All posts by Rikako

Religion that encourages violence?

Two-Thirds Of Democratic Voters Say Islam Isn’t More Violent Than Other Religions

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/07/two-thirds-of-democratic-voters-say-islam-isnt-more-violent-than-other-religions/

 

Here it says,  CBS poll asked people what extent Islamic religion encourages violence, and two thirds (66%) of democrat voter said it encourages same amount of violence as other religion. Before anything, I don’t think religion should not “encourage violence” at all, but anyways I think it’s not too bad because if we include answer that Islam encourages less violent than other religion, 9%, it’s 75%. However, if we look at republicans, it’s other way: 63% said Islam encourages violence more than other religions, when only 25% said same amount of violence.

I was kind of angry about that fact, but then I remembered, that religion can be source of conflict but also of cohesion. I am not saying I accept that result of survey, but what is happening might tie people together and eventually find solution to this problem.

My group’s case study book, God needs no passport, by Peggy Levitt, actually talk about this (not about the travel ban, but about Islam), such as how people recently think that it’s dangerous, just like people who answered Islam “encourages more violent”. Actually, the book was all about to prove that it’s wrong. Terrorist group is dangerous, doesn’t matter whatever religion it has, but Islam as religion, and muslim as immigrants or refugees, are actually benefitting the country by just expressing their perspective and ideas. After reading her book, I feel like I do not understand people who discriminate against race and religions, because people just closing themselves from receiving the merit.

Film; sectarian religion

As we saw the film Born again, I was amazed the way of religion they had. The way they have their religion was the sectarian way (they think only way to be saved is to believe and accept Jesus, and they had tension with society).

Honestly, I was feeling unconformable but at same time I was amazed. I was unconformable because the way they impose their belief on non-believer was exactly what I think of when thinking about bad side of religion (which never happened to me, luckily). There are so many ways of religions and ways of believing religions, and I don’t want to say anything about any of them, but I just didn’t like how pastor was too much caring about personal life. I think I will be freaked out if ex-boyfriend’s church’s pastor came up to me and say that you need to accept Jesus.

But also, I was amazed because how strong their belief is. I was amazed how strongly believe in God, which results them to separate themselves from non-believers. I am not saying that there is no God in this world, but personally, I can’t be that sure and believe that strongly.

Because they believe in God, the community was strongly and closely tied, like we saw pastor involving in believer’s personal life. I think it is strengthened not only because pastor’s characteristic but maybe also because the way they separate their community, from society. I think people feel strong bond in community when there is clear and deep discrete they  feel between two groups, themselves and non-beievers. In the film, it is whether believing and accepting Jesus, but also things like whether believing in science, which pastor said “un-godly”, or not.

Shutting out different religion

 

138 years ago, the controversy over travel bans and religion was about Mormons from Europe

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/1879-mormon-travel-ban/

 

Everyone worries about Trump’s executive order temporarily banning immigrants from seven Muslim countries. However, it wasn’t first time in history that US prevented traveling to US based on religion. I was little bit surprised that this wasn’t first time.

I think the story of Mormons is not perfectly same but still somewhat similar to that of Muslim today. Mormons was treated as un-American, and some of them have attacked/had war against neighbors who were not Mormons. As a result of rising tension, secretary of state in that time requested foreign governments not to allow Mormons to emigrate to US to prevent increasing immigrant joining Mormons at Salt Lake.

The story reminds me of the book, God needs no passport (my group’s case study book) by Peggy Levitt. In prologue of her book, author mentions about this person, Florence, who doesn’t feel comfortable her city to get more people who doesn’t believe in Christianity. Although for Florence it’s not she was attacked or afraid of violence from particular religious group, I think that anxiety/fear is similar. People fear other people because they belong in different groups.

The author talks about difference between tolerance and pluralism, and I think according to that definition Florence is tolerant person. “Tolerant people acknowledge difference. They are willing to lice side by side with people whoa re not like them, but are unwilling to be changed by them. Pluralists believe that no single religion has absolute authority over a single religious truth. They are wiling to engage with and be changed by others, creating something new along the way”(12).

Whether person likes it or not, other religion can change the person, or already changed/affected one’s religion in past.In the book, she mentions about when US was founded, and how Christianity, which she said “American” religious identity, was brought and developed through other countries(18).What person calls different group can be something that made up the group that the person oneself belongs.

Congregation online?

The research data in book “American religion” shows that the congregations use more compute technology. The author says that they will continue using more technology, but the important thing is how the technology will change and shape the congregation(61).

This data reminded me of the service, go to church online. It’s service that broadcast the church prayer and other stuff like Sunday school so that you don’t need to physically go to the church. They even receive request for prayer and pray for you. In the website that i found, several different churches participate in and broadcast.

I think such service appeared not only because the technology became available but mainly because older people increased in church just like author said in the book. If this service got more popular and more accepted, will there be less people in church, or the population doesn’t change? Or, maybe the population of church goer increase as a total  including people who “go” to church though online.

