However, Marxists also state that religion maintains social class and social control rather than just dulling the pain of the oppressed, it’s more of a mechanism of social control, keeping people in their place. The ruling class use religion to justify their positions, as via the line, “God made them high and lowly and ordered their estate”, it simply supports the ruling class and their own interests. Examples can be used to support this, as the caste system of India was justified by beliefs of the Hindu religion. The sociologist Susan Budd states that in the early days of the industrial revolution, employers supported religion as a means of, “subjecting the masses and keeping them sober and working”.
However, the Marxist view of religion does not exactly help us understand the complete role of religion in society. While Marxists argue that religion mainly maintains ruling class power, it is widely rejected that this is the primary role of religion. For example, Neo-Marxists such as Otto Maduro accept some aspects of Marx’s viewpoint on religion, but states that religion has some independence. Religion is not necessarily a, conservative factor in society, instead, “it is often and sometimes the only available channel to bring about social revolution.” To support this, the Latin America liberation theology is used as evidence. Catholicism in Latin America supported the bourgeoisie and right wing military dictatorships, denying the existence of social conflict between classes. But they recognized injustices such as poverty and religion can change this, as it is a radical force. For example, Martin Luther King used the Bible and the Commandments to bring about change. Liberation Theology is similar, stating that the poor must take control of their situation and try to end their poverty. An example is from Father Camilo Torres a Roman Catholic Priest in Colombia. Father Torres believed the high rate of poverty and the fact that 65% of the land was owned by the powerful families was unjust and he suggested a Christian revolution was needed. The Catholic Church didn’t support Torres and so Torres joined a guerrilla movement and died fighting the government. However this only helped his cause as many saw him as a martyr and in 1968 many Priests followed his example and rebelled against the injustices. This shows that religion is not really conservative, it can be used as a vehicle of opposition by repressed classes.
A further criticism of Marxism is that religion not just acts compensation, it can help people positively, and for example religion gives meaning to make sense of birth and death, which are events which affect all people in all societies, not just the oppressed.
On the other hand, Feminists state that religion simply enforces patriarchy, religion is a patriarchy institution and it benefits males over females. This applies to all religion and Karen Armstrong (1993) implies that, “None of the major religions has been particularly good to women” One way of maintaining this patriarchal institution is from evidence from sacred texts, as they tend to negatively portray women. For example, God created Adam first in the Bible and Eve was simply created as a, “helpmate”, an afterthought. Further enforcing that male are above females is the fact that Eve was made out of Adams ribs, therefore she was automatically inferior. Women are negatively portrayed in the Bible such as the prostitute Mary Magdalene, whilst Eve was the one who tempted Adam to eat the forbidden fruit and therefore cause destruction. This shows that in society today, women should be inferior and male should keep up their dominance, reinforcing the social control of women. It just helps to legitimise gender inequality. In society, both men and women have clearly defined roles, mostly derived from religion, and therefore this keeps the inequalities secure.
Women have also been oppressed via the lack of progress in religion. In all world religions, the majority of the professionals are male. Only in 1992, were women allowed to become priests in Roman Catholicism. But still in other religions, Islam, Judaism, women are segregated and them being active professionals are forbidden. Women are also segregated via worship. Their roles are secondary, in Judaism; women sit in the balconies at the back of the main space so they don’t distract males. Swale (2000), claims sometimes they can’t even hear properly. The feminist Jean Holm shows the inequality in major religions. In Japan, women are responsible for organising public rituals, but only men can take part in public performances. In Buddhism, women become nuns, but monks are superior and in Hinduism, Only men become priests. Women’s natural body functions seemingly also work against them, Holm commenting that, “Menstruation and childbirth are almost universally regarded as polluting. In many traditions, women are forbidden to enter sacred places or touch sacred objects during the menstrual period”, this is evident in the Muslim and Hindu religions. Therefore with regards to understanding the role of religion in society, this demonstrates that women are kept in their places and repressed via all aspects of religion.
Women have also had differential treatment via religion. For example in Western Christianity, the wife was normally the property of her husband, she gave up all her rights to her property to him on marriage and was required to be obedient to him forever and as a result she wasn’t allowed divorce him. In Iran, concerning Islam, females can still be flogged to death for dress code violations and stoned to death for adultery. To add more insult, this punishment is usually done by men, reinforcing the idea of male dominance.
Simone de Beauvoirs, “The Second Sex”, states that religion, in society today, is used by the oppressors, men, to control the oppressed group of women and like Marxists say, religion can serve as a way of compensation also. To control women, men use divine authority to support male dominance as many of the religious characters are male, e.g. Mohammed and Jesus. Women also have a false belief in thinking that they will be compensated for their sufferings in heaven. This keeps the status quo so women won’t get up and rebel. Religion also exploits women, as it is them who do most of the work for religious organisations and help children.
Whilst several feminists argue that religion is the cause of oppression, some argue that it is in fact the patriarchal systems which are the cause. The feminist El Saadawi has shown this concerning Islam. She states that Islam developed in a patriarchal way through the dominance of a male authority in previous times, who owned the herds of horses and animals. Therefore, the authority of Islam belonged to the man as head of the family. Although in the Quran, it says that both men and women could be stoned to death for adultery, but was less likely to be enforced by males since they were allowed to have more than one wife. As a result, female oppression is not due to religion, but more due to patriarchal long term systems, although religion has played its part as the religions of the world uphold similar principles for the submission of women to men.
Yet, Feminists have been criticised for their views. Firstly there have been weaknesses found in some of their evidence. An argument of feminism is that primarily throughout religion there is a dominance of male characters and God is almost always associated with being a male. But in many ancient religions, females have had supernatural positions, for example in Ancient Greek and Roman religions, goddesses were also female, such as Aphrodite and Athena. These Goddesses also had positive connotations such as wisdom, war and love. Furthermore in modern day religions, such as Hinduism, there are also important female Goddesses.
Another criticism of feminist’s viewpoint of religion is that there have been several key females within religion and therefore not all women are oppressed. Ellen White is a female who successfully founded the Seventh Day Adventist Church; whilst Mary Baker Eddy founded the Church of Christ. This then shows that religion has been positive for women, that through it, some women have been able to achieve goals and ambitions; religion has in fact been a means through which women have developed leadership roles.
Additionally, Feminists have been criticised for just seeing a negative view of religion. Many argue that feminist’s view of gender inequality allows them to ignore the positive effects religion has upon society, such as promoting social solidarity and reinforcing positive morals and values.
Another criticism which is more religion specific is concerning the Islamic religion and the wearing of the veil. The feminist sociologist, Watson (2002) has implied that while the veiling of women is often seen as social control, it actually is not. She along with other sociologists claims that the veil acts as a tool for women to cope with male oppression. It can reduce the possibility of sexual harassment and prevents women from being judged solely on their looks, therefore making themselves more secure. Whilst feminism claims that religion acts in a negative way towards women, this is not always the case.
In conclusion, the Marxist and Feminist perspectives of religion are similar in some aspects. Both agree that religion acts as tool of oppression, they simply differ on who is the oppressed. Whilst both religions offer insights in the role of religion in society today, one is to oppress the subject class, while the other states religions role is to dominate women, both have their criticisms and therefore both cannot adequately provide solid explanations on to how religion affects society completely.
