Sociology of Religion - Final

1.1 What is distinct about the social sciences vs. the natural/physical sciences?

- 1.Social sciences are sciences of probability: Human behavior is predictable only to an extent. The first sociologists (August Comte, for example) really did think that social laws operated similarly to natural or physical laws in that you could discover timeless truths about human social systems and eventually design a perfect system where there was no dysfunction or crime. August Comte, whom many regard as the founder of sociology first called the discipline "social physics" to reflect his "positivist" (i.e., strict empiricist) belief. But no one thinks that any more. Human behavior is too erratic to predict perfectly. The best we can do is talk about probabilities. Social scientists say things like, "Under certain circumstances, human beings are more likely to do XYZ." By contrast, physical or hard sciences can come up with concrete laws about how the natural world works (e.g., gravity, chemical reactions, etc.). - 2.Social sciences observe phenomena that are always changing: Gravity is the same, yesterday, today, and for the foreseeable future as long as the physical properties of our Earth or surrounding solar system do not change. But not so with things like values, norms, beliefs, practices, and all the other things that comprise a culture. Human societies are dynamic; they are always in a state of change. Even in regard to the sociology of religion. The Protestants who lived during the Reformation (around 1500) are not the same sort of Protestants you see in 21st Century Norman, Oklahoma. Even though they may share a common set of theological beliefs, there is a vast gulf between the two in terms of their relationship to technology, medicine, political systems, race relations, you name it. Sociologists always need to keep in mind that the social world changes constantly. - 3.Social sciences have to be more concerned about ethical considerations: Social scientists, and especially those that gather data on actual living people, always have to be concerned with issues of ethics. Specifically, we have to ask things like: How will I gather data about human beings in ways that do not harm them? How can I avoid deceiving my research participants so that they don't feel dis-empowered or victimized or even traumatized by my research? What will the social consequences of my research be? - 4.Social scientists tend to be more activistic in their orientation than those in the hard sciences: This is partly because of self-selection. People who tend to be more excited about social justice and political issues tend to be more attracted to the social sciences because they get an opportunity to study what they already find fascinating. But social science, because we deal with people, obviously lends itself to this sort of activism as well. Sociologists absolutely must be honest in the way they conduct their research, but it's also important that our findings can affect the well-being and life-chances of millions by influencing public policy or even just providing more information for people to make better-informed decisions.

3.3 What is the proper relationship between religion and politics?

- Liberal secularism emphasizes the "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." part of the first amendment, while religious nationalists emphasize the "congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" part of the amendment. Civil Religion, is neither liberal secularism nor religious nationalism, but sees the church and state as separate but interdependent. - RELIGIOUS NATIONALISM: Those who adhere to religious nationalism believe that the "separation of church and state" means the government shouldn't limit religious practice, but religion can definitely have a hand in shaping the government. One of the great examples of this perspective is a popular Christian teacher named David Barton, who runs an organization called Wall Builders (Links to an external site.). He's not a professional historian but he's gained a lot of popularity by going around and speaking about the Christian roots of the nation and what the founders really meant by the separation of church and state. Here's a brief clip of one of his presentations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACufmHNFE98 Certainly, it wouldn't be fair to say that Americans who hold strongly to the belief that America is a "Christian nation" are necessarily prejudiced against America's growing diversity. However, it is accurate to say that Christian nationalist ideology is strongly associated with prejudicial attitudes toward immigrants (Links to an external site.), interracial marriage (Links to an external site.), and transracial adoption (Links to an external site.), suggesting that there is a link between Christian nationalism and prejudice. - LIBERAL SECULARISM: Liberal secularism interprets the "separation of church and state" to mean that religion should not influence the government and government should not influence religion, unless religion is in contradiction to some part of government. So Americans who hold this view wouldn't necessarily have a problem with people worshiping in churches, mosques, temples, or synagogues on the weekends, BUT they do have a problem when religious persons claim to be exempt from laws because of their religion. A recent example of this is the Hobby Lobby dispute in which the company argued that they should be exempt from the Obamacare requirement to insure employees because Hobby Lobby doesn't want to potential contribute to an employee getting an abortion. Another example of this would be instances of Christian bakers not wanting to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. That could be understood as a form of discrimination, but Christian bakers would argue that their religion makes them exempt from having to violate their consciences in that way. Those who adhere to a liberal secular view of the separation of church and state would feel that it would be okay for the government to step in here and encroach on the religious freedoms of the Christian baker or Hobby Lobby because in this case religion is violating some part of government. - CIVIL RELIGION: Historically, America has operated under another approach to religion that we might call "Civil Religion." Civil Religion would interpret the "separation of church and state" to mean that the government should not allow the establishment of one particular religion, but the nation is still under a covenant with a divine Creator and must fulfill its obligations. We can actually see an reaffirmation of this covenant in the nations founding documents. Notice the first lines from the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So humans are created equal and endowed with rights by a Creator. This commitment to a divine being is reaffirmed in nearly every Presidential inauguration speech. For example, George Washington wrote, "Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained." What is he saying? He is saying that we as a nation can't expect God's favor if we are not fulfilling our obligations to uphold virtuous laws that "Heaven" has ordained. We even see this today. In Barack Obama's most recent inauguration speech, he wrote: "For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they've never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth." So he says that freedom is a gift from God, but we as his people need to make sure that we're securing that freedom here on earth. Later he says, "The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition, we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries, we must claim its promise. That's how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure -- our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow-capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That's what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared." So, God has commanded the planet to our care and we are under obligation to maintain it. And lastly, he says, "My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction. And we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service." So he as the President has taken an oath to God, and he must faithfully execute it. All of these quotes affirm the Civil Religion of the United States. That we as a country have been given rights and this land that we should maintain and defend. We are under obligation and we cannot expect his favor on our country if we shirk that responsibility.

2.5 What are they key characteristics of a group?

= Common problems and goals to solve them. Common norms or expectations for behavior. Roles and role expectations (who does what tasks?) Status dimensions (stratification). Group identification ("in" and "out"). -A fundamental characteristic of social groups is that they must, in order to stay a coherent group, establish and defend boundaries around who may be in the group and who is excluded. All groups do this, including families, tribes, ethnic groups, sports teams, fraternities and sororities, civic organizations, nations, religious groups (including broader religious traditions and local faith communities), and even social movement groups. These boundaries are "cultural" to the extent that they are based on symbolic markers that signify whatever core qualities are collectively deemed necessary for group membership. In some cases, these symbolic markers can even take on a quality of being morally obligatory—these are moral boundaries. While the practice of boundary work is ubiquitous across all social groups, groups vary considerably regarding: -the specificity with which the boundaries are codified. -the nature and content of the boundaries. -the practices through which boundaries are policed. -the malleability of those boundaries. -For all groups, there are certain unspoken—but often still quite clear and rigid—expectations as to what constitutes group membership. These unspoken requisites for membership often remain unspoken because they are simply taken for granted. As groups grow and evolve, however, the need to establish clear and codified standards for membership becomes more necessary. A small student-led community-service group may have little need for establishing formal expectations for group membership. But as that group grows in numbers, establishes a leadership hierarchy, develops a budget, makes decisions about what projects they take on, and interact with other student groups, they are more likely to codify finely-detailed boundaries around membership for the sake of efficiency and organization. Thus, the specificity with which groups establish their standards for membership and participation in the group is a good indicator of the organizational development of that group. Nascent or emerging groups leave a good deal unspoken, while more developed groups maintain detailed expectations. There is also considerable variation among groups regarding what attributes qualify a person for group membership, or conversely, disqualify them. For membership in a family, the requirements usually include a biological connection and/or legal recognition. For membership on a competitive sports team, however, the primary requirement is one's skill at that sport. While ideological allegiance and solidarity with one's family or sports team are most often desirable, they are not prerequisites for belonging to a family or team. Yet, membership in many conservative religious groups, as well as volunteer organizations and social movement organizations, often requires allegiance to group ideologies. This ideological allegiance is demonstrated symbolically through whatever qualifies as faithful practice. Faithful practice may include positive actions (such as signing a doctrinal statement, attending religious services, protesting certain government policies, adopting orphans, or using certain code words like "missional," "biblical," or "gospel-centred") or negative actions (such as abstaining from alcohol, smoking, caffeine, or sexual immorality; or shunning relationships with those outside the group). These expectations for faithful practice are often left unspoken. Faithful practice that demonstrates ideological allegiance to the group represents a marker of moral boundaries; that is, boundaries that differentiate "right" action from "wrong" action, and thus reveal one's true membership in the group. Moral boundaries are policed by group members and violations of those boundaries are punished with group sanctions, including formal rebuke, shunning, expulsion from the group, or even death. These practices of policing boundaries differ across particular groups and are informed by the broader societal culture and the group's own collective history. Lastly, group boundaries vary in the degree to which they are relatively rigid or malleable. These differences often depend on the extent to which such boundaries protect the core identity of the group and which boundaries protect more peripheral, situational interests. Certain boundaries, for example, may be relaxed given changes in the broader social context of the group. For example, prior to the 1970s, my own alma mater Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) formally excluded Christians of color from admission. Thus, while a central boundary marker for DTS has always been ideological allegiance (students and faculty must affirm a statement of faith), from DTS's founding until the 1970s, another important boundary marker was the broader social meaning attributed to race. White Christians were in the group; non-white Christians were left out of the group (no matter what they believed). However, as the expectations of the broader society changed following the Civil Rights Movement, DTS removed the racial boundary for admission and admitted students of color. Other boundaries, however, such as the expectation that admitted students subscribe to a set of religious doctrines have not been relaxed. Religious institutions like DTS will likely be far more reluctant to relax their doctrinal boundary markers because they represent part of the group's core identity. -So, what does this all mean? It means that every group must make judgements about who is in the group or out of the group. And these judgements, especially in the case of religion where we're talking about how people should live, can be moral. Those in our group are living correctly. Those outside our group, however nice they appear to be, are just not. Everyone does this, but religious groups do this especially.

2.4 How can we understand this data from evangelical protestants through the lens of rational choice theory?

In rational choice theory, we would expect a religious marketplace like the United States to produce a lot of quality "supply" in terms of religious goods. If "demand" for religion is basically the same all over, then the religious free market of the U.S. would create a situation in which all the other religious groups are trying to out compete each other to attract worshipers. They work hard, get creative, and demand high participation from their members in exchange for a strong package of religious goods and services. This theory would help us understand the rise of evangelicals (basically experts at adjusting to the religious market) and the decline of mainline Protestants and Catholics (too rigid in their organizational structure to adjust to new market demands), but it doesn't help us understand the rise of the unaffiliated. In a religious free market with steady demand, that shouldn't happen.

2.4 How does demography help us understand religion?

The list on the far right are what we could call "demographic processes," or basically the processes by which a population changes over time. You've got birth (fertility), death (mortality), population health (morbidity), marriage and divorce, aging, and migration patterns. As the chart shows, these demographic processes all influence things like culture (including religion), as well as environmental factors, political factors, and economic factors, which in term influence demographic processes, and the cycle goes on. (see notes for diagram)

4.4 What is an ethnic group?

a group that is set apart because of its national origin or distinctive cultural patterns.

4.4 What is a racial group?

a group that is socially set apart because of obvious physical characteristics.

4.2 What is soft patriarchy?

a version of complementarianism that discourages heavy-handed, authoritarian masculinity, and encourages sensitive, supportive "servant leadership."

5.1 What did Stark think of secularization?

The only major sociologist to argue that secularization was not happening in the Western world was Rodney Stark. You'll want to remember that fact. Rodney Stark views religion in terms of supply and demand. He argues that religious demand is basically constant because people always want the "products" that religion provides, namely, promised rewards in the afterlife that are unattainable here. So he doesn't think religious demand is going to decline anytime in the future. Rather he thinks religion is more or less successful in a society because of "supply-side" reasons like the clergy are lazy and there is little competition between religious groups. Stark thought religious pluralism (which Berger thought was bad for religion) is actually very good for religion because it breeds competition between religious groups. And what happens when different firms are in competition for the same market of consumers? It means they start working really hard to attract that market and the consumer benefits. They get the highest quality (religious) goods and services at the best price. Stark felt that the decline of religion in Europe is due to the state funded church. When there's no competition for religious consumers, and clergy are going to get paid by the state regardless of whether they're doing their jobs, religious goods and service are low quality and religious vitality declines. By contrast, the stability (or even increase) of religion in the United States is due to the religious free market, where religious firms compete for the resources of Americans, offering high quality religious goods and services.

4.1 How does religion influence attitudes about the economy and poverty according to Marx?

argued that religion is used to justify inequality. So we would expect that religious commitment would be correlated with more pro-capitalist attitudes.

4.1 How does religion influence attitudes about the economy and poverty according to Weber?

argued that religious beliefs/subcultures produce different economic outcomes. So we would then expect that religious identities or beliefs would be correlated with more pro-capitalist attitudes.

