Module 1A - People - Religion

Year 12 ATAR Religion & Life – Unit 3
Module 1A:
People & Religion
Syllabus Content:
 How social factors impact on how people

interact with religion.
FOCUS QUESTIONS
1. What are some examples of how people interact with
religion?
2. What factors influence how people interact with religion?
3. How do social factors impact on how people interact with
religion?
1
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2021 Census – Religious

Affiliation in Australia
Source 1A
https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/religious-affiliation-australia
Source 1B
https://www.abs.gov.au/census/guide-census-data/census-dictionary/2021/variables-
topic/cultural-diversity/religious-affiliation-relp
Source 1C
What the religion question in the census really measures
Caitlin Fitzsimmons
August 1, 2021 — 12.00am
For the past 100 years Australians have been asked to identify their religion in the
census. Yet the seemingly simple question - what is the person’s religion? - is
increasingly contentious. Researchers know some respondents will answer based on
their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), while others will answer based on cultural identity.
Liz Allen, a demographer at the Australian National University, said it was common for
people to respond according to the religion of their family upbringing rather than their
current beliefs or practices.
“The current census question doesn’t necessarily reflect religiosity - the level of
importance that we invest in religion, and whether or not we practise our religion, and
even belief in the faith that corresponds to that religion,” Dr Allen said.
A spokesperson for the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which runs the census, said the
question is about a person’s “affiliation to a religion” and part of a section about cultural
identity.
However, the ABS website also states the information is used “by religious organisations
and government agencies to plan and deliver services, and incorporate religious
practices within community services, such as education, hospitals and aged care
facilities.”
Groups such as the Rationalist Society of Australia argue this means the official figures
for religious membership are inflated. For the past few censuses, they’ve campaigned for
people to answer “no religion” rather than nominating a religion they have no ongoing
connection with or providing a frivolous answer such as Jedi or Pastafarian.
The Rationalist Society, Humanists Australia, the Atheist Foundation of Australia and
others have chipped in $50,000 to the Census21: Not Religious? Mark ‘No Religion’
campaign, which will flood social media this week with messages such as “If you don’t
practise what they preach, mark ‘No Religion’” and “Lapsed Catholic? Mark ‘No
Religion’“.
2
Rationalist Society president Meredith Doig believes the question itself is misleading
because “the way the question is phrased assumes that the person responding has a
religion”.
“If you just put in ‘what is the person’s current religion, if any?’ I think it would elicit a more
accurate response,” Dr Doig said.
A report by the Rationalist Society titled Religiosity in Australia finds the “no religion”
result is much higher in surveys that do not have the presumptive wording. While 60 per
cent of Australians indicated a religion in the 2016 census, other research suggests that,
when expressly asked if they belong to their religious organisation, 62 per cent of
Australians say they don’t.
An ABS spokesperson said it had received a range of submissions on the 2021 Census,
including suggestions to remove the question, to collect information on participation in
religious activities rather than affiliation, and to start by asking if you have a religion.
The spokesperson said the ABS did not make these changes “because it would affect the
continuity of the data” but would assess new suggestions before the 2026 Census.
Dr Allen said the proposed changes were unnecessary and the “if any” addition could
confuse people into thinking they should only tick a box if they have a religion.
“The religion question in the Australian census is based on international best practice,” Dr
Allen said.
Dr Allen said it could be useful for the ABS to measure religiosity in a separate sample
survey but the census should stay simple and consistent with previous years.
The 1991 census was the first to add “no religion” as an official option and it was moved
to the top in 2016 and set apart from the others. The census also gives the option of
selecting “other” as an option and provides “atheism”, “agnosticism” and “rationalism” as
examples - social media posts have warned this is a “trick” to undermine the “no religion”
response but an ABS spokesperson said these would be added to the “no religion” tally.
Alison Sharp, 60, from Lindfield grew up in a deeply religious Anglican family in Britain.
She started questioning her beliefs more closely about a decade ago and realised she no
longer believed in God.
Ms Sharp said 2016 was the first time she answered “no religion” on the census and she
plans to do so again.
“I woud like to be counted accurately and for it to be very distinctive as to where I lie,” she
said. “Another reason we must get the count right and correct is because secular-based
services could be missing out on much-needed funding.”
Source: https://www.smh.com.au/national/what-the-religion-question-in-the-census-really-
measures-20210721-p58bku.html
3
Using Sources 1A, 1B and 1C.
1. Outline the place of religion in Australian society.
2. Identify significant trends emerging over time.
3. Comment on the limitations of this census data for understanding the place of
religion in Australian society.
4. Suggest reasons for the decline in religious affiliation and increase of those
identifying as non-religious in Australian society.
4
Source 2
Being Catholic means finding God at every turn
Kathy Coffey, 2010
What does it mean to be Catholic? There are probably as many answers to that question
as there are Catholics. My own fascination with the identity question began, like most
fascinations, in autobiography. I was educated by French nuns in a private girls’ school.
Academics were rigorous and there wasn’t much free time in the daily routine.
Except for one miraculous loophole that had escaped the sharp gaze of Reverend
Mother: the chapel visit. During the last study hall of the day, we could visit the chapel.
That meant waving a small square of black lace veil at the presiding sister, getting her
nod, then escaping, unsupervised and independent, for the long walk down a hall filled
with swooshing ferns and lined with huge windows. The gleaming wood floors made a
fitting approach to the transcendent. There, a thoughtful person could transition from
academic drudgery to sacred space.
Oddly enough, we didn’t go simply to escape study. Perhaps brighter students had
figured that out, but I went for the peace and beauty of that chapel. Half a century later, I
can still visualize its soaring white arches, its columns carved with intricate designs. Ivory
marble predominated, anchored by glowing jewels of stained glass and the polished
surfaces of wooden pews. Getting A’s in religion now seems less relevant than that lovely
setting.
Those hushed and hidden moments in the chapel began a lifelong love affair. I didn’t
know then that my personality type is intensely drawn toward beauty. I didn’t realize how
much an introvert needed a peaceful oasis in a day packed with interactions. Nor did I
dream that my career in spirituality would one day lead back to the beginning.
But I began to connect the dots when I spoke to friends about similar, early experiences
in Catholic schools. Artist Michael O’Neill McGrath, an Oblate of St. Francis de Sales,
dismayed by the academics of the classroom, delighted in the stained glass windows of
the church. Even as a first-grader, he was itching for drawing paper and crayons, which
foretold his stunningly creative career.
Dominican Fr. Paul Colloton, director of education for National Pastoral Musicians,
doesn’t remember much about his classroom experience. But he glows with delight at the
memories of choir. In that arena, he came alive, foreshadowing his career as a liturgist
and musician. All three of us had a window.
Our examples may not be true for everyone, but they suggest an interesting trend. In the
question of Catholic identity, what some consider a side dish is indeed the main course.
Many who have forgotten the precepts of the church or the essentials of
transubstantiation remain faithful to the poetry of the faith: the smells and bells, the art
and decoration, the saints and incense.
Indeed, Fr. Andrew Greeley, a sociologist who has studied fidelity to the church, writes:
“Catholics stay in their church because of loyalty to the imagery of the Catholic
imagination, because of the spiritual vision of Catholics that they absorb in their childhood
5
along with and often despite all the rules and regulations that were drummed into their
heads.”
Which brings us to the question of narrow box or big window. Many people define
Catholics in terms of what we oppose: abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, to name
a few controversies. While those are important pieces, they don’t create the whole
picture. Nor is Catholicism simply cerebral. While study forms the strong spine of our
theology, a larger dimension is accessible to those who may not be academically
inclined. What, then, are we?
Being Catholic means being steeped in a way of life. It means finding God at every turn:
in candlelight or conversation, night sky or green meadow. No matter how small or even
oppressive our environment may seem, we can look beyond or within it for a hidden
dimension: the elusive, mysterious presence of God.
All around us are signs, gifts from God. To read them aright, we need to interpret the
language of symbol.
Or, to stay with the metaphor, we need to open the windows for a larger perspective on
human life: its divine element.
How do we best prepare children for this way of life, teaching its language, sensitizing to
its nuances?
As St. Ignatius directed, we go in through their door. Children are naturally attuned to the
small miracles of creation: an intriguing insect, a puddle made for mirroring and
splashing, an unusual cloudscape. They are concrete-minded, so abstractions have far
less meaning than teachings grounded in sensate reality.
As the botanist Luther Burbank says: “Every child should have mud pies, grasshoppers,
water bugs, tadpoles, frogs and mud turtles, elderberries, wild strawberries, acorns,
chestnuts, trees to climb, brooks to wade in ... bats, bees, butterflies ... sand, snakes ...
and any child who has been deprived of these has been deprived of the best part of
education.” Lucky the child who knows the next level: that the grasshopper is a symbol of
John the Baptist and the beehive of the Christian community.
The best of Catholic worship accords with that.
As the Book of Wisdom says, our delight in natural beauties guides us to their source, the
author of all beauty. So the Advent fragrance of candles nestled in evergreen, the blaze
of bonfire at the Easter Vigil, the splash of holy water, or the story of Jesus’ post-
Resurrection barbecue beside the lake open the window through our senses to our
eternal heritage.
Of course we must continue to teach the content of the faith: the Gospels, social
teachings, traditions with both capital and small “t.” But let’s also pay keen attention to the
environment in which we teach that faith. Anyone who remembers the insufferable
boredom of childhood -- the endless days of nothing to do -- knows the importance of
feasts and fasts, snacks and treats, saints and stories, all open windows. Pope John
6
XXIII evoked that image when he called the Second Vatican Council to let in some fresh
air.
Source: http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/being-catholic-means-finding-god-every-
turn
Source 3
Religion and Identity
Facing History & Ourselves, 2016
Four teenagers from different religious traditions reflect on their experiences of religious
belief and belonging.
Religion can be a central part of one’s identity. The word religion comes from a Latin
word that means “to tie or bind together.” Modern dictionaries define religion as “an
organized system of beliefs and rituals centring on a supernatural being or beings.” To
belong to a religion often means more than sharing its beliefs and participating in its
rituals; it also means being part of a community and, sometimes, a culture.
The world’s religions are similar in many ways; scholar Stephen Prothero refers to these
similarities as “family resemblances.” All religions include rituals, scriptures, and sacred
days and gathering places. Each religion gives its followers instructions for how human
beings should act toward one another. In addition, three of the world’s religions—
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—share a common origin: all three trace their beginnings
to the biblical figure of Abraham.
There is incredible diversity within each religion in terms of how members define their
connections to it. For some, a religion’s theological beliefs and rituals of worship are
central to their lives. Others are more drawn to a religion’s community and culture than to
its beliefs and rituals. Many even feel part of a religion’s culture but choose not to
participate in its rituals at all. Some people feel free to choose a religion for themselves,
or to reject religion entirely as a part of their identity. Others feel that they have been born
and raised in a particular religion and are unwilling or unable to change it. Some
governments grant privileges to one religion and not to others, while other governments
protect citizens’ freedom to follow any religion without privilege or penalty.
Different people have different experiences with their religion. In the following reflections,
teenagers share parts of their religious experiences. While each belongs to a particular
religion, each one’s experience does not fully represent that religion as a whole.
Rebecca, then age 17, explains the influence that her religion, Judaism, has on her life:
In the Bible, in the Torah, there are 613 commandments. They involve everything
from how you treat other people, to Jewish holidays and how we observe them,
and the Sabbath, which is every week, and how we observe that. It’s like a guide
how to live.
7
There are also a lot of dietary laws. The dietary laws say we can only eat certain
kinds of meat that are killed and prepared in a certain way. We can’t eat meat at
nonkosher restaurants. My parents like to remind me of this funny story. One time
when I was two, we were driving past a Burger King. I saw the sign, and I yelled
out, “That sign says Burger King. No burgers for Jewish people.” I picked up on
those observances. It was always something that was part of me. I recognized that
it was important.
We set the Sabbath aside as a day of rest because God rested on the seventh day
after creating the world. Because of this, there are lots of rules for things you can
and can’t do . . . It’s supposed to be a day of rest—you’re not supposed to do any
type of work, or watch television, use the computer, use electricity, any of that stuff
. . . For me it’s very spiritual. It really separates the day out from the rest of the
week.
I spend a lot of time with my family—from Friday night at sundown until Saturday
night. I go to prayers at my synagogue in the morning and sometimes in the
afternoon. It’s just a really spiritual experience. It makes it more of an important
day . . .
I haven’t gone to see a movie on a Saturday or Friday night ever.
It’s weird being in a public high school because you’re faced with being in a school
where there’s lots of activities on Friday nights and things to miss out on. Like all
the school plays are on Friday nights. I have to give up trying out for school plays.
And sports—I used to play softball. But there are games every Saturday, so I
couldn’t play those.
A lot of people look at it like, “How can you give up all of this stuff because of your
religion?” It’s just a matter of how you look at it. You can look at it as being a
burden—that you have these religious obligations, so you’re not able to do your
school activities. But I look at it as a more positive experience. It’s something that I
choose to do.
Often, the way individuals relate to and practice a religion changes over the course of
their lives. Maham, age 19, explains how her Muslim faith and practice has changed as
she has grown older:
When I was fifteen, I was really super-religious actually. Then I fell into this not-so-
religious stage—that was between the end of junior year of high school and
freshman year of college. I started praying less and hanging out with my friends
more. I believe that spirituality is a roller coaster and that you’re going to have your
ups and downs, because when you’re up, there’s nowhere to go but down. That’s
how life is.
I went down, and now I think I’m heading right back up. I still am not back praying
five times a day because of my schedule (I try to pray as much as I can), but I
believe that true spirituality transcends ritual worship, so I try to live my life with the
8
philosophy that Islam teaches—of compassion, peace, submission, tolerance, and

