President Trump is hoping to appeal the Johnson Act which was passed in 1954 in order to stop  churches and non-profit organizations from having the ability to favor a political candidate by supporting them with money or by campaigning. Many in favor of abolishing the amendment believe that the first amendments rights of nonprofits and churches are being taken away, while the opposing side believes that because these types of organizations do not pay taxes, they should not be able to use their tax exempt money to endorse political campaigns. Churches and non-profit members can individually advocate for a certain political campaign but cannot “claim to be speaking on behalf of their religious organization” (Blumberg). There is a divide in statistical evidence as to how far the amendment should be changed. According to the article “60 percent of Republicans believe churches should express their political views [but only] 38 percent of Republicans think churches should go as far as endorsing candidates” (Blumberg). If President Trump is successful in taking away the Johnson Act than many might feel forced to vote or support whichever candidate their congregation chooses. America was founded on the notion of separation between church and state, so by taking away this act where would the dividing lines stand?

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-johnson-amendment_us_5893984de4b0c1284f24ece4?section=us_religion

For my site visit number two, I visited a Jehovah’s Witness church and attended a Sunday morning congregation meeting. In my site visit paper, the five concepts I drew on from the textbook were: proselytizing, sectarian stance, individual meaning system (conforms to group’s meaning system), dualistic worldviews, and the Bible as legitimation. After writing the paper, I realized that the terms and ideas I used to describe them created a generally negative picture of a group of people that I actually rather liked. I draw on Zimbauer’s  “Religion and Spirituality: Unfuzzying the Fuzzy” when the author discusses the need to interpret sociological data objectively. He claims that “contrasting the terms as good-bad or superior-inferior confounds the definition and measurement of these concepts with their outcomes” (Zimbauer 563). I then question whether or not it is possible to interpret data without any discrimination. Regarding concepts such as the ones used to describe JW, I find them to be negative off the bat. Then, I realize my opinion comes from a background that strongly values liberalism, inclusivity, and “spirituality” rather than “religion”. However, someone with a background that is just the opposite might interpret spiritual accounts as wishy-washy, and conservative religious accounts as legitimate or more likely to be factual. Is it impossible to discriminate data without imposing some opinion? As humans, we discriminate stimuli given our previous experiences, which in turn shapes our framework for interpreting new data. Thus, to what degree can we truly throw our opinions and past experiences out the window to analyze data?

This week the article “At ease with our own kind” written by Nelson held the argument that social status and religion are both subconsciously and unconsciously intertwined. Nelsons’ use of the word Habitus is the basis for this argument and he defines it as “is a mechanism, internalized within the individual and usually preconscious, which generates both patterns of action and patterns of likes and dislikes” (Nelson, 51). Within the Habitus are his three sub-arguments in which economic status and upbringing influence a religious person’s preference for aesthetic, linguistic and physical expression. In the creation and maintenance of a congregational visit decisions involving these aspects are all done. I find the subconscious preferences the most fascinating as they are the one’s people on the inside cannot realize they have but as outsiders analyzing certain types of religion can.  In the sectarian congregation visit I heavily noticed the warmth that the church had for newcomer’s which was drastically different from the cold handshakes I received at the denominational visit. These are unconscious difference that the member’s have done most likely influenced by their notion of what it is to be a part of that church.

This week visiting the Redlands Christian Center I was really able to see the differences between a church with a lot of wealth and one with not as much. The sectarian congregation heavily brought to attention that the members should feel as though they need to donate at least ten percent of their income. The Redlands Adventist Church didn’t emphasize donations as much. Before this article I never realized how segregated some congregations are within race and socioeconomic background and how it can make going to a worship service so different.

The last few classes consisted of us reading articles and giving a crash course on what the main points of each article was, as well as highlighting the main point the author was making throughout. While I read several articles over the last week and a half, the one that struck out to me the most was Meredith McGuire’s Everyday Religion as Lived. The article focused on religious authority and how it had grown less significant to many people in the United States, yet religion in itself had not faltered over that period of time. She went as far back as the 1960’s, and as recent as the 90’s, to investigate what individuals felt was the most important about what they practice religiously, spiritually, or any affiliation, or lack thereof, of any congregation. Four individuals were the focus of the particular article, each four having different circumstances and believing in their actions defining their religious/spiritual association, not the church or other institution they may have attended.

This had me think the most, mainly because I was allowed the opportunity to think of religion differently: an individual may find their religious position to be very important to them, yet the authority of religion in itself may not be as significant. For example, someone who strongly identifies as a Roman Catholic may not necessarily practice their religion in the way that it’s fundamentally taught. They may practice their religion by other means that fits their lifestyle, like gardening in their backyard or collecting items to store in their homes. I never quite thought of religion authority and how it differs from actual religion until the article brought the concept up, helping me understand the behaviors and attitudes of people and how religion plays a role in it. The other articles I read were interesting too, but in a religious standpoint, Everyday Religion as Lived has the lasting impact.

Throughout the past few classes we have read articles that have made us question whether religion is becoming more of a community or more of an individual aspect of life. I have found a few different articles very interesting and it makes me believe that the answer is very personal and changes depending on who you ask. For some people, it strengthens their faith when they are around others that are pushing them to grow and encouraging them. For other people, it helps if they have their own chance to be spiritual. I read “Redefining the Boundaries of Belonging” which talked about the popularity of people being able to watch sermons from America all around the world. The example connected a church in Boston to a group of people in Brazil. The group of viewers in Brazil has formed a community around this. I believe that this concept is something that is very modernized and I do not feel that this would be my ideal situation for community but if it helps them, then that is great. The Individualized aspects of religion were stressed in the ideas of spirituality. Being able to have a sacred connection on your own could be hard for someone else to understand but for you it is very special. This can be seen in different ways, for some they find a connection like those that are from the article “Gospel Hour.” The thing about Gospel Hour is that it is a community but they have very impactful moments alone. Each of these very different perspectives on religion support the fact that religion has the chance to be either official or non-official.