religion from a feminist, fundamentalist and Marxist perspective

Religion
Functionalist, Marxism, Feminism

Functionalists believe society is a system of integrated parts of social institutions .i.e. religion, family and economy. To see religion from a fuctionalists perspective you have to look at it through society as a hole. Keeping this in mind they emphasise the social nature of religion and the positive functions it serves. They also neglect negative aspects such as religion as a source of oppression of the poor or women which are both the feminist and Marxist views.
Functionalists think order is possible because of social consensus for example shared norms and values. Religious institutions offer that by creating social solidarity in a value consensus.
Emile Durkiem (1912) believed regular shared religion reinforce the collective conscience and maintain social interrelation, reminding people that they are a part of a single moral community, which they owe their loyalty. It’s not just about society as a hole but also giving individuals comfort by making them feel a part of something greater than themselves. With a general belief, that religion strengthens us and motivates us to overcome obstacles that would otherwise overwhelm us.
Talcott Parsons (1951) reinforces Durkiems theory as Parsons see’s religion as helping people to cope with unforeseen events and spontaneous outcomes. It stands for a primary source of meaning by answering ultimate questions about the human condition .i.e. why the good die young? Why the good suffer?. Parsons also believed religion provided this with trials and suffering being a test of faith and you would be rewarded in heaven. This provides society with motivation to keep going day to day. Which helps maintain stability in society.
Wosley (1924-2013) notes there is no sharp division between the sacred and the profane and that different religions share the same totems. Tokenism is a system of belief in which each human is thought to have a spiritual connection or kinship with another. Again reinforces the functionist theory that we all need something to believe in because this stabilizes society.
Although increasing diversity has fragmented the collective conscience. So there is no longer a single shared value system for religion to reinforce .i.e. different religions offer different beliefs for example Islam and Christianity both religions but have complete contradictions of their beliefs and values and how to implement and follow them. This causes conflict not a shared consensus
In comparison to this is functional alternatives to religion and non-religious beliefs and practices. That act in a similar to organised religion, basically reinforcing shared values or maintaining social cohesion. For example other belief systems could perform the same functions. Nazi Germany and the soviet union had a singular political beliefs and rituals around which they sought to unite society.
Both Marxists and feminists disagree with the functionalist’s idea that each institution of society .i.e. religion, family and economy exists purely for the benefit of society itself and for its individual members. They believe that they exists for the benefit of the ruling class either capitalists or men.
Feminists would see the sociological impact of religion in matters of pushing men into the spotlight before women. The idea of men only in clergy and the church being instrumental in the lack of women’s votes would upset a feminist theory.
Feminists argue that across the board in religion there is overwhelming evidence of women being oppressed. Feminists point out four ways in which religion oppresses and subordinates women. Firstly sacred texts as they feature predominantly male gods and profits. As well as being interpreted and written by men. They believe sacred texts put a negative light on women. Women aren’t mentioned much in the bible but when they are for example Mary Magdalene was featured as a repentant prostitute and eve the temptress. A contradiction to this is virgin Mary who is positively portrayed. but however, this is ignored.
Another point was places of worship. Most of the time women are segregated or marginalised (poor seating due to male priority). Jean Holmes (1994) refers to this as the devaluation of women in contemporary religion. Even though, majority of the time women tend to be more active worshippers than men.
Thirdly religious laws and customs, Because women tend to get less rights then men. Also the influence in which a country is ran. Woodhead (2002) argues excluding women from the priesthood indicates a deeper seeded unease in the church about the emancipation of women. Although in some religions now women can be priests.
Finally religious organisations most of which are mostly run by men.in most cases women cant become official religious leaders. Except for new age religions, like feng shui and crystal healing that are primarily dominated by women and not at all oppressive. But these are “new age” religions not contemporary ones.
Its hasn’t always been like this though. Karen Armstrong (1993) says women have not always been subordinate to men in religion. Women once dominated religion for example fertility cults and women priesthoods. It was the rise of male dominated religions such as Islam and Christianity that lead to women being oppressed in religion.
Functionalists would argue that religion is not at all oppressive in fact they believe it helps women to know their gender role by this creating, creating social cohesion wikipeda defines this as a group is said to be in a state of cohesion when its members possess bonds linking them to one another and the group as a hole an example of this would be the Philippines disaster in this time of need the Redcross and Christian aid both help organisations one religious. That has brought together mass groups across the board to help in a crisis. A prime example of the benefits of a collective consensus and faith. On the other hand Marxists would argue that its the working class that are really oppressed by religion not women.
Marxism see’s all society as divided into two classes. Bourgeoisie the ruling class that owns the means of production and the proletarian who sell their labour for a wage .i.e. the poor class. Which exists in a capitalist system. Which Marxism dosent agree with. As they feel one class exploits the other.
The Marxist theory o religion has to be looked at in a context of a general view of society as a hole. They believe that religion is only a feature of a class-divided society. Prominently benefiting the rich. Whilst the poor get left to have faith that the end result makes the suffering bearable .i.e. heaven. Although Marxists truely believe there will be no need for religion if capitalism is abolished. As Marxists predict that the working class will realise they are being ultimately exploited and they will rise up and overthrow capitalism and in this case religion will disappear entirely.
Karl Marx (1844) religion is the sign of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of the soulless conditions. He referred to it as the opium of the people. Marxist theory from his writings in the nineteenth century suggested that religion was the opium of the people as he saw it as an illusion or even an hallucinatory drug. As it attempts to justify existing arrangements throughout society and encouraging people to accept them. He saw this being mostly portrayed in two ways.
Firstly Marx (1846) believed religion justified inequalities in income and power in society. For example explaining the position of rich and poor as “the will of god”. In essence it’s just a way to make people except their position in society. Secondly Marx believed religion gave the poor comfort and provided a distraction or even explanation for their plights and trials through life. With a promise that have faith and you will be rewarded in heaven. Almost a sign to the poor, don’t seek better you will be rewarded in the afterlife. Marx thought the rich only benefited. Since the poor were encouraged to find “salvation”.
Feminist agree a lot with Marxism but their belief that religion is based upon patriarchy. So in this world everything is designed for men. According to Brenner a tool to reinforce feminist movement is to gain political, religious and economical power. Whereas Marxism mostly believes in powerful and powerless. Which doesn’t really distinguish sex and gender. More believe women are the nurtures and men the providers.
Functionalists however see’s religion as something that contributes to meeting the fundamental needs for society to function. Whereas Marxism don’t really think we need it and eventually due to a future classless society. Its will have no place.