LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

1. To identify and explain the effects of globalization on traditional

religious beliefs and practices
2. To understand the relationship between religion, global conflict,
and conversely global peace.
3. To establish and understand the correlation between religion
and globalized social issues
SOURCE: https://www.google.com/search?q=images/+photos+related+to+globalization+of+religion
 LESSON 9
THE GLOBALIZATION OF RELIGION

The Origin of Religion

Religion. A set of beliefs and practices that define the relations between human
beings and the sacred or divinity.

Religiosity. A passionate inquiry about the meaning of life, it is the openness we

find in us that directs us to the depth-dimension of life.

Religious Act. An act whereby a man reflects on the transcendental core of his
being.

Four Conceptions (Primitive Religion)

1. Animism. Presupposing a kinship between himself and his world. Animists

regarded the life or soul as confined to the object which it animated whether a tree, a
human body or a river.

2. Spiritism. In dreams, marvelous events and beings would appear. It was quite
natural for men to infer that their souls were not “bound” to their bodies, as animist held,
but were “free” and separable.

3. Totemism. The “totem”, an animal or plant of some kind, was supposed to be

connected in some mysterious ways with the life and well-being of the tribe.

4. Mana. The name for the power or force by virtue of which peculiar effects are
exerted. The peculiar magical property of a stone, or the peculiar force that makes a
hero heroic.

Three Categories in the Belief of Gods

1. Polytheism. A belief in many gods. Polytheistic cultures believed in sacrifices

to appease their gods.

2. Pantheism. A belief that all is god wherein the universe itself was divine.

3. Monotheism - A belief in one god.

Table: Major World Religions
Sociology of Religion: Religious Secularization

The social-scientific study of religion is a field that has played a critically

important role in shaping the contemporary scholarly understanding of globalization.
Unfortunately, this is rarely openly acknowledged. In response, this chapter highlights
this contribution while also presenting an overview of mostly, but not exclusively,
sociological contributions to the religion-globalization problematic.
 This historical rift between the study of religion and the social sciences is aptly
reflected in the field's organizational structure. Major scholarly associations such as the
American Academy of Religion (AAR), the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
(SSSR), and the Association for Sociology of Religion (ASR), have maintained their
institutional autonomy.

For most of the twentieth century, the research agenda of the social sciences
has been dominated by the debate over secularization (Turner, 2009; for an overview of
the field, see Turner 2010b). Social scientists have heatedly debated the scope, nature,
extent and parameters of secularization in an effort to unveil the overall patterns and/or
trajectories of the modern world. Initially, secularization theory had a strong following,
but over time it was superseded by re-evaluations favorable to the sceptics of the
secularization thesis (Berger; The SAGE Handbook of Globalization).
The various criticisms eventually forced a scholarly reappraisal. Accordingly,
Western Europe, once regarded the paradigmatic case of secularization, is viewed as
an exception from global patterns, whereas the United States, once regarded as an
exceptional case, is viewed as more typical of global patterns of religiosity than
previously thought (Davie, 2002; Berger, Davie & Fokas, 2008).

As a result, the terms of the secularization debate have been reframed (Taylor,
2007; for a critical assessment, see Torpey, 2010). The modern world is a secular one, not
because of a mere decline of individual religiosity or a growing church and state
separation; but because frameworks of understanding have shifted radically. Whereas
in the 16th century, western people could scarcely be ignorant of God, that is an option
today. Secularization is understood as a shift in the overall frameworks of human
condition. It makes it possible for people to have a choice between belief and
non-belief in a manner hitherto unknown.
This parochialism has meant that all too often sociologists have abandoned the
study of religion of non-Western societies to scholars from other disciplines
(anthropologists or various regional experts). This tendency remains alive to this day and
is accurately reflected when readers contrast the various handbooks of the sociology of
religion versus compilations of a more cross-disciplinary orientation. In this respect, the
major cleavage that shapes the problematic of the relationship between religion and
globalization is not only between a dominant north and a subordinate south. Of equal
importance is the major cleavage between the “West” and the “East” or the “Rest”
(Turner & Khonder, 2010).