things like that. I try every day to fight the jihad of personal struggle to become a
better person.
That’s what Islam is to me now, more than just praying five times a day. When
you’re fourteen, that’s enough. But as you mature, life becomes complicated and
harder to categorize as just good and bad. The rules are not laid out in black and
white anymore—you find a lot of gray area since you gain more independence as
you get older. After all, you start to make your own decisions—some good, some
bad—but life has to teach you its lessons somehow.
I do believe in rituals. Like Ramadan is coming up next week. Do I plan on fasting

all thirty days? Yes, I do. Those things help me become a better Muslim. There are
a lot of things that are taught in Islam, like wearing the headscarf and praying. Just
as people eat food four or five times a day to nourish their bodies, prayers nourish
the soul four or five times a day. It’s a way for me to meditate. It’s a way for me to
tune myself out from the things around me that are bad influences. It’s a way to
remind myself of who I am so I have less chances of doing something I’ll regret.
Sara, age 18, feels differently about the rituals and worship practices of her religion than
Rebecca and Maham do:
I feel really connected with my Jewish community, but a little less connected to the
observance factor of my religion. I don’t keep kosher. I don’t really feel that that’s
necessary. When I was little, my whole family would sit down every Friday night
and light the Shabbat candles and say the blessings. We don’t do that anymore.
Now it’s like, “It’s Friday night. I’m going to go out with my friends.”
I don’t like organized prayer. Every once in a while I go to services, but I

appreciate it a lot more when I do my own thing and say my own prayers . . .
When I was younger, I never really thought I was different ’cause I was Jewish. It
didn’t occur to me until high school when I started getting really involved with stuff.
It’s kind of weird when I really think about it. It’s like I’m just like everyone else,
except there’s that little part of me that’s going to be Jewish forever, and that
makes me different.
Hesed, age 14, a member of the United Methodist Church, explains how he knows the
Christian religion in which he was raised is right for him:
After confirmation [as an adolescent] I was getting stronger in the faith, but I still
thought about it and said, “Well, what about other religions? Are they fake? And if
they are, why are there millions of Muslims around the world who pray to Allah five
times a day? And why are there Buddhists who make Buddhism their faith? Why
do I think this one faith is real?”
9
And basically, to me, I just get a feeling. It’s really hard to explain. Christianity just
feels right to me. I go to church, and I see the cross, and we’re at prayer—it feels
right. And I can honestly say that I feel the presence of God in that place. And for
me, Christianity is the religion where I feel that. To me that’s basically what faith is
—to just believe in what you think is right. And this is right for me.
Now I’m really secure in what I believe. And I don’t know if it’s wrong to say it—
since I’m a Christian and we’re supposed to go out and save the world and convert
people to Christianity—but I truly do believe that there are a lot of people who feel
that their religion, whether it be Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, is right for them.
And I don’t see anything wrong with that. I’m not saying those are the right faiths,
but you just get a feeling when something is right for you.
Source 4
Some of the factors that could influence religious belief & practice in
the life of an adolescent.
Many teenagers have a strong belief in God but do not necessarily attend any formal
worship such as Sunday mass or Sunday service. In order not to appear to stand out
from their peers teenagers may think it is not “cool” to practice their faith by going to
mass or confession for example. This peer pressure seems to be far less for Muslim
adolescents since they often have a strong tradition of praying at home or attending
prayers in the mosque. Adolescents are often the first to volunteer to be involved in
fundraising activities for charities or in organising campaigns against injustices, such as
Amnesty’s letter writing campaign. In this way they are practicing their religious beliefs
even if they do not participate in formal worship. Peer pressure makes it more
acceptable for many adolescents to practice their faith in this active way rather than by
participating in worship.
Apathy and indifference also influences religious beliefs and practices. In a fast-moving
world of instant gratification, fast food, ready meals and instant broadband access to
multimedia, the very notion of religious belief, prayer, reflection, becoming still and silent,
is not always appealing. Teens can feel that God and religion don’t matter anyway
because there is so much more to stimulate them. The culture in which we live promotes
a selfish type of philosophy - “me, me, me”. There is little room for God and religious
rituals in such an outlook. Adolescents are left feeling like all that matters is here and
now and that life is for enjoying and not to be bothered about spiritual matters or the
afterlife.
Science and technology have also affected the religious beliefs and practices of
adolescents. In a society where we are immersed in technology (mobile phones,
internet, iPods etc) we have access to immediate technological distractions at every
opportunity. Communication with God is so different. It requires reflection, time,
openness, peace and quiet. Often adolescents find it impossible to communicate with
God because they are so busy trying to communicate with each other in a rapidly
10
changing society. We often end up believing the lie that only what is observable, proven,
measurable and scientific has any validity. Anything else is seen as delusion or wishful
thinking. This blinds us to the realm of the spiritual.
Consumerism is also a factor in blocking religious beliefs and practice. Years ago
Sunday was a day set apart by religious observance, a special family meal and wearing
your good clothes. It was a day of rest, like the Sabbath. It stood out from other days
and it felt “religious”. Nowadays, the churches are emptier and the shopping centres are
bursting to capacity on Sundays. Shopping is well known to be the favourite leisure
activity of the Irish adolescent, especially on Sundays. Once again, teens become
increasingly removed from religious observance and even giving time to God in prayer.
Shopping has replaced mass going as a commonly accepted Sunday ritual. Is it any
wonder that religious practice is on the decline?
Of course, the media encourages this secularist world view more and more. Very few
religious programmes are shown on T.V, and fewer still that involve young people. Films,
modern music and magazines tend to promote a view of the successful person as being
beautiful, fashionable, busy, earning lots of money etc. Pop idols, supermodels and film
stars mostly seem to encourage this secular world view. The media make money out of
these successes. Therefore we don’t get a balanced view of life or of religious values.
It’s almost like adolescents being brainwashed by the media into believing that what
matters most in life is success, money, career, fashion etc. Very few films, T.V
programmes or pop songs expose us to mystery or God, and those that do are not given
equal attention by the media, unless it is a derogatory way. This can block the religious
beliefs and practices of adolescents.
On the positive side adolescents can also be influenced in a good way regarding their
religious beliefs and practices. Parents who have faith in God and who regularly
participate in worship give a good example to their children. Even if teens go through a
transition stage of temporary indifference the example set by parents is not lost on young
people. They still see the value of religion in the lives of their parents and it can be like a
dormant seed for them to nourish at a later stage in their development. Faith is a real gift
that parents can hand on to their children. In the face of terrible suffering and tragedy,
such as 911 or the tsunami it is easy to believe that God does not exist. Parents who
trust in God and pray for those who have died as well as for the survivors give young
people hope that there is meaning in suffering and that we can turn to God at dark
moments in our lives for comfort and strength.
Teachers, chaplains, religious and priests can also be good role models for young
people. Sometimes if young people have a good experience of Religious Education in
school their belief in God can be strengthened. R.E. class can open their minds and
hearts to the mystery of God and how faith can be lived. In schools they can be exposed
to meditation, liturgies, opening year masses, graduation ceremonies etc, which involve
them in a meaningful way. This can provide a sense of union with one another and with
God. It can encourage them to continue to pray, worship and to live by religious moral
values in their daily lives. Seeing adults such as religious sisters and clergy who have a
vocation to follow Christ, and who offer their lives in service of God and one another, can
11
be a living example of the love of God in the world and the importance of religious faith.
It reminds young people that religion has a valuable role to play in life.
Source:https://www.google.com/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAAahUKEwiP-
oHU6aXIAhWCk5QKHRjMATQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpdst.ie%2Fsites%2Fdefault
%2Ffiles
%2FFactors_ReligiousBeliefAndPractice.doc&usg=AFQjCNE1oRMplyfNe9TFSHUtqAFIL
XAejQ
Source 5
Consumerism, Materialism And Mental Health
1 People, 2021
Consumerism is often confused with materialism, but they mean two different
things.
Let’s have a think about the consumer culture that exists in present society, worldwide. In
order for the world to continue rotating, we rely on the rotation of the economy. In other
words, the world needs to be productive so that consumer goods can be demanded,
produced and purchased—a process that needs to be repeated to feed the cycle of our
society, our life.
But if we’re moving too fast—meaning that demands start to increase, so does the rate of
the production of goods and, consequently, benefiting from economies of scale—, there
is a tendency to lose sight of more humane, mindful principles such as compassion,
morale and ethics, which are all major contributors to one’s mental health. Losing sight of
these very important psychological components at the expense of profit is always a
questionable move, because then it reflects back to the nature and state of the society.
Today, big brands and businesses reap many benefits from the fast-paced movement of
the economy—of producing and consuming goods. Fast fashion is a direct example of
this, further giving in to trends and overconsumption. In a previous journal, 1 People has
covered how the holiday season is guilty of encouraging such phenomena. What’s more
is how overconsumption goes against hygge and the slow approach to living that it
promotes, which can be read in a different journal.
Establishing the realisation that heavy consumerism strongly affects mental health and
wellness and well-being in general is the first step to living life more mindfully, regardless
of the state of the economy we live in. In the early 2000s mental health was still deemed
a social taboo. In contrast to today, we have progressed so far to have many change
makers and activists speak up about their experiences on mental health across social
media.
Consumerism And Materialism

