NBC News Published a story on Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum a lesbian Rabbi in New York City who is the main preacher at the Congregation Beit Simchat Torah. This congregation in New York City is unique compared to other Synagogues in that it’s considered to be a “LGBTQ Synagogue”. It caters to the diverse community of New York by welcoming “[those] who [were] estranged from their families or aren’t welcome to worship at other synagogues”. The synagogue made headlines as it collaborated with the Islamic Society of NYU to take a stand against the hate crimes that have come about from the presidential election. This article captured my attention as it is a counter example of the section on religion breaking apart societies in McGuire’s book. On page 209 in the quote “Conflict between religious groups within modern nations tends to be subtler but when religious boundaries are coextensive with other boundaries open conflict can erupt” I’ve always been under the impression that there was conflict between the Islam and Judaism that originated from the origins of the two religions. It gives me hope that although the country seems like we don’t know how to coexist at least some centers of faith are taking a step in the right direction.

Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/outfront-lesbian-rabbi-fights-intolerance-love-n701151

A muslim woman, Alisobhani, is currently engaged to her fiancé, Justin Yanuck, who is a Jewish man. They plan to be married May 20th, 2017 and Alisobhani is mostly looking forward to having both families together for the first time and she’s thrilled about it. However, President Trump’s immigration ban might come in-between this and may not allow the families to be able to travel to the United States to attend the wedding. This ruling bans seven Muslim major countries from being able to travel into the United States for a minimum of 90 days. Unfortunately, part of Alisobhani’s family has Iranian citizenship, so they will be for sure banned from getting into the United States. With Trump’s presidency, America is undergoing a priestly civil religion, which is the country coming first and it’s religion being it’s appendage. Trump is looking at the country’s well being first, before thinking about how it is affecting people of certain religion. He is molding the country to be mostly God-Believing in their religion. For Alisobhani, the wedding for her is more of a celebration of their families coming together and because of Trump, it may not be able to happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-iranian-american-wedding_us_589362cce4b06f344e4057a7?section=us_religion

During his weekly general audience, Pope Francis made some remarks that seemingly pointed directly at Donald Trump, a rarity for a man who usually speaks more generally about world leaders. His planned statement posited that Christians should “not raise walls but bridges, not to respond to evil with evil, to overcome evil with good.” The Pope then went off of his planned remarks to add, “A Christian can never say, ‘I’ll make you pay for that.’ Never! That is not a Christian gesture.” These remarks follow several months after Francis responded to a reporter’s question about the border wall by saying that a man who thought of building walls was “not Christian.”
This latest statement comes days after Trump’s conversation with Mexican President Pena Nieto, during which Trump reportedly echoed his promise to make Mexico pay for a border wall and further threatened to send U.S. troops to Mexico if Nieto’s army cannot eliminate its “bad hombres.” Although Pope Francis did send the President a Jan. 20th message urging him to care for the poor and outcast, he had pledged not to form an opinion of Trump until after Trump implemented specific policies. His Wednesday statements, if they truly were targeted at Trump, suggest that the Pope has seen enough of the Trump administration to share his public opinion.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/08/pope-francis-walls-bridges-donald-trump

On Thursday, Trump vowed to “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law that prohibits churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates at the risk of losing their tax-exempt status. This is an interesting argument because many churches would like to remain tax-exempt and don’t care about endorsing political figures. On the other hand, some larger churches would be pleased to be able to speak freely without being fearful of retribution. The interesting part of the argument starts when we talk about the separation of church and state. Should the government be able to intervene churches finances and require them to pay taxes? Should churches be able to endorse political figures in their favor?

“Many clergy members say they see no reason to lift the prohibition, making political endorsements could divide their congregations. They say the law in effect shields them from pressure by advocacy groups and politically active congregants to make endorsements”. This relates to our topic of civil religion and the idea of social cleavages that can create conflict. This overturn of a law will create religious and political boundaries that will overlap each other, causing underlying conflict. It will cause cross pressures with the participants because it will conflict their “loyalties that individuals feel when they identify with several different roles and reference groups”. Many issues could arise that could hurt churches across the nation. It could cause internal conflict, question the bases of their authority, and even create a heresy.

In my opinion Trump should not uplift this amendment because it will create unnecessary conflict and will get people worked up over something that doesn’t need to be changed. We have many other issues to deal with and this is just something to help his candidacy.

MARK LANDLER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN FEB. 2, 2017  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/trump-johnson-amendment-political-activity-churches.html?_r=0

Two-Thirds Of Democratic Voters Say Islam Isn’t More Violent Than Other Religions

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/07/two-thirds-of-democratic-voters-say-islam-isnt-more-violent-than-other-religions/

Here it says,  CBS poll asked people what extent Islamic religion encourages violence, and two thirds (66%) of democrat voter said it encourages same amount of violence as other religion. Before anything, I don’t think religion should not “encourage violence” at all, but anyways I think it’s not too bad because if we include answer that Islam encourages less violent than other religion, 9%, it’s 75%. However, if we look at republicans, it’s other way: 63% said Islam encourages violence more than other religions, when only 25% said same amount of violence.

I was kind of angry about that fact, but then I remembered, that religion can be source of conflict but also of cohesion. I am not saying I accept that result of survey, but what is happening might tie people together and eventually find solution to this problem.

My group’s case study book, God needs no passport, by Peggy Levitt, actually talk about this (not about the travel ban, but about Islam), such as how people recently think that it’s dangerous, just like people who answered Islam “encourages more violent”. Actually, the book was all about to prove that it’s wrong. Terrorist group is dangerous, doesn’t matter whatever religion it has, but Islam as religion, and muslim as immigrants or refugees, are actually benefitting the country by just expressing their perspective and ideas. After reading her book, I feel like I do not understand people who discriminate against race and religions, because people just closing themselves from receiving the merit.