Western social theory has been based on the themes of modernity and
secularity, and thus it has ignored even non-Western branches of Christianity, such as
Eastern Orthodox (and Oriental) Christianity (Hann, 2011). Unsurprisingly, the critique of
Orientalism (Said, 1978) has been of critical importance for shaping the understanding
of the field itself. This has broadened scholarly perspectives and necessitated the
articulation of theories and interpretations that would henceforth explain not just the
phenomenon labelled “religion” in the West; but rather the development of “world
religions” as such (Beyer, 2006; Hedges, 2012; Masuzawa, 2005; Riesebrodt, 2012).
The emergence of world religions in large part corresponds to an extension of
commercial linkages and networks over the Euro-Asian landmass and is related to the
political-military projects of several empires (Tehranian, 2007). Based upon this
perspective, Eisenstadt (2002, 2003) argues that several distinct multiple modernities
come into existence; and that Western modernity represents but one of the various
possible ways of entering into the modern world. In a sense, even Western modernity is
not necessarily uniform; in fact, within Europe different historical trajectories exist,
suggesting a multitude of distinct historical trajectories (Spohn, 2003). From within these
lenses, the post-15th Century “Rise of the West” through colonialism and imperialism is
seen as a second historical phase of a process that stretches far into human history.
Transnational Religion and Multiple Glocalizations
Attention is focused on two of the many research agenda of the social-scientific
study of religion. These two research agenda are of particular importance for the
problematic of religion and globalization because they directly engage with the theme
of globalization and attempt to theorize its relationship with expressions of religiosity. The
first of these agenda is located within the emergent interdisciplinary field of
transnational studies. Transnational studies emerged gradually since the 1990s in
connection to the study of post-World War ll. New immigrants or trans-migrants who
moved from Third World and developing countries into developed First World nations
(Levitt & Khagram, 2007). New immigrants no longer assimilated into the cultures of the
host countries but rather openly maintained complex links to their homelands, thereby
constructing, reproducing and preserving their transnational ties. International migration
has provided the means to theorize the relationship between people and religion in a
transnational context (Casanova, 2001; Ebaugh & Chafetz, 2002; Hagan & Ebaugh,
2003; Levitt, 2003, 2004; Van der Veer, 2002).

Peggy Levitt's 2007 book entitled “God Needs No Passport” is perhaps among
the most widely cited examples of this research agenda. Although the book focused on
the United States, the impact of this research agenda extends into the situation of other
advanced industrialized countries such as Canada, Australia and the UK. Concomitant
with the movements of peoples, the migration of faiths across the globe has been a
major feature of the world throughout the twentieth century. One of these features is
the “deterritorialization” of religion (Casanova, 2001; Martin, 2001; Roy, 2004) That is, the
appearance and, in some instances, the efflorescence of religious traditions in places
where these previously had been largely unknown or were at least in a minority position.
Transnational religion emerged through the post-World War II spread of several religions
(The SAGE Handbook of Globalization, 2016).
 The most prominent example is the explosion of Protestantism in the hitherto
solidly Catholic Latin America. The extensive and widely publicized debates over the
public presence of Islam in Europe are but the most visible manifestation of this process
(Bjorgo, 1997; Raudvere, Stala & Willert, 2012). As Modood (1997: 2) notes, “Muslims are
now emerging as the critical ‘other’ in various nationalist discourses and in definitions of
Europe in Western Europe, even in Scandinavian countries, where there is hardly any
historical encounter with Muslims”. To the extent that the very label of transnational
religion is a means of describing solutions to new-found situations that people face as a
result of migration, it comes as two quite distinct blends of religious universalism and
local particularism. First, it is possible for religious universalism to gain the upper hand,
whereby religion becomes the central reference for immigrant communities. In such
instances, religious transnationalism is often depicted as a religion “going global”.
Jenkins (2007), for example, has noted the rapid growth of Christianity
in the global south, countering arguments that Islam would overtake Christianity
as the world's most popular faith. In cases in which immigrants share the same
vernacular or are members of a church with a centralized administration (such as the
Catholic Church), the propensity for such a pattern inevitably increases. Migrants
participate in religious multi-ethnic networks that connect them to their co-religionists
locally and globally. Their main allegiance is not to their original homeland but to their
global religious community. Religion offers a means for “transnational transcendence”
(Csordas, 2009) of identities and boundaries.
Second, it is possible for local ethnic or national particularism to gain or maintain
the most important place for local immigrant communities. In such instances,
transnational communities are constructed and religious hierarchies perform dual
religious and secular functions that ensure the group’s survival (Danforth, 1995;
Roudometof, 2000). The above distinction obviously represents two ends of a continuum
of a variety of combinations observed among transnational or immigrant or diasporic
groups (McLoughlin, 2010). For example, diasporas might adopt cultural habits derived
from the host country. A prominent example is the “Protestantization” of various faiths
among groups living mostly in Europe or the United States. But other groups might shed
cultural elements in favor of a more globalist orientation; as suggested by Roy (2010) in
his “deculturalization of religion” thesis. According to Roy, fundamentalist or more
precisely revivalist movements attempt to construct “pure religion” that sheds the
cultural tradition in which past religious life was immersed.

