Secularization by Steve Bruce, Coursework Example

Bruce says D. “No, secularization is not inevitable in any society or around the world; rather, the evidence shows (a)wherever the modernization process of the West are repeated, the result for religion has been and will be the similar secularization, (b) modernization processes are not inevitable, but (c) where modernization occurs and causes secularization is irreversible.” Bruce argues that secularization is happening and has happened already. He argues that no sociologist has determined that secularization is inevitable. Once modernization occurs, it is irreversible.

The very title of Steve Bruce’s book validates there are many who do not support or share the same theories regarding secularization. Peter Berger holds his own views on secularization. He believed that the modern West has opened the door for individuals to be allowed to look to their own lives and the world void of religious interpretations. Paul Tillich shares different views on secularization than that of Bruce. It is argued that the majority of the counters to the paradigm of secularization are grounded on the belief that individuals are basically religious. Religion is not considered a social accomplishment, it is actually an innate biological needs. It definitely supports the critic’s views of Bruce perhaps exaggerating the true reality of secularization.

Bruce’s evidence that refutes his critic’s position is based on the paradigm, meaning that there are multiple layers not just one idea. The support that Bruce adds in response to his critics definitely describes the world accurately. According to Bruce there has been a long-term decline in prestige of religious beliefs or rituals, power, and popularity as well. Modernization had its hand in this shift, but more so the individualism of what society viewed as a liberal democracy. Secularization can be challenged when religion becomes intertwined with nationalism, ethnicity, or even modernization. This creates a potential for misunderstanding of the secularization paradigm. This would dictate that atheism is rapidly spreading, when that is not at all the case. It actually means that religious indifferences are growing, not being opposed.
Steve Bruce’s arguments are far more persuasive because they are validated by the actions of society of the past, and the present. Steve does not necessarily have a side for which he stands on the merits of secularization. He merely documents the process and consequences that are presented in the modern culture facing secularization. Social powers are weakened by the struggle associated with mixing children with the faith. One common religion has dissolves and will continue to dissolve as new religions are being mixed into society. Practicing ones religion without reservation is what society demands, it is what is best for them. The variations that different religions bring to society are beneficial, not detrimental. The people, in turn look to other institutions like family, church, and school to broaden their adherents of subculture.

Bruce has argued that when religion becomes more commonly a free choice, the boundaries of religion begin to fade. Bruce’s secularization Paradigm has two common factors. That there is change in the nature of religion and its presence; and the collection as far as the reasoning for it. (Bruce) The end result is it turns into first relativism, where all roads lead to God. The difficulties with this ideal is that there is not particular benefit in choosing one road over another.
The sentence “No, secularization is not inevitable in any society or around the world; rather, the evidence shows (a)wherever the modernization process of the West are repeated, the result for religion has been and will be the similar secularization, (b) modernization processes are not inevitable, but (c) where modernization occurs and causes secularization is irreversible.” is an accurate representation of Bruce. Bruce argues that secularization is happening and has happened already. He argues that no sociologist has determined that secularization is inevitable. Once modernization occurs, it is irreversible.

It is hard to determine if secularization is good or bad, because it is viewed differently based on the different dimensions of life. There is religious, moral, social, and political impact on individual’s lives. With all the critics who believe that secularization is a bad thing bring valid concerns to the table, however, in the long-run the good far outweighs the bad. Society is made up of many different cultures, practices, and beliefs. To unify or dictate the terms by which society worships is not true religion, merely a method of implementing political control over society. Religion within society has separated itself from many different dimensions of life that it once controlled. For example, government, politics, and society all fell under the religion umbrella, which had dominate law. That is not a practical consideration in today’s society. That is not a bad thing either. Immigration has escalated and with it they bring their religious beliefs as well. With the secularization brought a new understanding and tolerance for others differences. It opens the doors for people to find their own god, versus following the god that society has dictated. Many oppose secularization based on the fact that society needs religion. Left to our own devices, self will dominate and others will come in second. That is an argument that has many different dimensions. When society believes in a higher power, they are more likely to act in a manner that is less focused on self and more on the common good of others. In contradiction to the critics of secularization, when an individual makes a religious proclamation, based on personal beliefs, the effects will be far more favorable. Therefore the argument would be that secularization is good. It opens the doors for diversification, and by no means is it a method of elevating religion in society completely. Merely changing the structure of it.

