My jigsaw reading for this week was Understanding Fundamentalism by Antoun. I really enjoyed this reading and it indeed helped me to not only understand fundamentalism, but it helped me understand fundamentalists. I attempt to see things from the point of view of others, but I sometimes simply just don’t understand why people think or feel a certain way. It seems that Antoun went further into explaining the secularization our society is currently undergoing in order for the reader to better understand why some people fear and/or oppose it. Essentially, what he was saying is that our focus has shifted from relationships, religion, and human morality to production/work/technology, big government and corporations, and money. These modern aspects of society are viewed as most important in ensuring the success of our country and overall well-being, and going along with it is a measure of national loyalty. Antoun has termed this “secualar nationalism”.

Obviously, some see this move away from tradition as an indication that people are losing their morals and will sacrifice what is right for personal gain. I see both sides of the debate. While it’s no secret or surprise that our society is rapidly changing, especially technologically, have we indeed become increasingly selfish? Perhaps in some respects. However, although fundamentalists reject the concept of pluralism and globalization, they are very real consequences of the increase in technology. That being said, I think the move away from tradition and the need for increased acceptance of other viewpoints isn’t all that bad. In fact, I think it may be used as a defense mechanism. Since we can now connect with people all over the world, if we were always worried about worldviews which don’t align with our own and what that may mean for the individual, we would probably all have incredibly high anxiety. I can understand the fear that we are living too much for material possession and personal gain and what that may be doing to our psyche. However, it does seem that to a degree, we may be forced to “go with the flow” or “move with the times”. Maybe the increased privatization of religion in our society is simply the way in which we’ve attempted to balance this need for tradition and the need for modernization.

This past week the focus of class discussions was on the various ideas about secularization presented through several Jigsaw readings. Each piece discussed a different theory about secularization and what it meant for the future of religion and society. I read the Demerath reading, “Secularization and Sacralization” which essentially discussed how secularization was a complicated topic and no single theory necessarily captured the complexity of it. I really agreed with this view after listening to the other groups present the ideas from their articles, while individual theories may be valid and explain the issue well, none of them seemed to cover the whole span of secularization. Demerath theorized that religion could be both on the decline and on the rise at the same time, which is very different from the one-or-the-other standpoints of the other readings. I think it was interesting to hear from each individual theorists view, and understand their reasoning behind that view and then encompassing all those ideas with the Demerath reading. At the same time each theorist was discussing secularization from their unique field of study so its possible that each article did not capture their whole idea about secularization. The discussion of secularization in class is super interesting to me because I have always viewed religion as something in decline, and it interests me to hear the debate on what the true state of religion is in regards to secularization and the future.

For the first jigsaw assignment I read Unsecular America by Roger Finke. Finke examines the different claims of the secularization theory and offers counter evidence. He states that church adherence rates have remained stable throughout the 20th century. In America, adherence rates are higher in urban areas and are influenced positively by diversity. The fastest growing denominations believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and are strict with their members. Finke highlights that while the modernization equals secularization model may apply to some European countries, it does not hold true in America . He suggests that this may be because America has traditionally separated church and state while many European countries have long intertwined the two. In countries such as the UK, religion is more heavily regulated and it would be harder for smaller religious groups to start up. It’s much easier to start a religious group in America which leads to greater diversity in religion, which as Finke believes, positively impacts adherence rates.

When reading a scholarly article, especially on a topic I don’t know a lot about, I often believe what the author says without much question. Hearing all of the other groups present their articles in class, and realizing many conflicted with what Finke says in Unsecular America, made me question what to believe. I think the last group’s presentation on their article, which pushed for there not being one right answer and that many things were at play, helped tie the conflicting views together.

This week our jigsaw readings and presentations were centered around different secularization theories, and Thursday’s class made me start thinking about whether secularization or religiosity is better for society as a whole. My first thought was that religion is probably beneficial to society, since so much volunteering and charity work is done through religious organizations. A religious society would theoretically be very happy, too, since religion is meant to provide a sense of purpose. It also crossed my mind that a large religious presence could result in lower crime rates, not only because good morals often come with piety, but because programing outside of weekend services can help keep idle hands busy. However, a quick Google search revealed that Vatican City had the highest crime rate in the world in 2017.

While religion is beneficial to society, and America remains a relatively religious player on the worldstage, it is my experience that my generation as a whole is moving further from organized religion. Most people I know hardly go to church if at all, and a lot of those people are atheists. I think this might have to do with how socially and intellectually progressive my generation is. Most people my age believe in gender equality and accept the LGBT community, which both go against the beliefs of some mainstream religions, and these fallacies bring into question the logic of other religious stories, such as those surrounding the creation of the universe.

This week’s jigsaw activity, where we each read different stories to be taught to each other was a really interesting class activity. My reading, Religious America, Secular Europe, was particularly intriguing because, while it definitely charted the differences in religiosity found in America vs Europe currently, it also highlighted the causes. I thought it was interesting how Berger noted that Europe had been largely unaffected by Evangelical Protestantism, which has played a major role in the rise of conservative religion across America. Furthermore, the fact that the UK has remained relatively unaffected by Pentecostalism is also very interesting, leading to the question of why Europe is unaffected by these conservative religious movements?

