Students in the Religion Department of Baylor University, a private Baptist academy in Waco, Texas, launched a petition online, requesting the campus to commit itself to being a “sanctuary campus” and stand against the government’s efforts to deport and detain immigrants. The students state that the recent orders of the Trump administration are “incompatible with Baylor’s Christian commitments.” At the time of writing the petition has gathered roughly 1300 signatures. According to the school’s newsletter, administration is aware of the petition and is working to make Baylor a safe space for affected students. The petition has, however, met with resistance, most notably from the Baylor Young Conservatives of Texas, a student group, who is staunchly opposed to efforts to make the campus a sanctuary. They “do not condone the actions of those who attempt to circumvent the law simply because it does not fit their ideology,” as stated in social media communications. This conundrum is a prime example of the interests of a religious group contradicting the interests of an outside society, and the various ways in which people connected to the issue respond. The travel ban issue is a vastly significant one, and Baylor University is only one of many places across the country that is being impacted.

Religion students petition Baylor to become sanctuary campus

The book that we presented to the class Wednesday, God needs no passport, by Peggy Levitt, was full of examples of emigrant’s life which we didn’t talk about(just because we were staying on her thesis). And most of them is how emigrants connect themselves to America and their own country. How some of them talks about  their identity, like how they are trying to become member of America but at same time they are still connected and part of home country, was pretty relative to me. I also want to be part of America but same time I am still so Japanese, as characteristic-wise, and as culture-wise.

The major difference between my story and their story is how big the religion take part of. For me, the way to staying connected with home country was internet and Japanese friends in school. For them, it was church with community of their own people or religion of their home country. Although we talked about it in presentation and through past classes, I still did’t know about idea of  church as community because we barely have the idea of it. But today I went to church first time. It was small church and people there are close and friendly to outsiders. People just talk about their daily life, pray together, and bless each other. It was something new for me, but I understand how people go to church not only because for prayer but also for people there.

This week was mixed with talking about the book and the film we watched as well as listening to, and in my case presenting, book presentations. Within the first class we discussed the different roles religion can have within a society. Two of these roles were contradicting. One was role that it plays in bringing communities together, while the other consisted of the ways in which religion causes destruction and separation. This related to the book I presented on. In God Needs No Passport, Levitt tried to show the positives about religion’s influence to America in the form of immigrants. She argued immigrants who come to America help to diversify the population and help us to build bridges with the world around us. I agree with Levitt on some issues, but not all. I agree that immigrants can help the dynamic of America and I believe they have a place and home within our borders. However, as we discussed in class and what Jim brought up, is that Levitt cannot see that there are people who agree with their religion and believe it to be true, but can also be in conversation with others who don’t agree.

Religions are different and acting as though they are all the same is not honest. While I might be the outlier of the class and believe myself to be tolerant rather than pluralist, I know that there are somethings in other religions that I do not agree with. However, I still believe in conversation for knowledges sake. It is not realistsic to believe that you will have a conversation with someone of different thought and change their mind completely. I think going into conversations with this objective can only lead to more problems. However, I do believe that one can be a human about issues such as different opinions and immigration and look to treat others with love, despite their beliefs.

This week, we began with McGuire’s explanation of religion as an agent of social cohesion and conflict, as well as the role of civil religion in society. McGuire notes Durkheim’s philosophy of religion as a medium of social engagement, positing that our globalized economic systems displace religion as a pivotal element of social cohesion. However, it can still function as a glue for different groups, especially when paired with a racial or ethnic identity. In our political world, national leaders utilize stories, symbols, music, and transcendent language to produce a quasi-religion connected to our country. Although almost all political leaders in the U.S. use it to some extent, nationalistic leaders are particularly well-served by civil religiosity. Finally, as a force of social conflict, religion can produce an “us-them” perspective that sets up divides in the larger population. When religious boundaries overlap with ethnic or class boundaries, as they do in Northern Ireland, the resulting cleavage can be especially stark.
Our two class presentations touched on several of the above themes. The first one, which discussed four different ways to approach religion, included an explanation of exclusivists, those who believe their religion is the only good option, and anti-religionists, who despise religion in general. Each of these people can contribute to social conflict around religion due to their absolute beliefs. In the other presentation, we learned about members of a new religious movement from India. This movement acted as social cohesion for housewives who felt undervalued and under-stimulated. Thus, these two presentations pulled together several concepts from McGuire’s reading.

For the book “God Needs No Passport”, I have pondered the distinction made between being tolerant and being pluralistic. In modern America, where the religious landscape consists of seventy percent Christians, I am saddened to say that I find there is often very little religious tolerance, let alone pluralism. I have a hard time imagining people being pluralistic who feel very strongly about their religion. It seems that most religions preach that theirs is the right one and the right way to live life and the rest are wrong; thus, most religions would discourage people from being pluralistic. Therefore, it is simply not realistic to expect people to openly embrace other’s beliefs when the religions themselves are dogmatic. Within this, I see the root of so many religious conflicts in wars: it boils down to the fact that religions almost never approach the world with a pluralistic view. For example, Southern Baptists are strongly against abortion and homosexuality. How then, might you expect a member of that group to openly invite and inquire about a religion that blatantly disagrees with those beliefs? Or, how might you expect a Christian to be interested in Buddhism when the Christian believes that God created the world and Buddhists go against the idea that there is a creator? To believe in a religion means to believe a set of ideals are right and the rest are wrong. Therefore, how could pluralism be achieved when the existence of multiple religions essentially creates divides and labels some things as correct and others as incorrect? Or good versus evil? As much as religion can help people as individuals, it seems it also inherently possesses the opportunity for disagreement, exclusion, and conflict.