1.1 What is the sociology of religion?

Sociology = social science, sociologists do research, the duty to report facts, and adjust views based on data, apply the scientific method to study social life. "a scientific approach to understanding the dynamics of group life and the influence of groups in the individual (and vice versa)." Sociology of religion = "A scientific approach to understanding the dynamics of religious group life and the influence of religious groups on the individual (and vice versa)."

2.3 Max Weber Ideal Types:

Max Weber (1864-1920) developed the idea of ideal types to compare certain social phenomena. In Weber's mind, an ideal type represents an abstract concept (e.g., the Protestant ethic" or "the spirit of capitalism") that incorporates those qualities that are characteristic of most cases. We don't expect every characteristic of an ideal type to be found in every case. But rather, these sorts of concepts help draw our attention to characteristics that are usually found. Weber developed a typology of religious leadership, represented by three ideal types. 1. Magician: The magician is a religious leader whose authority is based entirely on his or her own charisma (meaning giftedness). This leader is not a part of some larger religious organization and is basically self-employed. He or she also gets paid for what they do. The best example of this would be famous "miracle'working" televangelists, like Benny Hinn below. He's a good example of the "magician." Total religious entrepreneur. 2. Prophet: The prophet also has charisma, like the magician. But the big difference is that prophets use their gifts to challenge religious traditionalism and establish a new religious direction (or perhaps, return to the way they feel religion was always supposed to be). They draw their authority from their special "calling" rather than a religious office. Also, unlike the magician, prophets are often quite poor. Since they work from a calling, they tend to do their work regardless of whether they get paid well. A good example of this would obviously be Old Testament prophets, Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha), John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, or the prophet Muhammad. But a more recent example would be the prophet Joseph Smith, who founded Mormonism. Joseph Smith was eventually murdered for his religious practices and spent the latter half of his life running from persecution with his many followers (and not a few wives). 3. Priest: Lastly, the priest is a part of the religious establishment. His or her job is basically to keep the organization going that the prophet started. They draw their authority from the office itself, which is why they often need formal training from the religious establishment (often called seminary). They don't have the charisma of the magician or the prophet.

2.2 How do we measure religiosity?

Measuring "religiosity" therefore is a lot more like measuring someone's total health and than their weight. Weight might be a part of that, but it doesn't explain the whole thing. We need to take more dimensions into account. Though there may be more dimensions of religiosity, in this lesson we'll only look at three: 1. - Behavioral Dimension: The behavioral dimension is concerned with how someone practices their faith. - Do they do the things required for them to practice in their religion? How faithfully do they practice? What things do they practice? Do they do only corporate practices or private/devotional practices? Or both? - In fact, religious service attendance is the most commonly used measure of religiosity (remember that). - Problems with this measure? Here are a few: Not all religions attend worship services like Christians do. This is a fairly good question for an American context, but might not work as well in, say, China or India. People can attend services for reasons besides being religious. Some might do so for very self-interested reasons like business contacts or custom. People can NOT attend services for reasons besides NOT being religious. What about persons who work on the weekends and can't get to church. They may be VERY religious but not attend very often. Does someone practice their religion faithfully who only practices it publicly? What about private practice? - Sociologists might combine these questions together (about attendance, prayer, and sacred text reading) to make a "scale" in order to get a more comprehensive understanding of religious behavior, both corporate and private. Indeed, my colleagues and I use that sort of scale quite often in our studies. 2. Belief Dimension: The belief dimension is interested in how much a person believes the central tenets of their professed faith? - Someone may practice religion out of duty or tradition, but do they actually believe what they're doing? And what do they believe specifically? Not every person who attends church regularly or prays regularly gives this answer. This is why it's important to measure multiple dimensions of religiosity and not just one. Look at how people answer behavior and belief dimensions in the Baylor Religion Survey. (See notes) 3. - Commitment Dimension: The commitment dimension simply considers how committed does a person consider themselves to their faith? We often call this a measure of "religious salience" or how salient someone's religion is for them. - Oftentimes surveys simply ask the question: How religious do you consider yourself to be? Not at all religious. A little religious. Pretty religious. Very religious. - Clearly someone who considers themselves "very religious" is likely to value religion more than someone who says they're "not at all religious." But why might this be a problematic measure? Sometimes people don't like to be called "religious." Evangelical Protestants, for example, are fond of telling people that, "Christianity is not a religion, it's about a relationship." So some survey respondents might not like describing themselves as "religious." Perhaps a better question and set of response items would be: - How important is your religion to you? Not important at all. A little important. Pretty important. Most important. - Religious salience is great because it's a very direct measure. But it's also highly subjective and could be prone to people answering the way they would like to view themselves rather than what their actions tell us. Consider the following tables. (see notes) - SUMMARY: Religion is a multi-dimensional social institution. Sociologists often do try to measure it with one single construct (most often church attendance), but as we've seen, for one to truly capture the ways religion is shaping someone's beliefs and behaviors, they need to include and compare a variety of different measures.

5.1 What is secularization, and secularization theory?

the process of a society moving away from identification with religious values and institutions and toward irreligious values and institutions. "secularization theory." This is the theory that the world (or a particular society) is in the process of becoming less religious and more secularized.

4.2 What is egalitarianism?

the view that there are no roles restricted to either men or women.

4.2 What is complementarianism?

the view that women and men are equal in value but hold different roles.

1.1 Martin Riesebrodt's definition of religion:

"Religion is a complex of practices that are based on the premise of the existence of superhuman powers, whether personal or impersonal, that are generally invisible." = While Geertz's definition focused on "symbols," Riesebrodt's definition depends on "practices." For him, religion is found in the ritualized activities that people engage in for the purposes of obtaining salvation and warding off misfortune. He also emphasizes the supernatural as well. You will notice that all the writers so far assume that religion either assumes the supernatural (Stark and Riesebrodt) or is more concerned with things seeming real rather than them actually being real (Geertz).

1.2 What is Karl Marx's opinions on religion? (conflict)

-Karl Marx 1818-1883: economic historian who believe that the history of society had been characterized by class struggle, between those who owned the means of production and those who had to sell their labor. In previous centuries, those who owned the means of production were slave owners and feudal lords, but in capitalist society, those who owned the means of production were the bourgeois factory owners. Those who work in the factories (by far the majority of the urban population) were essentially forced to sell their labor by the hour in order to live. The situation was not ideal for Marx because he felt that the primary goal for those who owned the factories and machines was to extract as much surplus value (profit margin) from their employees by driving down their wages to bear-subsistence and maximize their gains. This alienated workers from the fruits of their labor (they didn't own and couldn't afford anything they actually made in the factory), their labor itself (they now hated work), each other (their competition). Marx thought the Bourgeoisie class used culture to maintain its own class position by maintaining something called "false consciousness," basically the fact that workers don't realize they're being exploited and so don't revolt and start a revolution. Religion was a part of this system for maintaining false consciousness. Marx felt that economic inequalities were the bedrock foundation of society as we know it (the base), and the "super-structure" consisted of the various institutions the ruling class had in place to maintain the deception. The superstructure included the arts, media, education, and religion. Religion, Marx thought, was used by the ruling class to dupe poor workers and make them feel better about their situation when they really should've been demanding radical change, by force if necessary. His most famous quote about religion is taken from an essay called, "Toward a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the Right: -"The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions." -He thought that once the economic inequality was overturned following the communist revolution, religion would just disappear. We wouldn't need an "illusion" to justify an unjust situation.

1.1 Emile Durkheim's definition of religion:

"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them." = I believe it provides the most comprehensive definition of religion. It involves beliefs and practices, and it emphasizes the social purpose of religion, namely, to unite a moral community together. Notice, however, that Durkheim doesn't say anything about "supernatural" powers or assumptions. Rather he emphasizes "the sacred" or that which is held in esteem and set apart by a community. So in Durkheim's definition, we might be able to include patriotism or sports fanaticism.

2.3 What is Adam Smith's book 'The Wealth of Nations' about?

"[Clergy] may either depend altogether for their subsistence upon the voluntary contributions of their hearers; or they may derive it from some other fund to which the law of their country may entitle them; such as a landed estate, a tithe or land tax, an established salary or stipend. Their exertion, their zeal and industry, are likely to be much greater in the former situation than in the latter. In this respect the teachers of new religions have always had a considerable advantage in attacking those ancient and established systems of which the clergy, reposing themselves upon their benefices, had neglected to keep up the fervor of faith and devotion in the great body of the people; and having given themselves up to indolence, were become altogether incapable of making any vigorous exertion in defense even of their own establishment. The clergy of an established and well-endowed religion frequently become men of learning and elegance, who possess all the virtues of gentlemen, or which can recommend them to the esteem of gentlemen; but they are apt gradually to lose the qualities, both good and bad, which gave them authority and influence with the inferior ranks of people, and which had perhaps been the original causes of the success and establishment of their religion. ...[I]n general every religious sect, when it has once enjoyed for a century or two the security of a legal establishment, has found itself incapable of making any vigorous defense against any new sect which chose to attack its doctrine or discipline. Upon such occasions the advantage in point of learning and good writing may sometimes be on the side of the established church. But the arts of popularity, all the arts of gaining proselytes, are constantly on the side of its adversaries. In England those arts have been long neglected by the well-endowed clergy of the established church, and are at present chiefly cultivated by the dissenters and by the Methodists. The independent provisions, however, which in many places have been made for dissenting teachers, by means of voluntary subscriptions, of trust rights, and other evasions of the law, seem very much to have abated the zeal and activity of those teachers. They have many of them become very learned, ingenious, and respectable men; but they have in general ceased to be very popular preachers. The Methodists, without half the learning of the dissenters, are much more in vogue." -Basically that the upstart religious sects appear to be so much stronger because their clergy actually have to hustle and apply their creativity to attract converts. By comparison, those religious denominations that have been established for some time and now get their money guaranteed from taxes are failing because their clergy are lazy. They no longer have to work hard and therefore the religion declines. This is a perfect example of a rational choice approach to religious growth and decline.

1.2 What did Emile Durkheim believe? (Functionalist)

(1858 - 1917) wrote about a number of important subjects, his primary agenda professionally was to carve out a special place for sociology as a discipline. Sociology considered society and social groups as a reality sui generis, meaning something that was irreducible to its constitutent parts. Social groups had their own way of functioning and sociologists would focus on that rather than things going on in people's brains. Durkheim's most famous work on religion is one of the most important sociological accounts of religion ever written, called The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, which he wrote in 1912, toward the end of his career. In that enormous book, Durkheim draws on ethnographic data collected on aboriginal tribes in Australia primarily to draw conclusions about what religion was in its essence. - He noticed that these tribes tended to divide up up their world into beliefs and behaviors oriented toward objects that were sacred, and those that were profane. Profane objects were simply everyday inanimate objects and didn't require special attention. But sacred objects had some special significance. These sacred objects differed from tribe to tribe. Sometimes they were a special animal, or a rock with a painting on it. Where did the significance come from? Durkheim ultimately concluded that the "sacred" quality of the totem or special object/animal came from the group itself. In other words, society worshiped sacred objects to unite the group in celebration of itself. "God" is society. The function of religion was to bind a group into a moral community. It also served to bring us to states of collective ecstasy when we're together as a group celebrating. Durkheim actually thought religion's role in social integration was so important that it explained other social phenomena like suicide. His famous book, Suicide, written in 1897, showed that Protestant countries in Europe had higher suicide rates than Catholic countries. This he attributed to Protestantism being more individualistic, and thus Protestants were less likely to be integrated with others, and thus more likely to commit suicide. Catholicism, on the other hand, tended to emphasize authority and rule following more, and therefore people were more closely integrated = less suicide.

2.3 What is the 4m model of group evolution?

(movement, ministry, machine, monument) - Like sects, movements start off as disorganized, volunteer-driven, ideologically motivated, and zealous to take action on behalf a particular cause or religious priority (ostensibly one that others have been neglecting). As they recruit participants and grow in size, they develop in their organization and become a ministry. They develop a division of labor, hire professional leaders and staff, and perhaps even purchase a building or equipment, which allows them to become more effective at confronting the religious or social issues they initially sought to address. Eventually they become so organized, professional, focused, and efficient at addressing that particular issue that they could be called a machine. By this point, the majority of those running the organization are paid professionals and, for groups targeting a particular social issue, the organization could address that issue almost entirely without even holding to the original ideals of the group's founders. The organization truly runs itself. In the last stage, the group, once passionately devoted to a set of ideologies, has now become a monument. Everyone working for the organization is a professional, and most who are served by the organization will not even remember why the group was originally founded, but only that it now exists solely to bring about some practical objectives. - There are countless examples of religious groups or movements in the U.S. that have followed this 4M pattern. Once devoutly-religious movements, they have become monuments with little connection to the ideological roots of their founders. The most obvious examples would be the Ivy League universities like Yale, Brown, and Princeton or the YMCA or even the Salvation Army in some part of the country.

