who seemed to hold different beliefs. A simple change in phrase can result in a person unfollowing you and thinking that you are crazy. Religion draws lines that are not very neat and crossing over into someone’s line will cause them to quarrel with you.
Chapter four in Religion: The Social Context by McGuire, discussed the roles that woman play in religion. The ideas of the power complexity in allowing women too much power was connected to the idea that their sexuality is something men fear. Certain religions have given woman more leeway in playing bigger roles, because it doesn’t go against their strict traditions. Most of my close family members are part of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and I see first hand, the restrictions of what a woman is allowed to do in the church. Women are not allowed in certain meetings and are not allowed to be pastors. The idea of controlling a woman can result in turning so many women off about religion.
Both of these authors have offered new concepts to my way of thinking. It is interesting to understand how different each religious establishment is and it also makes you wonder how similar each organizations are.

After watching the film on Monday, I began to question the benefits of belonging to a religious community. Some people use religious organizations as a way to find familiarity in new places and others use them to find their new identities. Personally, my biggest obstacle with religion is trying to figure out whether or not I want to attend church and belong to a set community. While I think I would enjoy the support and feeling of togetherness that comes with attending weekly church services, I also like to keep my relationship with God on a personal level. In chapter 3 of “Religion: The Social Context”, McGuire writes that the meaning of being religious, “changes in different periods of life, and the place of religion in the individual’s life also changes” (McGuire 53). This has remained true in my own progressing religious journey. As a child I went to a Catholic church and being religious was just a part of my Wednesday night and Sunday morning routine, but today, I do not have a physical location and my connection with God is more genuine than it has ever been before. I fully support people who need or prefer to to have a structured religion, but I am in the process of trying to figure out what I believe, so I need room to move around and grow. I believe that churches benefit those who seek the unity, but I think they could also hold us back from uniting with the other religions that surround them.

It interested me to read about the paranormal, the occult, and magic in this week’s reading. I am a fiction writer who specializes in fantasy, and it’s always fascinating to be reminded of the real-life belief systems that inspire some of my favorite genres of fiction. The concept of such rituals and behaviors is one that has always been foreign to me, even before I departed from my religion, but the fact that they continue to hold such sway in modern society is a very interesting concept to me. From my personal point of view it would appear as though the magical rituals practiced by occult and wiccan societies would have died out in this era of skepticism and cynicism. Of course, a practicing magic-user likely would not follow my point of view in the least, and would instead view their rituals as a tradition as ordinary as I once considered prayer to be. And that’s really what interests me most about this issue. If I wrote a fantasy novel in which the characters attended a religious service every Sunday, prayed, held communion, and did all the practices of a traditional Christian church service, it would be strange. Mainstream Christianity has been so normalized that the traditions don’t seem out of place. But the traditions and spirituality expressed in magical and paranormal rituals should realistically be no different. They’re just another way of expressing faith. The only difference would appear to be how mainstream they are. It’s a very fascinating example of how our society has developed around religious practice and tradition.

Chaves’ American Religion provides an introductory examination of the shifts in religious life in the United States since 1972. He contextualizes the narrative of “religion is dying!” by reminding us that we are still by far the most religious Western country. Rather than bemoaning the decreasing influence of religion in U.S. society, or conversely arguing for its skyrocketing numbers, Chaves neither overstates and understates changes. For the most part, he says, there is continuity in American religion, but overall, the number of people who identify with and practice official religion has decreased since 1972. Declining church attendance also comes with a decrease of belief in an inerrant Bible, declining confidence in the superiority of their own religion, and a lowered correlation between organized religiosity and spirituality. In the wake of this phenomenon, the number of “nones,” those who do not identify with any religion at all, has increased dramatically. These “nones” often consider themselves “spiritual but not religious.”
In chapter 4, McGuire differentiates between official and nonofficial religion. Official religion proclaims a set doctrine, which in turn prescribes ethics, norms and regulations for the faithful. Organized religion uses cultic expression, which standardizes devotional practices, and they organize into institutional forms, which include professional clergy. Individuals are judged by their conformity to official religion. By contrast, nonofficial religion takes place outside of the bounds of official religious institutions, though their adherents may overlap. It may include superstitious practices related to organized religion (eg. sacramentals) or not. Most Protestant Christians find their roots in popular or cultic religious expression, especially evangelicals. Today, nonofficial religion spreads by radio, television, and other media. These two kinds of religion are not mutually exclusive, and in both historical and modern contexts, believers have practiced both forms at one time, using nonofficial religion to supplement official religion and vice versa.

It was interesting to read chapter four of Religion The Social Content and compare it to the movie we watched in class because I could look more in-depth of the differences of Suzy and Glen’s stories and see if gender roles had anything to do with the differences.  When Suzy became bored of being a housewife and mother I think she looked to religion for something entirely different than what Glen’s revelation made him search for. Their actions beyond finding Religion is what made me the most curious. How would they preform their religious roles? Are their actions due to social norms?

Suzy’s story is a good example of how social norms may be changing. She was a very intellectual woman who could do or be anything she wanted. This observation is already a new social norm for women. However, she became pregnant and got stuck at home being a mother while her husband was out working. This was a very common theme in the past. How she went out and re-found herself in religion was interesting. It was a slow process allowing herself to grow and find herself within religion. Her roles and actions in her church were very different from Glen’s. She was part of smaller women’s groups, she was involved with charity events, and even had one on one talks (more like therapy sessions) with the pastor.

Glen got “saved” on one specific day, his conversion process was quick and he jumped right into the idea. He had quite a large role in the church which is very different compared to Suzy’s roles. He led some services, was involved with youth groups, he shared his love of the church to everyone and anyone. He was very outgoing and climbed up the latter within his church very quickly. Does this have anything to do with gender norms? Was it more accepting for a male to gain all of this recognition and power in a church or was it just because he pursued it? I think gender roles within religion are very interesting and is definitely something I would consider looking into more.