First, let’s define the difference between consumerism and materialism, because these
two concepts are strongly associated but have very different meanings. Consumerism is
essentially the preoccupation of goods in society. Materialism, on the other hand, is one’s
12
preoccupation with tangible items and physical comfort. These two concepts are closely
related. Materialism is often seen as a characteristic in individuals, whereby those who
seek material possessions for gratification may be seen as materialistic. As a materialistic
individual, it might be the case that material possessions including cars, gadgets, clothes
and accessories reflect the social status and wealth of the individual.
As a consequence to materialism, the tendency to purchase goods and services is

higher, leading to consumerism. If materialism is seen at the personal level, consumerism
might be seen from the collective level—it describes society as a whole.
The Effects Of Consumerism And Materialism On Mental Health
Materialism and minimalist living don’t go hand in hand. Materialistic tendencies may
result in many adverse psychological effects including hoarding, self-esteem issues and
depression. Simply put, materialists lead unhappier lives. However, a new factor must be
included in this observation in order to fully understand why, and that’s social media’s
contribution to society. The rise of today’s existing comparison culture of beauty and
riches is powered by social media, so it’s no surprise that social media could be the
source of inspiration for these materialistic desires.
According to a Vox article that summarises a study by Tim Kasser, a Knox College
psychologist, “Materialism is associated with lower levels of well-being, less pro-social
interpersonal behaviour, more ecologically destructive behaviour, and worse academic
outcomes. It also is associated with more spending problems and debt…”
Negative outcomes from being a materialist may also lead to depression and anxiety.
After all, it could all turn into a snowball effect if the problem persists and turns severe.
But the problem of materialism arises from insecurity and/or the lack of self-esteem in the
first place. The fear of being rejected by society could trigger a greater tendency to make
purchases that are unwise and purely for social gratifications. In the long run, this is not a
sustainable mindset to preach, as it will only cause greater anxiety which may lead to
depression if not handled properly.
If we take a look at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to evaluate the motivations of

individuals in relation to their needs, we can have a better understanding of why certain
characteristics are developed in a person. After all, out of the five main variables, food
and clothing comprise of the main needs (i.e., physiological), which further link to love
and belonging needs (i.e., friendship), as well as esteem.
13
The idea is to satisfy the lower-level needs first before progressing on to meet higher
level needs as illustrated on the pyramid above. Linking this back to materialism, we can
start to picture why some people are motivated by materialistic desires for their own
‘growth’ and satisfaction.
The road to personal satisfaction is not always clear-cut, though. With life, there are
fluctuations, as experienced by unexpected life situations. That is why we may fluctuate
between levels of the hierarchy.
Source: https://1people.com/en-us/blog/post/consumerism-materialism-and-mental-
health.html#:~:text=First%2C%20let%27s%20define%20the%20difference,tangible
%20items%20and%20physical%20comfort.
Source 6A
A frenzy of consumerism
James Adonis, 2012
There was something quite tragic about the Click Frenzy frenzy, wasn’t there? The same
could be said about the Black Friday stampedes in the US, the likes of which are bound
14
to be repeated here in Australia on Boxing Day. It’s tasteless consumerism to the max,
turning ordinary people into ravenous and mindless shoppers, with flow-on effects in the
workplace.
But first, let’s go back to 1929. In an article written for Nation’s Business magazine,
Charles Kettering – a director of General Motors Research – opined on the need for
companies to keep consumers dissatisfied. The moment people are happy with what they
have, “almost immediately hard times would be upon us”, he wrote.
And so it is that marketers persevere with advertising to convince us we’re not sexy
enough, popular enough, smart enough, or (whatever) enough, unless we purchase what
they’re selling. Perhaps that’s why American comedian Bill Hicks referred to marketers
and advertisers as “Satan’s spawn filling the world with bile and garbage”.
This is where work comes in. In order to fund the lifestyles to which we’ve become
accustomed, we work. In many cases, we overwork. Then, as our credit card balances
swell and our home loans balloon, we work even harder just to keep up. Where
households could once get by with just one wage earner, today both parents have little
choice but to be employed.
One analysis at the University of Melbourne sought to discover the reasons why people
are increasingly compelled to work more than 50 hours a week. The researchers looked
at a variety of possible explanations. Was it that people were motivated by the desire to
be ‘ideal workers’? Was it a fear of losing their job? Or was it due to the collapse in union
membership?
What came out in front was none of the above. The correct answer was consumerism. It
was the “work-and-spend” trap, an endless cycle characterised by the desire for higher
living standards, linked with greater levels of debt that can only be managed by working
longer and harder.
In an article published in the Pacific Ecologist journal, Professor Sharon Beder from the
University of Wollongong chronicled the history of consumerism’s impact on the
workforce. It has made, she writes, workers “less likely to question the conditions of their
work, the way it dominates their life, and the lack of power that they have as workers”.
That’s because consumerism grants people a taste of the good life – televisions, cars,
electrical goods, houses, luxury items, holidays – and they want more of it. But that stuff
can only be financed by working more … at any sacrifice.
Technology was supposed to make a positive difference. It was meant to remove the
need to work so much, since machines were expected to take over. Instead, the opposite
occurred, with technologies chaining many of us to our jobs beyond the standard working
week in a drive towards ever-greater productivity.
So what would happen if we were all to collectively reduce our consumption?

Undoubtedly, the economy would tank. Jobs would be lost. Politicians would be voted out
15
of office. There’d be a recession; maybe even a depression. This all-consuming

consumerism seems to be an inescapable part of life.
It doesn’t help that the success of our nation, and every nation these days, is determined
by the strength of the economy – and a preoccupation with perpetual growth – a measure
that can only be sustained by a relentless insatiability for products and services.
That’s why it was so refreshing to read what Gina Rinehart had to say yesterday. The
world’s richest woman advised us all to live within our means and to be wary of too much
debt. Can’t really argue with that.
Source: https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/a-frenzy-of-consumerism-
20121207-2ayut.html
Source 6B
Sacred Brands: Consumerism as Modern Religion
Matt J Rossano, 2010
With increasing numbers of people being married at Disney World and buried in Harley
Davidson coffins, brands as modern religion may not be all that implausible.
The cover of Steve Bruce's book, God is Dead: Secularization in the West, features a
busy West Yorkshire street corner where a shuttered church sports the sign "Mike's
Carpets." An iconic metaphor for our times: Religion retreating in the face of a relentless
consumerist onslaught. With increasing numbers of people being married at Disney
World and buried in Harley Davidson coffins, brands as modern religion may not be all
that implausible.
In a 2001 Financial Times article, the global advertising firm Young & Rubicam declared
that "Brands are the new religion. People turn to them for meaning." They went on to
argue that the ad man is the equivalent of a modern missionary. Their pronouncement
was not without foundation. Researchers have documented how Macintosh users bear
an eerie resemblance to a religious cult: a tight-knit network of emotionally committed
adherents, faith in a "savior" figure (Steve Jobs), and a generalized hostility toward an
external "evil" (Microsoft, IBM, etc.). At the risk of piling on Apple Inc., another study
focusing on Newton users (the now discontinued digital personal assistant) demonstrated
how five key religious mythological themes were present among them: tales of
persecution, tales of faith being rewarded, tales of survival, tales of miraculous recovery
and tales of resurrection. Finally, marketing researchers have noted that relative to the
devout, nominally religious people tend to make trendier consumer choices, place greater
importance on brand labels and show a greater willingness to try novel products. All of
this provides a background suggesting that consumer behavior and brand loyalty may be
functioning psychologically in a manner similar to religion.
To test this idea, researchers from Tel Aviv University and the Duke University School of
Business did a series of studies exploring the idea that religion and brand reliance
(investing subjective worth or value in a name brand) serve a similar psychological need
16
-- the need to publically express one's self-worth (Marketing Science). The researchers
open with a rough but suggestive field observation: In geographical regions dense in
religious congregations and high in self-reported church attendance, the frequency of
brand-name stores such as Apple, Macy's or Gap is relatively low. This relationship held
even when other demographic variables such as income level, education and degree of
urbanization were controlled for statistically. This suggests that where religion is popular,
brand names find a smaller market, and vice-versa.
The researchers then did a series of experimental manipulations where they reminded
subjects of religious concepts and measured the degree to which this affected their
consumer choices. For example, in one study a group of subjects was asked to write an
essay on "what your religion means to you personally," while another group was asked to
write an essay on "a couple of routine activities that you typically do on an average day."
After this, both groups were told to imagine that they were shopping and to pick the
product that they would normally buy. They were given a choice between a national
name brand product and a store brand product (such as Ralph Lauren vs. Target brand
sunglasses). Furthermore, the products represented either self-expressive ones (such as
sunglasses) or purely functional ones (Energizer vs. CVS brand batteries). The results
showed that subjects who wrote about religion were significantly less likely to choose the
prestigious national brand. This difference, however, held only for the self-expressive
products, not the functional ones. So if you had religion on your mind while you were
choosing between Ralph Lauren sunglasses and Target sunglasses, you chose Target. If
you didn't, you chose Ralph Lauren. Religion made no difference, however, if you had to
choose between batteries.
This same effect was found when comparing self-reported devoutly religious subjects
from those who reported being either less religious or not religious at all. This was done
by measuring subjects' religiosity using the Religious Commitment Inventory, a 10-item
questionnaire assessing "the degree to which a person adheres to his or her religious
values, beliefs, and practices and uses them in daily living." As expected, those high in
religiosity were once again significantly less likely to choose name brands but only for
"self-expressive" products.
In an attempt to isolate the self-expressive variable, the researchers conducted another

manipulation where prior to having subjects make their consumer choices they were
asked to think about either the self-worth aspects of religion or the security aspects. In
other words, both groups of subjects were thinking about religion, but only one group was
thinking about religion's relevance to one's self-worth. The results were as expected:
subjects asked to think about religion in terms of self-worth were significantly less likely to
choose name brands. Not so for those who thought about religion in terms of personal
security. Once again, however, this difference was only found for self-expressive
products not functional ones.
I'm sympathetic to the view that humans will, either by design or default, end up
worshipping some god, if by god we mean "that to which we willing offer service and
sacrifice in exchange for a sense of meaning and purpose." For some, a life without
religion is an improvement for them and those around them. Atheists and agnostics can
17
proudly count among their ranks many thoughtful, compassionate people. But human
nature being what it is, I suspect that most who drop religion simply move into the ranks
of lazy ex-religious people. Sunday mornings formerly spent at church are traded for
more sleep or television. The money once earmarked for church coffers now pay green
fees. I remain to be convinced that the world is a better place if increasing numbers of
people bow at the altar of Gucci, Gap and Lexus rather than Jesus, Allah and Vishnu.
Source: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sacred-brands-consumerism_b_789303?
ir=Australia
Source , 6C
Blessed are the consumers, for theirs is the kingdom of capitalism
Luigino Bruni, 2018
One of the most significant forms of "creative destruction" which capitalism has enacted
upon the modern world is its destruction of religion. The market economy has grown and
keeps growing with the consumption of sacred territory, which, once deconsecrated and
turned into an undifferentiated and anonymous profane space, has become a new
clearing house for goods. The merchants are back in the temple, and the temple has
become a marketplace ― even the sancta sanctorum(the holy of holies) has been put to
commercial use.
To destroy a religion, the first step is to undermine communities and isolate peopleby
turning them into individuals. And capitalism has done this particularly well. Individuals
are unrelated to each other, and therefore cannot sustain religio, which is an experience
that is only possible for those who share and preserve something important.
When the common ground of the community is lacking, religious experience is inexorably
cast out. Or it becomes a commodity, as has happened in the West, where in the course
of two generations the community and religious heritage built over two thousand years
has been reduced to rubble, and where homeless and rootless individuals have become
the perfect consumers. We have agreed to be emptied of meaning and filled with things.
This process of emptying-and-filling represents the ultimate realisation of the first "spirit of
capitalism" that perceived the accumulation of goods as a blessing from God ― but with
a decisive difference: what had been an elitist experience of a small number of
entrepreneurs and bankers for at least two centuries has become a mass religion in the
twentieth century, thanks to the shift of the ethical centre of the gravity of capitalism from
the sphere of production to that of consumption. Thus the "blessed by God" are no longer
those who produce, but those who consume ― and they are praised and envied because
they have the means to consume. The predestined ones have become those who
can consume the goods, not those who produce them by their work. The more they
consume, the more blessing they receive. Likewise, the sacred figure of the
entrepreneur-manufacturer has also given way to the new priest and messiah of the
18
manager-consumer, and the higher his bonus ― and therefore his consumption
standards ― the more "blessed" he is.
As a result, work is out of the picture, relegated to a half-forgotten existence among the
somewhat nostalgic memories of the past and its utopias. It has been reduced to little
more than a means of increasing consumption, thanks to finance becoming increasingly
allied to consumption and antithetical to work, enterprise and the entrepreneur-worker.
The old Calvinist spirit of capitalism, centred around production and work, was still
essentially and naturally a social type of capitalism. Working and producing are collective
actions, cooperation, mutuality. Work is the first building block of human communities. By
shifting the axis of the economic and social system from labour to consumption,
the community has naturally given way to the individual.
Consumption has thus become increasingly an act of the individual, gradually losing its
social dimension, yet remaining tethered to the economic sphere. Until a few decades
ago, words were also exchanged in the markets. Today online shopping has become the
perfect act of consumption, where the product reaches me at home without any other
human between me and the object of my desire (possibly not even the postman).
That's why today's gambling-mania is the most fitting image of capitalism's current
manifestation. From football pools to races, which were in many cases profoundly social
experiences, we have moved to the individual-machine relationship where everyone
"plays" alone (so it is not a game), completely focused and sucked in by the object of the
game. It is not accidental that so many slot machines have a totemic aspect: they are
shimmering, colourful and always hungry.
The shift from labour to consumption is also the result of disesteem for anything that
entails hard work, sweat and sacrifice. We like consumption because it is all and
only pleasure: no fatigue, no pain, no sacrifice. No wonder, then, that the new frontier of
civil conflict is shifting away from "work for all" ― which was the great ideal of the
twentieth century ― to "consumption for all" ― which is becoming the slogan of the
twenty-first ― made possible perhaps by a guaranteed minimum income permitting
everyone access into the new consumerist temple. More consumption, less work, more
blessing.
Idolatries are always economies of pure consumption. The totem does not work, and the
work of its devotees is only recognised if oriented to consumption ― to offering, to
sacrifice. The more idolatrous a culture is, the more it despises work and adores
consumption and the type of finance that promises a perpetual cult consisting in effortless
consumption only.
The capitalism of post-satiety