1.1 Clifford Geertz's definition of religion:

- "A religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing those conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic." = An anthropologist. His definition focuses on religion as a system of symbols that shape human behavior because they are cloaked with an aura of factuality that seems real. There is something to be said for this definition because religion really does involve sacred symbols, certain objects and expressions that shape our "moods and motivations."

1.1 Rodney Stark's definition of religion:

- "Religion refers to a system of general compensators (promised rewards) based on supernatural assumptions." = this builds on his idea that human beings are basically rational actors (borrowed from economic theory) and therefore religion must be based on some sort of exchange. Human beings, he argues, want to access certain goods that can't be obtained in this life. For example, we would all like to transcend this earthly life and live forever. Religion provides a sort of supernatural IOU which Stark calls a "compensator." It's a promise that if you do X (follow certain commands, belief in Jesus, adhere to the 5 pillars of Islam, fulfill your Dharma), you'll have your promised eternal life. So religion offers a set of general compensators based on assumptions about a supposed supernatural world. While this might seem like sort of a weird definition of religion, we'll later see that Rodney Stark's theory of religion has had tremendous influence on the sociology of religion over the past 30 years.

4.4 What is the historical nature of the South and race/religion?

- . In fact, in a nation where blacks were cut off from much of the institutions whites enjoyed (politics, education, schools, neighborhoods), the black church became a "nation within a nation." It became the social center of the black community where they could find education, political involvement, resources, and community). Congregations and other religious institutions have been segregated ever since. But there are other historical connections between race and religion. Because the Southern United states has historically also been (1) the most religious region of the U.S., and (2) the most racist region of the U.S., those two social characteristics have been closely linked. It was religious people in the South who were opposing Civil Rights for non-white Americans. It was because of this religion-race connection that Richard Nixon and the Republican party were able successfully engage in the "Southern Strategy" during the 1960s that essentially claimed all of the South for the Republicans, when it had been historically Democratic. The Republicans were able to sell themselves as the party that fought for religious/family values as well as the concerns of Southern whites.

1.1 What can the scientific method NOT do?

- 1. It cannot prove or disprove historical events: Why not? Because you can't replicate historical events. You can say historical events are unlikely to have happened based on what we know from historical documents or the way the world works. But science cannot tell us whether Jesus of Nazareth physically rose from the dead, or whether the Prophet Muhammad received the Quranic revelation in the cave at Medina, or whether Joseph Smith really did find those gold plates buried in the ground. We can speculate that these things may be highly unlikely ("miracles"). But strictly speaking, the scientific method can't be used to disprove them. - 2. It cannot prove or disprove anything unobservable (realm of philosophers and theologians): If any scientists claims that science can either prove or disprove the existence of a god, or gods, or goddesses, that person is wrongly using claims about "science" to justify their own presuppositions. Why? Because the scientific method is only applicable to things we can observe. Again, one can say that the existence of deities may be unlikely (or rather, perhaps unnecessary) because of what we know about how the world was made and the historical records we have, but science can't prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of things that are unobservable. Step into the realm of metaphysics, and you step into the realm of philosophers and theologians, not scientists. - 3. It cannot prove or disprove what is moral or immoral: Can the scientific method tell us whether we should help the poor? Or whether we should we enslave others? Or whether it's okay for us to kill others to defend our rights and national borders? I'm a big fan of the sociologist Max Weber. He wrote "Objectivity in Social Science.": - "[I]t can never be the task of an empirical science to provide binding norms and ideals from which directives for immediate practical activity can be derived. [...] An empirical science cannot tell anyone what he should do, but rather what he can do [...] [T]o judge the validity of [a society's] values is a matter of faith." (Max Weber, Objectivity in Social Science, 1904) Certainly there are times for social scientists to be morally "for" or "against" something. But I'm in agreement that scientists (as such) can't tell society what ultimate ends they should desire. That's the realm of moral philosophy and religious ethics. But scientists can and should tell society whether the means they use to obtain their desired ends are effective or not, and what will happen if they obtain those ends.

3.1 What might be some negative influences of religion on health and longevity?

- 1. Religious commitment is negatively associated with education and income. Religious people tend to have lower socioeconomic status on average, and this is actually a countervailing force for health since education and income are big contributors to positive health outcomes and life expectancy. - 2. Religious commitment is positively associated with BMI and obesity. This is an interesting phenomenon. People don't know quite how to explain the fact that religious people tend to be heavier on average. Some say it could be the "potluck syndrome" where so much of religious community revolves around eating comfort foods together. Some say it could be that religious persons are more concerned with their internal/spiritual state of fitness and thus don't care about physical fitness as much. Some say it could be the lower socioeconomic status (but the effects seem to hold even after income and education are controlled for). I tend to think it reflects an exchange of negative addictions for more socially acceptable addictions. Devout Christians, for example, are rarely going to smoke crack cocaine or crystal meth. But many will binge on unhealthy foods as an alternative. - 3. Certain religious groups might encourage spiritual remedies to physical diseases or addiction rather than seeking proper medical treatment. Christian Scientists are a group that forbids the use of medicine in most cases. This puts people in potentially dangerous situations when they try to "pray away" diseases or injuries that really do require medical attention. - 4. Certain religious groups might stigmatize certain mental conditions (depression) or innate characteristics (homosexuality) promoting negative health outcomes. This has more to do with mental health. Devoutly religious persons might feel a tremendous amount of anxiety for the ways in which they "sin" against God or their religious principles. This can lead them to fairly pathological views about themselves and make matters worse. - 5. A small number of religious groups might sanction intimate partner abuse or encourage self-mutilation, self-deprivation, or even suicide. This doesn't happen that often, but it's obviously something that could negatively affect someone's personal health.

1.2 What did Robert Merton believe? (Functionalist)

- Robert Merton 1910-2003. He developed the idea that institutions has different kinds of functions. - 1. Manifest functions: where the effect of the institution on the social organism is recognized and intended. (It provides solidarity among the group. It provides a common moral ethic, and thus a form of control. It provides meaning and purpose (why am I here?) and answers the big questions of life. It provides a way to engage the sacred (e.g., prayer). It provides a sense of belonging. It provides a creation "myth" or explanation for why the world is this way. - 2. Latent functions: where the effect of the institution on the social organism is unintended and often unrecognized. (Employment) - 3. Dysfunctions: the unfortunate consequences of a social pattern or institution on an organism. (enforce norms of behavior that are consistent with the ethical standards of the groups, some folks will feel left out, used to justify unjust situations, take advantage of power)

3.2 What are ways religion negatively influences families?

- 1.Religious beliefs could justify abuse. Religious persons are more likely to use corporal punishment to discipline their children. Developmental psychologists' question whether that practice is beneficial, but religious people often find justification in their Scriptures ("spare not the rod of correction."). This opens children up to the risk of physical harm in ways that can be severely damaging. - 2.Religion leads young people to get married and have babies earlier. Why is that a bad thing? Getting married and having babies earlier, especially for women, serves to limit their educational attainment and ultimately their socioeconomic status. This contributes to lower marital quality and divorce. - 3.Certain aspects of religion (fundamentalist belief, religious nationalism) are associated with opposition to non-traditional families (interracial marriage, same-sex couples). Stigma contributes to family instability. - 4.Religion Americans tend to oppose policies that may help non-traditional families (government support for unwed mothers, marriage for gay parents). - As I am not a religious person, my views on marriage, children, and sexuality have been largely shaped by my own family. Marriage is a choice, in my opinion, which two individuals make as a personal choice to stay together. I think that it is little more than a contractual agreement of beginning a family with another person (in whatever shape or form); though, this is not to stay it isn't a romantic and happy moment for two people. As a non-religious person, marriage holds less importance in my life. But with my parents having a strong marriage of over 34 years, I personally find marriage to be a valid choice in my life. In terms of children, my opinion is that it is again a choice for any family. There are also plenty of ways to have children, naturally, adoption, etc. My parents had two of their children out of wedlock, and two once they were married. This choice, again, holds little importance to me as I am not a religious person and believe everyone can choose how their family is structured and functions. Sexuality is, again, another choice I think everyone should have, without interference from any institution. Though my opinions on marriage and children have largely mirrored my parents', sexuality is something that differs a little from my parents'. I think my beliefs on sexuality are formed by my friends and education. I have found that sexuality should be respected in any individuals' life.

1.2 What did August Comte believe? (Functionalist)

- August Comte, thought to be the founder of sociology as a discipline, 1798-1857. He was trying to develop a positivist (Strict empiricist) explanation for how the social world worked. He was convinced that we could find universal laws of human behavior, sociology as social physics as he called it first. Comte argued that modern human civilization had developed through three major stages: - 1. Theological stage = Humans looking to supernatural power to explain their world. 3 sub-stages: - Fetishistic - where humans attribute certain magical powers to inanimate objects like trees and rocks and explain their world in terms of supernatural powers ascribed to those objects or magic. - Polytheistic - humans start to develop in their abstract thinking and start to imagine pantheons of gods who run the world, rather than seeing spiritual powers in rocks and trees. - Theistic - Right before the rise of the Enlightenment and philosophy, civilized human beings start to adhere to the idea of monotheism, one Almighty God who runs the universe. - 2. Metaphysical stage = After the first stage they are still interested in explaining their world in terms of metaphysics or ideas, concepts, and reason. - 3. Positivist stage = The pinnacle of human existence, human beings start to depend wholly on positive science, that in which we draw ALL our conclusions about the world from careful evaluation and we can make an evidence-based conclusion about how the world works. When it comes to religion, Comte ultimately thought religion was wrong but necessary for keeping society together. He was convinced about the necessity of religion for the binding society around certain beliefs and morals. He eventually started his own religion that exists today. THE RELIGION OF HUMANITY. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_of_Humanity

1.1 STUDY: Are people who strongly believe the U.S. is a Christian nation more prejudiced toward outgroups than people who don't?

- Christian nationalists tend to be supportive of the idea of religious diversity BUT tend to be opposed to including Muslims in community life. Christian nationalists tend to hold more negative views toward immigrants. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are Christian nationalists more opposed to violations of in-groups / out-group distinctions? How do Christian nationalists feel about families that violate traditional norms of monoraciality or heterosexuality? DATA: 2005 & 2007 Baylor Religion Survey (how do we measure Christian nationalism? (level of agreement with these statements) "The federal government should declare the US a Christian nation." - "The federal government should advocate Christian values." - "The federal government should allow the display of religious symbols in public spaces. - "The federal government should allow prayer in public schools." - "The success of the United States is part of God's plan." - "The federal government should enforce a strict separation of church and state." - Conclusions: 1. Even after controlling for other important factors (religious tradition, practice, theological conservatism, political ideology, interracial contact, etc.) the more someone adheres to Christian nationalism, the less likely they are to support same-sex unions, interracial marriage, or transracial adoption. - 2. Taken together with previous research connecting Christian nationalism with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment, evidence would seem to suggest that Christian nationalism is associated with stronger prejudice toward perceived out-groups or violations of in-group/out-group distinctions. - 3. This isn't necessarily because of their religious commitments per se. But rather something about the merging of national and religious identities. PEOPLE WHO ADHERE TO THE CHRISTIAN NATION, ARE AGAINST OUT/GROUPS, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE MOST RELIGIOUS. IN THREE SEPARATE STUDIES.

4.2 What is patriarchy?

- Definition # 1: a system in which the father or eldest male is the head of the family. Definition # 2: a system in which males hold the power and women are subordinated. We see both examples of "patriarchy" throughout religion, and specifically in the Old Testament and New Testament of the Bible. Take for example the following versus: - Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." - Genesis 2:18 - For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. - 1st Corinthians 14:33-35 - Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her... - Ephesians 5:22-25 - In these verses, it is taught that women are designed by God to be helpers to men. That "in all the churches of the saints" Paul instructed women to be silent and to ask their husbands questions when the got home. And that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership just as Christians are supposed to submit to Christ, who is their Lord. - NOTE! We need to think about the temporal and cultural context in which this was written. We need to be cautious about being culturally anachronistic and judging people thousands of years ago on the basis of where we are now as a culture. Please also notice that their is no indication in sociological research that women or men who believe these teachings are any less happy with the lives or relationships. So please be cautious about moralizing or projecting your own cultural values onto these people.

2.4 How do broader demographic trends help us understand religious patterns in the US?

- Demographic theory would predict religious/irreligious groups would be stronger when believers/unbelievers can replace themselves. We would expect... - higher marriage rates would strengthen religious identity since married people tend to be more religious than unmarried people. - lower intermarriage rates would strengthen religious identity because people are more religious when they're married to someone who shares the same religious views, values, and practices. - higher birth rates would produce more believers. That's what we call "old-fashioned disciple-making." - better switching ratio would preserve religious identity. People walk away from religious groups all the time. But the stronger groups will be those who can evangelize and offset their losses with higher numbers of converts or people in the same religion changing into their denomination. - more immigration than emigration will lead to more believers. Most people who come into the country from developing nations are highly religious. Higher rates of immigration can offset other losses (think Mexican immigrants and Catholicism.). (see notes)

3.1 What are some effects of religion?

- Effect # 1: Religion can diminish tendencies to engage in behaviors that compromise health and longevity. - Effect # 2: Religions can provide the community with the social support that can help encourage and "minister" to those with compromised health. -Effect # 3: Religion can affect outlook so that more religious people are more optimistic and positive about health and life in general.

