Religion as a Conservative Force Essay

Marx warned that religion was like a narcotic: It dulled people’s pain so they did not realize how serious the situation was. He claimed that it kept that classes in order as well. Marx believed that religion had been institutionalize to undermine the masses impulse to resist exploitation and change the social order.

Even though Marx acknowledged the comforting role of religion, he focused on its repressive, restraining qualities which help to maintain the 'status quo'. He suggested that often religion provides justification for inequalities of wealth and power and argues that we must free ourselves and not fear the gods we have created. He argued that religion prevents people from challenging the source of their oppression and provides them with a 'false consciousness'. People believe they will be compensated for their suffering in the next world. Like Functionalists, Marxists agree social institutions control and socialise individuals but

In the past few years, Karl Marx has been increasingly incorporated in general sociology though his ideas are briefly mentioned or totally ignored in certain specialties in the sociological field. One of the major sociological specialties where Marx's ideas have been briefly mentioned is the sociology of religion. The sociology of religion only consists of few references to Marx's concepts and views though he accorded much significance to religion. Regardless of the minimal use, Marx made several claims on religion based on his views including the assertion that religion serves as a platform for reinforcement of exploitative social structures.

Following the Industrial Revolution in 19th century Europe, change was in full swing and religion began to have different meanings for different people. The upper-class citizens used Religion, namely Christianity, and the power that it possessed in an attempt to keep their high status in society, while the lower class turned to faith so that their lives could possibly improve. Instead of religion being the cornerstone of faith and worship amongst all people, it was being used for power and money by the upper class. Even worse, religious leaders were using the upper class people as well, gaining money and authority from their endorsement. A man by the name of Karl Marx saw

Marx see's religious beliefs as a form of ideology that serves to prevent any revolutionary consciousness and increases levels of false consciousness

Durkheim and Marx looked at religion as an institution. Religion is an institution that has had a persistent impact in society. Both have studied religion and its effects on society. However, Durkheim has a functionalist point of view, compared to Marx, who sees religion as a cause of conflict. A functionalist point of view sees religion as a tool of cohesion. As a conflict, religion is only a tool of oppression and provides a momentary relief that allows the continuation of class

Feminists see religion as a conservative force because it acts as an ideology that legitimates patriarchal power and maintains women’s subordination in the family and wider society.

Both Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim formulate similar sociological theories regarding the epistemology and origin of religion and religious beliefs. Both thinkers acknowledge a necessary connection between community and religion. As antagonistic, functionalist thinkers, both Marx and Durkheim maintain that “God” or the “divine”, is merely a projection of human beings highest ideals and greatest characteristics creating a “God” like illusion. That is, we project the qualities we most admire in human beings onto a fiction that is what we call “God”. (Class notes) Both Marx and Durkheim share with Feuerbach insofar as “man makes religion, religion does not make man.” (Class notes) However, although they share in their beliefs regarding the origin of religion, both Marx and Durkheim differ respectively with regards to the ultimate function religion serves in society. While Durkheim sees religion as serving a positive function, uniting individuals in society, Marx regards religion as an oppressive institution which society must rid itself of. The purpose of this paper then, is to compare and contrast both Marx and Durkheim’s similar, yet, however divergent beliefs concerning religion and the purpose it serves in society.

After Donald Trump’s shocking victory, Democrats and liberals have much soul searching to do about their strategy, platform, and base moving forward. But equally important, we need to take a hard look at what tenants of liberalism we did not embrace in this election. We must not only ask ourselves how our campaign against racism, sexism, and jingoism failed in this election, but what other tenants of our beliefs we sacrificed along the way.

When members of some religions or religious groups have more access to the wealth, power, prestige and other resources of society than do members of other religions or religious groups, this will lead to stratification. Karl Marx applied conflict theory to be more understand the relationship between religion and social class. Conflict analysis viewed that religion is a source of conflict that stratifies society. Marx argued that religion is a tool which helps maintain the status quo in society by making the lower classes content with promises of great rewards in the life after death. Marx explained that the quotes “religion is the opium of the people” proved that religion maintain social stratification. This quotes mean that religion tends to prevent people from having their own opinions and make people easily to be controlled. Marx strongly emphasize that all rewards and happiness promised by religion are merely illusions. He says that people should ignore all the unrealistic words or any promises from the religions to be not trap inside the illusions. But, indeed of it, people have their responsibilities to work hard themselves to get rewards for their own life. In the other hand, Karl Marx used the terms “opiate of the masses” to describe how religion look at poverty issue. Marx described that religion like a drug that make people always happy with their existing

Marxian assessment appears accurate in many instances, Religion’s stabilizing effect has often been economically dysfunctional for subjected people by consoling those who are frustrated and deprived; religion may inhibit protest and social change which would result in a more unbiased society. ‘by postponing reforms, this effect of religion can contribute to the build-up of explosive resentments which eventually result in revolution and in more costly and destructive changes’ (O’Dea, 1966). Basically, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim agreed on the way in which religion functions in society. Religion unites people around common values and

Within Marx’ understanding of religion, ideologies of religious institutions, along with all other social institutions, are based on the economic relations found in society. Under the current economic conditions of modern capitalism, religious ideologies are used to normalize and promote the interests and values of the owners of the means of production (the bourgeoisie). Simultaneously, in addition to legitimating the control and power of the bourgeoisie, religion promotes complacency among the laboring/working class (the proletariat) by imbuing material social conditions with otherworldly explanations and justifications. Religion, according to Marx, is a tool by the oppressive class to maintain the status quo of existing power structures and continued social domination of the oppressed through a mystical and divine rationale. The declining power of religious institutions (in rationalized society) results in the transfer of this legitimizing process in other areas of social life – such as through political institutions and

The view that religion acts as a conservative force stems from the structuralist theories of Functionalism and Marxism. Both see religion as facilitating the existence of society in its current form,

Religion and politics have been inextricably intertwined since the creation of culture and civilization. However, the academic tradition often times has been to focus on the importance of placing religion and politics into two distinctly separate systems. I, however, argue that it isn 't as black and white as that. In many of the readings we have been assigned this quarter thus far, religion and politics have gone hand in hand mutually benefiting one another. As shown in these readings, religion can and does enforce good behavior and the upholding of societal laws, often times it is what reinforces social acceptability. In this paper, I will first attempt to analyze the ways in which E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Clifford Geertz, Victor Turner and Jean Comaroff approach the idea of religion and politics as ordered reality. I will then examine the ways in which they are similar and dissimilar to each other while also addressing the benefits and drawbacks of separating religion and politics.

Karl Marx quoted “religion is the opiate of masses.” He believed the bourgeoisie class used religion as a means to control and oppress the proletariat class; however, the governing system may have evolved in the past years, the theory is still applicable to majority of societies today. Individuals who occupy powerful positions within society often resort to using religion as means to subjugate and oppress the people belonging to minority groups; the most transparent example is the birth of caste system within the religious dogmas of Hinduism which is demonizing the Indian society still today. Implementation of religion in social and political institutions is a method powerful people use to legitimize their oppression, which creates further havoc upon the society; because it is no longer administered by a neutral governing body, consequently it is serving the interests of few powerful individuals, meanwhile ignoring the rest of the populace. The unbalance created by religion continually disturbs all facets of society, be it political, or social sphere; the result is ongoing tension among the inhabitants eventually leading to revolutionary mindset. The separation of religion and state is an integral element in securing a society in which all are treated equally under the law,