Davie 1, 2

Consider how the four classical theoriests (Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Simmel) viewed religion. How would these theoretical frameworks explain the political consensus among white American evangelicals?

This forum will be open for credit until W 2/7.

The four classical theorists believed religion reduced people's immediate suffering and provided them with satisfaction that their life was going to get better once they left the Earth. However, it also reduced their energy and their willingness to confront reality. Marx calls religion a product of oppressed people, and that religion acts as a way for people to escape their oppression. Religion can also discourage social change, and upper classes have used religion as means to control society. For example, shunning individuals for deviating from social rules and discouraging people from acting out of line.

I agree with your assessment, and would only add that Marx's ideas of religion acting as a means for people to escape their oppression might be the very reason why white american evangelicalism is still a growing sect of Christianity to this day. It seems that Evangelicalism has the ability to make religion a highly personalized experience. the idea of being "born again" can continuously give believers the impression that they are doing a worthwhile thing with their belief, one that will highly reward them for the energy they put into their religious practices. Also the assurance of salvation seems very much like Marx's idea of religion acting as escapism.

When i think about the views of classical theorists on religion, the tendency to see Religion as a function of society more than being a personally held belief is fairly uniform to me. When i think about it in the context of the current dynamic of white evangelicals I'm particularly struck how they often use religion as an identifying mechanism, or a way of cordoning of their status as adherents to a particular religion to that of other non-believers.

This reminds me of the Durkheimian argument of religion as a tool of social unity, allowing a disparate group of people to create an in group/out group dynamic that is based on a common shared faith tradition. To go even deeper, I'm also intrigued by the pluralism alive in even what seems to be the unified front of white, evangelicals and how it maps in to the needs and desires of a more diverse populous, which can be found to reinforce the views of Simmel, as religion while seeming to be uniform is actually changing and mutating to survive.

My question is where would Marx's theory fit into today's society of religious pluralism and racial diversity? While the argument could be made for Religion to still be a tool of the dominant economic class, in an age of diverse religious choices whose believers and adherents run the gamut of different class groups, does this theory even hold up anymore?

The doctrine of Evangelical Christianity connects white American evangelicals regarding their political views. This echoes Durkheim's view of religion because he believes that religion influences the thinking and behavior of members of society. To Durkheim, religion allows individuals to form group solidarity and maintain cohesion. Durkheim believes that religion plays an important role in the continuation of a society. Therefore, white American evangelicals rely on their faith and beliefs, which promotes political consensus.

To Durkheim, religion binds people together. Over time, forms of society change rapidly, everything changing along with it, traditional patterns of religion dissolving. Thus, the question for Durkheim then asks how dominant functions of religion will be fulfilled. Aspects of religion should be able to develop along with everything else, so that there is an emergence of collective solidarity that will develop social order in a society. White evangelicals in America have a complete reliance on faith and beliefs, thus promoting political consensus.

Simmel is concerned with religious life being both permanent and fluid, arguing that religion with these characteristics emerges through the way fundamental aspirations of individual spirituality are structured. The society that a particular religion is a part of changes over time; changes in religious forms are a part of the shifts that take place in modern society as life becomes increasingly segmented, which explains why modern people are not necessarily less religious than others. Some white Evangelicals in America may be more religious than others, but that doesn't mean that the religion changes. The forms of religion may change for some white Evangelicals, but they all have the same aspirations of individual spirituality and beliefs collectively, allowing them to come to a political consensus.

White American evangelicals are individuals who believe in Jesus Christ to succeed in his footsteps. Evangelicals Christians trust in the bible as God's work to humanity. As for Marx's consensus with evangelicals would be the less fortunate finding happiness through religion in the next life. Oppressors following religion would make people feel better from the distress of being poor. Weber would come to an agreement with evangelicals through individuals whom convert to certain beliefs and moral codes can be saved. People whom achieve high levels of material success will continue into a positive predestination life. Durkheim and Simmel would look at evangelicals as uniting society beliefs and practices as one single moral community.

Marx with the Marxism theory about social class conflict did influence his belief in religion. Viewing it as " The soul of soulless conditions" to my understanding Marx seen it as those with good income would see religion as a protest for those with low income a savior. Those with low income would depend on religion for their happiness and the struggles they were having with income. Marx felt like those with low income religion was their illusion to happiness.
Now Max Werber felt like Religion is an answer for humans, people believing in god they felt like god had rules and answers to their problem and humans are anxious to knowing if they disobeyed or obeyed these rules they would be damned after life.

Politically, White evangelicals are conservative. One might think a person keeps his religion and politics separate, but the classical theorists show that religion functions and affects many aspects of a person's life. In this vein, a person's religion, to differing degrees, will effect his political policies (depending on the degree of religiosity). Prejudices and ideas about the ideal world will be translated from the individual's politics, and will express itself in the way he votes and the choices he makes.
And, since religion tends to be a socially conservative force (religious beliefs tend to trail behind social and moral developments in the world as they need time to adjust and reinterpret their religions to fit the new ideal) then it follows that their politics tend toward the conservative spectrum as well.

I agree with this point because in his Protestant ethic thesis, Weber does allude to how religiosity does not directly effect certain institutions (in his case modern capitalism) but the religious belief itself can provoke actions taken by the people in the society and "have an important impact in everyday life" (p. 30). Though again, Weber is referring to the economic situation that Protestantism possibly gave rise to, it can still be related politically to white Evangelicals because here is a tight knit group of people with conservative beliefs, and these beliefs influence them to take action or engage in dialogue that reaffirms these beliefs and changes aspects of their everyday living outside of their religion. Because it isn't the religion itself that is affecting politics it is the people with the beliefs that do so.

