Assess the view that religious beliefs and practices are changing to reflect a new era of diversity and choice In recent years, there has been evidence to support the fact that religious beliefs and practices are declining. However, this evidence has been challenged and argued against with 3 different alternatives to this theory: postmodernity, religious market theory and the existential security theory. Some sociologists that support these theories, who oppose to the view of secularisation, believe that religion is simply changing to reflect changes taking place in society, not declining. The changes in religion are largely the result of changes in wider society, such as greater individualism and consumerism, or even a shift from modern to late modern or postmodern society. Davie takes on a more privatised form and argues against the secularisation theory.
The Secular Worldview Today I would describe the secular world view toady as being more optimistic. The realities of the war in the 20th century and the threats of war have extended to the 21st century. Instead of major wars like the first and the second world wars, the 21st wars have been characterized by relatively regional but deadly wars with one of the leading causes being religion differences. Among other past reasons for conflicts, religion has played the role of dividing people and creating militancy in form of Hinduism, Islamism and Zionism. In my view, the secularization of the worldview has acted as a uniting factor by establishing a common ground for the exchange of ideas and technology.
It is also blatantly evident that in the past Radical Islamists have taken several major acts of terrorism and violence in an attempt to achieve these goals. It is because of these things that Radical Islam is considered by many, as a threat to world security. The core belief of Radical Islam is to gain complete control of the world and to do so by any means necessary, clearly outlining that Radical Islam is a threat to world security. Radical Islamists draw on the beliefs of Islam and consider their actions as the will of Allah, which calls for his followers to bring the world to him, somewhat like Christianity, however Radical Islamists take a much different and more destructive route in achieving this goal. An Al Qaeda training manual clearly outlined that “Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it” which is essentially stating that if people don’t agree with their beliefs, they do not believe in a peaceful resolution, but prefer to use the “dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun”.
By not understanding how a Muslims leads their life in accordance to their religion, allows people to think mistakenly about them especially as to what they hear around them towards Muslims. These false assumptions lead to false accusations encouraging people to believe the worst of Muslims. A simple way to navigate around these improper persuasions is to educate people as well as to bring about awareness for Islam. Informing the public the truth about Islam can eliminate racism, allowing people to judge for themselves what they truly believe is right or wrong. There are many sources as to why Americans believe what they hear about Islam.
This is demonstrated through the questionable policies such as Brinkmanship, Massive retaliation, and how the culture of paranoia and secrecy caused both sides to constantly create more nuclear weapons to feel protected against the other side. The role of each side reacting to the other during the nuclear arms race proved to be a threat to world peace. One crucial feature of the race was the difference between what each side perceived of the other, and what the actual reality was. It is clear that mutual over estimation of each side’s capabilities led to an environment in which the usual mood was to increase their own arsenal, based on the assumption that the opposing side was superior. This resulted in a reaction from the other side on the assumption that the opposing side was building up to gain a measure of superiority.
It’s important to address this danger, and although faith can certainly create the benefits described in How God Changes Your Brain, it’s irresponsible to ignore that faith, being a psychological tool, can be used for both positive and negative means. A good part of How God Changes Your Brain is the author’s respect for people who do not share their beliefs. The book is more an explanation for why people like religion, rather than an argument for religion’s existence. Changes Your Brain doesn’t use literary prowess to emphasize a strong tone, but rather keeps a level and clear voice throughout the book, it has the opposite the tone of a preacher. I wish that the book addressed why some people firmly reject or accept faith, on a psychological basis.
The New Right believe that state benefits should be cut and social policy targeted to discourage family diversity and promote marriage and the nuclear family. Robert Chester (1985) recognises that there has been some increased family diversity in recent years. However, unlike the New Right he does not regard this as very significant, nor does he see it in a negative light. He argues that the only important change is a more from the dominance of the traditional or conventional nuclear family, to what he
The sources offer evidence both to support and challenge the stated view. Taken at face value, Source 3 seems to present the greatest support for the view that the Pilgrimage was borne out of religious motivation, with the Oath taken by Pilgrims stressing aspects of faith and denying other motives for joining. Both Sources 1 and 2 suggest elements of grievance over religious issues. However, in Source 1 the focus is more on the consequences of the suppression of religious houses. Source 2 links with this, also suggesting the rebellion may be utilised in stopping further changes in religious matters.
Instead, it is the political, social, and economic standing of so many Muslims and the domination of Western countries that result in the extremism of Islamism. It is important that Westerners learn to distinguish between Islam and Islamism and also understand the reasons behind the development of extremist factions of Islamism. Islamism, sometimes referred to as fundamentalist Islam, is the view that Islam is not just a religion, but also a political and legal system that should govern a state. Islamists usually reject influences outside of Islam and hold particular hostility against the West. Gerges explains, “Muslims and ‘Islamists’ do not agree on what Islam is, let alone its role and function in governing their lives.
This is often thought to involve a belief in a god or gods, but this is not the case in all religious beliefs. The central meaning of ‘religion’ is, in fact, simply the way in which shared beliefs establish regulations, rules or bonds of obligation among the members of a community. This essay is going to highlight some of the ways in which religion serves in the interests of the powerful in society. Durkheim argues that the main function of religion is to promote social stability because when people have the same beliefs, they often have the same norms and values. However, Karl Marx argues that religion the opiate of the masses therefore it distracts the attention from the possibility of taking action to improve the social world by making false promises about the happy and satisfying life after death in the next world, which in turn gives the rich and powerful the ability to oppress the working class without guilt.