The Positive Effects of Religion

1. Social Cohesion. To help maintain social solidarity through shared rituals and
cultures.
 2. Social Control. To enforce religious-based morals and norms to maintain
conformity and control in society.
3. Education. Religious communities typically invest in forming an ethic of such
discipline and persistence.
4. Charity. Religious practice correlates with a higher rate of care and concern
for others.
5. Social Mobility. The role of religion in building relationships and habits of hard
work reinforces a conventional (as opposed to alternate or illegal) orientation to
success and achievement.
6. Crime. Decades of research also indicate that a higher level of religious
involvement is associated with a reduced likelihood of abusing alcohol or drugs.
7. Health. The majority of research revealed that religious commitment and
practice can lead to increased self-esteem and well-being. Religious practice is also
related to greater longevity, and a reduced risk of a number of health complications
like colitis or different forms of cancer.
8. Family relationships. Religious participation tends to foster an authoritative,
warm, active, and expressive style of parenting. Parents who attend religious services
are more likely to enjoy a better relationship with their children and are more likely to be
involved with their children's education.
9. To Provide Meaning and Purpose. This is to answer any existential questions.

Religion and Global Conflict

a. No major religion has been exempt from complicity in violent conflict. Yet we need
to beware of an almost universal propensity to oversimplify the role that religion plays in
international affairs. Religion is not usually the sole or even primary cause of conflict.

b. With so much emphasis on religion as a source of conflict, the role of religion as a

force in peacemaking is usually overlooked.

c. Religious affiliation and conviction often motivates religious communities to

advocate particular peace-related government policies. Religious communities also
directly oppose repression and promote peace and reconciliation.

d. Religious leaders and institutions can mediate in conflict situations, serve as a

communication link between opposing sides, and provide training in peacemaking
methodologies. This form of religious peacemaking garners less public attention but is
growing in importance.

e. Interfaith dialogue is another form of religious peacemaking. Rather than seeking to

resolve a particular conflict, it aims to defuse interfaith tensions that may cause future
conflict or derive from previous conflict. Interfaith dialogue is expanding even in places
where interreligious tensions are highest. Not infrequently, the most contentious
interfaith relationships can provide the context for the most meaningful and productive
exchanges.

f. Given religion’s importance as both a source of international conflict and a resource

for peacemaking, it is regrettable that the U.S. government is so ill-equipped to handle
religious issues and relate to religious actors. If the U.S. government is to insert itself into
international conflicts or build deeper and more productive relationships with countries
around the world, it needs to devise a better strategy to effectively and respectfully
engage with the religious realm.

Religion and Terrorism

In recent decades, religion has assumed unusual prominence in international

affairs. A recent article in The Economist asserts that, if there ever was a global drift
towards secularism, it has been halted and probably reversed. In the article, Philip
Jenkins, a noted scholar from Pennsylvania State University, predicts that when historians
look back at this century they will see religion as "the prime animating and destructive
force in human affairs, guiding attitudes to political liberty and obligation, concepts of
nationhood and, of course, conflicts and wars". The article then cites statistics from a
public opinion survey in Nigeria demonstrating that Nigerians believe religion to be
more central to their identity than nationality. Nigerians are thus more likely to identify
themselves first and foremost as Christians or Muslims rather than as Nigerians. The
horrendous events of September 11; the conflagration in Iraq; and the aggressive
assertiveness of quasi-theocratic Iran only confirm in the popular mind that religion lies
behind much of contemporary international conflicts.

This March was the 17th anniversary of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In the
following 17 years, Iraq has continued to be wracked by conflict and instability, from
the insurgency to ISIS to today’s anti-government protest movements. Needless to say,
policymakers and analysts have paid much attention to Iraq during the past two
decades. Yet there remains a knowledge gap, with a lack of reliable data on how
everyday Iraqis perceive the possibilities for peace and stability. Understanding how
Iraqis view the possibilities for peace is critical to policymakers, peacebuilding
practitioners, and donor agencies working to bring stability to communities that have
long been held under the grip of violence.

To monitor progress and To address this gap, identified after over a decade of
working on peacebuilding in Iraq, the U.S. Institute of Peace developed the Conflict
and Stabilization Monitoring Framework (CSMF). To be sure, there are already rigorous
qualitative studies that look at Iraqis’ views on governance and the U.S. presence,
among other things. Yet, despite a robust field of research and analysis on Iraq, most
existing scholarships, programming assessments, and media analyses are based on
interactions with government officials, business persons, and the civil society. These are
people who tend to speak Western languages and have higher levels of education
than average Iraqis, so they see the conflict differently than those in the communities
surveyed for the CSMF. What the CSMF adds is a grassroots perspective specifically on
conflict and stabilization dynamics, including governance, security, rule of law, and
livelihoods. Another important component of the CSMF is that it is longitudinal, tracking
the same or similar indicators over time, watch out for negative trends.

