Researching Religion (Sumblog 12)

For my research proposal I am trying to figure out the answer to the question how do religious beliefs relate to people’s view of higher education? My thesis for this is if a person is more religious in their beliefs, then they will value higher education less. For this, my main form of data collection is a social survey that I am giving to anyone who will take it. I really wanted a diversity of students and non-students to answer the questions. I am lucky because instead of just giving it students on UWSP campus, I did my survey early enough that I took it home for thanksgiving and had people back home do it. I’m also going to a conference this upcoming weekend where I intend to have folks from different UW-System campuses fill it out there as well.

            Some obstacles that I have faced so far include mainly time. Because I am doing a survey I have slightly more time because so long as I created my survey early, I was able to give it to more people. However, this doesn’t help in that I don’t necessarily have a lot of time to analyze the data that I have collected in a comprehensive way.

            The second obstacle that I have encountered is how too general my question was. When I originally created my question, I thought that keeping it broader would be beneficial because of the options it would leave after the research. I found that when creating my survey though, having it too broad made me want to have a bunch more questions. To solve this, I made my thesis more succinct, so that I could create questions that were more specific to the topic I really wanted to learn about and find out if I was wrong or right.

            For other variables that I wish could be different, I would have to say that other than the obvious time and money, I would also like to change my topic all together. I think that I would make it more specific-but still having it deal with education and religiosity. I would just have a different question like how does religion play a factor in students remaining in school. Or does religiousness impact one’s ability to choose a campus that they want to. Something like that, that would be more specific and to be honest a little more interesting to me.

Is a Civil Religion Really Civil? (Sumblog 10)

This is a good depiction of the opposite, so the idea that Religion and Governing need to be completely separate. There is no intersecting the two. This is very similar to the Political Philosophy Version in its ideals that religion does not have the impact on government that government could potentially have on religion. 

An interesting idea we talked about this past week in class was the difference between the Political Philosophy version and Sociology of Religion version of how civil religions can affect a society. I thought it was interesting seeing the connection between the two, because really, at least for American history, drawing the line between the two is very difficult to do. I think that for American history the political philosophy and the sociological philosophy of how religion made an impact are very connected. Many times, religion was used to create a reason to have religion and also a reason why not to have a religion. Interestingly enough, we have embedded religious beliefs as a whole so strongly into our society, our politics and our governmental structure. Separating these ideas is difficult to do because we really do have to look at how religious belief impact that society, but not from a lens of how we currently view things, but how they viewed everything back then. For example, we can’t look at a governmental structure that had a single religious belief back in the 1600’s and we can’t look at it from the lens of our current national government system because they aren’t even comparable. We need to look at the religiosity, government, and political system through the lends of that time period to see if they have any intersections and how those intersections affect each aspect of those different systems.

What I think is interesting is trying to separate these different aspects from each other. I don’t think that America has ever been a pure political ideology like how the Political Philosophy Version portrays civil religion. On the flip side, you can’t look purely at how religions affect a society because there are  a bunch of different intersections of that society that get impacted by religion, however that also impact religion. These impacts could be the difference, for example, between religious beliefs being integrated so strongly into a governmental structure that the government needs to seek solace and advice from religious leaders before making decisions. Some countries have this, others don’t. For those countries that don’t, they all have variations in which that countries constituencies have been decided to integrate their voice or the diversity of their voice, by now declaring the whole country run by religion in various degrees of activity.

This photo shows an interesting intersection of how
people view religion and Politics . 

