Last Friday, in Christchurch New Zealand, a gunman killed and injured 50 people at two local mosques during daily prayers. The gunman’s apparent motivation was his anti-immigrant, racist beliefs. This has been a highly publicized case as it seems to be the latest in a long string of attacks on a places of worship, attacks which appear to be race motivated rather than religious. Another major attack in the same vein that comes to mind is the 2015 attack on a black church by terrorist Dylan Roof. In response to these tragedies and the magnitude of Friday’s event, it makes me consider the relationship between race and religion. The United States has seen a major rise in domestic terrorist attacks on Mosques which appears to be a result of anti-immigration, anti-Islam sentiment born from the conflict with ISIS. To what degree is religious intolerance masked by race supremacy and vice versa, or is it a matter of race and religion blending together in the eyes of people in a way that solely identifies these people as “other”. Why are places of worship targeted so frequently? Is it intolerance for the religion itself, or intolerance of the people who frequent it? Or do terrorists just target places of worship to create the biggest tragedy and wound a community the most deeply? Or is it a mix of everything? Its really depressing to continue to see events where one individuals hatred is able to hurt so many people in so many ways.

In chapter 8 of Mcguire’s book, there is discussion of how the role of religion in society has transformed over the decades. While some look to the role of religion in the past and view things such as the predominance of churches, higher church attendance, the prevalence of traditional religious values, and the bleeding of religion into political and social life as important pieces of religion’s “good old days,” it is argued in the book that there were also many downsides to the pervasiveness of religion in the past.

“That same firm sense of tra­dition and community, however, also gravely restricted individual freedom: Choices of marriage partners, occupations, leisure-time activities, and politi­cal options were all controlled, sometimes subtly and often overtly. The soci­eties that so firmly supported traditional religion were generally authoritarian, patriarchal, highly stratified, and nondemocratic. Indeed, the very discovery of the individual, with emotional needs and human rights and prerogatives of choice, is a peculiarly modern feature of a society.” -McGuire, Meredith B.. Religion: The Social Context (Page 284)

This statement echoes some of the conclusions I drew from my sociology capstone last semester. My capstone focused on the transformation of American marriage and how definitions of modern marriage compare to those of the past. One of the conclusions I posited based off of my research is that that modern marriages in general tend to reap more emotional and psychological benefits than in the past. I believe the role of religion in society has a lot to do with this transformation. As marriage has become more about love and companionship than about creating a traditional family unit, and as people have become more and more accepting of flexible definitions of marriage as opposed to the strict definitions of marriage often enforced by churches, the institution has changed to greater benefit spouses.

The value of sociology is being able to see and make these connections. No social institution can exist without being influenced by other institutions, and it is interesting to see how the role of religion has affected other pieces of society.

Last week I had surgery to fix a chronic knee injury (it went great). My mother posted something on Facebook about the surgery, and I had a relative comment “praying for a speedy recovery”. I then thought about how religion is often strengthened when someone is experiencing an injury or illness. People use religion to pray for recoveries or as a way to maintain structure during the difficult time. In addition, people use prayer and other rituals to show support for the afflicted. I have seen many examples of people sending “thoughts and prayers” when their loved one is ill. Health problems can also cause people to become religious when they were not previously. There are many stories of people who were not religious until they were tremendously impacted by a health issue. They might attribute their recovery to prayer, God’s grace, or a sign of God’s plan. People who are religious process injuries and illnesses with a different meaning system than someone who is not religious. For example, I went into the surgery knowing it was going to go well because I believed in my doctor’s abilities. In contrast, someone who is religious might feel relaxed before a surgery because they have faith God will protect them or that God gave their surgeon the ability to help them. People find strength in difficult times though different means (it does not mean one is better than the other). Even though I am not religious, I really appreciated my relative’s comment. It shows that she placed me into a sacred part of her religious life.