2.5 What is the functional approach to conflict?

- Emile Durkheim pointed out so long ago, forming group boundaries leads to greater group cohesion. We start to unite together over what we believe in and what we oppose. Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in his 2012 book, The Righteous Mind, argues that religion has a role in helping humans evolve over time. He theorizes that religion united tribes in their competition with other groups over resources. The tribes who could cooperate better as a unit most often ended up winning. So, religion has served to unite a group, with the purpose that we will be more successful at out-competing other groups. So, religion has a role in conflict, but it's a very functional role, for the group in question.

5.1 Who are secular Americans?

- First, how do we define what makes someone "secular"? Well, we could assess secularity the same way we assess religiosity, just in reverse. For example, if we were going to measure whether someone was religious, we could look at whether they: Affiliate with a religion. Profess religious beliefs. Practice religion faithfully. - Conversely, if we wanted to know whether someone is secular, we can simply go by whether they: Disaffiliate with religion. Disbelieve in religion, and particularly theism (i.e., the belief in God). Don't practice a faith (they don't engage in rituals, attend worship, prayer). - Based on these measures of what makes someone secular, Baker and Smith develop 4 categories of secular Americans: - Atheists - people who disbelieve theistic claims. - Agnostics - people who believe theistic claims are unverifiable. - Nonaffiliated Believers - people who don't affiliate with a religious tradition or group but claim theistic belief. - Culturally Religious - people who claim religious affiliation and theistic belief, but rarely if ever practice (attend services, pray, etc.)

1.2 What is Antonio Gramsci's thoughts? (conflict)

-Antonio Gramsci 1891-1937 saw that maintaining power by force is difficult. It takes a lot of energy to point guns, it's far better to rule by the consent of those who are ruled. Gramsci came up with the concept of "cultural hegemony" to talk about how this was accomplished. Basically, cultural hegemony refers to the situation where those who are being ruled have completely bought into the value system of the ruling class and consequently, they come to see their own subjection as totally common sense and even participate in the maintenance of it.

4.3 Study on religion and ornography?

- For the last couple of years, my primary area of interest has been the connection between American religion, families, and pornography use. Pornography use has grown tremendously in the last few decades thanks in large part to the Internet and smartphone technology. Back when your parents were children, people had to venture out to "Adult bookstores" or someplace where you could buy pornographic videos or magazines. The potential for public shame was enough to keep many from consuming pornography, but these days, everyone in the Western world can download hours of free porn on their I-phones for as long as they wish. Consequently, folks are viewing porn at higher rates than they used to, and later into their adult years than ever before. - So how does this relate to religion? Well, for religious people, and especially committed Christians, viewing porn is a big moral problem. Consequently, it causes a whole lot of shame and "cognitive dissonance" (intense anxiety felt when one's behavior doesn't match one's values or beliefs). What has been the result? In a recent study, I sought to understand whether viewing pornography at higher rates would contribute to the decline of religion in one's life. I figured that if young people watched enough porn, they would have to resolve the cognitive dissonance they felt by either quitting the porn or quitting religion over time. We found that young people who watched porn were more likely to just quit religion later. (see notes)

4.3 What is the functionalist perspective on religion and sexuality?

- Functionalism holds that religious groups function as moral communities that prescribe and reward certain ways of behaving, while proscribing and punishing other ways of behaving. All groups do this, but religious groups can be especially passionate about monitoring the distinction between morally appropriate and inappropriate behavior since these distinctions are often at the very core of the group's identity and the rules are suffused with supernatural authority. Promiscuous sexuality, for example, may disrupt any social group (sports team, sorority) because it can lead to hurt feelings and confusion. But it's especially problematic if the Ultimate authority of the group has condemned the practice and said it's worthy of death. The process of reinforcing these rules around sexuality can strengthen the religious group in that it reminds them of their common moral bond, and it weeds out the uncommitted (because they either leave or get killed).

4.4 What are some key points of the history between Christianity and race relation in the U.S.?

- In the American context, connection between religion and race goes back to times of slavery when white slave owners were thinking about Christianizing their slaves. Initially, white slave owners didn't want to Christianize their slaves. This was primarily because they worried they might have to set slaves free because Christians weren't supposed to own (or abuse or terrorize) other Christians. So it would just be easier on whites' consciences if the slaves weren't Christians. Slave owners also thought being Christians might make slaves feel like they could get away with laziness or running away or at least get treated better. Lastly, converting slaves to Christianity really contradicted the racist ideologies of slave owners that slaves weren't fully human like white people were. If slaves became Christians, it implied they were human beings that Jesus loved and died for, and slave owners shouldn't treat them like livestock. Eventually the religious leaders in the South decided that being Christians didn't change anything about slaves' worldly existence and so they could Christianize the slaves without changing the way the masters treated them. Religious leaders also figured Christianity could be used as a form of social control, getting slaves to be docile and non-violent. This sort of teaching that slaves were supposed to be docile and obey their was taught directly to the slaves by Christian preachers, teachers, and, of course, the masters themselves. But not all slaves bought this. Some, rather, used Christianity as a form of protest.

1.1 What are characteristics of all religions?

- Involves a body of beliefs. - Involves a set of practices (rituals). - Involves moral prescriptions and proscriptions. - Involves the sacred (as opposed to the profane). - Involves groups at some level.

1.2 What does Rodney Stark say? (rational)

- Rodney Stark 1934 - present, In the mid-1980s he and a scholar named William Sims Bainbridge developed a deductive theory of religion based on a series of seven axioms about human behavior that basically argue human beings seek rewards and avoid what they perceive to be costs. The 5th axiom states, "Some desired rewards are limited in supply, including some that simply do not exist." Stark felt that religion was a way rational human being try to obtain those "rewards...that simply do not exist." Basically, religion promises "compensators" (supernatural IOU) that a person receives if they do good works, believe certain things, are elect, or whatever. Looked at this way, religious behavior is actually quite rational. People are still trying to maximize their gains. They're not being weird or irrational at all. When you look at the religious landscape as a marketplace, you might see that religious groups often act similarly to firms who are trying to sell their (religious) goods and services on the market. Like any firm, the most successful religious groups are the ones that offer the best "product" at the best price. Conversely, unsuccessful groups are the ones that don't offer a very attractive package of religious goods and services. Or the cost is too high. No one wants to "buy it" (attend that church, tithe, or participate). The flipside of this is obviously that religious adherents in the United States are acting as "consumers" trying to hunt down the best package of religious goods and services in their area while minimizing their costs. Stark would argue that maintaining a high threshold for participation eliminates "free riders," or those who simply want to enjoy the religious goods and services without paying in themselves. Methodist churches, Stark would argue, are filled with folks just taking up space on a pew and not serving, tithing, or otherwise contributing to the group. Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, are more apt to kick you out of the group for not contributing to the collective package of goods and services. Rational choice theory is particularly helpful in explaining religion in the American context.

2.5 What is the conflict perspective with religion and social conflict?

- You'll recall that Marx boils religion's role down to this idea of religion being the "opium of the people." By this, he means that religion is used by oppressed people to make themselves feel better about their own bad situation. Like Marx, conflict theorists tend to view religion as a way people power can justify their privileged position and keep the "subalterns" (that is, people outside the established power structure) in their place. There isn't too much else to this idea. Religion is basically BS that keeps people in line. If you've ever seen the Ricky Gervais movie The Invention of Lying, it's about a world where no one lies. Everyone tells the truth all the time. But one guy (Ricky Gervais) figures out how to lie and he starts using that ability to his advantage. He gets lots of money, has lots of sex, gets a hot girlfriend, and he starts his own religion. Here's a brief clip from when he delivers his 10 commandments: Notice what's included: warnings against doing bad things and promised rewards for doing good things. But remember, he's making all this up and using it to make the world as he wants it. So, from a conflict perspective, religion doesn't so much cause the conflict as it does support those who are winning the power struggle that is already taking place. - SUMMARY: Functionalists see religious conflict as functional because it unites social groups (or entire societies) together as a cohesive unit in order to out compete other teams. Conflict theorists see religious conflict as a struggle for power in which the powerful are trying to co-opt religious meanings and messages in order to keep themselves in power.

3.2 Why are American who are married/ have kids so much more religious than single adults without children?

- married people are 10% more likely to pray daily, over 11% more likely to read Scripture weekly or more, about 15% more likely to attend worship services weekly or more, and over 15% more likely to have "no doubt" in the existence of God. Just as with married people, Americans with children are considerably more likely than those without children to pray daily or more, read Scripture weekly or more, attend worship services weekly or more, and have no doubt in God's existence. In fact, it looks like the connection between having kids and being religious is even stronger than the link between being married and having kids! So why are Americans who are married and/or have kids so much more religious than single adults without children? Part of this is age. Older people tend to be more religious and are more likely to be married and have kids. But there are some other factors going on. And the direction of the relationship could run both ways.

4.4 How could racially segregated religious groups be a good thing?

-1. Segregated congregations allow ethnic groups to worship according to their own cultural preferences. Think about how annoying it would be for Korean or Mexican immigrants who are Christians to have to attend worship services where all the preaching and singing is done in English. Wouldn't it be better for the worship experience of those ethnic groups if they could worship in their own language? I suppose the white Americans they're worshiping with could adjust and include other language besides English, but then those white Americans would be inconvenienced. And a historical legacy of white privilege usually makes whites unlikely to compromise in that way anyway. So segregated congregations would seem like the best option for the sake of everyone worship according to their own cultural preferences. -2. Segregated congregations provides marginalized groups with autonomy and refuge from whites. Historically, whites didn't kick blacks out of their congregations. Blacks very intentionally left. Why? Because they were being oppressed by whites and they wanted a worship experience where they could exercise authority over their own lives and communities and not have to put up with whites trying to run their lives. Asking blacks and other racial/ethnic minority groups to worship with whites is essentially asking them to give up one of the few social situations where they can escape being around whites constantly and they can call their own shots. And for those racial/ethnic minorities for whom English is not their first language, it obviously provides a cultural refuge where they can be themselves and speak their native language to others. -3. Segregated congregations may be more stable and grow faster than multiracial congregations. Some church growth experts have appealed to something called the "homogenous unit principle," which states that congregations may grow faster when one ethno-racial group is targeted. This happens for at least 2 reasons: -Niche-Edge Effect: This refers to the principle that group members who are most unlike the core group of leaders in an organization tend to stay at the edges or periphery of the organization. For example, when blacks or Latinos are a minority group within a congregation, and aren't serving at the level of pastor or elder, they tend to stay on the edges of that group socially. -Niche-Overlap Effect: This works in tandem with the Niche-Edge Effect because it states that persons who are at the edge of the group or organization are most likely to be lured away by other groups. -This basically means when you have a congregation where lots of the members have different social characteristics, the congregation is inherently unstable because all of the other social institutions are largely segregated and people are just more likely to leave and go where they're with all the folks they're use to be around. All this suggests that segregated congregations might be the way to go because religious leaders would naturally want to best chance at building growth and stability in their congregation. That might mean targeting only one ethnic group.

4.4 How could racially segregated religious groups be considered a bad thing?

-1. Segregation is inconsistent with religious teaching. Regardless of whether segregated congregations are a practical thing (which it would seem they are), they pretty clearly contradict teachings in the major world religions to love, serve, and commune with brothers and sisters in your religious teaching. Racial segregation contradicts this. We see teachings in Christianity that... "In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free..." "Christ broke down the dividing wall of hostility, making the two one." "people from every tribe, tongue, and nation around the throne." There are other examples in Judaism, Islam, and obviously Eastern religions. So segregation can be a bad thing because it blatantly violates much religious teaching. -2. Segregation perpetuates racial ignorance and prejudice. A famous psychologist named Gordon Allport developed a theory he called the "contact hypothesis" to explain racial prejudice and tolerance. He basically thought that prejudice was largely due to ignorance that stemmed from a lack of opportunities to really get to know people of other racial groups on a personal level when folks aren't competing with one another. The contact hypothesis argued that if folks of different racial or ethnic groups could get together in a context where they're cooperating and working toward a common goal, and they're talking about intimate and personal things, then prejudice would be reduced. Churches are a great context in which this sort of interracial interaction can occur. But segregated congregations deny that possibility. Thus, segregated congregations can serve to perpetuate racial ignorance, and therefore, racial prejudice. -3. Segregation perpetuates racial inequality. When I stop to think about the various resources my family has received from our congregations of the years, it's truly remarkable.