The data has been collected from residents and internally displaced persons
(IDPs) across Iraq’s Nineveh province, which is home to a microcosm of the country,
with Christians, Yazidis, Shabaks, Turkmen, Sunni and Shia Arabs, Kurds, and others. These
communities have undergone intense disruptions and violence—and even genocide in
some cases—since ISIS’s incursion in 2014. Despite the territorial defeat of ISIS, thousands
remain displaced from towns and villages across the province, unable or unwilling to
return to their homes. The complex interplay of political and security factors in ISIS’s
wake has also contributed to intercommunal tensions between ethnoreligious groups.

Religion and Same Sex Marriage

Buddhism

Due to the ambivalent language about homosexuality in Buddhist teachings,

there has been no official stance put forth regarding the issue of marriage between
members of the same gender. There is no official Buddhist position on the issue of
same-sex marriage.

On October 11, 1995, some religious leaders gave testimony to the Commission
on Sexual Orientation and the Law in support of same-gender marriages. Robert Aitken,
co-founder and teacher of the Honolulu Diamond Sangha, a Zen Buddhist society
established in 1959, with centers in Manoa and Palolo, gave written testimony on the
subject of same-sex marriage. Aitken explains that by applying the Four Noble Abodes
(loving kindness, compassion, joy in the attainment of others, and equanimity) to the
issue of same-sex marriage, he finds compassion for and with the gay or lesbian couple
who wish to confirm their love in a legal marriage. Aitken cites a precept about sex
which Zen Buddhists inherit from earlier classical Buddhists teachings.

It is one of the sixteen precepts accepted by all Zen Buddhist monks, nuns and
seriously committed lay people. He understands this to mean that self-centered sexual
conduct is inappropriate, and he vows to avoid it. He believes that self-centered sex is
exploitive sex, non-consensual sex, sex that harms others. It is unwholesome and
destructive in a heterosexual as well as in a homosexual context. He goes on to explain
that The Legislative Reference Bureau compiled a formidable list of rights that are
extended to married couples in Hawaii, but which are denied to couples who are gays
and lesbians.

He argues that gay and lesbian unions would be "settled even more" if they were
acknowledged with basic married rights. Aitken says, "A long-standing injustice would
be corrected, and the entire gay and lesbian community would feel more accepted.
This would stabilize a significant segment of our society, and we would all of us be
better able to acknowledge our diversity. I urge you to advise the Legislature and the
people of Hawaii that legalizing gay and lesbian marriages will be humane and in
keeping with perennial principles of decency and mutual encouragement."

Christianity

Support and affirmation of marriage rights for same-sex couples generally comes
from certain Christian denominations that are considered theologically liberal. Some
examples of religious organizations voicing their support for same-sex marriage
include Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ, the United
Church of Canada, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Episcopalian Church
of the United States, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Church of Denmark,
the Church of Sweden, the Church of Norway, the Protestant Church in the
Netherlands, the United Protestant Church of France, the United Protestant Church in
Belgium, the Icelandic Church, the Swiss Reformed Church, the Protestant Church in
Hesse and Nassau, the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck, the
Evangelical Church in Berlin, Brandenburg and Silesian in Upper Lusatia, the Evangelical
Church in the Rhineland, the Protestant Church in Baden, the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in Northern Germany, the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Hanover, the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Oldenburg, the Evangelical Church of the Palatinate,
the Church of Lippe, the Evangelical Church of Westphalia, the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.), the Quakers, the Liberal Old Catholic Church and the Unitarian Universalists
Church which support the rights of gays and lesbians to marry both in the church and
through the state. There are also progressive congregations and organizations within
mainline Christian denominations, that have not yet officially voiced official support for
same-sex marriage, but have spoken out themselves in support of same-sex marriage
rights in the church and through the state.
 Some biblical scholars who hold to a more theologically liberal Christian view of
same-sex marriage, such as representatives of the Metropolitan Community Church,
make the claim that the word "homosexual" as found in many modern versions of the
Bible is an interpolation and is not found in the original biblical texts. This argument from
scripture holds that since the original authors of the Bible never mention “homosexuals”
or committed Christian homosexual couples, there cannot exist a biblical prohibition of
marriage rights for them. According to the MCC, biblical texts interpreted by some as
references to homosexuality refer only to specific sex acts and idolatrous worship which
lack relevance to contemporary same-sex relationships. Christians who support religious
and legal recognition of same-sex marriage may base their belief in same-sex marriage
on the view that marriage, as an institution, and the structure of the family is a biblical
moral imperative that should be honored by all couples, heterosexual and homosexual
alike. Supporting same-sex marriage reflects their Christ-like commitment to the equality
and dignity of all people. According to a theologian from the United Church of
Canada, "human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual,
are a gift from God".

