Explanations of religion and its relationship to social change.
Please explain here which explanation of religion's relationship to social change you most favour (based on the evidence you have reviewed) and your reasoning. Thank you. Mr C
I most favour the feminists view on religion and it's relationship to social change because there is evidence that legislation towards change within religion for women with the legalisation of abortion and contraception etc. However, this can have no affect on the Church's -and people as a whole- attitudes towards these changes. Orthodox christains still believe that abortion is wrong and that life begins at the moment of contraception and that it is basically murder. This is a prime example of the laws being changed to fit women's needs however, in reality some religions still look down upon women following the law and like to follow a more 'traditional' view on how women behave and so this proves that they do prefer to maintain the status quo rather that adapt to social change. This is why I mostly favour this view.
I also most support the feminist view on religion and the effect it has had on social change because like Leah said there is a lot of evidence change with in religion on behalf of the women within society. For example The Catholic Church's position on contraception was formally explained and expressed by Pope Paul VI in 1968. Artificial contraception is considered intrinsically evil, but methods of natural family planning are morally permissible in some circumstances, as they do not usurp the natural way of conception. However there is still in equality between men and women within religion. Garry Wills argues that the last two popes stressed that male priesthood is our tradition and that men and women are equal but that they have different roles and it is the men’s role to preach.
I think that the feminist view is the best explanation of religions relationship to social change as they can be seen to heavily influence one another, for example, Catholics before their change in approach to these topics they were often been criticised by the rest of society for their 'hard-line' view on contraception, then in 2009 Pope Benedict in 'Light of the world' stated that "the use of condoms is acceptable in exceptional circumstances", which in turn changed the views of many. This would suggest that in terms of Catholicism religion and social change are heavily linked. also there have been many changes in the law to make men and women equal, for example making divorce and the right to apply for a divorce more viable for women. Overall the church has been supporting the changes in the law for equal rights for women (allowing female priests etc.) and the feminist view bests explains this.
There are a number of religious movements which have managed to bring about social change. For instance In the US; Reverend Martin Luther King Junior played a leading role in establishing civil rights or In Poland the Roman catholic church opposed the communist state and supported the free trade union solidarity. Also in the 1960’s radical groups emerged within the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America - preaching liberation theology, arguing that is was the duty of church members to fight against unjust and oppressive right-wing dictatorships although later condemned by Pope John Paul II it still aided social change. Yet the church still fail to stress equality in some traditional views such as women rights. Admittedly some of the strict religious rules have lapsed over time, however how much of this change would have occurred if society hadn't developed in the way it has? For example; Talcott parsons claims that as society has developed, religion has lost some of its functions via the process of secularisation. Marx claims that changes in the economic base of society will lead to changes in the superstructure of society, including religion, and Post-modernists would argue that increased Globalisation and multiculturalism has caused religious status to become undermined. This presents the argument that any social change brought about isn't because of internal views within the church but more because society is changing and without the church keeping up it will lose support and therefore collapse as an institution.
I personally agree with the idea of secularisation and the idea that religion has lost many of its functions and hence its power. The Marxist Ernst Bloch therefore presents a solid argument; the view that religious beliefs may create a vision of a better world and when combined with effective political organisation and leadership it can bring about social change however on it's own in western societies especially where religion no longer plays a central role, it doesn't have enough power to bring about social change on it own accord. (Ernst Bloch: the principle of hope)
I believe in Marx's view that religion is used by capitalists to stop or slow social change and keep the Status quo unless economic or material factors drove it. Marxists could use evidence such as the stance of successive popes against contraception has limited the use of artificial birth control in many catholic countries. In this case, religion created a value consensus that contraception should not be used. In support of Marxist views of religion, the caste system of India was justified by Hindu religious beliefs. As well as this, in the medieval England, Kings ruled by “divine right”, and as a result, no one questioned their power. Such examples are strong support for the view that religion is a conservative force and rather keeps the status quo by giving people a reason why there should be no social change.
An example against this could be Martin Luther kings jr. fought against racism in america and caused a large social change. However, Marxists could say that this Social change actually helped the Capitalists as it meant they would gain more money (Black people stopped using buses in protest, which caused a huge decrease in income - after the social change they used it again and thus capitalists gained money)
I think this shows that Capitalists use religion as a way of controlling and stopping social change by using it to take moral high ground and control the lower classes.