Should Or Should We Not Have Religious Diversity (Sumblog 9)

It is really interesting to think about the role that religion plays on a person’s national identity. I think in the US, we aren’t necessarily a Christian nation, however, I don’t think that overall we’re very nationalistic either. When you ask a person where they’re from, they say a state, or an ethnicity they have. None of them say the country they’re from. However if you were to ask a person from a different country where they’re from they’d generally say they’re country name. For example, I asked my friend Samer what his nationality was, and he said Tunisian, I asked where he’s from and he said Tunisia, I asked what his ethnicity was and he followed that with Tunisian. He is representing his country. His ethnicity, nationality and country he lives in are all the same. I think the issue with America is that we are Irish-Americans, Swedish-Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and any other ethnicity-American. We still hold on to our previous national identity, and just attach our current national identity to it. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, I actually think it’s a great thing. The issue here is that because we don’t have one national identity-we don’t all say we’re Americans- we have to cling to other ways that we can all nationally connect. Living in the same geographic-location isn’t necessarily enough, it takes something else to connect us. That’s why I think some people in America want to make it a Christian Country, so that there is something to bond everyone together. The issue there is, for those that do not follow Christianity, or are a denomination or other branch off it that isn’t widely accepted-what do they do? Move? Pretend like the life they have here is worth it to change who they are? I don’t think that’s fair for one group of supposed “majority” to yet again squash the perceived “minority” because they want to have unity amongst themselves. I think a better system to stand behind would be a system that viewed individual needs as national needs. That looked at the humanistic life we live, and tried to make it better for each individual and more accepting. I don’t think religion has a place in our regulation for individuals anymore because of how much religious diversity we have. Trying to change it back to the original isn’t going to fix the problems we have now. I honestly think it will only make those problems worse, and divide the nation even more.

This is a wall in Sacramento, California that shows differnt religious faiths through art. It shows that we are accepting to an extent of other religions. There's hope for us to be completely accepting, we just have to go on the right path to get there.

http://americanturban.com/2012/12/28/the-growth-of-americas-religious-diversity-showed-in-2012/ 

I mean, all religions are the same right? (Sumblog 7)

I think during our discussion of whether or not Muslims should be allowed to build a mosque 2 blocks from ground zero was very interesting to me. Especially because the day before an acquaintance of mine was questioned because of her religious faith as being a Muslim and the founder of the Muslim Student Association at UW-Green Bay but after she graduated in May really hasn’t been a part of the organization. She wrote a letter to her city councilman about how to get free bus transportation on Election Day so that everyone could get access to their polling locations. Her reasons behind there were many, including the fact that Green Bay has free bus rides for all packer football days. The city councilman responded by basically saying he’ll get to that question later, and then asked her if her organization supported Sharia law, and mentioned other problems that MSA’s have had across the country, while never actually listing any problems MSA’s have had. This is interesting because in class a lot of folks said how New York Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to build a mosque “so close” to ground zero… but we never really talked about why. We just said because it was insensitive, because it’s still a big problem that people aren’t comfortable with. We never talked about how in New York two blocks is different than two blocks in Stevens Point. How about, there’s this big problem of Americans being blind to other religions and how diverse each religion is. For example, when we talk about Christianity, people are always ready to jump and say what denomination they’re from. Catholic, Lutheran, Mormon, etc. But when we discuss non-Christian religions we go in and just start talking about the overall religion as if the individual groups that broke from that religion aren’t impactful in how the whole entity is viewed.

               I think the main issue is that when we talk about religion, we were all raised differently, but as far as education goes, there wasn’t much religious diversity taught. We were taught overall religions and then told that those were the only aspects to those religions. I think we cannot get confused, because how would a Christian feel if they were told they couldn’t build a church next to a military graveyard because the Westborro Baptist Church protested and were insulting and the wounds caused from that experience were still too fresh. They probably would be very upset that ANYONE would think the extremist group of the Westborro Baptist Church was any reflection on overall Christians.

There are many, many photos, videos, memes and posts about this type of idea. But let me again point out that this meme compares a SMALL DENOMINATION to AN ENTIRE RELIGIOUS ENTITY. Never did they say Muslim Extremists, they said Muslims. Where's our cultural relativism?