It was interesting to see these five narratives laid out, in a way, against each other. I realize now that I have seen these narratives throughout the class; however, at the time, I did not realize that they each argued a different point of view. Four of these narratives are exemplified in Peggy Levitt’s God Needs No Passport. In speaking with different religious groups, as well as different members of these groups, Levitt explains and analyzes these narratives. Levitt, herself, almost argues for a more secularized view of religion. Throughout the book she emphasizes the need for society to become more pluralistic in its view of religion. The way I saw it, secularization would allow for religions and religious practices to be more accepted across the board. There were a few people that Levitt interviewed who subscribed to “The ‘Good Old Way'” narrative. These were people who Levitt referred to as the strict faithful. They have a “reverence for rules“ in the words of Spickard. These are those individuals who adhere to the rules of their faith and take enjoyment out of it. That is how they practice their religion. The “Religious Reorganization” narrative was demonstrated by many of the individuals in God Needs No Passport since all of them were immigrants. Many of them explained how religious groups/communities that they are apart of in America help them to become integrated here, as well as keeping ties with their home country, or, in the case of the “religious global citizens”, ties with other believers around the globe. Levitt also has a section devoted to the “Religious Individualization” narrative. One could argue that the entire book follows along that narrative. Levitt speaks with individuals who explain what religion means to them, what beliefs they hold, and how they practice these beliefs. Levitt asked one woman in particular what she thought of the different ways people practice the religion she participated in. Her response was that she did not mind it since religion was such a personal thing, which fits the “Religious Individualization” narrative.

This week was super intense when we all got to put our sociological knowledge to the test.  Literally, we had our long-anticipated midterm exam.  I do hope Professor Spickard feels better since he informed us all he was under the weather.  He had to cancel Tuesday’s class—which gave us all a little extra time to prepare for the midterm.  Since he wasn’t there on Thursday, Ms. Trisha Garcia graciously gave us the test and stayed until we all were finished.  Luckily, Professor Spickard gave us a very handy and helpful study guide showing us what questions were going to be there.  However, it was tricky since there would be only three of the six questions on the text, but we wouldn’t know which ones.

This provided a way to study all the materials and still feel good about whichever ended up actually on the midterm.  Finally, the nicest touch was that Professor Spickard allowed one 5” x 8” index card to be taken with us to class.  We could write on the front and back of the card—and it could be however much info we could fit on the card.  The actual time of the midterm went faster than I thought.  I got the questions dealing with sociology and how it differs from other approaches; the role that sociology plays in contemporary peoples lives; and describing the congregation I visited with a friend.  Luckily, thanks to the card and different bullet points I had for each question—it went rather smoothly.

As the argument of whether we should be vaccinating versus not vaccinating our children has been a large debate amongst our society as of late, it is interesting to see the opinion and views that people whom practice religion view this topic. As the age old point of science and religion “not going together” is constantly brought up, you can see that this conflict has a lot to do with this viewpoint. According to Rene Najera, from the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, “Of the major religions practiced in the United States, only the Church of Christ, Scientist…and the Dutch Reformed Church are the two religious groups that openly discourage vaccination” (Najera 2018). Though these two religious organizations are the only ones who have openly expressed their opposition to vaccinating, I personally know some parents who practice Christianity whom are opposed to certain vaccinations (not all). As people are contracting diseases and spreading it amongst others within their communities, it is surprising that their opinions cant be changed to deciding to vaccinate. However, seeing the affect that the beliefs of many people have on their opinions regarding this topic have, opens up the door to more conversation on how times are changing, the life expectancy rate has increased, and how people who practice a religion have more recently been more open to political ideas that don’t exactly coincide with what they practice. Science and religion are two parts that have influence on each other whether people agree to believe that or not, and as more diseases are spread it should be interesting to see what people have to say about vaccinations.

Since the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York on 2001,  Americans have gained a hate for Islamic states in the Middle East. The media has portrayed Muslims as terrorists under the influence of their prophet Muhammad and his teachings of the Qur’an. However, Americans have not considered the idea that Islam is not as foreign as they think it is. From the interpretation of the of the Quran, Muslim culture and Christianity have similar beliefs.

Today in time Muslims are looked down on due to the overgeneralization done by social media as well as terrorist acts organized a recently and well known terrorist group, ISIS.  This does not correspond to all Muslims because just like other countries, a vast majority of Muslims from third world countries like Iraq and Syria are threatened and at times killed by their own race which also follow the same religion of Islam. Regardless of anyone’s background it is good to be informed about international news by facts and not only see the broad picture but notice the small details and look at Muslims’ situation from their perspective.

American Christians are not as different from Islamic Muslims because in the end they follow a religion with the same ideal of being a follower of God. The only reason why the West distance themselves from Muslims is because in their vision they are terrorists, but Americans should stop using the Middle East as a scapegoat and stereotypes about Muslims who follow the Islamic religion. Although Muslims are brought up with different customs they have the same faith as those who follow any other religion one can think of, from Islam to Christianity to Mormon and even Buddhism. Religion is simply a way to have faith in God and dedicate their lives to following his teachings.