However, this anthropological, social and sacral structure that has heretofore upheld
capitalism is inexorably coming into crisis. The days of individualistic capitalism seem to
be numbered, even though it now appears to be thriving ― great crises always start at
the height of success, and then occur with a time delay of a few years. And it is not
difficult to notice.
19
As long as we were within an economy of the scarcity of goods, the things we purchased
were enough to fill our imagination and satisfy our desires for the market cult. But now
that much of society has reached and exceeded the threshold of satiety, the capitalist
religion must completely rethink itself if it wants to continue to grow and retain its faithful
― forgetting, as it must, those who are not satiated but knocking on the doors of our
lavish banquets.
And it is precisely by looking at the changes underway in this new phase ― the
capitalism of post-satiety ― that we can see the power of the current religious-idolatrous
system most clearly. Just consider of the individual-versus-community relationship. The
more perceptive components of our economic system are sensing that the capitalist cult
needs communities in order to be powerful and lasting. Like any other religion, the
capitalist faith can also only exist as a community ― as Emile Durkheim insisted, every
religion is an "integral social phenomenon."
And so, from within the heart of capitalism itself something difficult to imagine began to
emerge less than a decade ago. Just as the process of the individualisation of
consumption and the consequent elimination the community was reaching its apotheosis,
that same economic culture was giving birth to children who look very much like those of
the old religion and the old community that it had opposed.
That phase of the market which grew by offering goods to individuals, thus replacing the
ancient collective cults with the individual idolatry of new totem-objects, is gradually
giving way now to a new phase of community, and therefore more quasi-
religious consumption. The separate and isolated individual consumer, the worshipper of
idols by which he or she is devoured, will not be the protagonist of the markets in coming
years. The market of the future will be social and full of stories.
We cannot understand, for example, the new sharing economy ― which could just as
easily be described as "collaborative consumption" ― unless we perceive it within the
framework of this new phase of capitalist religion which is also communal, albeit it in a
different way.
Stories of gratuitousness
Consider the great phenomenon of narrative marketing and so-called storytellingthat are
more and more often inserted among the ingredients of successful new businesses.
Narratives are a typical element of religions and communities, so much so that they
constitute their first capital. Faiths are mainly a legacy of stories received and donated.
There are no faiths without narratives of the beginning, the end, the fathers, the
liberations and the encounters with God. Faith is transmitted by telling a story.
The new marketing of the post-scarcity era no longer presents products with their
technical specifications and commercial qualities. It does not bewitch us by describing the
properties of the goods; instead, it enchants us by telling stories. Like our grandparents
did, like the Bible did and still does. The new advertising is more and more like the
invention of stories using the typical language of myths, where the aim is to activate the
20
emotion of the consumer, their symbolic code, desires and dreams ― not only and no
longer his needs.
And so to sell us their wares, new businesses make us dream by resorting to the
evocative power of myths: just like faiths, like the stories that have shaped our religious
and social heritage. With one major difference, though: the stories of faiths and the fairy
tales of our grandmothers were greater than us and they were all and
only gratuitousness. Their aim was to convey a gift, a promise, a liberation to us, bringing
them back to life just for us every time. They did not want to sell us anything, only to
transmit an inheritance to us.
By contrast, the emotional storytelling of the capitalism of today and tomorrow wants only
and exclusively to sell us something. They have nothing for free and are smaller than us
because they lack the gratuitousness that made the other stories great: new businesses
tell us stories to increase profits for those who invest a lot of money into the invention and
telling of those stories ― which, in the end, are nothing but plagiarism and imitations of
the great religious narratives they, too, have received for free and then recycled for profit.
The stories of yesterday, the eternal ones, have been able to charm us because they did
not want to enchain us. The stories told for profit are, however, all just variants of the fairy
tale of the Pied Piper: if he is not paid for his work, this "merchant" goes back to town,
and while we are engaged in our new cults in the new churches, he drives away our
children with his charmer flute, forever.
Thus far, the history of civilisation has taught us that gratuitousness used without
gratuitousness does not last, and soon the bluff is discovered. But perhaps the greatest
innovation of the capitalism of tomorrow will be to transform gratuitousness itself into a
commodity, and it will be done so well that we will not be able to distinguish fake
generosity from the genuine kind.
But we can still save ourselves from this tremendous manipulation, which would be the
greatest of all, if we keep the great stories of gratuitousness safeguarded by the faiths. Or
if we conserve the seed of gratuitousness in that last space of our souls that we managed
to preserve and not put on sale.
Source: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/blessed-are-the-consumers/10584702
Source 7A
Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations
Steve Crabtree, 2010
United States is among the rich countries that buck the trend.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup surveys in 114 countries in 2009 show that religion
continues to play an important role in many people's lives worldwide. The global median
proportion of adults who say religion is an important part of their daily lives is 84%,
21
unchanged from what Gallup has found in other years. In 10 countries and areas, at least
98% say religion is important in their daily lives.
Each of the most religious countries is relatively poor, with a per-capita GDP below
$5,000. This reflects the strong relationship between a country's socioeconomic status
and the religiosity of its residents. In the world's poorest countries -- those with average
per-capita incomes of $2,000 or lower -- the median proportion who say religion is
important in their daily lives is 95%. In contrast, the median for the richest countries --
those with average per-capita incomes higher than $25,000 -- is 47%.
22
The United States is one of the rich countries that bucks the trend. About two-thirds of
Americans -- 65% -- say religion is important in their daily lives. Among high-income
countries, only Italians, Greeks, Singaporeans, and residents of the oil-rich Persian Gulf
states are more likely to say religion is important.
Most high-income countries are further down the religiosity spectrum. In 10 countries, no
more than 34% of residents say religion is an important part of their daily lives. Six of
those are developed countries in Europe and Asia with per-capita incomes greater than
$25,000.
In three of the four lower income countries on the list -- Estonia, Russia, and Belarus --
the Soviet government restricted religious expression for decades until the U.S.S.R.'s
collapse in 1991. The final country is Vietnam, where the government also has a history
of limiting religious practice.
23
Implications
Social scientists have put forth numerous possible explanations for the relationship
between the religiosity of a population and its average income level. One theory is that
religion plays a more functional role in the world's poorest countries, helping many
residents cope with a daily struggle to provide for themselves and their families.
A previous Gallup analysis supports this idea, revealing that the relationship between
religiosity and emotional well-being is stronger among poor countries than among those
in the developed world.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone and face-to-face interviews conducted in 2009 with
approximately 1,000 adults in each country. For results based on the total sample of
national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling
error ranges from ±5.3 percentage points in Lithuania to ±2.6 percentage points in India.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting
surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
24
Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-
nations.aspx
25
Source 7B
Why Are the Poor More Religious?
Merrill Miller, 2014
Last week, the New York Times’ policy and statistics blog, The Upshot, wrote an article
about the hardest places to live in the United States. The rankings, by county, included a
variety of factors including education, income, unemployment, disability, life expectancy,
and obesity. Based on the information, The Upshot identified ten counties clustered in
the Appalachian and southeast regions of the country as the worst places to call home.
Interestingly enough, people living in these places are also more likely than those in
wealthier sections of the country to Google search terms related to religion. The Google
search terms common to these regions, which include “antichrist,” “about hell,” and “the
rapture,” suggest that fundamentalism and its hellfire and brimstone visions of the
apocalypse play a significant role in the lives of people who live in these impoverished
regions.
These findings from The Upshot are reinforced by previous research into the connections
between religion and poverty. According to a 2010 Gallup poll, there is a strong, positive
correlation between strict adherence to religion and privation. But while the Gallup poll
reports a link between religious devotion and poverty, it doesn’t provide any insight into
why it exits.
A study by independent research Dr. Tom Rees, published in the Journal of Religion and
Society, suggests that in places without strong social safety nets to provide people with
opportunities for upward mobility, people are more likely to rely on religion for comfort. As
contradictory as it may seem, when someone is suffering it may console him or her to
think that the end of the world is near—that God will bring it to a close and reward the
faithful with everlasting joy. Doom and gloom predictions about the trials and tribulations
that humanity will face before the apocalypse, prevalent in Christian fundamentalism,
may also help some people attribute a higher purpose to their suffering, explaining it as
“part of God’s ultimate plan.” It’s also worth noting that in areas with little to no social
supports, the local church may provide for people’s basic needs through free childcare
programs, food pantries, and clothing drives.
Although religion can provide real assistance and a sense of security to disadvantaged
individuals, that doesn’t mean it actually solves the problems associated with poverty. In
fact, in an analysis of the aforementioned study, the British Humanist Association warned
that government promotion of religion as a positive social influence could mask larger
social problems that contribute to poverty, such as a lack of access to education.
Humanism, unlike fundamentalist religious ideology, is not concerned with hell or the
nihilistic obliteration of a fallen human race. Instead, humanism is committed to ensuring
that this life is the best that it can possibly be, since it’s the only life that any of us have.
However, if we want to help improve the lives of people living in some of the “worst”
places, we’re going to need more than rational arguments. We’re also going to need to
ensure that people’s basic needs are met and that they have opportunities for security
and advancement.
26
Source: https://thehumanist.com/news/national/why-are-the-poor-more-religious/
Source 8A
Pope Francis: Catholic superhero
Jocelyn A. Sideco, 2015
It’s pretty obvious: we all love Pope Francis. He had us at hello. Or in his case, “Buona
sera.” Go figure: He is a modern pope whose compassion, charisma, direct tenderness
and concern for the poor all contribute to his mega-star status.
But I can’t help but wonder why I am so enamoured by him. On one hand, I understand
that he’s fully human. I like how he makes me feel like I can trust him. I recognize
behaviour that resonates with humility. I really do believe that the accessibility to power
and privilege isn’t going to his head. On the other, is he beyond human because he
doesn’t let the most ridiculous idiosyncrasies of humanity annoy him as much as they
annoy me? How does he continue to embody mercy as Jesuit Fr. James Keenan
describes it: the willingness to enter into another person’s chaos? He seems so poised,
calm, unfettered and still so powerfully directive. Although I still don’t agree with him on
the lack of female participation in leadership, I appreciate his decisiveness when
managing Vatican politics.
There was a painted image of Pope Francis created a few years ago that has stuck with
me.
Maupal, or Mauro Pallotto, a Rome-based graffiti artist, put an image of Pope Francis as
a superhero with a cape for his pellegrina (the short shoulder cape reaching to the
elbow). Pallotta had been reading a Superman comic strip while watching a video on the
pontiff in 2014.
Similarly, my life these past few months has been indpires by most recent DC comic
graphic novelist, Gene Yang. Yang had been a high school educator for 17 years, written
a number of graphic novels, including first-ever National Book Award finalist, American
Born Chinese, and is a devoted Catholic.
We were on retreat with sophomore students last spring when Yang shared a reflection
of superheroes with them that led to a deeper understanding of themselves, God and
others. The retreat was so successful that our adult community reflected on the qualities
of this relatively new and fascinating American genre of superheroes and supervillains.
The following points were taken directly from Yang’s “preached retreat:”
Your power comes from what makes you different. What makes you different may be
in relationship to your culture, or the gifts you have been blessed with, your training and
education, tragedy or other difficult life changes, or perhaps your weaknesses or failures.
27
Use your powers to serve others. From the depth of who you are and what you bring to
others, we are all called to serve one another. Our stance is not to withhold; our stance is
to be open and share.
Find way to renew your power. Superheroes have been known to regain energy,
vision, or insight in a variety of ways: through solitude (Superman’s Fortress of Solitude;
Batman keeps items from previous adventures); friends and family (Justice League’s Hall
of Justice); and God (The Green Lantern recites an oath and re-energizes by charging
his ring in a Power Battery).
I think of Pope Francis as our latest superhero.
His power comes from what makes him different. Francis is born in Buenos Aires,
Argentina, to Italian immigrants. First generation. Straddling two cultures, in a place
where Spanish, not Italian, is the dominant language. Living amid the simplicity of the
Americas as opposed to the ornate overtones of Western Europe. Francis suffered the
loss of one of his lungs. He has experienced the need for healing while recognizing his
own dependence on the gift and breath of the Spirit active in his life.
I think of his tenderness and his compassion. My asthma is treated yet my own limitations
can sometimes keep me at a distance from others or from participating fully. Francis
understands from his own deep experience and shows empathy towards others. Mercy
comes not as a challenge, but as a way of life for him.
Pope Francis uses his powers to serve others. His managerial style is refreshing.
From the outside looking in, it seems as though Francis and other recently elected or
appointed Vatican officials truly take their service to others seriously. The “other”
becomes a rallying cry for how he runs the institution that has been entrusted to him. He
has been able to repeatedly encourage his brother clergy to re-focus, re-prioritize, re-
evaluate who is at the centre of God’s kingdom. His actions scream out his own
preference for the poor as he makes room for children, orphans, and those on the
margins. I wonder what word he uses most frequently. I bet you it’s a variation of “the
poor.”
Francis finds ways to renew the Catholic spirit, faith and power that prioritize and
centralize human dignity and the common good. In October 2013, Pope Francis gave
a revealing interview to an Italian Jesuit publication called La Civiltà Cattolica. He
explained that religious dialogue must be broader in scope, not simply focused on such
issues as homosexuality and abortion. "We have to find a new balance; otherwise, even
the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness
and fragrance of the Gospel," the pope said. "The proposal of the Gospel must be more
simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then
flow."
From The Joy of the Gospel to the most recent papal encyclical, Laudato Si, Pope
Francis continues to speak from a rooted and solid place of an experience of the Good
News in order to address the world’s rapid divesting from relationships and responsibility.
28
What do you think, Gene Yang? Can you write a graphic novel on Pope Francis and how
he embodies a modern-day faith-filled, hope-stirring superhero? Maybe you and Maupal
should partner up and document this wonderful breathtaking adventure we are
experiencing with the man in white.
Thank you, Pope Francis, for instilling simplicity of life, love, and relationships. Pope
Francis superhero T-shirts for everyone!
Source: https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/young-voices/pope-francis-catholic-superhero
Source 8B
5 lessons Pope Francis has taught with his actions more than his
words
Marcus Mescher, 2020
Friday, March 13, marks the seventh anniversary of the Francis papacy. Over the last
seven years, Pope Francis has introduced and popularized memorable phrases meant to
inspire the church. His call to build a “revolution of tenderness” reminds us that mercy is
who God is and what God wants for and from God’s people (“Evangelii Gaudium,” No.
88). Francis has called on all people of goodwill to create a “culture of encounter” (No.
220) that resists the modern “throwaway culture” (“Laudato Si,” No. 22), affirms human
dignity and promotes the global common good.
But for all his pithy lines, Francis’ papacy has been uniquely characterized by powerful
gestures and actions that comprise a pedagogy of mercy. Reflecting Jesus’ teaching and
healing ministry, Francis teaches through a number of richly symbolic pastoral actions.
Here are five examples for our reflection, discernment, and emulation.
Humility
Pope Francis’ chosen name indicates his commitment to humility and simplicity, as well
as his special concern for the poor and the planet. Upon his election as pope, Jorge
Mario Bergoglio decided to take the name “Francis” following an embrace with his friend,
the Brazilian Cardinal Cláudio Hummes, who insisted, “Don’t forget the poor” During his
introduction at St. Peter’s Square, Francis broke with tradition by asking the 150,000
people gathered to pray for him before offering his first blessing as pope.
When he was introduced to his brother cardinals, Francis refused to use a platform to
elevate himself over them. Francis chooses to live in a small suite in the Vatican
guesthouse rather than the apostolic palace. He gets around the Vatican in a Ford Focus
and often uses a Fiat for his international tours instead of an extravagant limousine or
gas guzzling S.U.V.
On his first Holy Thursday as pope, Francis washed the feet of 12 criminal offenders,
including two women and a Muslim. This humble gesture—perhaps more than any homily
or pastoral letter—brought John 13 to life. With these tender actions, Francis shows us
what it means to heed Jesus’ command, “Just as I have loved you, you also should love
one another” (Jn 13:34).
29
Inclusion
Francis’ default setting is to include and encourage rather than exclude and condemn. In
his weekly appointments, he schedules time to meet with bishops who have been publicly
critical of his leadership—not to rebuke them but to dialogue together. Francis continues
to meet with survivors of clergy sexual abuse and their relatives as part of his personal
commitment to lament and atone for the church’s failure to protect children and
vulnerable adults.
He has expressed his intention to include more women in decision-making roles,

