Steve Bannon, former executive of Breitbart, a far-right news organization, was recently appointed as Donald Trump’s chief strategist. In light of this appointment, CNN recovered an audio clip from 2010, when Bannon appeared on a right-wing radio station “Western Word Radio with Avi Davis.” In the clip, Bannon mocks words said by then-president George Bush when he claimed that Islam is a religion of peace. Bannon claimed that “Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of submission. Islam means submission.” These remarks shed very telling light on Bannon’s opinion of Islam, which is particularly noteworthy given the key role he played in Trump’s order to ban Muslims from the United States. It also plays into the discussion we had this week about religious viewpoints and stances. It would appear that Bannon, for instance, views his belief system as the one true way to salvation, as he readily and openly derides Muslim belief systems on live radio. Bannon would likely hold a Sectarian view on religiosity. Having someone this zealous and narrow-minded as a major political figure is a disconcerting and worrisome example of how much religiosity can influence life and social structures.

The small-scale case study of two sectarian / cultic religions in modern society within chapter four of Religion, the Social Context was in my opinion the most interesting segment of the assigned reading. Going into this social anthropology class with a tabooed definition of both the words “cult” and “sect”, it is fascinating to see both me and my peer’s meanings of these words change while learning more about them. McGuire writes in particular of two modern-day sectarian or cultic groups, the Women of Truth and the Meditation Circle. Before getting into the logistics of each of these groups, McGuire gives us some stats to look at. She states that in the Women of Truth group there are solely women practicing, their age ranging from 35 – 55, “most had some college education, but only about a third had graduated and none had advanced education”, all women were either married or widowed, and lastly, “virtually all were homemakers whose husbands earned middle-class incomes in business or lower-professional generally white-collar occupations” (McGuire 188). On the other hand, the Meditation Circle was a mix of both women and men, ages ranging from 30 – 60, “nearly all had or were studying for college degrees, and about half had advanced degrees”, less than half of the members were married, and “all but two members were employed out of the home. The income range was also greater, with three members who worked in the fine and preforming arts earning near-poverty incomes and some in established professionals (architect, lawyer, psychotherapist) earning enough to be in the upper-fifth income bracket in the region” (McGuire 189). What interested me most was seeing how much freedom and diversity there was within the Meditation Circle and comparing it to the rigidness and structure of the Women of Truth. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a direct correlation between diversity of people with diversity of practice and vice versa (one “type” of person and one type of practice).

In chapter 4, Chaves discusses the changes in people’s religious involvement over the years as far as how often they attend services in regards to their claims as compared to actual attendance. He mentions how people tend to portray themselves as frequent churchgoers, but upon an actual attendance taken from the service, a large majority of those people are non frequent attendees. Reading this made me think of the discussions in class regarding how religion today is viewed more freely than it was in times before. Today we are given more freedom to choose our own religions rather than to follow that of our family and agreed to traditions that had already been created and set as a standard before us. More people are finding themselves curious about religion in general, which according to Chaves, has sparked a large increase in people who were either not associated with religion, or not frequenters of services, to begin visiting and experiencing different forms of religious traditions. We begin noticing that their claims of how religious they are, or something as simple as their religious attendance, begins to match up with observed attendance. Along with the growing trends of the disappearance of the religious “nones” as those who are becoming more curious about religions, Chaves also mentioned that there is a decrease in those who identify as part of a religious group because we see that a lot of people are beginning to pull away from organized religion in order to find themselves as more spiritual and religious as an individual rather than tied into something. This is a trend we see throughout the coming generation as it grows more and more acceptable, and is something that even I consider myself a part of.

In Chavez’s chapter 4, the author explains that “religious involvement in youth is one of the best predictors of religious involvement in adulthood, so trends in the extent to which people grow up in religiously active households foreshadow future trends in involvement” (p. 49). The author gives examples of how the emerging generation live in increasingly less religious households, and are increasingly less active in church than any the generations before. One suggestion the author makes as to why this is the case is that the traditional “family” (two parents and children) is less prevalent in modern America as there are more divorced, separated or single parents, or never married people with no children. This is relevant because married people who have children are twice more likely to attend church services than those who are not married or do not have children. This raises questions of the correlation between family structures and religious involvement in many ways. For one, do people who don’t live a conventional family life feel less inclined to achieve the “perfect” and socially desired life that involves going to church? Or perhaps do people who have children but are divorced spend more time working to provide for themselves and the child, thus not having as much time to attend religious services? Do failed marriages or lack of children make one feel an absence of love, which could translate into an absence of a god? As a millennial who has seen the separation of religious conviction and involvement between my generation and the baby-boomers, I wonder what the religious landscape of America will look like when my generation are mid-aged and have children of their own. I also wonder if there is a shift in religious involvement in the future, how will this affect social norms, political stances, or even the economy?

Before the class and reading chapter four of McGuire’s book I never knew that a distinction between what was considered official religion and non official religion existed. My prior association with acts of unofficial religion was that if it was inspired by an official clergy of some kind that it was too considered to be official. According to McGuire non official religion is “is a set of religious and quasireligionus beliefs and practice…[not] controlled by official religious groups” (McGuire 113). In class, the lecture was about the different aspects of each and how they compare. Perhaps the easiest example to compare the two are through the location in which religions are practice. Official religions are practiced in an official and universally accepted house of worship. Unofficial religion can be practiced anywhere there is one person with a strong belief. Acts of non official religion are more susceptible to be accepted by multiple religious’ beliefs. They can be a similar acts amongst many religions because of the grey boundaries that go into defining a non official religious act. One example of this is the visitation and creation of an alter where loved ones have passed. It is common among many cultures and religious background to honor those who have passed with theses acts of remembrances. Although many people may have tolerance for other’s religions, they may not believe in the exact disciplines like the would in universally accepted acts of non official religions. This brings even the least alike religions together.