4.3 What are some trends we see in religious groups and sexuality?

-1. Sex is not inherently bad (the authors assume married people will be having sex and they don't discourage that), but it is dangerous like a fire. It must be regulated. And it is very improper in certain circumstances, with really harsh consequences for violating those standards. -2. There are aspects of purity or cleanness at stake, both bodily and morally (which are often the same). -3. There are aspects of dominance and especially gender dominance.

4.2 What are some theories for why women are more religious than men?

-1. Socialization: This theory suggests that men are less attracted to religion because it is emasculating. Because of patriarchy and sexism in our society, all women, whether they're religious or not, are expected to be caring, nurturing, loving, faithful, sexually chaste, and moral standard-bearers. So asking women to be religious doesn't really change how they're expected to behave socially, at least not traditionally. But not so with men. Men in society are taught to be aggressive, posses the treat of violence and danger, and to be sexually promiscuous. But religious men are taught to be different. In fact, religious men are taught to behave like what we'd expect from women. That is, religious men are taught to be caring, nurturing, loving, faithful, sexually chaste, and moral standard-bearers. So basically this theory suggests that religion prescribes traits that society deems "feminine" and don't fit with society's definition of "masculine." Consequently, men don't like religion as much as women do. It's not a great fit. -2. Deprivation Theory: Deprivation theory suggests that women are religious because marginalized populations tend to embrace religion as a strategy to cope with their experience. The same argument is made for why racial minorities also tend to be more religious than whites. There is much to be said for this theory. In fact, recent research has shown that when you take away the marginalization, women seem to become less religious than men. For example, when we look at the chart below. This shows that women are more likely to be religiously affiliated, have a strong affiliation, and attend church more often than men, BUT ONLY at lower levels of income. Among women who make the highest income, they are either just as religious or less religious than men. This would suggest that some of the religious differences between American women and men are due to deprivation. -3. Exchange Theory: This theory suggests that women embrace patriarchal religion more than men because they're getting something out of the deal. And men are making exchanges too, for that matter. Some of this can be rooted in biological, reproductive differences between men and women. Biologically, men can produce virtually limitless numbers of children. They are designed to "sow their seed" far and broad for basically as long as they're alive. Women, however, have a limited number of eggs and thus potentials to have offspring. From menarche to menopause, women have a set number of opportunities. Thus, it makes evolutionary sense for them to invest in male partners who will be faithful and caring for them and their offspring. Think about how religion teaches men to be. Religion provides both the social control and the internal beliefs and values for men to be faithful husbands and caring fathers. Think about how that may be different from the dominant messages men get about masculinity outside of that context. It could be that women put up with the patriarchy of most religious traditions because religion promotes a sexual ethic that is actually to their advantage. It demands that men make a commitment to them and not do what they're biologically designed to do which is be non-monogamous (to put it lightly). -4. Risk-Aversion Theory: This last theory has actually been a popular one for some time in the sociology of religion. It's based on the idea that men tend to embrace risk more than women. To say that in reverse, women tend to be more risk averse than men. There have been a number of psychological and socio-biological studies on this, but it generally holds true that men tend to be more open to risk than women by a variety of different indicators. Let's look at responses from these two different data sets. Notice that on each measure of openness to various risky situations, men score higher. Compared to women, men tend to enjoy thrill-seeking more; they enjoy unpredictable situations more; and they're more open to new experiences. -NOTE: This may or may not have anything to do with biological differences. There might be something evolutionarily beneficial about men being open to risk in order to attract mates. There have been studies that show that heterosexual men tend to take more risks when women are present, so it could have something do do with impressing the ladies. But it could also just be socialization. Men are socialized to be bold and aggressive and women are socialized to play it safe and make wise choices. So it doesn't have to be biological.

4.5 What are the THREE barriers to religious pluralism in the U.S.?

-1. The Historic Linking of National and Religious Identities: The issue of whether the United States has ever really been distinctively Christian in some sense is highly debated. But the fact that LOTS of Americans believe the United States to be a Christian nation is uncontroversial. About 55% of Americans in 2014 said they felt that being a Christian was either "very/fairly important" to being truly American. Only 1 in 4 thought it was "not important at all." That means the majority of Americans see an important connection between being an American and being a Christian, and, consequently, those groups who are explicitly not Christians (most prominently Atheists and Muslims in the popular consciousness) are perceived as un-American. -2. The Historic Linking of Religious and Racial/Ethnic Identities: We should also pay attention to the important connection between race, ethnicity, and religion in the United States and how that influences American acceptance of religious minority groups. Because religion is most often connected with particularly ethnicities (Asian Indians with Hinduism, Chinese with Buddhism, Latinos/Italians with traditional Catholicism, Arabs (inaccurately) with Islam, and Anglo Europeans with Protestantism), ethnic minority groups in the United States are not only suspect on the basis of their ethnicity, but perceptions about their "deviant" culture or religious beliefs and practices that are contrary to the dominant religion in Christianity. -3. Ensuring Group Dominance and Suppressing "Deviance" is A Function of Every Group: When numerically dominant religious groups seek to maximize their influence in a society and suppress the influence of religious minority groups, are they doing something unusual? Not really. Remember the first observation of the conflict perspective in sociology is that societies are constituted by interests groups fighting for power. Those who are on top are fighting to stay in power and those at the bottom are fighting to get to the top themselves. If you removed Christians from the seat of power in the United States and replaced them with Muslims, they would likely do the same (and in fact do in some countries). Moreover, if you replaced Christians from the power structure of the United States and replaced them with secular humanists, we would still have a group of persons who have a vested interested in making sure that secular humanism is the law of the land and that Christians or Muslims didn't get too powerful. That's actually what has happened in several secular European countries like France.

3.2 What is the relationship between religion and family quality, why do we see that they have a higher romantic relationship quality?

-1. The religious people could be lying. There is the possibility of what social scientists call "social desirability bias." Christians are supposed to be happy and have quality relationships. Perhaps they're just more likely to say everything is great on surveys, whereas the religiously unaffiliated are more likely to keep it real. That's certainly a possibility. But this has also been a consistent finding for decades across a number of different national surveys. For that to happen, Christians are basically pathological liars, at least about their sexual and married lives. There could be other alternatives. -2. Religions typically teach people to be loving, forgiving, faithful, etc. Think about what a spouse would look like if they actually internalized all of the teachings in the major religions to be patient, kind, selfless, and humble in marriage. Wouldn't that be the kind of person you'd want to be married to? To the degree that religious people actually manifest those qualities, it wouldn't be surprising that they're relationships end up slightly more satisfying. -3. Religions tend to sanctify the family as sacred. Religious teachings tend to highlight the importance of the family for religious transmission and all other activities. Indeed, religious people are more likely to see family as the whole goal of a fulfilling life. Religious people are less likely to remain single and childless because the so desperately want the family experience, more so than Americans who are less religious. Since religious people and communities consider the family so sacred, they may also go to great lengths to make sure that their relationships are solid. -4. The role of religious communities. Religious people tend to be embedded within groups of other religious people who provide a measure of social control and social support. If a religious person is thinking about getting a divorce, he or she is more likely to have people in her/his life to tell them its a bad idea and that they should work out their problems, out of obedience to God's commands, for the sake of the kids, or their own testimony, etc. Persons who are relatively irreligious might simply be more likely to say a relationship is unsatisfying and bail.

5.1 What are problems of the secular movement?

-Baker and Smith conclude with some challenges that confront seculars as many seek to organize around their own identification and principles of desiring a secular society. -Low fertility - where does replacement come from? -Anti-hierarchical/free-thinking - seculars face a dilemma in organizing because they can lack a common system of beliefs to help them cohere as a group. -No organizational power structure - who speaks for secularism? Secularism is so diverse and opinions can vary so greatly in terms of the desired goals. It's difficult to say that there are certain groups of individuals who can fully represent seculars as a group. -Can dogmatism ultimately be avoided? - As groups develop and grow, it's virtually unavoidable that boundaries have to be constructed around who is in or out of the group. What will the criteria be for participation in secular movements? Can they avoid establishing dogmatic systems of identification and moral boundaries that they critiqued religion for?

4.3 What does conflict theory say about religion and sexuality?

-Contrary to functionalism, which views religious regulation of sexuality as "functional" or even good for social groups on the whole, conflict theory tends to emphasize that the religious regulation of sexuality can be traced back to some sort of power play in order to maintain dominance of one group over another. Much of this can be traced to class dominance.- In a society where the only legitimate sexuality is among married persons, denying groups the right to marry (e.g., slaves during the antebellum south or homosexual couples up until 2015) is a way that the dominant group can maintain dominance and deny these groups access to socially legitimate sexuality. Even think about what goes on in a traditional wedding and how it reveals the sexual regulation of women in our society. See the photos below. Women are supposed to wear white wedding dresses, symbolizing their sexual purity. This is not for their own honor, but ultimately for the honor of their fathers who are held to be the protectors of their virginity. How do I know that? Fathers are supposed to walk their daughters down the aisle and the pastor asks, "Who gives this woman to be married?" The father answers, "Her mother and me," and then he literally hands her off to another man who is now the one responsible for her sexual purity, her husband. Later on, after the ceremony, the groom publicly removes her garter belt (upper leg), symbolizing that he is now able to have sex with her legitimately. A conflict theorist would look at the traditional Christian wedding and conclude that the whole wedding is all about the regulation of women's sexuality.

2.4 What has happened to Evangelical protestants? (Data...see notes)

-Evangelicals are growing numerically but declining in terms of percentage of population. AND their growth is uneven. Some evangelical denominations are growing, others declining. -Mainline Protestant denominations and Catholics are declining both in terms of numbers and percentage of population. -The "Unaffiliated" are growing rapidly.

1.2 What did Peter Berger say? (sym)

-Peter Berger 1929 - present, though not strictly an interactionist, he developed an influential theory about how religion is socially constructed based on the way societies produce human knowledge. Peter Berger pointed out that human beings can suffer through almost anything if we know why we are suffering, but what we cannot handle is meaninglessness. We crave meaning. Religion provides that meaning in the form of what Berger called a "nomos" (a Greek word meaning law or principle). It is sustained through primary socialization as we are taught about "reality" by our parents and religious institutions, called "plausibility structures" (i.e., social structures that make the religious teachings seem plausible). Berger developed three moments or steps in the process that are really all happening at the same time in a never-ending cycle. -Externalization - we project meaning onto our world. -Objectivation - we forget the meanings are socially constructed. -Internalization - the objectified meaning becomes self-evident, taken for granted. -Berger thought the sustainability of a religion depended on a religion's ability to avoid competing "nomoi" (plural of nomos). Basically, the strongest religions are those that seem like common sense, like there could be no alternative. When you start interacting with people of other religions, and they seem nice and intelligent, you start to wonder whether your own religious teachings could be rather arbitrary. They are no longer taken for granted as the only real options, since other friendly, successful folks seem to be believing other things and doing just fine. Berger thought a religious pluralism like we have in the United States spelled disaster for religion and he thought secularization (the process of a society leaving religious explanations and teachings) seemed inevitable.

4.4 How does religion perpetuate race and racial inequality?

-Religion can provide mythical justification for biological definitions of race. For example, Southern Christian slave-owners justified their enslavement of blacks by referencing the "Curse of Ham," in the book of Genesis where Noah told Ham that his sons would serve Shem and Japheth. Because Christians viewed the Africans as the descendants of Ham and Europeans as the descendants of Japheth, they basically saw this as God foretelling the rightful enslavement of Africans by white Europeans. -Religion can justify the status quo. Religion is fundamentally conservative in some regards because it explains the world as it is currently. Why did my Grandma die? God called her home. Why am I a poor slave? God made you that way and you shouldn't question the ways of providence! -Religion can cloak cultural preferences with ultimate authority. You often see this sort of thing about debates around worship music in churches. Older folks in the church don't like the rock and roll music and younger people don't like the older hymns. So what happens? Usually both sides claim that their musical preferences are the ones that God really likes better. This happens with racial and ethnic differences in worship too. White Christians are likely accustomed to a particular style of preaching and worship and black or Latino or Asian Christians have their own cultural experiences and expectations. But rather than just acknowledge that groups have different cultural preferences, oftentimes these disagreements become theological and everyone claims that God likes their (racially or ethnically specific) way better. -Religion often promote minor adjustments over revolution. Because religion is fundamentally conservative and rarely demands radical changes in society, it can often be satisfied with small, individual-level changes rather than advocating for a complete revolution. The justification is often that God wouldn't want the social order thrown into chaos. Rather God wants to preserve the status quo, but just tweak it a little. This perspective usually works out quite well for those in power. -Religion reinforces exclusive, tight-knit cultural groups that tend to be ethno-racially homogenous. Think about what persons come to mind when I you see the following words: Muslim. Buddhist. Hindu. Southern Baptist. Most likely when you saw "Muslim," you thought of someone from the Middle East, probably an Arab. When you saw "Buddhist," you most likely thought of someone Chinese. When you saw "Hindu," you thought of someone from India, and when you saw, "Southern Baptist," you thought of a white Southerner. Because religions have historically been geographically separated, they often get associated with one particular race or ethnicity. When these religions stay segregated, they also tend to be racially segregated. As we'll see below, that can be a problem when one of those religious/racial groups has all the resources.