demonstrated by the appointment of Francesca Di Giovanni to a senior role in the
Secretariat of State earlier this year. Francis has modeled inclusion through his warm
embrace of individuals disfigured by disease, people with special needs and young
children; his birthday parties include hospital patients and people experiencing
homelessness. In his 2015 visit to the United States, he spent his last day with 100
inmates at a Philadelphia detention centre, calling on all citizens to facilitate rehabilitation
and re-entry of incarcerated people.
Jesus’ contemporaries sometimes recoiled at the way he ate with sinners and outcasts.
When Jesus invites himself to stay at Zacchaeus’s house, the crowd grumbles in
disapproval (Lk 19:2-10). Just as Jesus reached out to even those considered
insignificant and unworthy, Francis extends God’s welcome to all.
Listening
Pope Francis’ enduring legacy may sprout from a number of synods that have created
the conditions for a “Church that listens more” (“Christus Vivit,” No. 41). As evidenced by
the synodal gatherings to discuss marriage and family life (2015 and 2016), young people
and vocation (2018), and the Pan-Amazon region (2019), Francis shows that inclusion is
not mere tokenism but a pathway for a “revival of hope” (“Querida Amazonia,” No. 38)
through dialogue, discernment and collaboration for courageous action. “Synod” means
“journeying together,” a commitment to accompany, consult and to empower each other
in fully conscious and active participation in being church together. Francis shows us that
we should not be afraid of disagreement; his example in listening resists hegemonic
beliefs and structures that enable clericalism and hierarchicalism.
This pope has also prioritized ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; his collaboration with
bishops, patriarchs, rabbis and imams demonstrate his commitment to build bridges
rather than walls, to practice a “culture of encounter” for peace and solidarity. Francis’
willingness to reach beyond an “us versus them” tribalism reflects Jesus’ interactions with
Gentiles, like the Syrophoenician woman who begs him to cast the demon out of her
daughter. Jesus initially rebuffs her request, but her faith perseveres, and her daughter is
healed (Mk 7:24-30).
Like Jesus, Francis shows us that listening to others—and especially those

