Religion social destruction rather than harmony

Assess the sociological argument and evidence to support the claim that religion is a source of division rather than harmony in society.
Conflict theorists would argue that organized religion, though originally created to fulfil basic human needs, has distorted into an organization with one purpose that is to preserve the power centre. Conflict theorists also assert that religion operates to preserve the wealthy and the powerful in their privileged positions, agreeing this Functionalist’s viewpoint on religion would be that it contributes to meeting the fundamental needs for society to function. It is a force that provides social order and social solidarity in times of need.
Famous sociologist Emile Durkheim defines religion as a unified system of beliefs and practices, which are relative to sacred things. Durkheim found totemism to be the most basic form of religion within Aborigine tribes. Their society was divided up into several clans, each with their own totem to worship, but the totem is a sacred visible symbol of god and the clan, so the clan worship their society as well as god. Durkheim also said that the primitive man comes to view society as something sacred because he is completely dependent upon it. So society is the real object of religious worship. From this, the worship of society strengthens shared values and beliefs and by defining them as sacred religion provides them with greater power to direct human actions. Collective worship through rituals also reinforces values and beliefs, as it is a shared expression of these, Thus reinforcing the collective conscience. Malinowski also touches on the topic of shared expression and reinforcing values and beliefs. However Durkheim does ignore the darker side of society in the conflicting values and physical conflict between its members.
Functionalists see that religion creates social solidarity and stability through rites, rituals, and guidelines. On the other hand though, Marxists see religion as a conservative force, like functionalists, but promoting Ruling class ideologies and false class-consciousness. However whilst functionalists argue that the effects of religion are beneficial to every member of society, Marxists being a conflict theory say that it functions to benefit societies more powerful members at the expense of those with less power. Marxists see religion as creating conflict and oppression.
Marxists see religion as an ideological apparatus that reproduces and maintains legitimate class inequality and also describes religion as the opium of the people. It breaks the working class into a sense of false class-consciousness by making their exploitation unbeknown to them. There are 3 key functions as to religion maintaining class inequality. Legitimating social inequality is the religious belief that the existing hierarchy is God-given and unchangeable. This can be seen during the feudal period when it was believed that kings had a divine right to rule, and were chosen by the sun, consequently given the name the sun king. They believed that god created the rich and the poor and god gave their land to them. It has been noted by Marx that the Hymn ‘all things bright and beautiful’ contains subliminal hints, which influence the class inequality. ‘The rich man at his castle, the poor man at his gate, god made them high or low, and gave them their estate’. This is strange as most Christian religious followers would sing this hymn, yet most would not want inequality, yet it is obviously stated in this popular hymn. The second function is distinguishing the true nature of exploitation. Marxists believe Religion explains the economic and social inequalities in supernatural terms, ignoring the exploitation by ruling class and just insisting inequality is a punishment by God. However in Marx terms inequality occurs due to ruling class ideologies being promoted by major social influences. The third function identified by Marx as being a major characteristic of religion is keeping the working class passive and resigned to their fate. In certain religions, poverty and suffering is presented to be a virtue welcomed as normal, as it is suggested that those who do not question their situation will be rewarded with a place in heaven. It keeps people waiting for some kind of divine intervention. So Marxists say that religion produces passive and fatalistic people accepting their suggested fate.
Malinowski sees religion as reinforcing social norms and values and promoting social solidarity, but he challenges Durkheim, as he doesn’t see religion as a reflection of society or certain rituals as a worship of society, more that it is concerned with certain areas of social life. He has identified two specific areas, religion and life crisis being the first one. This is based around life crises such as birth, death, puberty, that can disrupt general social life. All of these crises are surrounded with religious ritual, such as death and a funeral. In Malinowski’s eyes it, expresses the belief in immortality and comforts the bereaved. Also with the presence of all the family and friends at the funeral support the mourner and help them to control their stress through the expression of solidarity. The second feature is religious prediction and control, which relates to several other parts of life that cannot be fully controlled or predicted by practical means. This in turn can cause tension and anxiety within some people. Religious rituals surround many of these. Malinowski saw these rituals as magic, whereas most others would see them as a method to reduce anxiety, instil confidence, and give control over a situation. But it basically provides a feeling of control over unpredictable events; such as fishing rituals are events where a group unites to deal with stress of the bad weather. It provides a form of social order to situations, similar to what parsons argued. Malinowski’s view shares some ideas with Marx in that both view religion as a force that acts to numb pain. However Malinowski believes it eases the stresses of life rather than the exploitation that life brings upon the unsuspecting.