4.4 How does religion challenge race and racial inequality?

-Religion provides theological justification treating others kindly. Though we could definitely find some unique passages in the Torah, Koran, or Christian Bible that could be taken as xenophobic or hostile to outside groups, most religions teach that their followers should be loving, caring, and serving of others. In this teaching, we find the theological justification and motivation for sharing resources, defending the innocent, overthrowing oppression. Muslim are taught to give alms and show hospitality. Jews are given commands to welcome sojourners and help the oppressed. Christians are taught to be "Good Samaritans," to share all things in Christ, and to "visit widows and orphans." Thus, religion could serve to help different racial/ethnic groups treat each other more equitably. -Religion provides religious identities that may transcend ethnic/racial identities. When members of the same religion get together, it is possible that their religious identity starts to become so important to them, that their racial or ethnic identities start to fade into the background. One scholar calls this "ethnic transcendence," and it often takes place within multi-ethnic congregations. -Provides ready-made organizational structure for collective action. Think about the genius of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement leaders. In the black churches, these leaders already had a ready-made structure for mobilizing and organizing large numbers of people to fight for racial justice. Religious groups, because they tend to be tight-knit and see each other fairly regularly, are already in a strategic situation to engage in activism.

4.2 What were the promise keepers?

-Since the mid-1990s there has been an evangelical group called "The Promise Keepers" that promots a form of "soft patriarchy." The organization targets Christian men and works to get husbands and fathers to buy into a Christian vision of what a godly man is supposed to look like: - Notice the narrative that real Christian men are not soft and passive, but they are warriors for God and their families. Promise Keepers asks men to subscribe to "7 Promises of a Promise Keeper" that distinguished Christian men from "worldly men." These included: - A Promise Keeper is committed to honoring Jesus Christ through worship, prayer and obedience to God's Word in the power of the Holy Spirit. - A Promise Keeper is committed to pursuing vital relationships with a few other men, understanding that he needs brothers to help him keep his promises. - A Promise Keeper is committed to practicing spiritual, moral, ethical, and sexual purity. - A Promise Keeper is committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values. - A Promise Keeper is committed to supporting the mission of his church by honoring and praying for his pastor, and by actively giving his time and resources. - A Promise Keeper is committed to reaching beyond any racial and denominational barriers to demonstrate the power of biblical unity. - A Promise Keeper is committed to influencing his world, being obedient to the Great Commandment and the Great Commission

2.3 What are other possibilities to the sect-churhc continuum?

-Some other possibilities on the sect-church continuum are that certain groups just become dead sects. Most do, in fact. Others become institutionalized sects. These groups stay perpetually at the half-way point between a sect and a denomination. They retain the characteristics of both, but they're not a pure form of either. Some possible examples of this today would be the Jehovah's Witness. They are a break-off group from orthodox Christianity, and while they've grown tremendously in the past 100 years, they still live in state of tension with secular society. Their followers tend to be lower socioeconomic status and they don't participate in things like celebrating national holidays, singing the national anthem, saying the pledge of allegiance, or for some, taking blood transfusions. Thus, while they've grown and organized a great deal, they are still very sect-like. -What about "NRMs"? These are New Religious Movements. We formerly called these "cults," but the label is too pejorative. People often use the world "cult" to describe any zealous religious group that they don't like (basically whichever ones are not our religious group). NRM is a more technically accurate distinction. What sets these groups apart is that they are a new thing. Sects are often thought of as breakaways from established religions (think Christianity as an off shoot from Judaism), but not NRMs. They may pull elements from other religions, but they're mostly new. Their members tend to be higher education and income, and they place an emphasis on individual change rather than social change. Most NRMs are short-lived and die out quickly, especially with the passing of charismatic leadership. A great example of a modern-day NRM would be The Church of Scientology. -Another way to think about this progression so that we broaden the categories out to include religious organizations beyond congregations is to think of the evolution as a transition from a movement, to a ministry, to a machine, and eventually to a monument. We could call this the 4M model of group evolution.

3.4 Are there big difference across religion in terms of scientific knowledge?

-The General Social Survey has asked questions in the past about basic scientific knowledge. A sociologist named Darren Sherkat decided it would be interesting to see if people who hold different religious views or affiliated with different religious traditions scored differently on these questions, after controlling for relevant sociodemographic characteristics. Here's what he found: Those who affiliate with "sectarian Protestant" (basically evangelicals and black Protestants) scored the lowest on the scientific knowledge test and those who held the most literal view of the Bible scored the lowest by a considerable amount. Later, he showed that these differences hold even after controlling for important factors like income, educational attainment, gender, and region of the country. So, it seems that there's an important connection between being more religiously conservative and being more ignorant of science. But how does that work? -Consider the following theories: A. Socialization and Self-Selection - It could be that more religiosity/theological conservatism leads to lower education and knowledge of science. B. Secularization and Modernization - It could be that more education/scientific knowledge leads to lower religiosity or theological conservatism. C. Culture - It could be that something about one's culture leads to BOTH higher religiosity and lower education/scientific knowledge. While all of these likely hold true to some degree, my personal view is that Theory A answers (most) of what's going on here.

2.1 What are conversion experiences?

-These "testimonies" might serve a purpose beyond someone merely recounting the historical events of their lives. Oftentimes these are used to encourage others to join that religious or irreligious way of life. They're evangelistic tools. They might simply see it as speaking the truth, and to them, it may be, but sociologists have also noticed that conversion testimonies often leave out some key details. When sociologists have actually been able to observe conversions and apply some methods of confirming facts, they often find that the process of converting to a religion looks a little more like this. Start at the left. All of us live life within a specific religious and social context. You're most likely raised in the United States, so you live within a nation dominated by Christians, and evangelical Christians at that. And all of us experience varying degrees of dissatisfaction with our religious situation and we have different inclinations to seek out religious answers to the problems that confront us. Very few people are totally miserable in their religious faith and even fewer are completely happy with their religious faith and wouldn't change a thing. But at some point, we might experience some sort of significant transition involving our social lives. For many, this includes going off to college and leaving behind family and all of your old friends, or the sudden death of loved ones. Your social foundation has been removed and must be replaced with a new foundation. After this life transition, you may come into contact with a social group that is either of a completely different religion than you or are significantly more intense about their religious practices than you ever have been before. As you get to know these friendly people, you start to build affective bonds with them. And you simultaneously start to weaken affective bonds with your old social group. For some, there comes what we might call an "intensive interaction event" where you signify to others that you are now a fully committed member of your new social group. But notice what came first. VERY few conversions take place in isolation from a group. Conversion rather is a social process. What usually happens is you start to grow more closely connected with a group and eventually make a decision to embrace their faith and live as a _______________ after a intensive interaction event. -But also notice the blue line in the illustration above. After you become a _____________, you are often taught to re-articulate your old life in terms of your new life (old life sucked, new life is awesome!). You probably will even start to believe that yourself. -This serves several purposes. First, it more closely aligns you with your group (you don't want to go back to your old sucky life, do you?). Second, it serves as an evangelistic tool for recruitment.

4.3 What do functionalists mean by taboos?

-Think about how functionalism helps us understand why all societies have incest taboos. Every society has certain norms and expectations they enforce surrounding who you can and can't have sex with. These norms may differ from society to society, but all societies have them? Why? Well, they are actually quite functional for a few reasons. First, incest taboos provide some regulation so we know who is responsible to take care of children? Second, they provide some regulation around property and inheritance. Third, because of what we know about genetics, incest taboos have historically prevented passing on genetic disorders that would've weakened the human gene pool, at least for those who were geographically isolated. This is more of a latent function of incest taboos since those taboos were around a long time before we knew that incest could lead to genetic problems down the road. -How do taboos against homosexuality (or sodomy or masturbation or onanism) function in a traditional community? -Functionalism also helps explain why many societies have had taboos against homosexuality (or other forms of non-heterosexual sexual activity like masturbation or sodomy). In most traditional societies, there was a premium on having as many strong, healthy men as possible to defend the property, hunt, or work the fields. Because homosexuality, and masturbation, and onanism (basically pulling out before ejaculation) does not produce children, it makes sense that groups would discourage these activities with serious taboos. This contributed to higher rates of fertility and stronger clans, tribes, or societies. -How does circumcision function in a community or today? (example)

4.2 Why does it matter if women are more religious than men?

-Well, in our society being irreligious is still relatively risky. For starters, you risk people not liking you. Atheists get all kinds of stigma in the United States. People distrust them more than any other group! To be irreligious publicly is to say that you're willing to brave the risks of people not liking you. And men tend to be more okay with that than women. But being irreligious is risky for another reason. What happens if irreligious people are wrong, say, about Christianity? They go to hell. Men may be more willing to accept that risk of being wrong about religious teachings whereas women are more likely to cover their bases by being religious.

1.1 What should a good scientific definition of religion be?

1. It should explain a lot without being reductionistic. 2. It should be inclusive enough to encompass the major world religions, yet specific enough to address only phenomena that we consider religious. But, on the other hand, it should be precise enough to only include phenomena that we consider "religious." 3. It should be oriented towards the social.

3.2 What are explanations for why marriage and children makes people more religious?

1. . It could be that people become more religious because they are married and/or have children. For example, I've met a number of people throughout my life who were formerly nominal Christians, but when they got married and started having kids they went back to church consistently. They would explain, "We wanted to make sure our kids were on the right track." - 2. However, it could also be that religious people have pro-family values and so get married and have kids at higher rates than others. Statistics show that evangelical Christians, for example, tend to marry younger and have more kids than the average American. So, it could be that religion creates "pronatalism" (a cultural belief that one should have lots of kids) and leads religious people to get married and have kids. - In the end, I think both explanations are correct. The relationship is cyclical. Look at this chart. - If we start at the bottom with primary socialization in the family, we see that (religious) families will reinforce the sacred canopy or "nomos" of their children and each other through participation in sacred rituals like memorizing Scripture, attending worship services, or praying at meals. This will lead to the development of religious values and actions in those children. As those children age they will more than likely stay involved in their religious community that also socializes its people to hold fairly traditional ideas about families, leading to specific family values and actions. And the cycle goes on. Thus, we see that religion shapes family formation, and family formation in turn shapes religion. - What breaks the cycle? Oftentimes its family disruption, like a divorce or someone marrying someone of another religion. That tends to put a damper on religious transmission across generations. The sociologist Vern Bengtson has written a great book to read on that topic is based on about 35 years of data on 4 generations of families. It's the most exhaustive study ever conducted on how religion is passed down:

3.4 Why does it matter if religious people don't trust science?

1. A first problem flows from what I discussed above that religious parents who are suspicious of science are more likely to track their kids away from higher education for fear of bad influences. This leads to the problem of deeply religious persons having lower educational attainment than others, and this can lead to poorer life outcomes for these groups. 2. A second problem emerges when facts that are verified by science become contradictory with religious teaching. Remember the opposition that Copernicus faced because he argued that the earth moved around the sun and not the other way around? It seems like a pretty important fact that was being suppressed by religion. So too, a problem emerges when religion (or any sort of commitment to a sacred value) limits scientific inquiry. Ultimately religion can limit scientific inquiry by protecting "sacred cows" or "taboos." These are areas that are so sacred to a group of people that they are completely off limits. They are protected as the highest good. But this is not just something for religious conservatives. Even irreligious social groups that don't believe in the supernatural can hold certain things sacred or supremely important. And these things become taboo to inquire about for irreligious people. Consider the famous sacred cows/taboos for religious conservatives. These are things like: •Embryonic stem cell research - off limits because it uses fertilizes eggs and is tantamount to abortion. •Physician assisted suicide - suicide is often off-limits for deeply religious persons because only God can take a life (unless it's capital punishment or war, then it's okay). •Cloning - this is opposed by those on the left too, but religious conservatives also have a huge problem with human beings becoming god's unto themselves and creating life. But there are sacred cows/taboos for liberal secular humanists as well. Most of these sacred cows stem from a deep desire to protect minority groups. This leads to certain research agendas either being off the table or being highly suspect: •Evolutionary explanations for persistent inequality •Cultural explanations for persistent inequality In both of the above examples, those on the left find it deeply problematic to try to attribute persistent racial or gender inequality to either inherent (essential, inheritable) differences or cultural differences in entire groups. So for example, exploring whether whites have higher educational attainment than disadvantaged minority groups because of some sort of inherited evolutionary racial advantage is basically off the table. Moreover, for a 30 year span from about 1970 to 2000, sociologists were also discouraged from asking questions about whether persistent racial inequality could be attributed to cultural differences between whites and other racial minority groups. The idea was that these sorts of cultural comparisons always ended in "victim-blaming" which is making those who are the victims of systemic oppression out to be the ones who are primarily to blame for their situation. 3. Lastly, a problem arises when religious commitments lead people to reject consensus scientific findings and then this shapes public policy around an issue. For example, look at the relationship between religion and belief in manmade climate change. -So, it appears that those who attend worship services more often are more sceptical of the notion that climate change is going to have severe consequences for us in the future. And evangelical Protestants are also relatively sceptical of that view as well. This religious suspicion of climate change is often attributed to the belief of religious people that God will protect the planet and we don't have anything to worry about. To the extent that this sort of objection to embrace the truth about climate change shapes public policy, we have a pretty big problem. -So, in sum, religious opposition to science can be bad in that it... -1. can lead to lower educational attainment for religious young people (who may have not had the choice). -2. can limit scientific inquiry that might help humanity. -3. can lead to public policy that contradicts the best scientific evidence. -As we pointed out above, there are lots of religiously conservative folks who embrace science and other important scientific claims like those found in evolution or what we know of climate change. So I believe historic opposition between religion and science is more of a cultural one than something that is inherent within religion.

