(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.

(Sumblog 7) Ground Zero Mosque

In class we watched a video about a Muslim man who wanted to build a community center and mosque near Ground Zero. This caused a lot of anger and disruption throughout the entire nation. Some people felt as if it should be allowed and that it was part of their own religious freedom to build it there while others felt it was completely disrespectful to the individuals and families of those who passed away during the terrorist attacks. 

I can see where each group is coming from. The plan to build the mosque and community center was not an attempt to suggest that the Muslim people 'won' but rather to aim to promote positive interaction between the Muslim world and the West. I believe that this project was never meant to cause any harm or disrespect to the families of 9/11 but rather for the Muslim community to practice their faith and educate the community on the Muslim faith. It would be ignorant to affiliate the attacks of 9/11 to the entire Muslim community. The terrorists were a radical group, which many Muslims are aware of, and the majority of Muslims disagree with. Having a community center that would educate and tie the community together would be beneficial to this country. This would allow people to gain more knowledge on their faith and lose the stereotypes that do not actually apply to many Muslims.

On the other hand, I can see how people would be upset about a mosque being built so close to Ground Zero. The families of 9/11 may not all have negative views toward the Muslim community, rather it would just be a reminder of the events that took place that day. This could be a constant reminder of the pain. While the families may know that many Muslims are not radical and do not promote that violence, the mosque may still remind them of that radical group that was involved in the 9/11 attacks. They  may be okay with a mosque being built, but maybe a little further away then the current plans. 

It is important to look at an issue like this from all sides so that any personal biases can be eliminated. In my eyes, each party has a valid point which makes it difficult to decide what is best for the community.

(Sumblog 6) Cult

On March 26, 1997, 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult had committed mass suicide, believing that their souls would be transported to a spaceship trailing the Hale-Bopp comet. Heaven's Gate was a group led by a man who called himself 'Do' and believed he was a descendant of Jesus Christ. The founder of the cult, Marshall Applewhite, told his followers that the world was due to be 'wiped clean' by the alien founders and that they needed to leave the earth. This is a prime example of a cult. 

Some people may get confused with what a cult is. A cult can be distinguished by a few deciding factors. One thing that can distinguish a religion as a cult would be if there is no integration in society. This means that the beliefs of the religion are not accepted by a decent percentage of society. Another aspect is whether or not they have any relationship with the state. This also ties into the first aspect of acceptance or ties to society. A cult also has little or no ties to a dominant religion. This simply means that they did not branch off of a religion such as Catholicism. While all of these things play a large role in depicting whether a religion is cult or not, one of the most distinguishable characteristics of a cult is whether or not they have a charismatic leader. 

All of these traits can be linked to the Heaven's Gate cult. They were not accepted into society or even recognized as having a common belief system. Their faith had no ties to the state whatsoever and were not know as a dominant religion in society. Most of all, they had a charismatic leader. 'Do' led the group to believe in something to such a degree that they took their own lives. While it may not always be this simple to depict whether a religion is a cult or not, going through these different traits of cults can help distiguish where the faith falls. 

I posted a video that shows what a member of the Heaven's Gate cult believes and what her last statements were before the mass suicide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wNDvFdQvws

(Sumblog 5) Rational Choice Theory

I found the rational choice theory to be particularly interesting during class discussion. Rational choice theory is a way to explain religion and why an individual may gravitate toward or choose to be a part of a particular religion. This theory makes rational what could be irrational. If a person is contemplating what religion to join or what to believe, they may weigh out the pros and cons of the religion. We did an exercise like this during lecture where we stated what our religious orientation was and then wrote out the pros and cons that are tied with affiliating with that certain religion. This was very interesting to me since I never thought about considering the pros and cons. It made me realize how someone may be influenced by whether the affiliations will affect a person more positively or negatively. We also wrote down what the potential costs and benefits would be for identifying as a particular political orientation. This made me realize that the rational choice theory could apply to many aspects of life.

     However, the rational choice theory may not apply to everyone. Not everyone goes through the pros and cons before making decisions such as what religion to affiliate with or even what their political orientation should be. For some people, thinking through decisions in depth may be uncomfortable or unrealistic. Some people may think things through subconsciously but never fully test to see whether the benefits outweigh the costs or if the costs are too overwhelming.

 

Master Status (Sumblog 3)

During this past week we discussed what it means to have a master status in today's society. Master status is a term used to describe something of great importance in a particular person's life. This can be based on may things, such as gender, ethnicity, skin tone, economic status, sexual orientation, religiosity or spirituality.

Master status is a type of label that may be given to you by other people, or it may be the status that you personally feel is most important. It could be a part of you that is first apparent to others when they meet you or it could even be subtle and unnoticeable at first. It shapes a person's life and can be both a positive or negative label and it could potentially change over time. 

One master status that is very prominent in the United States is the status of being Muslim. Identifying as Muslim can be a very dominant part of a person's life. After 911 many Americans had negative views about Muslims and were very biased on their opinions. If a person is openly Muslim, it may skew how certain people in society view them. They may never be able to see past that one aspect of their life. Below is a picture I found that shows a Muslim man and all the different stereotypes he may experience just from being labeled as Muslim.

In class we watched part of a video on a man who grew up Christian in a Catholic school and decided to become Muslim. He is faced with different kinds of stereotypes that he previously was not. This is a clear indicator that belonging to a certain faith, such as the Muslim faith, can influence how others view you. Many religions are linked to this master status. It is not only the Muslim faith but we also find religions such as Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Westboro Baptist Church, and many more live with the master status associated with their religion.