I would argue that feminism is the best way to explain religion’s relationship with social change because many aspects of social change that religion has been involved in (largely to do with maintaining the status quo) relate strongly to stopping progress in equality for women, as well as, more generally, the right of the individual to have sex before marriage and get divorced etc. A key example of this is the Catholic Church and it’s solid stance against premarital sex, contraception and divorce. The Catholic Church’s attitude towards social change supports the feminist idea that religion is used to subjugate women and perpetuate inequality. This is also supported by the fact that religion creates and promotes different kinds of social change. For example, the Civil rights movement in America which brought about improved rights for the black community could not have happened without the vital assistance of the church. This suggests that religion is generally in favour of social change but supports the feminist stance that religion also serves to subjugate women. Because of this, the feminist viewpoint is the best means of understanding religion and it’s role in social change.
I am of the view that feminism is the best explanation of religion and social change, with the maintaining of the status quo, and in some cases going against social change. Arguably decisions in recent years have effected social change regarding women, and their roles domestically, socially and within the church. Controversial issues such as contraception were openly opposed by some religions with some taking a more hard stance than others. Roman Catholics have been against contraception with it being labelled as 'going against the wishes of God'. General social attitudes have in the past complimented this, however 1961 saw contraception become available to all under the NHS. This legislative change was an important social change but the Roman Catholic church are not moving on or adapting to modern understanding, keeping their view of 'natural contraception' being the best thing. 1967 saw the legalisation of abortion, and this arguably again gave the rights back to women. Previously there was a religious shame over abortion and many religions took a hard view, and would not allow women affiliated with their church to abort a child. This law changed the social attitude and gave room for women not to feel like it was such a morally wrong thing. The Church of England see this as a serious topic and one that goes against moral law. Social change, however, has given room to the suggestion that at times abortion may be the better thing for the mother and/or the unborn child. (e.g If the mother is a victim of rape). The attitudes held also towards women's rights to priesthood, resist the idea of change (within Roman Catholicism) even though there has been widespread social change and the acceptance of women preaching. Feminists believe that religions sole purpose is to act as a control over women, and these points back this view up. This can be interpreted further by the fact that other elements of social change have actually been supported by religious groups and churches like the Roman Catholics and Church of England, however when regarding change to the role and rights of women these aspects of status quo don't want to be strayed from. We can therefore suggest that the feminist viewpoint is most accurate when concerning change within society.
I most favour the feminists view on religion and it's relationship to social change because there is evidence that legislation towards change within religion for women with the legalisation of abortion and contraception etc. However, this can have no affect on the Church's -and people as a whole- attitudes towards these changes. Orthodox christains still believe that abortion is wrong and that life begins at the moment of contraception and that it is basically murder. This is a prime example of the laws being changed to fit women's needs however, in reality some religions still look down upon women following the law and like to follow a more 'traditional' view on how women behave and so this proves that they do prefer to maintain the status quo rather that adapt to social change. This is why I mostly favour this view.
ReplyDeleteI also most support the feminist view on religion and the effect it has had on social change because like Leah said there is a lot of evidence change with in religion on behalf of the women within society. For example The Catholic Church's position on contraception was formally explained and expressed by Pope Paul VI in 1968. Artificial contraception is considered intrinsically evil, but methods of natural family planning are morally permissible in some circumstances, as they do not usurp the natural way of conception. However there is still in equality between men and women within religion. Garry Wills argues that the last two popes stressed that male priesthood is our tradition and that men and women are equal but that they have different roles and it is the men’s role to preach.
ReplyDeleteI think that the feminist view is the best explanation of religions relationship to social change as they can be seen to heavily influence one another, for example, Catholics before their change in approach to these topics they were often been criticised by the rest of society for their 'hard-line' view on contraception, then in 2009 Pope Benedict in 'Light of the world' stated that "the use of condoms is acceptable in exceptional circumstances", which in turn changed the views of many. This would suggest that in terms of Catholicism religion and social change are heavily linked. also there have been many changes in the law to make men and women equal, for example making divorce and the right to apply for a divorce more viable for women. Overall the church has been supporting the changes in the law for equal rights for women (allowing female priests etc.) and the feminist view bests explains this.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhoops
DeleteThere are a number of religious movements which have managed to bring about social change. For instance In the US; Reverend Martin Luther King Junior played a leading role in establishing civil rights or In Poland the Roman catholic church opposed the communist state and supported the free trade union solidarity. Also in the 1960’s radical groups emerged within the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America - preaching liberation theology, arguing that is was the duty of church members to fight against unjust and oppressive right-wing dictatorships although later condemned by Pope John Paul II it still aided social change. Yet the church still fail to stress equality in some traditional views such as women rights. Admittedly some of the strict religious rules have lapsed over time, however how much of this change would have occurred if society hadn't developed in the way it has? For example; Talcott parsons claims that as society has developed, religion has lost some of its functions via the process of secularisation. Marx claims that changes in the economic base of society will lead to changes in the superstructure of society, including religion, and Post-modernists would argue that increased Globalisation and multiculturalism has caused religious status to become undermined. This presents the argument that any social change brought about isn't because of internal views within the church but more because society is changing and without the church keeping up it will lose support and therefore collapse as an institution.