It is interesting to consider how Evangelical Protestantism has largely shaped the rise of religiosity in America. When we think of conservative and highly religious groups in America, it easy to immediately think of Evangelicalism. In many ways, Evangelicalism is often thought of in its extreme examples, but it is important not to overlook the fact that Evangelicalism has appealed to a large portion of people in the country. When I think of the stereotype of Evangelicalism, I tend to think of the movie Jesus Camp (2006), which detailed the goings on of a Evangelical Christian summer camp called Kids on Fire. This movie focused on profiling highly religious individuals and how it has affected the raising of their children. In the Berger readings this week, it became apparent that this experience is uniquely American in many ways, as our relationship with religion pervades politics, media, and education in ways completely different from Europe.

I read about the siege in Waco, Texas in my other religions class. I knew that the Branch Davidians and the FBI were in a sort of face off, in that the Branch Davidians were preparing for the end time and Judgement Day and that the FBI thought that they were a menace of sorts. I also knew that the siege lasted 51 days until the FBI finally entered the compound and many people died. What I did not know, however, was that James Tabor and Phil Arnold had tried to help the FBI. Both Arnold and Tabor have experience with the Book of Revelation and apocalypticism. They tried to make sense of David Koresh’s monologues in order for the FBI to communicate with the Branch Davidians effectively. Tabor and Arnold discussed the interpretation of the Book of Revelation and the Seven Seals on a radio talk show that Koresh was known to listen to. They thought that Koresh saw himself and his followers as, essentially, bringers of Judgement Day. Koresh was trying to break the Seven Seals and believed he was in the Fifth Seal, which meant that he and his followers would have to die in order to bring about Judgement Day. However, Arnold and Tabor argued on the talk show that Koresh would have to write a manuscript on the Seven Seals before doing so. They were hoping in doing this, that Koresh and the Branch Davidians would not become martyrs. We can assume that this worked since Koresh was, in fact, working on a manuscript. Unfortunately, the ignorance and impatience of the FBI led to a fatal showdown. I knew that the FBI had failed to communicate with the Branch Davidians but I did not realize that they were so close to a peaceful surrender. Now, we can only speculate, but as Tabor explains, Koresh was working on a manuscript and likely would have surrendered once it was completed. Tragically, the FBI were ignorant of the scriptures which Koresh often quoted and were worried that Koresh was stalling and trying to manipulate them. It was a tragedy that I think could have ultimately been avoided.

I have recently been watching a documentary series on America in the 70’s. Overall, the 70’s were a turbulent time. Change was frequent and people called out the injustices in society. The Women’s Liberation movement gained an enormous following due to the call to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. The Gay Rights Movement gained traction after the Stonewall Riots and saw the election of Harvey Milk, the first openly Gay mayor of San Francisco. The 70’s also saw the development of the Sexual Revolution, which challenged the monogamous societal standard. However, the gaining popularity of these movements also brought about strong opposition. The Republican party began to paint a picture that these new social movement were attacking religious groups. Religion and Politics became inseparable, and people like Anita Bryant understood how to work that new standard. Many of the Evangelicals that I have met like to point to the 70’s as the “end of times” due to the origins of Gay Rights, Women’s Lib, and the Sexual Revolution. However, I wonder how the perception of the these movements would have changed if religious groups were never told to oppose them. Religiosity in America has been declining for a long while, and I wonder if that would be different if religious groups had shown love rather than hate during the 70’s. How would the religious body of America change if religion had never gotten involved in politics?

I personally believe that religion, having never been involved with politics, would not be on a decline. Religion’s affiliation with politics has painted a negative image of religious groups. They are viewed in society and the media as hateful and close-minded. Calling oneself “religious” is almost synonymous with saying “homophobic” or “prudish,” and makes one automatically affiliated with Conservatism. This is an obvious deterrent to those considering joining a religious group. I believe that religions connection with politics is a large contributor to its decline.

This week we participated in a jigsaw activity in which we were all responsible for teaching and learning from each other. I thought this was really awesome because I’ve learned about the jigsaw method of teaching from a Psychology of Prejudice class I took a few semesters ago, and how the method is supposed to encourage inclusivity and reduce prejudice by making students reliant on one another.

The articles that we were assigned intrigued me because, although many of them analyzed the same religious trends, they all had different conclusions to make about the role of religion in Western life. Some scholars claimed secularization is a myth, while others vehemently defended that secularization is the new reality. Some scholars believe that we are moving toward an era of extreme conservatism, while other scholars disagree. It just illustrates how data alone is not sufficient to make a conclusion; it is people who give data meaning, and people have different interpretations and perspectives, meaning there might not be one objective truth.

It was also interesting to hear how religiosity differs in Western countries; the general consensus seems to be that in  religion is declining in Britain, but in America religion still plays a big role in people’s lives (even if it is less so than in the past). Knowing that both Britain and America were deeply religious a few hundred years ago, it makes me wonder how this shift occurred. What parts of history influenced each country to create this difference, and what are the potential implications for how this change affects policy making in each nation? One of the reasons why I value sociology so much is that we have the responsibility to connect the dots, to make educated inferences about the ramifications of different worlds trends, and we, as sociologists, can see changes in the worlds through a more analytical lens.