Some same-sex married couples have challenged religious organizations that

exclude them from access to public facilities maintained by those organizations, such
as schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless
shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, and athletic
programs. Opponents of same-sex marriages have expressed concerns that this limits
their religious freedoms. For example, conservatives worry that a Christian college would
risk its tax-exempt status by refusing to admit a legally married gay couple to
married-student housing. Some legal analysts suggest that failure to reflect gay rights
within their organizations may cost some religious groups their tax-exempt status.

Religious arguments for and against marriage rights for same-sex couples are not
always evenly divided among theologically conservative religious groups and liberal
groups. While self-identified theological liberal organizations such as the Religious
Society of Friends (Quakers), support same-sex marriage, other more conservative
and/or orthodox organizations including some Mennonite churches, the Church of the
Brethren, the Old Catholic Church, and the Church of Sweden also support marriage
rights for gay and lesbian persons.

Episcopal Church of the United States

The Episcopal Church (as of 2015: 7,115 open parishes and missions; 2,009,084
active baptized members) at their 2009 General Convention declared that: "bishops,
particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil
unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to
meet the needs of members of this Church." On July 9, 2012, the Episcopalian Church
passed a resolution that was to be voted on later to approve an official liturgy for
blessing same-sex unions. This liturgy, called "The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong
Covenant," would enable priests to bestow the church's blessing on same-sex couples;
priests could refuse to perform marriages, and bishops could prohibit same-sex
marriage in their diocese. Denial would come without penalty, but the priest or diocese
would have to direct same-sex couples they decline to another church or priest willing
to perform the ceremony. The resolution was confirmed on July 9, 2015 (three years
later) on a 129 for and 26 against (with 5 abstaining) vote.

Metropolitan Community Church

The Metropolitan Community Church (43,000 members) sees its mission being
social as well as spiritual by standing up for the rights of minorities, particularly those of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. MCC has been a leading force in the
development of Queer theology. As such, the MCC is notable for publicly supporting
same-sex marriage as early as the 1960s. Notably in 1970 Troy Perry, the church's
founder, filed the first lawsuit in the U.S. seeking legal recognition for same-sex
marriages. Perry lost that lawsuit but launched the debate over same-sex marriage in
the U.S. Today, MCC congregations around the world perform more than 6000
same-sex marriage ceremonies annually.

Presbyterian Church of USA

The Presbyterian Church of USA’s General Assembly Permanent Judicial

Commission ruled in 2006 that same-sex ceremonies are not forbidden, as long as they
are not considered to be the same as marriage services. Debate on the issue within the
church evolved over the years. In 2000, the General Assembly had approved language
for the church constitution that stated church teachings were that people were "to live
either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in
chastity in singleness," and barred church officers and property from being used for
blessing or approval upon any other form of fidelity relationship, but ratification for this
language was never obtained by the presbyteries. By 2014, the General Assembly
passed an Authoritative Interpretation permitting pastors to sign marriage licenses for
same-gender couples where permitted by civil law in the states where their church was
found, which took immediate effect.

On March 17, 2015, ratification by a majority of presbyteries was reached on a

constitutional amendment passed by that same 2014 General Assembly, which
broadened the definition of marriage in the Directory for Worship from only being
between "a man and a woman," to "two people, traditionally a man and a woman,"
thus giving official sanction to, while not making it mandatory for, any congregation's
pastor to preside over and bless marriage ceremonies for same-gender couples.

United Church of Christ

The United Church of Christ's General Synod (998,906 members) passed a

resolution affirming "equal marriage rights for all people regardless of gender" in 2005.
The church allows but does not require pastors to perform same-sex weddings.

United Church of Canada

The United Church of Canada (600,000 members) was active in the campaign
that led to legal recognition of same-sex marriages in Canada. The United Church now
allows individual congregations to decide whether or not to perform these marriages.
Likewise, in the Protestant Church of the Netherlands, where same-sex marriages have
been legal since 2001, individual congregations decide if they will perform them.

Some Christians support religious and legal recognition of same-sex marriages

based on a moral commitment to equality, or a belief that "human sexual orientations,
whether heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, are a gift from God", as affirmed by the
United Church of Canada's 37th General Council.