But First, Let’s Look at Our Profit Margins (Sumblog 5)

                I think that this week’s discussion on Rational Choice Theory was very interesting. I think that I could relate a lot to it especially when looking at it the way it was described in class as a combination of sociology, religious study and economics. It reminded me a lot of what I learned in my economics class, in particular when we talked about a free market. Religious choices being in the open market for anyone to choose from is very interesting because I think often we don’t have all the information needed to be able to make those choices. However, one could argue that this all a part of the game. We never will have all of the information and the fact that you may have biased information is important because others around you might think the same way. This could lead to the issue that people will see you as blank even though you are actually blank. (See extremists in every religion and their stereotypes). This could be a huge reason and implication that needs to be on your cost benefits analysis, because if you are looking into a religion that where you live is widely hated or misrepresented, becoming that religion could be very detrimental to your life. For example, if you are doing a cost benefits analysis on being Muslim and you live pretty much anywhere in the United States, a huge cost could be the negative stigma and stereotype that American’s have when it comes to ANYONE being identified as Muslim. This is mainly because of the media only portraying extremist Muslims who are typically from the Middle East. These ideas and hatred of these people and the religion could cause harm to the person who is trying to become that religion or is contemplating it.

               Here comes in my thoughts on how we must all look at the “Profit Margins” we talked about this in class as being the benefits,  but I also found the quote from class on how God could be one of the best exchange partners really fascinating. The profits of believing in God and the gains that yo9u could get because you are affiliated with him could be so large that even all of the costs you would incur throughout your life would never be all that bad. It’s interesting because when you look at religion from an economic standpoint, it can seem a little unemotional or less important when in relation with how people “feel.” But often enough, we see that people “feel” a certain way only because of what is being gained or given. So really, being unemotional and only gaining is kind of like living our daily lives.

I picked this picture, because I think it goes well with the idea that we have to know the latest research to be able to make a decision on anything. That the core value of Rational Choice Theory is that we can know a lot about everything and be able make a judgment from there. I think it's important to remember that not everyone has all the information, and even if you don't, you can still make a decision. You don't necessarily have to read the latest research to be informed.

 

 

The Religiously Neutral (Sumblog 4)

        The article “Nones” On the Rise by Pew Research really interested me because I consider myself to be religiously non-affiliated. What was interesting for me is learning about how religiously unaffiliated people still affiliated with a higher being or a sense of some other existence. Even some went so far as to agree that God existed and that religion is important in their everyday lives.

          I think that this is interesting because that would not be the same definition that I would give for someone who is religiously unaffiliated. I think that there is a really big tug of war going on about what it means to be religious in America and even all over the world-however I’m going to just focus on America for time’s sake. I see a lot of people say that they are unaffiliated because of multiple reasons; they either don’t like the politicking that religious organizations do. They don’t think that they conform to the Church as much as their Grandparents did. They don’t practice the same as their parents or grandparents. However, I don’t think that this means they are any less religious then their parents or grandparents.

          I think the generations before ours, there was a large push for them to be actively involved in their church services- whether that was going to Mass, participating in communion, being baptized or anything else. Being a part of a church meant you were religious, being heavily involved in a church meant you were extremely religious. I think that our culture has changed over the past 20 to 30 years and pushed that action behind-however the idea that you are religious only if you attend church is still strongly holding onto how we view ourselves. I think that this change is something that needs to be shifted in order for people to feel secure in their beliefs.

          Being religious doesn’t have to the look the same as it did 20 or 30 years ago. In fact, I would argue that the change we see now is for a more individualistic religion but not any less religious. These changes aren’t horrible in fact I think there will always be a need for there to be a church and for people to be attending that and building that community. I just also think that there has been some serious growth in how we express religion in our day-to-day lives.

How do you define religiousity? (Sumblog 2)

How do we conceptualize religiosity? I think that our discussion in class about the Universal and the Relativistic was very thought provoking. Especially in how those two differ but are still not great definitions for what being a religious person means. I think that this is where a lot of things can get lost and also where we can over generalize ideas, beliefs and values into one overarching religion or another.

In case you missed class or just have forgotten, Universal is the idea that all humans are moral believing beings. Everyone has faith in something. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a specific religion, or anti-religion or even something scientific. People have a faith that there is something bigger than themselves. While this I believe isn’t inaccurate. As we discussed in class it’s a sociological nightmare because of how much this would vary from person to person. Next is the idea of Relativism. This is where the “historical manifestation of the sacred varies widely.” Basically what it’s saying here is that religions are content specific, so what is going on in a person’s life, who that person is, where they are located and a whole bunch of other factors all have a huge impact on what and how that person is religious. They also say that religion has a definition, while it changes through our development and our understanding of religion; it is mainly a way for sociologist to create boxes for people to fit in. This is mainly because as much as boxes limits us, we all feel the need to organize and identify who we are. That sometimes requires us to put labels on all the different ways we see ourselves and identify ourselves.

