I was raised in a traditional Catholic household and attended Catholic school from 1st grade till my high school graduation. During puberty is when my mother started explaining to me the clear differences between women and men because of religion. She would tell me that the Bible taught that women had to be subordinate to men and that I could not be a sexual being like a man because my worth came from my virginity, and my husband AND God would be disappointed in me if I was not virgin on our honeymoon. These ideas did not coincide well with who I believed to be, because I felt that my sexuality should not determine my relationship with God. I realize now that my mom did not mean to hurt me, but that she was raised on these traditional beliefs.
In “The Social Context”, McGuire speaks about the history as to why women sexuality has been demonized to be seen as something evil. As a result, it does not necessarily make women happy or give them a positive identity. I think that’s why I strived away from religion, because I did not identify with those beliefs. This is when I began to become more of a “spiritual” person. I believe more women would want to be religious again, if these traditional ideals were no longer in place. The idea that women’s sexuality is evil is a historical construct, but it does not mean that it must remain permanent. Getting rid of some traditional beliefs and adapting to modern times could be away for religion to gain popularity from those people who have turned against it.

Distinguishing between official and nonofficial religions at first may seem simple, however there are many different factors that go into making those distinctions. The term “nonofficial religion” does not sit well with me, simply because I believe that there are endless ways in which an individual can show their reverence.  Although official religious traditions and staples make it appear that there most definitely is a way in which to live one’s life according to their religion, and display their religiosity, there are countless different ways in which people worship. No matter the size or spectacle of a religious act, an individual’s beliefs are valid. Skepticism and judgement of different and less known “nonofficial”religions are present in many different sects and denominations of official religions, who may look down on the small scale and unorganized religious beliefs of others. For centuries beliefs and rituals that did not fit the status quo of the dominant religion were invalidated and claimed as heretical, feared and therefore persecuted. What is so often forgotten in regards to “official vs. nonofficial religions” is that dominant religions such as Christianity were once persecuted and thought of heresy just as many new nonofficial and untraditional religions of today. In chapter 5, McGuire quotes Emile Durkheim, stating, “It is life itself, and not a dead past which can produce a living cult.” (pg. 186). The liveliness and unique aspects of new religious beliefs and sentiments should be celebrated, no matter if official religions choose to accept them as religions, or cast them aside as a new spiritual youth trend. Differences between official, nonofficial, old, and new religions, no matter their status should be respected and validated.

Measuring religiosity in the developing American culture today in a truly meaningful way presents many problems, but from each difficulty, new information is uncovered. As recommended by Chaves, many survey respondents say they attended a religious service in the past week in order to assure the pollster of the person’s commitment to religion. Outwardly and traditionally, commitment to religion is expressed in service attendance. Though in regards to the information provided by the time journals allocated to respondents previous to the interview a majority of respondents who said they went to service, didn’t.

Many information collection methods are narrow in their understanding of the modern world. Certain question regarding religious services as church, automatically alienates any respondent belonging to a religion who attends any other religious service like synagogue, temple, ect. Either way religious service attendance is any way you look at the information gathered decreasing or in the least stagnant in the United States today. Again go back to the first week of class we heard from several students how their parent’s religiosity impacted their own throughout their childhood and their practices and commitments today. Comparatively to national data the information presented to us that day was hardly different from that of which we have read this weekend, non-religious parents turn out on average less religious children and vice versa with variables and special circumstances to be considered of course. I’d like to explore further what exactly compels people to falsely state that they have attended a religious service regularly or just in a single week in order to defend their religiosity. How exactly has this been reflected in our own class discussion regarding religion? In what other ways do people defend their religiosity unconsciously and daily?

Considering “official” vs. “nonofficial” religion is a very interesting concept for me, especially when adding the third idea of occultism. I had never thought of the factors that would make a religion official or nonofficial or something that would be defined as a cult.  I don’t consider myself to be a religious person but I do have some religious practices in my everyday life. Thinking about official religions and nonofficial religions is interesting when considering what my life’s religious practices have involved.

After the class discussion this past week, I still have questions and thoughts regarding the difference between being a religious group and a cult. McGuire defines official religion as “a set of beliefs and practices prescribed, regulated, and socialized by organized, specifically religious groups” (page 104), and she defines occultism as “a worldview based on a set of claims that contradict established scientific or religious knowledge and that typically emphasize ‘hidden’ teachings” ( page 337). Would being an unofficial religion be considered a cult? Where is the line drawn? At what point does a cult become a religion and vice versa? I’m curious about this topic because I feel as though it isn’t discussed as much as maybe it should be. I find that cults can be seen as a negative thing, and they are looked down on my others. How does the negative stigma around occultism effect the way the groups are seen? How does it effect the way they interact with each other?

Throughout the first few weeks of class, we have learned that in the modern American world, the way people practice religion has shifted, and unofficial religion has grown to be much more significant.  In American Religion, Chaves argues that official religion has “softened”.  This is caused by many factors, and is associated with prominent contemporary trends.

Particularly within the Protestant church, these contemporary trends have been clear and trackable. There are 300,000 congregations across the country, which is and has been the most significant form of practicing religion. Within these congregations, the median size has been the same within the last 20 years, however, recently, more and more people have began to inhabit much larger sized congregations. In addition, within the span of just a few years, Protestant congregations independent of a particular denomination have increased by five percent. Technology has become a vastly significant aspect of most Protestant congregations, from broadcasting services to communicating with attendees. Most services have become significantly more informal, and people in the pews have grown older, with higher income and more education.

These trends have grown and intensified as official religion involvement has decreased. These six trends directly alter the way American religion looks, and are likely a consequence of both politics and the opening of the modern mind. As certain Christian leaders have been involved in scandals, churches have taken stands on controversial political issues, and women’s rights have increased in society, there have been some clashes in the values of more traditional congregations and some American people. Thus, modern trends emerge and official involvement has softened.

This week’s readings and discussions centered around the idea of official and non-official religions. As discussed in class and McGuire, an official religion is focused on four main characteristics: specific leaders, specific location, specific doctrine, in a specific way. While unofficial religion consists of: whoever, wherever, whatever, however. This topic sparked some discussion within the class. Jim posed the question “what have we encountered on a daily basis that can be considered official religious practices in an unofficial way?” The answers varied from home alters to shrines. This made me think about my own encounters with religion.

This passed summer I spent ten weeks in Romania. Romania’s country religion is Eastern Orthodoxy. There was more religious “things” around the streets and homes than I have witnessed before. The people themselves were aware of the influence of the Orthodox Church on their own lives and were not afraid to display this. At many crossroads there was a large wooden cross with an icon of Jesus. They were usually over seven feet tall and could not be missed, but it was odd to me because many of them were in the middle of the country side with no homes or villages around.

I am having a difficult time wrapping my head around these classifications such as “official” and “non official.” In chapter 4 and 5 the term “cult” came up. There are some practices and forms of expression that are considered “cultish,” but like official and nonofficial, it is just another classification we give.