ReplyDeleteI personally agree with the idea of secularisation and the idea that religion has lost many of its functions and hence its power. The Marxist Ernst Bloch therefore presents a solid argument; the view that religious beliefs may create a vision of a better world and when combined with effective political organisation and leadership it can bring about social change however on it's own in western societies especially where religion no longer plays a central role, it doesn't have enough power to bring about social change on it own accord. (Ernst Bloch: the principle of hope)
I believe in Marx's view that religion is used by capitalists to stop or slow social change and keep the Status quo unless economic or material factors drove it. Marxists could use evidence such as the stance of successive popes against contraception has limited the use of artificial birth control in many catholic countries. In this case, religion created a value consensus that contraception should not be used. In support of Marxist views of religion, the caste system of India was justified by Hindu religious beliefs. As well as this, in the medieval England, Kings ruled by “divine right”, and as a result, no one questioned their power. Such examples are strong support for the view that religion is a conservative force and rather keeps the status quo by giving people a reason why there should be no social change.
ReplyDeleteAn example against this could be Martin Luther kings jr. fought against racism in america and caused a large social change. However, Marxists could say that this Social change actually helped the Capitalists as it meant they would gain more money (Black people stopped using buses in protest, which caused a huge decrease in income - after the social change they used it again and thus capitalists gained money)
I think this shows that Capitalists use religion as a way of controlling and stopping social change by using it to take moral high ground and control the lower classes.
I would argue that feminism is the best way to explain religion’s relationship with social change because many aspects of social change that religion has been involved in (largely to do with maintaining the status quo) relate strongly to stopping progress in equality for women, as well as, more generally, the right of the individual to have sex before marriage and get divorced etc. A key example of this is the Catholic Church and it’s solid stance against premarital sex, contraception and divorce. The Catholic Church’s attitude towards social change supports the feminist idea that religion is used to subjugate women and perpetuate inequality. This is also supported by the fact that religion creates and promotes different kinds of social change. For example, the Civil rights movement in America which brought about improved rights for the black community could not have happened without the vital assistance of the church. This suggests that religion is generally in favour of social change but supports the feminist stance that religion also serves to subjugate women. Because of this, the feminist viewpoint is the best means of understanding religion and it’s role in social change.
ReplyDeleteI am of the view that feminism is the best explanation of religion and social change, with the maintaining of the status quo, and in some cases going against social change. Arguably decisions in recent years have effected social change regarding women, and their roles domestically, socially and within the church. Controversial issues such as contraception were openly opposed by some religions with some taking a more hard stance than others. Roman Catholics have been against contraception with it being labelled as 'going against the wishes of God'. General social attitudes have in the past complimented this, however 1961 saw contraception become available to all under the NHS. This legislative change was an important social change but the Roman Catholic church are not moving on or adapting to modern understanding, keeping their view of 'natural contraception' being the best thing. 1967 saw the legalisation of abortion, and this arguably again gave the rights back to women. Previously there was a religious shame over abortion and many religions took a hard view, and would not allow women affiliated with their church to abort a child. This law changed the social attitude and gave room for women not to feel like it was such a morally wrong thing. The Church of England see this as a serious topic and one that goes against moral law. Social change, however, has given room to the suggestion that at times abortion may be the better thing for the mother and/or the unborn child. (e.g If the mother is a victim of rape). The attitudes held also towards women's rights to priesthood, resist the idea of change (within Roman Catholicism) even though there has been widespread social change and the acceptance of women preaching. Feminists believe that religions sole purpose is to act as a control over women, and these points back this view up. This can be interpreted further by the fact that other elements of social change have actually been supported by religious groups and churches like the Roman Catholics and Church of England, however when regarding change to the role and rights of women these aspects of status quo don't want to be strayed from. We can therefore suggest that the feminist viewpoint is most accurate when concerning change within society.
ReplyDelete