In this week’s reading, “Narrative vs Theory,” it was really interesting to read about the religious narrative of “religious individualism,” which Spickard defines as, “Individuals now pick from various religious options, crafting a custom-made religious life, rather than choosing a package formulated by any religious hierarchy” (14). Generally, religious beliefs have become more diverse as a way to appeal to different people. I found this to be interesting because when we think of think of religion, we usually think of formal churches tied to specific doctrine. However, this narrative highlights how religiosity is not so easily measured by one’s adherence to church doctrine. I definitely find that members of my family who claim to be religious are often in disagreement with more “fundamentalist” approaches to their church. Instead, these family members have subscribed to a multitude of religious values drawing from different organizations. This is is particularly evident in the intersection of political and religious values.

For example, many religious people in my extended family adhere to the label as Catholic. While the church that my extended family attends has an unaccepting approach to LGBT groups, the majority of my family has chosen to adhere to a more accepting stance on the issue. This is directly consistent with the observation that, “[Individuals] do not feel compelled to switch religious communities when their religious views change” (Spickard 15). Essentially, while the people in my family still consider themselves Catholics, their actual religious viewpoint draws from a multitude of different sources. Their religious viewpoint is not what one would consider to be fundamentalist Catholic, but instead is indicative of multiple religious values drawn from different sources. I also believe that this is a result of increased access to different religious teachings. One can easily access different teachings online through digital texts or sermons being delivered through streams.

Chapter Eight of McGuire discussed the prevalence of religious pluralism, which can often be confused with an individual possessing various forms of belief that span across several religions. Instead, it is actually not only tolerance of a religion, but the belief that that religion’s views are true for that person. Some religions are inherently pluralistic, like Hinduism, which believes that all people worship the same God, regardless of who they believe it to be. This concept stuck with me, because all religions discuss the forgiving, loving nature of their God/higher power. It makes sense that belonging to a different religion than what turns out to be “correct” or “right” would not stop God from protecting them or allowing them to enter Heaven, simply for doing something as “human” as not believing in his correct form. If God can forgive all sinners I believe that would be forgiven as well.
Religious pluralism seems to be important in maintaining a secular society, as it is able to distinguish between the values of a specific religion and the values of one from a different country or culture. Validating other belief systems will lead to an increased religious freedom and tolerance within our (sometimes less than it should be) secular society. However, it seems that pluralism is not as pervasive as it should be within other aspects of society. For example, politics wise, people are likely to attack their opposing side in ways that seem much harsher than if it was a particular religion. Since I am from the liberal bubble of San Francisco, “hating Republicans” was often a way to bond and begin a friendship between most people. It would literally  be used as a pick up line, conversation starter, or a way to make fast friends out of strangers. Any attempt to look past one’s religion was seen as betrayal akin to Nazi sympathizing, as Republicans were the ultimate enemy to my friends. It seemed harmless at the time, however, had “Republicans” been replaced with a religious group, I realize it would have been incredibly offensive. So why is pluralization of politics not as widespread or positively received within society as religious pluralism is, especially given their interconnected relationship?

Even though our concept of religion and the way in which one may consider themselves to be religious has changed over the years we, the United States, has unfortunately become more aware of the religion; however, I have realized it is due to the attacks that have recently been put on churches and or individuals from a specific religion. This past week with the New Zealand shooting I saw a different reaction from individuals in and outside of the United States than the responses we usually give.

The attack on the Christchurch Mosque, located in New Zealand was met with outrage, terror and quick responses from the Prime Minister. Jacinda Ardnern spoke and put a strict ban on guns and this only took one shooting for them to make this decision which has most Americans outraged in comparison to the amount of shootings that have taken place in our nation and no actions or consequences met with it. When I first heard this news, myself and many others felt slightly desensitized to the event; however, I had multiple friends that have study abroad through Redlands to New Zealand and seeing their hurt for the community that they once lived in made me realize in a different capacity the impact of this event. This was one of the first times that an event outside of the US I had to some extent a connection to. I found it interesting that the time that had passed between the event up in till the new ban was put into place was little to no time. When these events happen I always ponder to what extent do we have to wait for change to take place?

New Zealand shooting hits home for American Muslims