(Sumblog 11) Social Movements/Change

During lecture this past week, we discussed social change and social movements. It is important to understand the differences between these two concepts. Social change occurs when there is a transformation of society over time. Social movements are an intentional, organized effort to promote or prevent social change. Many people may assume that social movements are only to impose an idea or action but they also include efforts to prevent any kind of social change from happening.

Social moments can consist of collective behavior and resource mobilization. Collective behavior tends to be erratic, spontaneous, and unstructured. Resource mobilization is very different from that. It is organized, planned, and structured. Examples of collective behavior would be the initial reaction to Rosa Parks and violent civil rights reactions. A good example of resource mobilization is Martin Luther King Jr. His acts were always very structured and organized, following all legal rules.

Social movements can be split into four different categories:

             Alternative social movements

             Reformative social movements

             Redemptive social movements

             Revolutionary social movements

What makes these categories different is who is being affected by the change and how much change is occurring. Alternative means there are only select individuals being affected and that the change is limited. Reformative is when everyone is affected but the change is still limited. Radical and revolutionary occur when the change is radical but redemptive only affects specific individuals while revolutionary affects everyone. 

Christian Nation? (Sumblog 9)

During class the idea of a Christian nation was brought up. Should the United States of America be considered a Christian nation? Has it previously been defined as that? This topic is something that is commonly brought up in media and debates. Many issues and debates such as abortion and same-sex marriages root from Christian ideas. This causes the debate whether religion should play any role in these laws. I however disagree that that United States is a Christian nation. I do believe that Christianity is a prominent religion practiced in the country but would not consider it a national religion. I was looking online at opinions from other people and ran across one that really impressed me.

"When people tell me that we are or have been a Christian nation, I want to ask, "When?" Was it in the colonial era or during westward expansion, when we began stealing the lands of the Native Americans, making and breaking treaties, killing wantonly, and justifying our actions by the Bible? Was it in the era of slavery or segregation, when again, we used the Bible to justify the unjustifiable? Was it in more recent history, when we dropped the first nuclear bomb and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, when we overthrew democratically elected governments in the Cold War era, when we plundered the environment without concern for the birds of the air or flowers of the field, or when we sanctioned or turned a blind eye to torture earlier this decade? Was it earlier this week, when I turned on the TV or radio and heard people scapegoating immigrants and gay people and Muslims?"

I think that is a perfect representation of whether the United States should be considered a Christian nation. One other link I found was a video discussing the same topic. He talks about his views on the idea of having a Christian nation. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdygGthHca4

Secularization (Sumblog 8)

In class we discussed secularization and how it affects religion in today's society. I found this topic really intriguing and decided to look a little further into it. I found something interesting that states that secularization is that the default position for a society is non-belief. So by having a secular school system, a secular hospital system, and a secular legal system, we give NO religion an an advantage over another. We create a society where all religions are given an equal status.
If this were the case, we would not advance a certain religion at the expense of another religion. For example, if you suddenly start teaching Christianity as the right belief, you marginalize anyone else who is not a Christian. Now, it's great if you're a Christian, but it's horribly unfair if you're a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or a Jew. That creates a situation where these people who are different are marginalized, and creates an environment where these other religions can be persecuted.

For example, not everyone in our class has the same religious beliefs. It would be unfair to assume that those who are Christians are more correct in their thinking simply due to the fact that Christianity is more prevalent in our society. 

If you put all religions on a level playing field, then you give everyone equal protection under the law, and you give everyone the same right to believe and promote their views. Nobody is given an unfair advantage.

 Secularization controls intolerance, and protects religion. And those who disagree with that are just trying to promote their beliefs at the expense of others, and that is unfair, and intolerant. If religion is to survive in multicultural society, then secularization is the only way that will be achieved. It doesn't prevent people from having beliefs, but it offers all beliefs the same protection.