considered other—can help us become more attentive and responsive to the presence
and power of God in people and places we might not expect.
Forgiveness
30
When asked, “Who is Jorge Mario Bergoglio?” Francis replied: “I am a sinner. This is the
most accurate definition. It is not a figure of speech, a literary genre. I am a sinner.”
Francis reveals someone in touch with God-who-is-mercy. Pictures often surface of
Francis receiving the sacrament of reconciliation; his commitment to go to confession
every two weeks reinforces his claim that “God never tires of forgiving us.”
As part of his travels around the world, Francis has also made emotional appeals for
forgiveness for past and present neglect and abuse in the church, as he did in Mexico in
2016, Bangladesh in 2017, Ireland 2018 and Romania in 2019.
Francis has not shied away from asking for forgiveness for his own shortcomings.
Memorably, on New Year’s Eve, a woman grabbed his hand and tugged his arm. Pope
Francis responded by slapping her hand, and the next day issued a personal apology for
losing his patience and setting a bad example.
Francis’ contrition reminds us that the church is—to borrow a phrase from Thomas
Merton—“a body of broken bones.” The first steps toward hope and healing require
lamentation and repentance. By his words and deeds, Francis echoes what Jesus taught:
“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged...the measure you give will be the measure
you get” (Mt 7:1-2).
Presence
Pope Francis’ first visit outside of Rome was to the island of Lampedusa in July 2013,
where he sought to bring attention to the plight of migrants and refugees that make the
Mediterranean Sea a “vast cemetery.” His first international trip came just a couple weeks
later, to Rio de Janeiro in Brazil for World Youth Day, where he spent some of his time
talking and praying with residents of a favela (slum).
A creature of habit, dealing with the aches and pains of old age, Francis did not intend to
travel much as pope. But his conscience called on him to provide a ministry of presence
to people who have been pushed to the peripheries of status, privilege and power. In this
example of “downward mobility,” as Dean Brackley, S.J. called it, Francis calls on us to
shatter the idols of security, status and comfort.
The etymology of mercy (from the Latin, misericordia), is having a heart by and with
those who are wretched, the suffering. Francis shows us that to be merciful, we must
draw near those who suffer, contemplate their faces and enter into relationship with them
as real persons, not generic categories of people we call the “poor,” “hungry,” “stranger”
or “sick.” At Lampedusa, Francis denounced the “globalisation of indifference” toward the
desperation and injustice facing so many of our brothers and sisters. Instead, he urged,
we need to “go and do likewise” as the Samaritan who enters the ditch and cares for the
one left for dead.
Diverting from the path we are on and taking up the vantage point of the vulnerable and
marginalized is a crucial way to overcome distrust and division; this is what it means to
be an ambassador of the “culture of encounter.” Francis modeled this kind of encounter
in February 2016, when celebrating Mass along the U.S. – Mexico border. In this liturgy
Francis showed us that the people of God cannot be divided between the residents of
31
Ciudad Juárez and El Paso: We are one body in Christ. Jesus warns that nations will be
judged by what we do for the least among us (Mt 25:40). Francis teaches us that we
cannot help the needy unless and until we draw near them, share our lives with them and
help them become agents of their own future.
In his words and actions, Pope Francis teaches us that love of God and neighbour should
orbit around humility, inclusion, listening, forgiveness and being present, especially to
those who question if they matter or belong. In the face of so many distractions and
reasons for despair, Francis shows us that our physical presence matters. After all, we
incarnate God’s love in the world as we are, where we are. As St. Ignatius insists—and
Pope Francis displays—love is better shown in deeds than in words.
Source: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/03/12/5-lessons-pope-francis-has-
taught-his-actions-more-his-words
Source 9A
Holocaust Survivors: The Search for Faith
PBS, 2001
BOB ABERNETHY: One of the consequences of the Holocaust was its effect on the faith
of observant Jews. How could a just God have permitted such a tragedy? Today, the
personal story in his words, of Menachem Daum, a New York television producer, whose
parents were both Holocaust survivors. Daum has explored these issues of faith with
survivors including his aged father.
Mr. MENACHEM DAUM: A Hasidic master once said, “A God who limits himself to
actions that we humans can understand couldn’t possibly be God.” Essentially, that was
my father’s approach to the crisis of faith raised by the Holocaust.
However, that was not the approach taken by my mother. On my mother’s tombstone, we
inscribed that she endured much suffering. This was our way of asking God to forgive her
sins. In effect, we were saying she already suffered enough for them in this world.
However, I don’t think my mother felt the strong need for God’s forgiveness. On the
contrary, she told me when she’s called before God in final judgment, she will turn the
tables. She will demand to know why he stood by silently during the Holocaust as her
large family was being destroyed.
Her mother, two brothers and six sisters, her first husband, she had a son before the war,
his name was Avrohom. So at least we have some recollection of who they were.
Just a few months after the liberation, my parents, Moshe Yosef Daum and Fela
Nussbaum, were married in a displaced persons camp in occupied Germany. They
named me Menachem which means consoler or comforter. Apparently, they hoped I
might be able to restore some happiness in their lives.
32
Actually, the happiest time in my mother’s life, she once told me, had been the year she
spent as a student in Beis Yaakov, the network of Orthodox schools for girls in prewar
Poland.
My mother told me she retained the pure faith of a Beis Yaakov girl until she got off the
train at Auschwitz, but she never spoke about what actually happened on the train ramp
that forever shook her faith. My mother had arrived at Auschwitz with her sister, Bluma.
Many years later, my aunt Bluma revealed to me that my mother had her infant son in her
arms. As they were roused out of the train, a veteran Jewish prisoner hurriedly came up
to them. He knew mothers who were together with their young children would soon be
directed to the gas chambers. He urged them to do the unthinkable.
Ms. BLUMA POSNER: (Foreign language spoken) “Give up the child. Hurry. We can’t
stay here too long. We know what we are doing. Give away the child. You are still young
trees. You can have more fruit. Because of the child you too will go. Give away the child.”
A prisoner came from behind us and grabbed the child from Fela’s arms. She felt the
child being taken from her. She said “Oy, vey. The child hasn’t eaten anything. Bluma,
maybe we can still send him some food?” I tried to calm her down. I told her, “You’ll see,
today they’re taking everyone separately, children, young people.” I made excuses but I
knew what was happening.
Mr. MENACHEM DAUM: At the Passover seder, my mother would get annoyed as my
father recited the Exodus story. She would ask him, if God did so many miracles during
biblical times, then why hadn’t she seen any such miracles during the Holocaust?
My father’s only response was that we humans, with our limited minds, cannot expect to
understand God’s ways. We must live with faith despite our unanswered questions. The
tenacity of my father’s faith has always been a mystery to me. It’s a lot easier for me to
understand the religious defiance of my father’s only surviving relative, his cousin Dora.
Ms. DORA LEFKOWITZ: I cannot see a God who will allow a little baby to be killed for no
reason at all. And I really lost my belief then, right there and then. I had one sister and
two brothers. I was the oldest and the only survivor of my family. Why? What did they do
so terrible that they had to perish? I think if God is so great and so powerful, he could
have struck Hitler down before he killed so many Jews. That’s my feeling.
Professor ARTHUR HERTZBERG (New York University): That is one of the deep
religious responses to the Shoah, to defy God. To take it with indifference is not a
religious response. To go and rebuild is a religious response, to defy God is a religious
response because that is to take what happened at the utmost seriousness, as a matter
of life and death, of your own life and death.
Mr. MENACHEM DAUM: In the early 1950s, just as my father was on the verge of
realizing the American dream, he gave up a good job in upstate New York and moved his
family to Brooklyn. He did so in order to send us to yeshivas and give us a religious
education. Most of my yeshiva classmates were, like myself, children of survivors. Our
33
teachers, survivors themselves, never mentioned the Holocaust. I suspect that, like my
parents, they too had no answers to offer us.
(to Father) Dad, we’ll pray, yes? We’ll put on the prayer shawl and tefillin. Yes? We are
going to put the tefillin on your hand.
According to Jewish religious law, my father’s physical condition exempts him from the
need to put on the tefillin. However, I know how much this ritual means to him. During the
Holocaust, he was also exempt from putting on the tefillin. And yet in the ghettos and
forced labor camps, he risked his life in order to do so.
“Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Our God, Master of the Universe, who has sanctified us
through His commandments and commanded us to put on the tefillin.”
(to Father): You put on tefillin the Skarzisk camp?
He remembers.
(to Father): It wasn’t easy, was it?
Mr. MOSHE YOSEF DAUM: No.
Mr. MENACHEM DAUM: I try to continue my parents’ ways, but to be honest, I do it more
out of respect than out of conviction. I really don’t understand my father’s faith. I don’t
understand why he would risk his life in the camps for a God who had seemingly
abandoned him. Nor do I understand my mother’s strange combination of faith and doubt.
How she continued to observe the commandments of a God she could not forgive.
Prof. HERTZBERG: But there is an answer. To me, the miracle of Jewish history as a
whole, is our capacity to begin after tragedy, after disaster.
ABERNETHY: Menachem Daum also passed along this story. A Hasidic rabbi lost his
wife and 11 children in the Holocaust. Afterwards, he was asked, “Why did miracles occur
only during biblical times? Why don’t they happen in our time?” The rabbi replied, “The
fact that there are Holocaust survivors who, after all they endured, can still keep faith, is
itself, the greatest miracle of all.”
Source: https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2001/08/03/august-3-2001-
holocaust-survivors-the-search-for-faith/13853/
Source 9B
How the Holocaust Challenged Faith
Leslie Koppelman Ross, 2002
This singular event presented profound theological challenges--and for some, shattered
their belief in God.
Religion attempts to make sense out of the world around us, finding order and meaning in
what often seems chaotic and meaningless. Nothing has shaken the foundation of our
34
religion like the chaotic and senseless Shoah. Its devastation was so widespread, its
perpetration of evil so extensive, it raised searing theological questions about God and
His role in the world; about good, evil, and justice; about the value of life and death; and
about Jewish destiny.
How and why could the Holocaust have happened? Did it fit within the pattern of Jewish
history, or was it a unique occurrence that would end it? Could it be read as a fulfillment
of an ancient Torah prophecy or did it threaten the integrity of the entire Torah? Could the
Jewish people respond to it as we have to previous drastic turning points in our history, or
would it totally turn us away from the heritage and its burdens?
What We Expect of God

Until the Holocaust, the traditional view of God and His connection with Israel had
remained intact: God was our Provider and Protector. Even though bad things would
happen to His people–which [were seen] as the justified result of our failure to honor Him
and the way of life He presented to us–periods of oppression would always be followed
by salvation, and eventually the persecution-ending, exile-gathering, peace-bringing
redemption would occur. As the Passover haggadah expresses it, “in every generation
enemies rise up seeking to destroy us, but God delivers us from their hands.”
This expectation carried the Jews through the failed Bar Kokhba revolt, the Crusades,
repeated humiliations and expulsions, pogroms and myriad persecutions, even the
Spanish Inquisition. But it was shaken (and for some, completely shattered) by the
success of the Nazis in decimating European Jewry. The destruction–not only of an
astounding number of Jews but of a disproportionate percentage of scholars and rabbis,
along with the major centers of Jewish culture and learning–challenged the long-held
belief that God intervenes in the world to balance injustice by punishing evil and
rewarding good.
Was God dead? Was He just indifferent–or worse, a sadist? If He could not be counted
on to live up to His reputation for mercy and intervene, what good was He? And if He did
not intervene, by what reasoning did He merit our allegiance?
Judaism teaches that maintaining Jewish continuity will bring blessings to one’s
descendants. But the descendants of identified Jews (anyone with one Jewish
grandparent) were the ones who [cynics might argue] fell into Hitler’s trap, the observant
along with the secular, the pious along with the apikores (apostate). For those left to sort
out the implications of the devastation, nothing could possibly justify what was seen as
God’s brutal and wholesale betrayal of the Jewish people.
Was the Covenant Broken?

This tremendous upset called into question whether the covenant–what was supposed to
be an eternal contract between God and Israel–had expired. Without it, there was no
sense of order in the universe, no purpose in life, no hope for a better future, no meaning
in past or present suffering, no need for Jews or Jewish life.
35
Of course, this was exactly the conclusion desired by the Nazis, who had to eliminate
belief in absolute Divine power (which was, according to God’s plan, eventually supposed
to be universally recognized so that everyone would accept, and benefit by, His
standards) and any reference to it in order to wield their own absolute power.
This was also exactly the response of many victims, for whom the covenant had been
rendered null and void. They could not believe that God and the Holocaust’s degree of
evil could coexist. Or they could not recognize a God who would allow such evil to
operate. They had no faith that such crimes would never again occur and feeling no hope
in life, and expecting no meaning in death, saw no reason to perpetuate Judaism. To
spare their descendants the horrors they had endured, they abandoned Judaism,
sometimes converting and raising their children as non-Jews.
Source: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/how-the-holocaust-challenged-faith/
Source 9C
The Effects of 9/11 on Faith and Religious Beliefs
Matthew Tull PhD, 2020
How Religious Beliefs May Change After Trauma

The world was shocked by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and one of the
effects of 9/11 was on religious beliefs. Although the research showed that most people
who lost a loved one on 9/11 did not experience a change to their religious beliefs, about
a fifth of these people did experience a shift in their faith.
Have you experienced a traumatic event that has left your beliefs shaken? Are you
possibly dealing with PTSD? Find out how traumas shape our religious beliefs—and how
you can get help for your lasting pain.
How 9/11 Affected People's Religious Beliefs

The 9/11 terrorist attacks brought on feelings of anxiety and vulnerability as many
Americans had their sense of safety and comfort threatened. Given the traumatic nature
of 9/11, it's not surprising that this event would also test people's religious beliefs.
The lives of many people permanently changed on 9/11 when they were faced with the
unexpected loss of loved ones.
A group of researchers affiliated with the New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia
University, and the Veterans Administration Boston Healthcare System surveyed a large
number of people who had lost a loved one during the 9/11 attacks. About a quarter had
lost a child, relative, or spouse, and most people had lost someone as a result of them
being near the World Trade Center or in lower Manhattan during the terrorist attacks.
The primary findings of the study can be summarized by the following:

 Most of the people in the study felt their religion to be just as important after the
9/11 terrorist attacks as it was before the attacks.
36
 About a tenth of people said religion became more important after the 9/11
terrorist attacks. It seems that some people may have relied on their religious
beliefs in an attempt to make sense of the terrorist attacks or gain comfort in
response to their loss.
 Another tenth said that religion became less important to them after the 9/11
terrorist attacks. This was particularly the case for people who lost a child during
the attacks. These people may have become disillusioned or may have begun to
question aspects of their faith after the terrorist attacks.
 People who said their religious beliefs were less important following the event
were more likely to experience complicated grief, have major depression
and develop PTSD. On the other hand, people who said their religious beliefs
were more important after 9/11 didn't seem to increase or decrease the risk of
these problems.
Your Religious Beliefs and Recovering From a Traumatic Event

Let's explore what these findings mean for you if you've experienced trauma. When faced
with a major traumatic event, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it's natural to struggle with
how to make sense of that event. This is especially going to be the case if you lost a
loved one during that event.
Unfortunately, struggling with your religious beliefs following a traumatic event can have
a big impact on how well you adjust to that traumatic event.
Relying on and strengthening religious beliefs is one way people may choose to cope
with a traumatic event and unexpected loss. Religion and spirituality can help some
people adjust and recover from a traumatic event.
However, it's important to note that religion is not the only way to recover from such an
event. A number of other factors have been found to be associated with recovery from a
traumatic event. You may want to explore:
 Seeking out social support
 Helping others
 Using healthy coping strategies
 Seeking out therapy
How you cope with a traumatic event and the loss of a loved one is a very personal
experience. It's very important that you find the strategy that works best for you.
If you lost a loved one as a result of 9/11, there are several websites that provide helpful
information on coping and recovery, such as the September 11th Families' Association
and the Families of September 11th.
Source: https://www.verywellmind.com/the-effect-of-911-on-religion-2797180
37
Source 9D
The U.S., Muslims, and a Turbulent Post-9/11 World
Farah Pandith
How did the 9/11 attacks affect American Muslims?