I think that it is difficult to define what it means to be religious because of how much variation there is not only in religions but also on how to determine how religious a person is. For me, at least presently, there is no concrete way to define religion. I do lean more towards the relativistic side that religions are very much based on what is going on in and around a person’s life. I mean I can’t imagine growing up in the household I did ever affiliating with another religion other than the ones my family was offering because I wouldn’t know where else to go. I think there are also major factors in how we understand what it means to be super religious and not religious at all. Some people view super religious as going to church 3 times a week and then if you never go to church you’re not religious. Others think that reading the word of God is enough. While even others think that there isn’t just one God and we should understand that all creatures on earth collaborate together to create a life force to which we all unify and live. Religiosity is very complicated, and I don’t know how long it will take to concretely define it. Nor do I think that even if we get there will it be defined that way for long.

 This is an example of how a group defines what it means to be religious based off their beliefs. I think this is interesting because it just shows how specific some religions identify the levels of belief. Also it shows that everyone is trying to organize people into boxes, even if those boxes can sometimes be labeled or not look at the full picture of how a society feels thinks and acts.

The Social Construction of Religion (Sumblog 1)

             In the 1960’s the idea that religion is a social construction of our society became more popular and discussed. I, personally, have been a fan of Berger’s theory of how society constructs different infrastructures, specifically when I took theory we discussed his construction of reality. I think looking at Berger’s theory of the Social Constructionism is very important for understanding how we use religion today in the United States.

             The Social Constructionism theory, very briefly, is three phases that are repeated in a cycle type format. First is externalization, this is when people are discussing ideas and interacting with each other. We can see this in religion when people go out to coffee and wind up in an intense discussion of is God real while drinking a caramel macchiato. The next phase is Habitualization, this is where you do or discuss the ideas so frequently that it doesn’t take much effort or any effort at all to have them come to mind and do them. An example of this in the context of religion would be if while getting coffee a person came up to you and asked if you believed in God- your response being either yes or no or some other explanation that you don’t actually have to think about because you’ve discussed this topic multiple times. This can also be viewed as a person who goes to church frequently, or has to pray a certain number and at certain times in a day. These people get so into the habit of praying or going to church on Sunday, that it isn’t something they have to think about, it is just something they do. The final phase is Institutionalization. This I when the larger system(s) mimic the view of the larger society by way of the previous two phases. This could be anywhere from a political party trying to push a value or idea into legislation because of their religious belief. (This has been in the media very regularly now and historically—sees Gay Marriage, Women’s Reproductive Rights etc.). These systems can then create ways of maintaining these ideas or values that were habitualized in either direct (laws, policy) or indirect (strong norms, media) ways. This phase we can see when we turn on the TV and see how frequently religion in our media is discussed, either in a way that protects it, or even sometimes in a way that rejects it. These phases then repeat themselves and it is basically a never ending cycle of people trying to change the system by working through the cycle.

The Hobby Lobby ruling is a recent example of how integrated our religious system is with our political system. Here is a clip from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver where he discusses what happened with the ruling and what it means now.

               I believe that this is a very good way to look at religion at least right now in how our political systems have been interacting with our religious systems. They aren’t as Weber liked to believe separate spheres of our society, I think that they have some parts are may be external, but for the most part the majority of what goes on in their systems is very malleable to what goes on in our society. I think with the growth of religion versus science in schools, religious values impeding in human rights, and religion being used as a scapegoat for why we may believe or do something- that it is too integral in our system to not be a part of it. While I believe that religion can do amazing things, especially in connecting people and making people feel whole, I also believe that it can also do tremendous damage when not properly examined or shared among people in an open and respectful way.