Liberal Catholic Theologians

Even within the Roman Catholic Church, there can be found a few groups which
supports same-sex marriage. For example, while the Vatican and most of the Roman
Catholic hierarchy oppose same sex marriages, there are a few Catholic theologians
who support gay marriages.

Critical Biblical Scholarship

According to Daniel A. Helminiak, the Bible may be interpreted literally or within

historical-cultural context. Under a literalist reading, the Bible can be read as
condemning homosexuality (and, by extension, gay marriage). Read in cultural
context, the Bible "was not addressing our current questions about sexual ethics and
does not condemn gay sex (or gay marriages) as we understand it today." Helminiak
argues that Biblical passages said to be against homosexuality (and same-sex
marriages) do not actually say anything against gay and lesbian sexual relationships or
identity. "The sin of Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. Jude condemns sex
with angels, not sex between two men. Not a single Bible text indisputably refers to
lesbian sex. There follows no valid conclusion whatsoever about homosexuality. Biblical
figures may well have been involved in homogenital relationships, seen as part of God's
plan”.

Jesus himself said nothing at all about homosexuality, not even when face to
face with a man in a gay relationship. It has been argued that the Bible was written for
a world unlike our own, and that Monogamy, for example, only became the norm in
the Christian world in the last 150 years or so. Lisa Miller also argues for a move beyond
literalism. However, Miller argues that the Bible supports the idea of monogamous
relationships, including gay marriage. Robin Kar argues that same-sex marriage is partly
the result of certain religious and spiritual developments within Judeo-Christian society,
which led to love-based marriages in the West. Hence, there are now religious reasons
for Christians to support "transformative" marriage for all people and to dispense with
the assumption that same-sex marriage reflects encroaching secularism.

Unitarian Universalists and Unitarians

At the 1996 United States Unitarian Universalist General Assembly, delegates

voted overwhelmingly that they would perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, and
the church has been performing weddings with and without state sanction ever since.
Likewise Canadian Unitarian Universalist congregations perform same-sex marriages
and the Canadian Unitarian Council their national organization supports this work
through its Lay Chaplaincy program. Also the British Unitarian church is at the forefront
of the campaign for same-sex marriage.

Hindus

There are both conservative and liberal views about homosexuality and
same-sex marriages in Hinduism, similar to many other religions. A liberal view is
presented by Mathematician Shakuntala Devi, in her 1977 book, The World of
Homosexuals, in which she interviewed Srinivasa Raghavachariar, head priest of the
Srirangam temple. He said that same-sex lovers must have been cross-sex lovers in a
former life. The sex may change but the soul retains its attachments, hence the love
impels these souls towards one another. In 2002, the academic Ruth Vanita interviewed
a Shaiva priest who performed the marriage of two women; having studied Hindu
scriptures, he had concluded, "Marriage is a union of spirits, and the spirit is not male or
female" (p. 147).

As Amara Das Wilhelm, a Krishna devotee and founder of GALVA, notes in his
book, Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the Third Sex, "several Gaudiya Vaishnava authorities
emphasize that since everyone passes through various forms, genders and species in a
series of lives, we should not judge each other by the material body but view everyone
equally on a spiritual plane, and be compassionate as God is."

According to Ruth Vanita, "Indian newspapers, over the last 25 years, have
reported several same-sex weddings and same-sex joint suicides, mostly by Hindu
female couples in small towns, unconnected to any gay movement. Several weddings
took place by Hindu rites, with some family support, while the suicides resulted from
families forcibly separating lovers." According to Vanita, the phenomena of increased
visibility of same-sex weddings "... suggest the wide range of Hindu attitudes to
homosexuality today. The millennia-long debate in Hindu society, somewhat suppressed
in the colonial period, has revived. In 2004, Hinduism Today reporter Rajiv Malik asked
several Hindu swamis (teachers) their opinion of same-sex marriage. The swamis
expressed a range of opinions, positive and negative. They felt free to differ with each
other; this is evident in the liveliness of the debate, made possible by the fact that
Hinduism has no one in hierarchy or a leader. As Mahant Ram Puri remarked, "We do
not have a rule book in Hinduism. We have a hundred million authorities.”

Islam

In Albania, Tunisia, and Turkey, there have been discussions about legalizing
same-sex marriage. but without success (one reason was that the huge majority of the
people in those countries and also almost all political parties are against same sex
marriage.

In France there was an Islamic same-sex marriage on February 18, 2012. In Paris in
November 2012 a room in a Buddhist prayer hall was used by gay Muslims and called a
"gay-friendly mosque", and a French Islamic website is supporting religious same-sex
marriage.