Muslims were among the thousands of victims of the 9/11 attacks perpetrated by
hijackers from Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Yet,
arguably not since the 1979 Iran hostage crisis had American Muslims experienced the
kind of intense scrutiny and distrust that was unleashed after the attacks.
Physical assault, emotional abuse and discrimination, alongside an often-politicized

conversation about “real Islam,” have created a toxic environment for American Muslims
ever since. Although most Americans did not contribute to the idea that there is
something inherently bad about Islam, there were enough voices of hate, deliberate
misinformation, and genuine misunderstandings to create a powerful message: Muslims
are not to be trusted. This created multilayered societal unease that changed the life
many American Muslims (who composed 1.1 percent of the population in 2017,
according to Pew Research Centre) knew prior to the attacks.
Have there been any areas of progress?

Since the attacks, divisions in American society have deepened amid changes wrought
by the technology and media revolution, the weaponization of misinformation, and foreign
policy choices. Muslims, like other minorities, have become caught up in the sometimes-
bitter national conversation about history, race, religion, ethnicity, and heritage.
38
But there are still some important areas of progress. New connections and coalitions
have taken off in the last twenty years. Amid a rise in hate crimes against minorities,
American nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), community groups, and other civic
organizations have found allies and built new relationships. Civil society and religious
leaders have polished their advocacy, while philanthropists are finally turning their
attention to issues of hate and extremism.
American Muslims have found new agency and organizations to use art, culture, and
policy as vehicles to repair societies and build understanding. For instance, the Pillars
Fund, a pioneering, grant-giving organization, focuses on amplifying the leadership and
talents of American Muslims. The importance of listening to diverse civil society voices,
engaging with local and national leaders, and creating new bridges has activated many
Muslim and non-Muslim Americans. More should be done, but there are improvements in
the way non-Muslims talk about Islam today, as well as in the dialogue about ensuring
inclusive societies.
However, anti-Muslim political rhetoric and policies as well as far-right ideology in the
United States have grown through the financing, organization, and networking of those
who do not want an inclusive country.
What did the United States learn from global outreach efforts to Muslim
communities, especially during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama
administrations?
The United States sought to debunk the al-Qaeda narrative that the West is at war with
Islam in part through global outreach to Muslims, both via governments and at the
community level. At the same time, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his recruiters
across the globe used U.S. foreign policy choices as “proof” of American hostility toward
Muslims.
The U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq helped feed al-Qaeda’s narrative, as did other
activities related to the U.S.-declared global war on terrorism. The widely distributed
images of Iraqi prisoners abused at Abu Ghraib, as well as drone strikes and the ongoing
controversies surrounding the Guantanamo Bay prison, served to ignite anger and
outrage. The ability of terrorist organizations such as the self-proclaimed Islamic State
and others to use these images to recruit members can’t be overstated.
Despite this, the United States had to find a way to build new connections with
communities, find common purpose, and build networks of like-minded thinkers that were
united in the interest of protecting young people from being lured into a terrorist group
that claimed to represent “real Muslims.” Critically, Muslims all over the world were eager
to push back against terrorist organizations trying to radicalize and recruit their youth.
So, U.S. officials created new coalitions of civil society partners such as Generation
Change*, a global network of youth “change-makers” with thirty international chapters
that advanced local initiatives to reject the appeal of extremist narratives. The Trinidad
and Tobago chapter created a hotline for young people seeking answers to questions
about religion and identity. In South Africa, Generation Change created an online forum
39
for young people to have frank conversations about navigating identity, rejecting
extremism, and building resilience.
Did Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech make a difference on issues of trust and
partnership?
I believe it did, at least initially. The speech was a tremendously important signal that the
Obama administration was genuinely committed to building partnerships with Muslims
based on mutual interest and respect. The speech amplified the importance of Islam’s
history, its vast and diverse practices, and the profound impact Muslims have made to
science, philosophy, and culture. It rejected the idea that Islam is synonymous with
terrorism.
Over the course of Obama’s two terms, the efforts related to the engagement strategy
were ramped up with new programs and initiatives. One of the initiatives with the most-
lasting impact was Obama’s Presidential Summit on Entrepreneurship, a two-day event
with more than 250 entrepreneurs from more than 50 primarily Muslim-majority nations.
The focus was to build business and social ties and advance deeper relationships with
Muslim communities based on aspects other than security. The summit resulted in
dozens of follow-on projects and collaborations and took place during every year of
Obama’s administration.
However, one could also argue that trust eroded with Obama’s unpopular actions,
including escalating drone attacks against suspected militants in Muslim-majority nations
such as Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen; his decisions on Syria; the rise of the Islamic
State; and general disappointment in the results of “peace in the Middle East.” But
Obama did rejuvenate the model of people-to-people engagement, because his
administration was bigger and bolder on Muslim engagement than any in U.S. history.
What has the United States learned from its nearly two-decade effort to curb the
appeal of extremist ideologies?
Perhaps one of the biggest lessons is that the United States needs to bring far more
resources and attention to confront the challenge, right down to the community level at
home and abroad.
One of the signature efforts has been the approach known as Countering Violent
Extremism (CVE), which was created during the Bush administration and describes
efforts to prevent violent extremists from gaining support for their ideology. It is, in
essence, soft power. CVE is an approach that uses diverse forms and tactics on and
offline and mainly relies on civil society groups to execute programs. Governments,
foundations, and others work with civil society NGOs to enlist the help of academics,
media organizations, technology companies, and social scientists to develop programs
designed to inoculate communities from finding extremist ideology appealing. One
example of a type of CVE program is the use of former extremists to educate
communities about what bad actors do to entice them, what is true and false, and how to
protect oneself.
40
CVE has had mixed results for several reasons—including that the programs have been
ad hoc, uncoordinated, and tiny compared to the threat. Going forward, policymakers
need to properly scale efforts, increase funding, train more personnel, and dramatically
change how they attend to social media companies. The government lacks the
authenticity and trust within communities to do this alone.
Societies need a multilayered approach that connects with kids, parents, teachers, faith
leaders, community activists, civil society leaders, local leaders, and others. Programs of
action should be scaled and happen at every level to influence the multiple factors that
affect one’s identity and sense of belonging. Such programs vary between communities
even within a nation.
Because diminishing the ideological appeal of violent extremism is a vital U.S. interest,
dramatic change is required in mindset, focus, and funding. It requires the whole of
society to take part; it requires everyone.
Source: https://www.cfr.org/article/us-muslims-and-turbulent-post-911-world
Source 10A
Aggressive Secularism seen by a cartoonist
Observatory of Religious Freedom in Latin America, 2014
“Aggressive secularism” can be defined as a radical expression of secularism, which

not only seeks to exclude religion from the public domain, but also from various private
spheres. It is based on the indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and
religious considerations based on the conviction that religion should not have a visible
influence on society, particularly on education and politics. This view is becoming more
and more common in the Western world and has already inspired a number of policies,
laws and court rulings.
Martha Nussbaum, while almost exclusively referring to cases of intolerance against

Muslims, analyses the sharp rise of anti-religious sentiments in the Western world,
especially since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Many academics have made
similar observations. The topic has also become an inspiration for cartoonists, who make
allusions to the far-fetched consequences of anti-religious sentiments as shown in this
example:
41
[Translation in English: Fokke & Sukke are visiting the stable. “Your family is marked in
our database as ‘potentially religious fundamentalist”]
Source: www.nrc.nl (23/12/2013).
Aggressive secularism is not a very obvious persecution engine but creeping and
influencing different societies. Every phenomenon and sign of Christianity, be it a cross
worn at a necklace, be it a cross in a school or a courtroom, has to be wiped off the
public sphere.
Increasingly, limitations can be witnessed in the free expression of the Christian faith and
its general acceptation in Western society. Examples hereof are the discussions about
parental rights, the Lautsi case, the refusal to allow Dutch municipal employees to refrain
from performing homosexual marriages, hate speech legislation and anti-discrimination
laws. The various forms of denial of Christians to participate in public life is the scope of a
declaration of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, issued on July 10th 2011, in which it
urges the governments of European countries to combat intolerance and discrimination
against Christians, recommending that a “public debate on intolerance and discrimination
against Christians be initiated and that the right of Christians to participate fully in public
life be ensured.”
Moreover, Christian convictions on marriage, sexual relations or other questions not

getting along with the general perception of morals are harshly denied, let alone any
action led by these convictions (Baskerville, 2013). One of the main streams of influence
is anti-discrimination legislation; another one is gender mainstreaming (Peeters, 2012).
42
Source: https://olire.org/aggressive-secularism/
Source 10B
Religious Freedom vs. Aggressive Secularism
George Weigel, 2012
Some years ago, the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor coined the term "exclusivist
secularism" to describe a disturbing phenomenon in Western societies: the determination
of some intellectuals, activists and politicians to scour public life of transcendent religious
and moral reference points in the name of "tolerance" and "inclusion."
Taylor’s "exclusivist secularism" is not the benign "secularity" — the separation of

religious and political institutions in a modern society — that Pope Benedict XVI has
praised for helping Catholicism develop its understanding of the right relationship
between church and state.
No, by referring to "exclusivist secularism," Taylor was raising a warning flag about an
aggressive and hegemonic cast of mind that seeks to drive out of the public square any
consideration of what God or the moral law might require of a just society.
Aggressive secularism was once thought to be a primarily European malady. Then it