2.4 How does religion specifically influence broader demographic trends:

1. Laws and patterns of marriage, divorce, and intermarriage. Religious people tend to marry earlier and have children at younger ages than irreligious people. They also influence laws on marriage and divorce (think about who was opposing same-sex marriage for decades). Religious people also marry across racial groups at lower rates than others. 2. Laws on immigration. Religious persons (not exclusively) tend to be more opposed to immigration reform in progressive directions. That can effectively curb some immigration that might change our population in certain ways. 3. Birth-rates. Religious persons tend to have more babies than irreligious persons. The fastest growing populations around the world are in nations that are VERY religious on average, while those nations that are in population decline due to low birthrates tend to be quite irreligious. 4. Mortality and health. As we'll see in later lessons, religious people tend to live longer, healthier lives on the whole than irreligious people, for a variety of reasons. And some aspects of religion actually detract from population health.

3.1 How does religion affect population health and longevity in a region or nation?

1. Religious cultures affecting health care policies. (see notes) 2. Religious cultures affecting research practices and possibilities. (see notes) 3. Religious cultures affecting end-of-life policies. (See notes) 4. Religious cultures affecting broader cultural practices related to mental and physical health. (see notes) - SUMMARY: Religious people tend to live longer than irreligious people and this may be due to several interrelated factors. Religion likely discourages adherents from taking risks with their health. It provides a system of social support for people during times of poor health. And it likely provides believers with hope and a positive outlook that can keep them in good spirits and limit anxiety. Conversely, religion can influence health in several negative directions. Religious persons are lower in education or income and are more likely to be overweight. Certain religious groups may also try to "pray away" disease or injury or discourage reporting serious medical, mental health issues like depression or addiction. Lastly, religion can also influence population health. In the US context, this tends to be primarily in the negative direction with religious persons most often taking a more conservative stance on providing health care for citizens or supporting stem cell research or physician assisted suicide.

2.2 How does religiosity help us?

1. We need to know how religious factors impact other social factors and vice versa. How does someone's religious life influence what they think about race or gender? How does it affect the decisions they make in their sex lives? In order to get these answers, we have to get an objective measure of someone's religious life beyond just whether they identify as a "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Atheist." We need to know how committed they are to their religious beliefs as well, whatever that may look like. 2. We need to know whether religion in general is changing in terms of its impact on society. In order do this, we need reliable, objective measures that can be used again and again on different surveys.

4.3 What does judaiam say on sexuality?

10 If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 If a man lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 14 If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. 15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 17 "If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity. 18 If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. 19 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for that is to make naked one's relative; they shall bear their iniquity. 20 If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. 21 If a man takes his brother's wife, it is impurity. [b (Links to an external site.)]He has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless. - Leviticus 20:10-21

1.2 What did Max Weber believe? (conflict)

1864-1920 considered a conflict theorist of religion, but he held a different view from Marx and his followers. EXACT OPPOSITE OF MARX'S. While Marx thought capitalism (or at least class conflict generally) produced the modern manifestation of religion in order to justify the injustice of it all, Weber thought that religion produced capitalism itself. In his famous book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber argued that Calvinism (a theological system that views human beings as either being elected by God for salvation, or for damnation) produced an anxiety in Protestants regarding whether or not they were truly elected to go to heaven. How does one know whether he or she is saved? The proof, Calvinists thought, would be in the way you lived your life - sober-minded, hard work at one's calling. So, Calvinists developed this life pattern of working very hard at their jobs, and rather than spending that money wastefully, reinvesting it in their field of business, which is essentially capitalism. Eventually Protestant nations became the most prosperous in the world largely because of their "Protestant Ethic" that produced "the Spirit of Capitalism."

4.3 What does Christianity say on sexuality?

27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. - Matthew 5:27-28 The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. - 1st Corinthians 6:13 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. - 1st Corinthians 6:18 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. - 1st Corinthians 7:2

2.1 What is brainwashing?

: First, we often use the term "brainwash" negatively. No one brags about being brainwashed, and no one tells someone else they've been brainwashed as a complement. So what often happens is if someone converts to a religion that we don't like, and they're really enthusiastic about it, we say they've been brainwashed because we don't like this new them. It's like calling a religious group a "cult." It's basically a catch-all insult for every person who's in a religion I don't like. Second, in actual brainwashing, people are more active in the process than many realize. Sometimes brainwashing actually happens where people totally start to believe in and love certain things, even against their will (think Stockholm Syndrome or Theon Greyjoy in Game of Thrones).

3.2 Does it matter whether your spouse is religious?

Absolutely. Being religious seems to contribute to marital quality, but generally it only works if your spouse is religious as well. We call that religious homogamy (married to someone who is the same religion) versus religious heterogamy (different religion).So the highest quality marriages tend to be those where there is a high degree of religious homogamy.

5.1 What are Weber's thoughts on secularization?

Among Weber's major contributions to understanding society and religion, he argued that Western society was characterized by the increasing rationalization of all spheres of society (economics, politics, culture, etc.). He theorized that this would ultimately result in religious beliefs and leaders having less influence. They would be replaced by bureaucratic regulations and managers. It's interesting to point out that at the end of his class work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber argues that while religious beliefs were important in getting "the spirit of capitalism" off the ground, the system now ran itself and religion was no longer necessary to keep capitalism going. That's a good microcosm of what he felt would happen to religion itself.

4.1 What is deprivation theory on the connection between religion, class, and the economy?

Deprivation Theory - this suggests that those who are marginalized in society tend to be more religious because they're more likely to lean on religion as a source of strength and hope amidst their suffering. So this theory would suggest that poorer people are going to be more religious than the upper classes.

5.1 What are Durkheim's thoughts on secularization?

Durkheim believed that societies were traditionally held together by something called mechanical solidarity. This means that they were held together by their shared beliefs and values. Those shared beliefs and values constructed a "collective conscience" that got members of the society to cooperate. But Durkheim felt that because of modernization and industrialization in the Western world, individuals in societies were no longer bound to one another by shared beliefs and values. Rather, there are lots of different beliefs and value systems in societies now. Durkheim felt that societies were becoming united by something he called organic solidarity. This means that people cooperate on the basis of contractual obligations to one another. Think about the guy who takes out my trash and recycling every Wednesday. Society needs that guy to do his job. And we can expect him to do his job, not because we share the same religious values or beliefs, but because he is fulfilling his obligation as a part of his job. Just like I fulfill my obligations to students as a professor. We're all connected through organic solidarity now. It's what keeps America running. So all this means that Durkheim thought the role of religion in binding individuals together was gradually being replaced. He didn't think religion would be fully eradicated, but he did seem to think it's role would decline and change.

4.2 Is gender socially constructed, or completely biological?

Every society we have on record in the history of the world has done "gender" in some way, meaning that they have ascribed characteristics assigned roles to people on the basis of perceptions about their sex. Not every society does this the same way, but they've all done gender. So if it's completely socially constructed how do we account for the fact that gender is universal? Or another problem is the experience of trans* people? If gender is completely socially constructed, why is it that trans* men and women seem to feel that the gender role they were assigned by society on the basis of their perceived sex doesn't fit with how they have always felt about themselves on the inside? Trans* people, in fact, are an argument against the social construction of gender in some regards since they show that even societal pressures to make us conform to gender stereotypes can eventually give way to how we really feel about ourselves deep down. But if we answer that gender is biological, we've got another series of problems. Specifically, what about the variability of gender performance? Doesn't the fact that gender is presented and performed in so many different ways across culture show us that so much of what we call gender is arbitrary and based on social norms and conventions rather than some sort of behavior rooted in biology? In reality, we don't have to make an either/or choice here. Some elements of gender performance are socially constructed and some are rooted in our makeup. But it's always good to keep in mind that tension between what we're given by society and what we owe to our personality or natural inclinations.

4.2 What is primary socialization in relation to gender?

First, we're socialized to embrace gender stereotypes and messages through a variety of different means growing up. For example, when we are little babies and children we get rooms and clothes with gender specific colors, often blue for boys and pink for girls. We also get gender-specific toys. Boys often get action figures and sports paraphernalia, while girls are more likely to get dolls, Barbies, and toy kitchen equipment. Children even get differential treatment from parents on the basis of gender. Studies have shown that parents are more likely to hold and talk to little girls, and boys are more likely to be left alone to have adventures and be unsafe.

4.1 What does religion do for different groups?

For lower class Americans, religion likely serves an important subjective function in that it provides them with personal strength and hope. That's likely why lower class individuals are more likely to practice religion in a personal, devotional way (prayer and Scripture reading) more often than upper class individuals. For upper class Americans religion likely serves an important social function in providing them with networks and legitimacy as middle class Americans. That's why they're more likely to attend church or be church members than the lower classes. Religion is a way that middle/upper-middle class individuals connect to others and demonstrate their participation in community.

1.2 Functionalism (macro), what do they think about religion?

Functionalism see society like an organism or a body. Every institution (e.g., religion, education, family, politics, economy) has a particular function within the organic system. Indeed, it has to serve a function or else it would eventually disappear. Society wouldn't need it. So, religion must serve some purpose.

4.2 How is gender structured into society?

Gender is also structured into our everyday experiences. We have men's and women's bathrooms built into our buildings. We have men's sports and women's sports, and while women are occasionally allowed to play in men's sports if they're really good or they do some specialty thing really well (like being a place-kicker in football), men are never allowed to play in women's sports as that would be seen as unfair. There are patterns of tracking in schools toward certain subjects for girls and boys. Boys are more likely to be tracked toward hard sciences and math (i.e., stuff that makes money), while girls are more likely to be tracked toward humanities and soft-sciences (i.e., jobs that don't make money). Along these lines, there is a whole sector of the economy we call "Pink Color Jobs," which women are far more likely to work in like nurse or elementary school teacher.

2.1 What does rational choice theory say about religious conversion?

How are people making decisions as rational actors in converting to another religion? It doesn't seem rational since they will most likely suffer some pretty extreme social consequences from those in the religion they converted away from. But it's instructive that people most often "switch" or "convert" to another religion in a religious pluralism, like we have in the United States. Here we have a freedom of choice. And we also have LOTS of choices! We are the religious Walmart. Who wins in terms of religion? Rational choice theory would suggest that those religious groups will "win the market" who can get a feel for what the religious "demand" looks like and who can apply the most creativity and hustle to meet those demands. But let's think for a moment about how culture shapes the "demand" for certain religious appeals. So it seems that culture might shape the "demand" for certain sorts of religious messages. And those religious groups who can more successfully cater to those felt needs will be the ones who can attract more recruits.

2.4 How can we understand this data from evangelical protestants through the demographic perspective?

In this lesson, I'll argue that the trends we see in American religion are often better explained by using the tools of "demography." That's basically the study of how populations change. Applying a demographic perspective to religion, we look at the American religious landscape as a "religious ecology." What do I mean by that? Think about a biological ecology, or ecosystem. Who tends to "win" in an ecosystem? Essentially, it's whatever species of plant or animal that can most successfully turn resources into babies. That's it. They make use of their environment, adjust to its demands, and have more offspring than other species. So too in a religious ecology. All kinds of transitions are going on in religious groups. Some are having more babies than others. Some are just entering the country while others are leaving. There is also a phenomenon of "switching" in which some people abandon their group for another. The tools of demography can help us best understand these sorts of changes.

4.5 Who are the most disliked religious minorities in the U.S. and why?

It may surprise you to know that two religious minorities (Atheists and Muslims) are the most disliked people among the American public. The charts both show nationally representative survey data collected in 2003 and 2014, asking the same questions. The first chart looks at the percentage of Americans who say that a particular group does not at all agree with their vision of American society. The second chart looks at the percentage of Americans who say they would disapprove if their daughter wanted to marry someone from a particular group. - First, more than any other group (including racial minorities), Americans are more likely to say that Atheists and Muslims do not agree with their vision of American society and would disapprove if their daughter wanted to marry one. And this difference is particularly strong in the most recent 2014 survey. - Second, comparing the two surveys, it seems that anti-Muslim sentiment has actually been growing since 2003 (just after the terrorist attacks on 9/11). It hasn't gone down but is actually worse. In fact, while Atheists were the least liked group in 2003, Muslims had overtaken them by 2014.