A majority of American Muslims (51 percent) support same-sex marriage as of

2017, according to a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute in their "2017
American Values Atlas". The first American Muslim in the United States Congress, Keith
Ellison (D-MN) said in 2010 that all discrimination against LGBT people is wrong. He
further expressed support for gay marriage stating "I believe that the right to marry
someone who you please is so fundamental it should not be subject to popular
approval any more than we should vote on whether blacks should be allowed to sit in
the front of the bus."

Judaism
 Members of Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism support marriages for
same-sex couples. The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation leaves the choice to
individual rabbis.

Native American Religion

Native American religions traditionally accepted same-sex marriage. This often

came in the form of a Two-Spirit identity in which the Indigenous peoples of the
Americas would fulfill one of many mixed gender roles.

Neo-Paganism

Neo-pagans are generally welcoming of LGBT people, and some strands

celebrate gay relationships. Support is highest in Neo-Druidism, Wicca and Asatru. Some
Wiccan groups perform hand-fastings and betrothals.

Views Regarding Church-State Separation

Many supporters of same sex marriages argue that, by defining the institution of
marriage as between one man and one woman, the state automatically tramples
upon the constitutional rights to freedom of religion. They argue that just because a
majority of religious organizations may believe that gay marriages should not be
granted by the state does not make it the state's obligation to observe their opinions on
this matter.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the United
States Bill of Rights, expressly forbids laws being made "respecting an establishment of
religion" and that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus, according to this argument,
the state has no authority to define marriage as between one man and woman
because there are various religions which hold that gay marriage is morally equivalent
to heterosexual marriage.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State prominently expresses

concern that heterosexual-only marriage laws impose a specific religious doctrine as
state policy. According to them, "a marriage amendment in the Constitution [raises]
important church-state and religious liberty concerns."

Religious Opposition
 The vast majority of Christian groups have been vocal and politically active in
opposing same-sex marriage laws in the United States. Same-sex marriage opponents
sometimes claim that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples could undercut
the conventional purpose of marriage. Roman Catholic advocates of monogamous
heterosexual marriages contend that same-sex relationships cannot be considered
marriages because marriage, by definition, necessarily involves the uniting of two
members of the opposite sex. Other religious arguments for an opposite-sex definition of
marriage hold that same-sex relationships should not be recognized as marriages
because same-gender sexual activity is contrary to God's will, is immoral, and subverts
God's creative intent for human sexuality. Christian opposition to same-sex marriage
also comes from the belief that same sex marriage normalizes homosexual behavior
and would encourage it, instead of encouraging resistance to same-sex attraction.

Christianity

Christian denominations and groups that have been vocal and or active in their
opposition to same-sex marriages include the following:

Assemblies of God (66.4 million members), Church of God in Christ (over 8 million
members), the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, the Conservative
Mennonite Conference, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, the Hutterite
Brethren, the Brethren in Christ, the Mennonite Church of USA, the Catholic Church (1.2
Billion members), the Russian Orthodox Church (150 million members), the Seventh-day
Adventist Church (17 million members), the Southern Baptist Convention (15.7 million
members), and the United Pentecostal Church International (2 million members). In
2009, a group of Christian leaders from various denominations issued the Manhattan
Declaration, an "influential statement that united evangelicals and Catholic leaders in
fighting abortion and gay marriage"; as of November 2010, the Declaration had been
signed by over 475,000 individuals. On August 29, 2017, the Council on Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood released a manifesto on human sexuality known as the
"Nashville Statement". The statement was signed by 150 evangelical leaders, and
includes 14 points of belief. Among other things, it states, "We deny that God has
designed marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship."

Catholic Church Opposition

The Catholic Church argues from a theological perspective against recognizing

same-sex unions. According to Catholic moral doctrine, acts of sexual intimacy are only
proper between a man and a woman within wedlock. Secular government recognition
of any other union within the definition of "marriage" would therefore reflect a belief in
the moral equivalence of acts between a husband and wife and acts between two
men or two women; this belief is contrary to Catholic doctrinal teaching.

Catholic opponents also argue that inclusion of same-sex unions within the
definition of marriage would also evidence rejection of the idea that, in general, it is
best that children be raised by their biological mother and father, and that it is the
community's interest in ensuring the well-being of children is the sole basis for the
government's licensee and involvement in marriage.

Pope John Paul II, then head of the Roman Catholic church, criticized same-sex
marriage when it was introduced in the Netherlands in 2001. His successor Pope
Benedict XVI maintained opposition to the institution, considering it amongst "the most
insidious and dangerous threats to the common good today".

