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.