4.2 What is boundary maintenance?

Lastly we learn about gender from our everyday interactions with one another. In our social interactions, we police the boundaries of gender. As a man, I would likely get stares from my colleagues at the office and certainly everywhere else I went if I were to put on a dress and high heels. Those stares could be used to put me back in my "correct" form of gender presentation. But we do this in more explicit ways as well. My football coach in high school was always telling us to "Be a man!" and "Stop being a pussy." Young women are often told to "Act like a lady." These are ways of maintaining boundaries around what is the "proper" way to express gender.

3.1 What does religion do in its most elemental form? (functional)

Let's go back to Durkheim's definition that we went over in the first lesson. "A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them." So religion unites people into a moral community that...Regulates behavior in light of moral standards (provides social control). Provides social support and encouragement. And it's a "unified system" of beliefs. There's coherence to it. Religion can thus provide answers to difficult questions that might cause anxiety. So we would predict that religion can influence health/longevity by: -preventing risky behaviors. -providing social support -elevating one's overall outlook by providing love, meaning, etc.

5.1 What are Marx's thoughts on secularization?

Marx didn't write a whole lot about religion, because he generally viewed it as a form of ideology or false consciousness that the ruling classes used to keep the working classes pacified. He felt that once the communist revolution was established, religion would go away since it would no longer be needed to justify class hierarchies. While few sociologists could call themselves full fledged Marxists today, Marx's general perspective on religion is a popular one among sociologists. By this I mean lots of American sociologists view religion as something doesn't hold a whole lot of value, but is rather used by people in power to justify their own dominance. The step toward liberation requires believers to recognize this.

5.1 What is existential security theory?

One of the most promising theories to understand the rise of secularization in developed nations around the world is called the "existential security theory." Existential security refers to the situation where a nation or society has developed to the point where there is political and military stability, food security, and a robust infrastructure to make life pretty manageable for most citizens. In other words, very few people in the country or society feel their life is on the brink of disaster from war, police corruption and extortion, famine, or plague. People in these societies with high existential security tend to need religion less than folks in societies with low existential security because things are pretty well under control. By contrast, when there is low existential security, people in a society are more likely to look to religion to provide help, support, and coping since they're not going to get it from material goods. This view is most rigorously defended in a 2004 book called Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide by Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart. The authors marshal a lot of data on dozens of nations around the globe to compare the religiosity of different types of societies. If the existential security theory of secularization holds true, we would expect that people in more agrarian societies would be considerably more religious than those in more industrial or post-industrial societies. And that's exactly what we find. People in agrarian societies report higher levels of worship attendance, prayer frequency, and importance of God in their lives compared to those in industrial or postindustrial societies. But we can also see that as people grow up and live out their lives in such different societies over time, their connection to religion changes.

2.3 What is the sect-church continuum?

One of the oldest observations in the sociology of religion is that religious groups and movements tend to evolve in very similar patterns. In the first half of the 19th century, scholars of religion like Max Weber, Ernst Troeltsch, H. Richard Niebuhr, and subsequent others developed the idea of the sect-church continuum or process to describe these common patterns of religious evolution. - First, a religious sect emerges as an off-shoot of an existing religious tradition, usually in protest against liberalizing trends in the parent religion and in the hopes of returning to the way religion was originally attended to be. Sects are often quite zealous and action-oriented, but disorganized and comprised by poorly educated masses. There is also often great tension between religious sects and the state or other secular powers (think early Christianity as a Jewish sect under Roman rule). As sects attract participants and develop in their organization, they start to become what H. Richard Niebuhr called a denomination. A denomination is larger, more highly-developed, and on better terms with secular authorities than the sect. They are often led by professional (that is, trained, ordained, and paid) second generation leadership, and tend to attract more educated, sophisticated membership. They also tend to be more relaxed about maintaining doctrinal purity and are more tolerant of internal diversity compared to sects (think most Christian denominations in the U.S.). If a denomination continues to grow in a society, it may eventually become an established church, which can be viewed as a group that holds a religious monopoly on society and has essentially merged with state power. In such a situation, members are no longer converted into the religion but born into it by virtue of their citizenship; apostasy becomes illegal (think the Catholic Church in the Holy Roman Empire, Puritanism in early New England colonies, or Islam in some contemporary Middle Eastern nations). So, what these scholars observed is that religious groups and movements start off highly ideological, voluntary, disorganized, and in tension with secular society, but over time, they gradually become more pragmatic, professionalized, organized, and accommodating to society. This evolutionary process has both benefits and drawbacks. On the positive side, the religious group or movement grows in numbers, resources, organization, and even strategic effectiveness at accomplishing practical objectives. For example, research shows that modern megachurches are more effective at a number of practical tasks than smaller, upstart church-plants. They can recruit (or train) better-quality communicators and strategists in their leadership, attract a more diverse membership, purchase (or even create) better educational curricula, and offer a wider array of social services both to members and the community. The downside to this evolutionary process, however, is that as religious groups or movements grow, diversify, professionalize, and accommodate, they inevitably lose something in terms of their religious zeal and doctrinal purity. The boundaries of group membership become lax (or virtually non-existent) and volunteerism starts to wane as the group becomes dependent on professional clergy and overrun with free-riders.

2.4 What is the theory of intermarriage?

People who intermarry with other religions are more likely to become unaffiliated over time. So a trend of higher intermarriage rates would lead us to suspect religion would be in decline. And that's exactly what we find. Look at the chart below. -The column under the heading "spouse same religion." It indicates that for every decade since 1960 the percentage of people who are married to a spouse of the same religion has been in decline from 81% before 1960 to 61% in 2010-2014. Much of religious growth and decline can be attributed to normal demographic processes like birth-rates, migration patterns, intermarriage, and switching. This doesn't mean that "secularization theory" or "rational choice theory" are not true. But it's also helpful to look at the United States as a religious ecology, where groups are competing for resources and growing and declining as they can produce more followers than they lose.

2.4 How can we understand this data from evangelical protestants through the lens of secularization theory?

Perhaps the religious groups are declining, and the unaffiliated groups are growing because society is just becoming more secular. That is certainly happening in some regards, but this theory doesn't really help us understand why certain evangelical denominations are actually growing fairly well.

1.1 What is the difference between religion and magic?

Religion = involves rituals, problem-solving, based on faith, deals with broad questions, adheres to an ethic, future orientation, religion = obedience & groups. Magic = involves rituals, problem-solving, based on faith, deals with immediate problems, tends to be amoral, orientated toward the present, magic = manipulation & done solo. **- The important distinction to keep in mind is that religion is more orientated toward the social and therefore is more interested in issues of morality, obedience, and meaning. Magic is more solitary and is therefore amoral and more oriented toward problem-solving.

2.1 What factors contribute to the transmission of religion from one generation to another?

Religious socialization is the process whereby religious communities train up new followers to become faithful ____________. Most religious socialization takes place in the home. 1. - Parents' mutual religious commitment: Christian Smith and Melinda Denton conducted a famous study of how religion shaped the lives of American teenagers. After all their research they concluded, - "One of the key themes in this book is that parents are normally very important in shaping the religious and spiritual lives of their teenage children, even though they may not realize it....Simply by living and interacting with their children, most parents establish expectations, define normalcy, model life practices, set boundaries, and make demands - all of which cannot help but influence teenagers, for good or ill. Most teenagers and their parents may not realize it, bu ta lot of research in the sociology of religion suggests that the most important social influence in shaping young people's religious lives is the religious life modeled and taught to them by their parents." (pg. 56). And later they explain, "We think that the best general rule of thumb that parents might use to reckon their children's most likely religious outcomes is this: 'We'll get what we are.' By normal processes of socialization, and unless other significant forces intervene, more than what parents might say they want as religious outcomes for their children, most parents likely will end up getting religious of their children what they themselves are." (pg. 57). The best predictor of whether or not parents pass down religion to their children is whether they themselves are fully committed to their religion. And both of them matter. 2. - Parents' quality relationships with children: Parents who abuse their children physically or psychologically, or even those who are just estranged from their kids, tend not to be very effective at passing on religious heritage. Those with the best relationship quality tend to transmit their religious values more effectively. 3. Family Stability: Divorce is a killer for passing on religion to one's children. This is likely for at least 2 reasons. First, persons who end up getting divorced tend to be the sort of folks who are less likely to care as much about socializing their children religiously. Second, divorce most often denies the child(ren) one stable in-home parent to socialize them in their religion. If mom or dad has to do that alone, it just won't be quite as effective. Divorce also can destabilize life in general and give children other more pressing things to worry about than other sorts of existential things that religion tends to address. So the instability can crowd out time for religion. 4. Parents' ability to channel kids: Lastly, parents serve an important role, especially earlier on in the child's life, in selecting who that child will interact with. Persons who are more religious, and consider religious heritage more important thing, are more likely to get their child(ren) around other religious families and communities where they will get religious reinforcement. This should remind you of Peter Berger's "plausibility structures," idea. The more plausibility structures the better. Religious parents will also be more careful to ensure that their kids are not dating or getting romantically involved with people of another religious group, which could also be something that might hurt the transmission of religious faith over time.

5.1 What did Berger think of secularization?

Remember Berger's theory about the sacred canopy of the nomos. Berger believed that the sacred canopy was at it's strongest in a society when religious leaders could develop strong plausibility structures (that is, systems to reinforce the religious ideas and values) and when groups could avoid competing nomoi. This last part is important because when religious groups interact with other religious groups, it can make your own religious beliefs and values seem rather arbitrary. Berger thought that because the Western world was becoming a religious pluralism, it would force all of these religious groups in society to realize that their systems of beliefs and values are really pretty arbitrary and, consequently, religion would lose its authority over the lives of people. It would be seen as optional community rituals that people can decide not to take very seriously. NOTE: It's important to keep in mind that Berger ultimately revised his thesis and no longer thinks the world is becoming more secular. He restricts his version of the secularization thesis to (1) academia and (2) Western Europe.

1.2 Who are the early sociologists of religion?

The first sociologists wrote in the mid to late 1800s and early 1900s. They were much less concerned with explaining religious behavior and more concerned with how the role of religion would change due to modernism, industrialization, urbanism, etc. MOST EARLY SOCIOLOGISTS THOUGHT RELIGION WAS FALSE, ON THE DECLINE, AND WOULD EVENTUALLY BE SUPPLANTED BY SOMETHING ELSE.

1.2 What does rational choice theory say about religion (micro)?

This is taken from economics and exchange theory. Basically, it sees social interaction as a series of exchanges based on a cost-benefit analysis within a context that constrains both our choices and our information about those choices (e.g., the market). Applied to religion, a rational choice approach views religious persons as rational creatures making rational choices about where they will invest their resources and time in exchange for whatever "goods" are provided by that religion or religious group.

4.3 What does Islam say on sexuality?

They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness. - Surah 2:222 As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation). - Surah 4:15

1.2 What is the foundations of symbolic interactionism (micro)?

This paradigm sees society (and social meaning) as constituted in the everyday face-to-face interactions of individuals. We make society as we interact with others. This perspective tends to look at religion and religious meaning as socially constructed through our interactions within our social groups.

5.1 Is religion in decline in the U.S.?

To be sure, there are numerous indicators that Americans are somewhat less religious than they had been in previous decades. Secularization hasn't happened in the United States quite like in other developed nations. But, some secularization has been happening. But this should be tempered with acknowledgements that religion is not just declining, but changing. People who were nominally religious formerly are simply more comfortable these days saying they're not religious at all, whereas people who have always been pretty religious have tended to stay that way. One might say that modern secularization in the United States hasn't meant the spoiling of religion so much as it has revealed religion for what it really is in Americans' lives. If it was a central part of their lives, it has mostly stayed that way. If it was something peripheral to their lives, it has dropped off more and more.

1.2 What is the basics of conflict theory (macro)?

conflict theorists see society as a struggle between interest groups fighting for power. One group wants to stay in power, and the other group(s) want to turn the tables in gain power for themselves. -When it comes to religion, conflict theorists tend to emphasize religion's role in supporting existing inequalities and power asymmetries.

4.1 What is conflict theory on the connection between religion, class, and the economy?

conflict theory, and especially Marxian conflict theory, holds that the ruling classes (and especially the bourgeois middle and upper-middle classes) use religion to justify their own material superiority and to keep the poor in their place. Marx also taught that the ruling ideas (including culture and religion) tend to be those of the ruling classes. This might lead us to expect that the upper classes would be the most faithful practitioners of religion.