Post modernists do not agree to the functionalist perspective of religion as its theory is based upon the idea that the only one religion is hold within one state. They look upon at the religious plurality, London being the major example. In a multicultural state like London, there is a pick and mix culture, as people in the multicultural society would pick their own ideas. Modernization and industrialization tend to create a plurality of cultural and religious groups. This reminds individuals that their beliefs are a matter of personal choice and no longer part and parcel of their membership of society. Sociologist Bruce (2002), argues that strong religion, which dominates people’s lives cannot be widespread in a fragmented society. He further argues that weak religion which is a matter of personal choice and does not claim to be the only legitimate religion is more suited in a fragmented society. Some sociologist argues that religious pluralism is not incompatible with a society in which religion thrives. It is not necessary for everyone to share the same beliefs for religion to be important. One of the contemporary examples being this can be taken as Northern Ireland, where Roman Catholicism had been associated with the Irish Republicanism.
Parsons upholds the view that human action is directed and controlled by the norms provided by the social system of religion. For example the 10 commandments provide guidelines on how we should live our lives and is also the value consensus for social order. Therefore he shows us that the norms of society are integrated by religious beliefs e.g. ‘treat unto others as they would be treated themselves’ integrates norms of being kind and generous to one another, giving guidance in certain situations. Malinowski suggested that religion addresses certain problems in everyday life that cause stress, which implies that life in everyday, is without stress. However Talcott Parsons argues that stress is present in everyday life and religion can help people alleviate this stress. Unforeseen events placing people in unpleasant circumstances, like pregnancy death, can be explained in religious context and help people deal with the stress. Parsons also argues that one of the main functions of religion is to make sense of all experiences by explaining them. It is meant to give meaning to the least meaningful experiences of life such as suffering, this can be explained as God testing a person’s faith, or this is their punishment for their sins. This promotes social order and stability.
Marx rejects the idea, proposed by parsons, that religion provides answers to life’s questions, instead he sees it as a drug to ease the pain of exploitation. ‘Religion is the opium of the people’. On the other hand, Neo-Marxist Anthony Gramsci was fully aware of the control that the church had wielded against its members, but had located a form of revolution within the controlling reach of upper class rulers. He referred to the control as hegemony, whereby a powerful group alters the consciousness of another group in society. Gramsci found that at different points in history, admired forms of religion had emerged that supported the interests of the working class. From this he accepted that there could be a possibility that religious beliefs and practices could develop and be made admirable by working class intellectuals, made to challenge the dominant ideology of the ruling class.
Like Marxists, feminists focus on one aspect of religion at the expense of all others. They generalize about religion about it being oppressive and ignore the difference between religions. They believe that religion serves the interest of patriarchy. Sociologist De Beauvoir argues that religion gives women a false belief that their suffering will be rewarded in heaven. It declines women into thinking that they are equal to men whilst in reality they are disadvantaged as the second sex. On the other hand, El Saadawi criticizes De Beavoir and accepts that women are exploited through religion, for example, Islamic men in some countries use religion to justify barbaric practices such as “female circumcision”. However, El Saadawi believes it is not religion itself which is to blame, because Islam does not actually support practices which oppress women. The real problem is the manipulation and misinterpretation of religious teachings by men for their own benefits. Therefore, religion in feminists view is a complete source of division rather than harmony.