Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
clare beliefs notes (religion is a force for social stability (yes and…
clare beliefs notes
weber - religion gives birth to capitalism which then kills the religion (no time left!)
religion is a force for social change and that is a good thing
religion is a force for social stability
yes and that's good - functionalists and neo functionalists
but durkehm wasn't writing in a pluralist society - consensus structuralist
malinowski to support, bellah etc
yes and that's a bad thing
marx, opium of masses, spiritual gin etc
evaluate with gramsci - organic intellectuals
liberation theology
feminism - force for female oppression
woodhead criticism , liberating to wear hijab etc, safe from the male gaze
conflict structuralists - marxism and feminists
no, social change and that's a good thing
weber
criticise
no, social change and that's a bad thing
fundamentalism
tries to change society backwards
conclusion - is religion a force for anything? also political, class reasons etc. religion is only one tiny factor in anybody's thinking
categorisation of religious institutions
Church - a religious institution, e.g. Judaism, Islam etc
denomination - sub sect in common church, e.g. orthodox or reform
troeltsch - he differentiates between different types of religious organisations, but it must have 4 key features
must claim monopoly of the truth - its claims are true, others wrong
rigid hierarchy
may have a close relationship with the state (e.g. queen head of church of england) - ecclesia - e.g. day off on good friday
integrated in society - conservative force
troeltsch studies 16th century european churches, PROBLEM - looking at catholicism and judaism. luther doesnm't bring protestantism to germany for a while. Bruce says he's out of date - today there is religious pluralism
Neibur - agrees with troeltsch but amends him - denomination does not claim monopoly of truth, as recognises other ways to worship same religion
others are just as good as religion but choose to do it in a differnet way. possible route to truth, not monopoly
tolerance of other religions facilitated by denominations
reasonably large, formal, but tries to appeal to as many as possible, members are not as loyal as they are to their CHURCH
not necessarily closely linked to state
Breierly
250 different christian denominations in the UK, at start of 21st century e.g. methodists, baptists etc
sects
troeltsch - a small, radical religious movement. almost completely opposite of church, people who are dissastifsifed with mainstream religion may be attracted to sect. born out of confict wuth the church, usually due to church's wealth
sect will either grow into denomination or dry out
tend to rely on charisma of one leader
will always dissapear when the leader dies
david karash, texas, wako
jim jones, people's temple
alternativelly, if the leader dies, the organisation may create a bureacratic structure - becomes a demonation
neibur - sects cannot survive more than a generation ithout changing into a denomination or dissapearing
they have things in common with church - insist on monopoly of truth, in tolerant of other groups. however, no complicated hierarchy, usually just one leader. always small and require total commitment.
totally separate from society, somebody who isn't educated, lack of prospects more likely to join - marginalisation is key factor in joining, haven't found their place in society
voluntary membership as opposed to involuntary membership, e.g. being "spoon fed" religion by family/brought up one way
being born into a sect doesn't work - e.g. most hated family in american
children of joiners can't give same commitment as don't understand teachings, don't consciously decide to join, can only be weaker version of their parents so either dies out/they leave or they just calm down the belief and becomes denomination
nieber - ideology of many sects contains the seeds of it's own destruction. sects with an aesthetic ideal (Work hard to prove how good you are) will encourage their members to work hard and save money. as a result, the members become upwardly mobile. they will no longer want to belong to the sect as they see it only accounts for marginalised members of society. so either sect will change to accomadate and become denomination, or will dissapear
methodists, became a denomination and rejection of society became watered down
another reason a sect may dissapear is murder/mass suicide - e.g. people's temple
growth of sects and cults
between 95 and 2005, number of Scientologists increased from 121800 to 165000 - due to famous people and media presentation, then people research, it was glamourised, cool, trendy, new age
scientologists anyone who has ever attended a meeting or course as a member - clever, more popular, growing
number of moonifactionists (moonies) trebled and now stands at 1200 members - is this reliable?
weber 1922 - sects tend to develop amongst marginalised groups in society, people that sit outside the main stream, people who feel they don't receive any status and economic rewards may feel the sect could offer them, (theodicy of disprivelige - poor more likely to be attracted to this group)
have been around for centuries, current cults appeared at beginning of 20th cent