Eastern Orthodox Christianity

The Greek Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox and Russian Orthodox Churches, and the
rest of the Orthodox Churches all share the same view. They all view same-sex marriage
as a sin. They do not accept/support homosexual relationships or marriages, and
believe it as immoral and inappropriate. This statement from the Greek Orthodox
Archdiocese of America further explains: "The position of the Orthodox Church toward
homosexual acts has been expressed by synodical, canons and patristic
pronouncements from the very first centuries of Orthodox ecclesiastical life. In them, the
Orthodox Church condemns unreservedly all expressions of personal sexual experience
which prove contrary to the definite and unalterable function ascribed to sex by God's
ordinance and expressed in man's experience as a law of nature. The Orthodox Church
believes that homosexual behavior is a sin."

Views in Scripture

Within the Christian tradition, religious objections to same-sex marriages are often
based upon the Bible. Some religious arguments against same-sex marriage are based
upon Old Testament biblical passages such as Genesis 19:4-11, Leviticus 18:22,and
Leviticus 20:13, while others are based upon New Testament biblical passages such as
Romans 1, I Corinthians 6:8-10, and Jude 1:7.

Conservative Christians note that the book of Leviticus contains a prohibition

against male-male sexuality. While the Biblical passages mentioned above do not
define the institution of marriage, Genesis 2:22-24 reads as follows: "Then the Lord God
made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the
man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be
called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father
and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” This passage is
quoted by Jesus in the New Testament Gospel of Matthew.

Evangelical Opposition

According to Reverend Rick Warren, a pastor of the conservative Evangelical

Christian Saddleback megachurch, homosexuals are people who "think they are
smarter than God" and who choose "to disobey God's sexual instructions." From
Warren's point of view, marriage is an ordinance from God that unites a man and a
woman. James Dobson, in Marriage Under Fire and elsewhere, argues that legalization
for or passive tolerance of same-sex marriages would widen the definition of families.

The ex-gay movement takes the view that I Corinthians 6:9-11 offers Christian
believers freedom from the sin of homosexual behavior. Evangelical author and
counselor Joe Dallas notes that the Biblical passages relating to homosexual behavior
uniformly prohibit that behavior.

Other Churches

The Orthodox Church in America is also opposed to same-sex marriage, as is

the Unification Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (15 million members) believes that
marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God and that children are
entitled to be raised by a mother and a father who honor their marital vows with
complete fidelity. They believe marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals
to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations, but is an important part of
rearing children. They teach that same-sex marriage undermines the purpose of
marriage.

Jehovah's Witnesses (8.2 million members) believes God condemns sexual

activity that is not between a husband and his wife. They teach that while the bible
condemns homosexual acts, it does not condone hatred of homosexuals or
homophobia.

The United Methodist Church does not permit same-sex marriage or the
ordination of LGBT people. On February 26, 2019, conference delegates voted against
a proposal (449-374) that would have begun allowing churches to set their own LGBT
policies at a local level. Instead, the previous day, a majority of delegates indicated
that they would support a stricter approach to the existing policies, including
encouraging dissenters to leave the church.

Orthodox Judaism

Judaism, like Christianity, reflects differing views between conservative and

liberal adherents. Orthodox Judaism maintains the traditional Jewish bans on both
sexual acts and marriage amongst members of the same sex. The Orthodox Union in
the United States supported a federal Constitutional amendment banning same-sex
marriages. However, it is important to note that recent research by Chana Etengoff &
Colette Daiute suggest that positive reconciliations between sexual minority individuals
and Orthodox Jewish family members is possible (a process referred to as theistic
mediation), both with and without clinical support.

Theravada Buddhists

Thai Theravada Buddhists (over 150 million members), being the more
conservative wing of Buddhism are less supportive of gay rights and marriages. Human
rights issues have received poor attention in Theravada countries, as the culture is
rooted in the belief in the Law of Karma, which is more popular among Thai Buddhists
than philosophical and advanced scriptural studies in Buddhism. Many monasteries and
monks advocate their lay followers to see the world through the lens of karma (i.e.,
every person is born to pay back their sins). According to their explanations, all
homosexuals and sexual deviants were once offenders of the Third Precept (prohibiting
sexual misconduct), at least in their past lives, and they must pay off their past sins in
their present life. Therefore, they deserve all that society gives to them. This belief system
creates strong conservative values in Theravada Buddhist culture. For these reasons, it is
unlikely that Buddhists will easily approve a law to allow gay marriage. Gay and lesbian
activists in Thailand will probably not be as successful as their fellows in European
countries or Canada. It is important to note, however, that Theravada Buddhists outside
of the South-East Asian Area, are generally more supportive, or neutral, to same-sex
marriage, and LGBT rights as a whole.