The role of religion in American society should be exactly as it is, encouraged but options. There are many different representations of religion in American society, some more structured than others, and all holder their religious beliefs and values that regulate and motive it followers. The wonderful factor of such a diverse religious composition is the fact that it provides a certain amount of tolerance. Religion is not always easy, the time, commitment, and traditional practices requires an individual to think less of what they want and more of what their God wants. This is essentially what religion is, it is a selfless sacrifice to be God honoring and fulfill ones responsibility for their beliefs. The values associated with religion are based on the idea that individuals void of themselves are striving to do right by a higher power. It is not the idea that one can live how they want as long as they don’t get caught, but it is to focus on honoring a higher power. The religious values govern the society for which follows that specific denomination. The goal is to share the values with other and hopefully they will find the same beliefs that you do. However, value is such a generalized, yet important idea. Religion holds value, but also serves as a method to instill it. The assumption associated with religion in America can go many different ways. For example, seeing that there is a large portion of society who believes that religion is no relevant. This could lead others to assume that allowing society to openly choose their religious beliefs will eventually result in religion dying off. The purpose and relevance would fade, and society would be godless and heading to be lawless. Perhaps that is a bit of an exaggeration, but it is an important consideration with the assumptions that coincide with encourage, but free religious choice. Beliefs vary just as much as the religious denominations. Some believe in god, some believe in mediators, and some believe in their own image of what a god should be. It is not for society to dictate what is right and wrong, but to understand and respect the differences. When an individual believes in something, they are in the right direction. Because believing in something, regardless of how structured or how relaxed, is still taking the focus off of what we as individuals desire. It is a better option for society and it’s religious. Principles of religion are essentially the governing direction. The ideologies that define that specific structure validate their reason for believing in what they do. It is a doctrine that has been defined since its founding, and carried on from generation to generation. As society evolves it requires the principles to change as well, but not the basis for the beliefs. Lastly is the law. In most religions, the religious laws trump societal laws. But for argument sake, there should never really be a point in time where the two contradict each other. Based on the findings, the role of religion in American society should be exactly as it is, encouraged but options.

The role of religion in America society in comparison with that of the world is how religion should be, based on personal beliefs and opinions. There are many countries that have a much stronger religious basis than that considered appropriate in America. For example, the ‘holy countries such as those dictated in the Bible are ones that push demand religion for society and take away much of the individual options that are granted to the Americans. The values of religion as determined in American society is valid predominately for American society. By this it is implied that it is deemed appropriate for religious values to be optional, based solely on the individual, whereas in many other international locations, religion dictates action. There are countries that kill women for fornication, which is a religious practice. The values that others hold dear can determine the right to live or die. This is not a religion that we practice in America or other modernized countries. The values in the more extreme cases can prove to be more detrimental than beneficial. To dictate such stringent governing beliefs that would determine a women to be stoned to death even if she is raped seems that it is going on the opposite side of the spectrum. The values serve as a potentially detrimental factor to its society instead of regulating in a positive manner. Again, this is merely based on location and case specific situations. Therefore value is much more dominate than what we understand it to be.  The assumptions value for religion can be considered more universal. In countries that have such a high regard to religious practices, they too can determine that allowing their society to choose their religious practices could ultimately result in the eventual extinction of religious practices. In more dictated religious situations perhaps this could be relevant. When any type of authority is uses in a manner that takes away personal choice, it tends to become an object of rebellion. And in these same countries religion is essentially the governing laws, therefore they would be godless as well as lawless. Clearly the history of secularization has not proven that ideal, but for those who operate in a much more stringent fashion than what we know could easily fall to the belief that their society will fall to the worst potential outcome. Beliefs in international locations can also prove to be much stronger than what we know. Reverting back to the practice of stoning to death a family member if they fornicated prior to marriage shows that their beliefs are far stronger than most other factors, including family. To say you believe in something is great, but the breaking point for individual beliefs is probably for quicker in America than in other countries. Even the suicide bombings that take place are religious motivated, and it is not always common for the religions that we know to take a commitment to sacrifice one’s life. Principles of religion are essentially the governing direction and this holds true universally. The extent of governing is what can sway. The ideologies that define that specific structure validate their reason for believing in what they do, here and abroad. It is a doctrine that has been defined since its founding, and carried on from generation to generation, the difference is in America variations are acceptable based on reason, there are no variations in the religious doctrines in other countries. In America, laws trumps religion, however, in other countries religion is the law. And in these situations there are instances where law and religion clash, which is why civil protest and war occur, in defense of their religion. American society’s religious practices are where they should be. However, I will not argue that the other countries are not where they need to be either. To have such a strong religious belief is, in most cases, commendable. The only variation or alteration that needs to occur is when human life it taken or violated based upon their religion. That is when laws should protect and trump that of such religions.

Reference

“Secularization”, by Steve Bruce (Oxford University Press).