Actually I figured out about this because I knew that in my country, Japan, some shrine does that and I was curious if church does it here too. In Japan, Association of Shinto shrine declared that people should be “”self-restrained” not to use the service of going shrine online. There are some other service(such as funeral and graveyard) that has religious part in, and it is becoming more and more accessible because of technology. But at same time, some people say that easy access can lower dignity of worship.

When horse diapers and freedom of religion collide

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/22/when-horse-diapers-and-freedom-religion-collide.html

Okay, I don’t know if this article is too funny(I mean, they are serious but at least title is funny to me…) for this assignment, but I just can’t forget about this article so I decided to write about this one.

This article, “When horse diapers and freedom of religion collide” is about Amish people and the city government. The city ordinance decided to make it requirement horses to wear diapers. Two Amish man said that the order violating Amish religious standards.

First I needed to look up Amish because I didn’t know about them. As it says in article, Amish is religious group that “believe in shunning things that are ‘of the world,'”and in this case, the “plaintiffs are members of the Old Order Swartzentruber Amish religion, one of the most conservative Amish orders.” They don’t use technology (some Amish accept some of technologies), so they don’t use car and use carriage with horse instead.

As I was reading the article, I was wondering which of four categories(church, sect, denomination, cult) it fells. In this case, this conservative Amish looks like sect since with self-conceived legitimacy and has negative tension towards society since they are accusing the city. However, when I was looking up the word Amish, not every Amish doesn’t look like that way. Some of them just stay away from society, not necessary with negative/aggressive attitude toward society. If they are less conservative, then they are more like church? Although it’s same religion, Amish, if the community is different, the category that it falls different?

choosing what to believe

Some people are religious. They go to the church. There people are not religious. They don’t go to church.

Obviously it’s not that simple. I felt that measuring religiosity is difficult as I was reading. As a research of official religions the book states some characteristics of religiosity, but I was more interested in individual religiosity. “the actual religion of the individual member may not correspond very closely to the official model”(104). What individual believe is from from who and what one was taught and what one choose to believe. For example people start to disagree on some moral issues such as birth control and homosexual behavior. Whatever one’s religion says, people should decide what to do. People can be religious without obeying teaching or going church every week.

I think believing religion is already individual decision, so one should decide what to believe according to what one needs and doesn’t need. In my opinion religion is something that people choose to believe in order to make their life easier, to find meaning in their life. But then at same time it sounds weird to me that you can be religious without obeying its own religion. If “religious” people are picking up what they want to believe, am I religious since I do pick up some ideas to believe and not from different religion?(well I don’t consider myself as religious anyway)

Appreciate or accept different religion?

The article “Bishop ‘distressed’ by row following Qur’an reading at cathedral” by Harriet Sherwood was published by thegurdian in Jan. 15th.

As a part of efforts to build relationships between Christians and Muslims, the local Muslim student read the Qur’an in the cathedral. However, the former priest didn’t like that idea. He said that it’s important for people to learn what other people believe, and for that reason it is okay to read the Qur’an for themselves. However it is not same, and is not appropriate, to read it  in the church as public worship. The cathedral was targeted to be offensive opinions on social media.

This reminds me of what Chaves talks about in American Religion(although this news is in Scotland). People started to be able to “appreciate” other’s religion. But I feel like that doesn’t necessary mean people can accept what other’s believe. For example, in this case, Qur’an and bible has different interpretation for Jesus.  I don’t think neither religion can agree nor reach consensus about that. And not everyone can accept that difference. In this case, I think the former priest thought it is inappropriate to read Qur’an in church because it’s wrong(in Qur’an Jesus is prophet, not son of God).

It also reminds me of Gren (the second guy) in the video “Separate realities” because I feel like he thinks that believing in Jesus is only right thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/15/st-marys-cathedral-glasgow-quran-reading-david-chillingworth

Religion to make sense

When I read first chapter of Religion: the social context, where it talks about defining term “religion”, I could not think about any definition of religion. Honestly, although I have learned about religion for little bit, I still couldn’t state what religion is/does clearly. Maybe it’s because religion does not affects me in the way it does to believers.

But when I read second chapter it kinda started to be little bit clear. Religion helps to make sense of everyday life and events by “meaning system”, which Berger explains that it “explains why things are way they are and prescribes how it should be”(28). The example of losing job was really easy to understand for me. The event in life, such as losing job, happens, and person wants reason for that even that reason doesn’t give hope to him/her. For event such as losing job, it is easier to make sense out of it; it could be bad luck, market force, not enough work, or boss was mean person…etc. But the reason also could be God will or order for those who use religion’s viewpoint to interpret meaning of this event. People have desire to know the meaning of what they are going through because with reason it is easier to figure out appropriate course of action(32). And to find a meaning of the events, seeing through religion’s worldview can help.

As I said in the class, I don’t have any specific religion I believe although I assume some of ideas affects my way of thinking and meaning system. For me, honestly, it uses to be little bit hard to understand why people believe in religion since it is not familiar thing for me. But as a way of life, to make sense and give meaning to life events, religious people use religion’s worldview, just like I use my view to interpret my event in my point of view. It’s just difference of what group’s worldview that person decided to apply to the life events.