Item A also fits the functional definition of religion, Durkheim says religious beliefs and practices “unite into one single moral community… all those who adhere to them. “ He adds that they encourage social solidarity and unity. In America, in every school at the beginning of a day, pupils and teachers alike stand to salute the flag with the pledge of allegiance, this plays a part in reinforcing the collective conscience of the community, the saluting of the flag is perhaps one of the only things that all Americans share, this bond provides the function of strengthening solidarity.
Item B is similar, showing Catholics carrying a statue of their neighbourhood’s patron saint in Havana, Cuba. Although a patron saint may not necessarily be considered a supernatural force above the forces of nature, the statue of the saint itself is inarguably considered a sacred object, it evokes the respect, admiration and awe of all the towns people involved in the march. From the functional definition as well, the picture shows the whole neighbourhood marching together as one and celebrating together their own patron saint, this shows religion providing the social solidarity and unity function.
So both items A and B both fit the functional and substantive definitions of religion, although the substantive definition is exclusive – drawing a clear line between religious and non-religious beliefs, which can be accused of western bias, this does not show, and the inclusive functional definition which includes a wide range of beliefs also applies here.
2. Briefly criticise the view that all of the activities pictures above should be seen as religious.
According to Durkheim’s part of the substantive definition of religion about sacred objects or people, every one of the featured pictures fits into this definition, the pictures feature many arguably sacred objects or themes; the American flag, statue of a saint, a clairvoyant, the wiccan five point star, remembrance memorial and the English flag, because each of these can be considered sacred by the specific group who appraises said item, it could be argued that in context, any symbol or person could be considered sacred, as long as it fits Durkheim’s criteria of being awe inspiring and respected, this makes religion difficult to properly define and differentiate between what constitutes a religion and what does not.
Similarly, according to the other part of the substantive definition, put forward by Max Weber, the use of inclusion of a supernatural entity defines it as religious, does not necessarily apply specifically to each of the pictures, even though they do have religious sentiment. The American flag and Americanised civil religion are intertwined, and the statue, clairvoyant, white which ceremony all have supernatural parts to the picture, the depictions of the memorial ceremony and the world cup, although do not have anything technically to do with the supernatural, could still be considered religious, as both definitely “ evoke feelings of awe, respect and deference “. So some of the pictures fit one part of the substantive definition, but not the other, partly creating a disparity about this definition as it cannot really be universally applicable.
The functional definition of religion, which stresses the way in which religion can provide social solidarity and unity and a feeling of collective consciousness, are definitely prevalent in most of the pictures, but the clairvoyant and white witch ceremony could possibly promote feelings of controversy and anger, many respond negatively to self-proclaimed clairvoyant as they arguably idolize themselves which is unchristian. The majority of these pictures though, at least to the groups specifically shown in the pictures, bring about a sense of solidarity and togetherness, functions that the religion and its ceremonies or processes has brought about, so it fits the definition.
The problem with these definitions, as can be seen from the fact that in some way or another, all the of the pictures can be loosely defined as religious, is that perhaps the definitions are too universal, in order to study religion and beliefs, one must be able to differentiate between religious and non-religious groups, but if in some respect and depending on context, any group can be considered religious, involving sacred objects or supernatural factors, then it is difficult to draw contrast between the two groups.