Great point, and i agree because if one is to strongly input their religious faith into their political aspects he/she would be heavily criticized and judged due to sensitivity. in other words, no matter how you try to interpret your point/message someone will be offended. religion has a strong role in the lives of many individuals regarding the way the view and interpret life and to keep that aspect of their life private or conservative may affect the content of their character and interfere with their religious belief. .

The four classical theorists Marx,Weber, Durkheim and Simmel have different ideologies on religion. Marx sees religion as a set of doctrines intended to stabilize, also he contends that religion is what people use as away to escape from oppression. However, Sociologist Durkheim believes religion is what draws groups together, essentially
Durkheim thought that religion was an important source of solidarity and cohesion for individuals within a certain society. Religion helped people find meaning and direction, and also helped provide authority. Religion was most valuable as a way of establishing a collective pool of morals/norms. Religion helped maintain social control, cohesion between groups, and a feeling of purpose for people. Durkheim saw religion as the source of social unity, he thought that in pre-society, people organized because of similar beliefs. Religion to Durkheim wasn't necessarily only the spiritual aspects but, it was more geared toward the mentality aspects. Max Weber believed that religion is a resource that we use to answer questions to the problems we encounters and cope with them. Lastly Simmel views on religion was very broad, his perspective on religion was Simmel views religion as a fundamental aspect of human relations, and religion will continue on to exist as a way of being. Simmel's perspective however was similar to Durkheim's, they would both view White American Evangelicals as those binding together a society or community in harmony rather than conflict. As for Marx, he would perhaps say that the evangelicals may find their happiness through religion, and religion would be used as a resource to escape stressful situations as well as oppression. Where Weber would say that religion can serve as a tool for white american evangelicals to answer questions to the problems they encounter, in other words believing in a god will help them navigate through the problems they are faced with.

. Durkheim viewed religion as a function to bind society's members by prompting them to affirm their common values and beliefs on a regular basis. Weber’s work was fundamentally a theory of the process of rationalization. Rationalization is the process whereby universally applied rules, regulations, and laws come to dominate more and more sectors of society on the model of a bureaucracy. Marx believed that when one views society and life through the lens of religion, they are blinded to the realities of their life, in other words, it was used to find comfort in their current circumstance. As for Simmel he views were in way like Durkheim a form of binding. Therefore, Weber will see that Evangelicals will use the process of rationalization where they can find follow into God’s footsteps. I feel that Simmel and Durkheim would find that political consensus among white American evangelicals as a form for them, to unify with their faith and practice as whole to have that society beliefs stronger. Marx will view the political agreement among the white American evangelicals as a way for them to find assurance in result to their realities of their life.

Durkheim focused more on unity, and believed that although society changes the purpose of what keeps people together remains, which to him was religion. He believed that traditional society are cohesive because of everyone solidarity, (mechanical solidarity) so when modern society emerges and different groups appear what part is religion going to play in this type of society? Durkheim was focused more on the function rather than the substance. While, Weber was more focused on the substance. He compared the religious traditions of one area versus the other. Weber believed that religion provided answers for people, and helped calm their anxiety over certain questions they don't have definitive answers for like afterlife. He was anxious about the consequences of disenchantment dehumanizing consequences of increasing bureaucratization. On contrary, Marx believed that religion was an effect of the emerging class conflict and was used to help comfort the work class who are suffering, by reassuring them that their next life will be better, their reward will come later so they can be comforted and not fight against the class conflicts. Marx believed the world will be better off without religion basically. He believed religion was a symbol of malfunction within human societies.

The classical theorists viewed religion as a unifying organization that gave people purpose and comfort in numbers. They saw it not from a religious aspect but more in a way that provided people with the sense of unity, commitments, and purpose. For example Marx views religion as “the easy way out” because it allows people to be lax in this world because in religion “the world to come” is where they are going to get rewarded and “live” their best “life.” Therefore regarding political consensus, everyone loved the idea that they get another chance once they died. Therefore it was extremely popular.

I agree with this response because religion did offer people a lot of comfort. It offers people something to look to for hope and can also keep some people from doing some very violent things. Religion lays down morals for people to have to follow, and constantly makes people grow in the process. Another thing I agree with is that it is the "world to come" and to add to this, it gives people something amazing to look forward to. Afterlife might sound like it is made up, but for those who believe, its happiness for eternity.

Sociologist Emile Durkheim, understands religion as a source of identification and a source of solidarity. It does the job of sustaining social solidarity by playing a vital role within society, which it binds citizens together thus reinforcing social solidarity within communities. He begins of by examining what religion is and argues that there is an objective cause of religion, serving social functions that include bonding and social order. In addition, furthermore he tells us that we often tend to look to religion for answers that will satisfy our essential needs. his key point was that religion is ultimately a system that is necessary for a properly functioning society and its function serves a greater purpose in the building of social cohesion. Weber, compared different aspects to each other, he believed that religion was a source that provided many answers for people. Whereas Marx, believed that religion was a resource that was only beneficial toward the working class and would offer them nay different advantages.

Sociologist Emile Durkheim, understands religion as a source of identification and a source of solidarity. It does the job of sustaining social solidarity by playing a vital role within society, which it binds citizens together thus reinforcing social solidarity within communities. He begins of by examining what religion is and argues that there is an objective cause of religion, serving social functions that include bonding and social order. In addition, furthermore he tells us that we often tend to look to religion for answers that will satisfy our essential needs. his key point was that religion is ultimately a system that is necessary for a properly functioning society and its function serves a greater purpose in the building of social cohesion. Weber, compared different aspects to each other, he believed that religion was a source that provided many answers for people. Whereas Marx, believed that religion was a resource that was only beneficial toward the working class and would offer them nay different advantages.