migrated to Canada.
Now it has become a serious problem in American public life. Catholics can do something
about that if they understand what the Church asks of the "world."
The Catholic Church asks — and, if circumstances require, the Church demands — two
things of any political community and any society.
The Church asks for free space to be itself, to evangelize, to celebrate the sacraments
and to do the works of education, charity, mercy and justice without undue interference
from government. The Church freely concedes that the state can tell the Church to do
some things: to obey the local sanitary laws in church kitchens hosting pancake
breakfasts, for example.
But the Church refuses to concede to the state the authority to tell the Church what to
think and preach or how to order its ministerial life and serve the needy.
Moreover, the Church asks, and if necessary demands, that the state respect the
sanctuary of conscience, so that the Church’s people are not required by law to do things
the Church teaches are immoral.
The Church also asks any society to consider the possibility of its need for redemption.
The "world" sometimes doesn’t take kindly to this suggestion, as the history of the
martyrs reminds us. But overt persecution isn’t the only way the "world" resists the
Church’s proposal.
43
Societies can affect a bland indifference to the truths taught by biblical religion. Cultures
can mock the moral truths taught by God’s revelation to the people of Israel and God’s
self-revelation in his Son, Jesus Christ.
Educational systems can inculcate an ethos of nihilism and hedonism, teaching that the
only moral absolute is that there are no moral absolutes.
On both of these fronts — the political-legal front and the social-cultural front — the
Catholic Church is under assault in the United States today. Over the past four years, the
federal government has made unprecedented efforts to erode religious freedom. The
gravest assault was the "contraceptive mandate" issued earlier this year by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, an offense to conscientious Catholic
employers who believe what the Church believes about the morality of human love and
the ethics of the right to life and a frontal attack on the institutional integrity of the Church.
For, with the HHS mandate, the federal government seeks nothing less than to turn the
Catholic Church’s charitable and medical facilities into state agencies that facilitate
practices the Catholic Church believes are gravely evil.
Rather than truckle to such coercion, Catholic bishops across the country have made
clear that they will, if necessary, close the Catholic medical facilities for which they are
responsible — a drastic action that would seriously imperil health services to the poor.
But it doesn’t have to come to that. Aggressive, hegemonic secularism need not have the
last word in the United States.
In this election cycle, Americans can issue a ringing call for religious freedom in full. U.S.
Catholics can — and must — demand of all candidates an unambiguous commitment to
the Church’s institutional freedom and to the freedom of the Church’s people to follow the
dictates of conscience, as shaped by the moral truths the Church guards and teaches.
Self-respect requires nothing less.
Source: https://www.ncregister.com/news/religious-freedom-vs-aggressive-secularism-
kuz4ljp5
Source 10C
Richard Godwin: Militant atheism is as extreme as any belief system
Richard Godwin, 2016
Damnation be upon us! We are officially a nation of heathens.
According to the latest census of our souls, Christianity is a minority religion in England
and Wales for the first time since the pagans were at large.
Some 48.5 per cent of us are now “non-religious” compared with the 43.8 per cent who
are Christians. Secularism has accelerated to the point where most of us no longer even
pretend to believe in God anymore.
44
No doubt some will see this as evidence of a moral decline that will end with us live-
tweeting our punishments from hell.
Others — no less fervent — will cry “victory!” for the forces of enlightenment.
A certain kind of atheist clings to the belief that religion causes all human suffering,
despite the fact that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the rest were all rabidly anti-religious.
But no one, surely, can be surprised by the news. The Church of England loses 12
followers for every new recruit.
Even in London — the most religious place in England, thanks to our high migrant
population — beautiful places of worship lie empty.
Earlier this year, church leaders said they expect attendances to fall for the next 30
years. Which does makes you wonder: what’s going to happen in 2046?
Still, it used to be the case that the English ticked the Christian box at least (especially if
there was a nice C of E school down the road).
Not so now, says Dr Lois Lee, who studies non-religious belief patterns at UCL.
“Millennials are the first generation for whom being non-religious is not just a norm for
small pockets of society but widespread.”
While the idea of secularism has been around for a while, she explains, it’s only now that
we’re seeing how it operates in practice. And it turns out that what people who don’t
believe believe is pretty complicated.
Clearly religious decline doesn’t mean that we’re ceasing to enquire about our existence
or surrendering our delusions.
Suppressed urges usually come squirming out in weird ways (ask a Victorian prostitute)
and the same is true of religion.
Last year an American atheist killed three Muslims in the name of his godlessness. A
majority of Millennials apparently set some store by astrology.
Neoliberal economics has most of the characteristics of a religion too, notably pre-
Reformation Catholicism: an academic Inquisition, an unquestionable doctrine, saints,
penance...
But the rituals of religion are also being repurposed for the modern world. Mindfulness
(Buddhist meditation minus the Buddhism) is a corporate cult but also provides genuine
solace to millions.
45
Wealthy westerners adopt fasting regimes strikingly similar to those prescribed in Islam;
indeed, certain hadiths call for two fast days a week, a bit like the 5:2 diet.
We should accept by now that there’s multiplicity of experiences on either side of the
belief divide.
A former Catholic, a French existentialist and a happy-clappy Humanist are as different

as a Sunni Muslim, a Jew and a pink-shirted lawyer at on the Alpha Course.
When it comes down to it, I’m probably non-religious. And yet I regard the most famous
atheist, Richard Dawkins, rather as I imagine a moderate Muslim regards Abu Qatada.
And, speaking to Christians, it often strikes me that our differences are more questions of
semantics and, frankly, taste than core belief systems.
I suppose this species of relativism has a label of its own. But must we forever divide
ourselves according to labels?
We’re hungry for the truth

Speaking of belief systems, it often seems like the health foodies of Instagram — Ella
Mills and friends — are part of a cult. But if at times they seem a little over-zealous about
the benefits of kale and quinoa, and too damning about the evils of sugar and wheat, we
should perhaps see them as a symptom of a wider malaise.
The fact is, official dietary advice is so all over the place that it’s no wonder people seek
false prophets. Public Health England has damned the National Obesity Forum for the
“irresponsible” message that eating fat will cut obesity. But the NHS’s own guidelines are
years behind the science, which show that the “low-fat” messages offered in the Eighties
actually led to an increase in obesity.
To make matters worse, nutrition is barely covered in medical training. With a diabetes
pandemic on the horizon, we need to review that, urgently.
We’d better use our libraries or we’ll lose them

Last week I had a spare afternoon in rainy Paris with a nasty confluence of deadlines
looming. In London the obvious solution is to set up in some café or other, plug in the
headphones and ruin the atmosphere for everyone — but to do the same in one of those
lovely corner bistros seemed a betrayal somehow. None of them have wi-fi in any case.
And then I happened to pass a sign for a bibliothèque. It seemed to all intents an ordinary
neighbourhood library. But it was teeming with people, reading newspapers (remember
them?) and bandes-dessinées, browsing the voluminous selection of books and DVDs,
working on dissertations and work assignments.
I have since taken to working in my own local library (almost empty) and I feel vaguely
stupid that I never thought to do so before. Local libraries are almost ideal solutions to the
46
classic freelancer’s dilemma of where to work. Perhaps we are so corrupted by the idea
that we must constantly be consuming something. We fail to appreciate them.
Only oldies can afford gardens

Forgive me if I’m pointing out the obvious, but might the “lost generation” of gardeners
that the Royal Horticultural Society has been warning us of have less to do with the fact
that twenty- and thirtysomethings can’t be bothered and more to do with the fact that
hardly any of us can afford gardens?
A bit like how the fact that we “choose” to have children later in life is less because we’re
all selfish and more to do with these same economic forces?
I can think of nothing more delightful than spending my weekends cultivating hyacinths
and runner beans — but it’s not going to happen in London.
Source: https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/richard-godwin-militant-atheism-
is-as-extreme-as-any-belief-system-a3256701.html
Source 10D
Richard Dawkins's lack of sympathy for those who cling to religion is a
shame
Deborah Orr, 2014
Not content with being a mere anti-Christ, Richard Dawkins has now declared himself to
be the anti-Santa. (As Dougal from Father Ted would put it.) Dawkins has also informed
an audience at the Cheltenham literary festival that a frog couldn't become a prince, not
in a million years. Sometimes I wonder if this man really is the evolutionary biologist he
claims to be at all …
Except … not really, not any of it. The autobiography-promoting scientist was simply
wondering aloud whether filling children's heads with supernatural stories could be
damaging to them. He thought not, on balance. But by that point, presumably, journalists
had already stopped listening and started typing gratefully. That's the trouble with
cultivating a reputation as a controversialist. Controversy is expected from you, the same
way water is expected from a tap. And people find controversy refreshing, even life-
affirming. Whether one is delighted that one's own unfashionable thoughts have been
voiced or thrilled at the opportunity to rehearse one's own rectitude by pouring scorn on
someone else's imbecility, controversy services a human need.
The trouble with controversy, though, is that it tends to polarise people, entrenching
views rather than promoting reasoned debate. By accepting the label of "militant atheist",
Dawkins sabotages the very thing he professes to want most – a rational perspective on
religious belief. I have no religion myself, but I'd no more describe myself as an "atheist"
than I would describe myself as an "aunicornist". If I have any spiritual credo at all, it's
a belief in the idea that human beings can support each other best by focusing on the
47
things that unite us rather than the things that divide us. Lame, I know. But pleasingly
non-controversial.
Militant atheism? Militant theism? These are divisive labels, adopted by people spoiling
for a fight. And what they have in common, unfortunately, is their militancy. I despair
when I hear people claim that "religion causes wars". People cause wars, people
who think their own beliefs, ideas, perspectives and needs are at the centre of the
universe or should be. There's a lot of it about. Unsurprisingly.
We are all at the centre of our own universes, our personal perception that a universe
exists entirely reliant on the fact that we are in it. For most of us, trying to envisage an
infinite universe is overwhelming, as is trying to envisage what's beyond a universe that –
even more mind-boggling, in a way – is not infinite. I'm grateful that I live in a time when I
can literally ground myself, reminding myself of where I am, on the revolving planet Earth,
of which I have seen photographs, within the solar system, revolving around the revolving
sun, which I can see, as regular and predictable as the fact that night follows day. So to
speak. Simple, basic scientific fact, easy to take for granted. I'm lucky that I live in a time
and a culture that knows something of its physical place in the cosmos. Science is a
comfort and a balm.
But it is worth thinking about what it must have been like, trying to get by without it. The
idea of being a human trying to make sense of existence without such knowledge – life
would surely be one long panic attack. Unless, of course, you could console yourself
with the idea that making sense of it all was the responsibility of some other all-powerful
being, who expected of you nothing more than adherence to a few simple rules. What a
great relief that would have been, what a soothing alternative to a long and tortuous
nightmare of existential fear. And for many people, it still is. Campaigning rationalists
would do well to think a little about the size of the psychological prop they are trying to
wrest off people when they try to wrest away their God. No wonder they sometimes turn
so very nasty.
I'm glad that Dawkins is not the scourge of the fairy-tale that he was briefly made out to
be. But I wish he would find a way of championing rational belief that was worthy of a
man of his intelligence. "Fairy stories might equip the child to reject supernaturalism when
the time comes … Santa Claus again could be a very valuable lesson because the child
will learn that there are some things you are told that are not true. Now isn't that a
valuable lesson?" he said to the Guardian this week. "Unfortunately, it doesn't seem
to have had the desired effect in some cases, because after children learn that there is
no Santa Claus, mysteriously they go on believing that there is a God," he then went on,
less beguilingly.
There's nothing mysterious about it. It's all very well to assert that it's childish or primitive
to believe in God. As Dawkins must know, the difference between fairy stories and
religious belief is that there comes a time in a person's life when societal consensus
deems it no longer seemly to believe in the former. Likewise, no one would find it cute if
they moved in with their boyfriend, only to find that come Christmas he was hanging out
his stocking and leaving a glass of advocaat for Santa. There is no such consensus over
48
belief in God, far from it. No British prime minister and no US president has thus far
agreed with Dawkins that belief in God is silly and irrational. People are not yet ready to
hear it, and ramming it down their throats just closes minds rather than opening them.
It's a luxury to have a fine mind that is highly educated. I'm certainly not saying that
Dawkins has not earned his privilege – he has. But he is privileged nonetheless. His soul
is not tortured. His mind is free. The human condition does not overwhelm him. But his
lack of sympathy for those who cling to psychological certainties he does not approve of
has no kindness in it, no compassion. It's a shame.
Dawkins has acknowledged that stories do not have to be true to be useful. This is
certainly true of religious stories, too. You don't have to believe in God to see the wisdom
of the judgment of Solomon or the goodness of the Samaritan. You don't have to believe
in God to see that religion has served a purpose, fulfilled a human need, stopped as
many going mad as it has made mad. I agree with Dawkins that its time of dominance
now has to pass. But I don't think it's quite time yet to berate believers as nothing but
tiresome fools. Apart from anything else, there are still too many of them, and some of
them are still too powerful. It's easy to be brave when the consequence is a high public
profile and continued book sales. Dawkins proselytises from a very safe place. A lot of
people still live side by side with militant theists, and it makes them horribly vulnerable.
That is no fairy story, made to be brushed aside. That is a fact of life on Earth.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/06/richard-dawkins-lack-
of-sympathy-for-religion-shame
Source 11A
What Is Theocracy? Definition and Examples
Robert Longley, 2022
A theocracy is a form of government in which the ultimate leader is a supreme deity, who
rules either directly as a god in human form or indirectly through mortal servants—
typically a religious clergy—who rule on the deity’s behalf. With their laws based on
religious codes and decrees, the governments of theocracies serve their divine leader or
leaders rather than the citizens. As a result, theocracies are often oppressive in function,
with strict rules and harsh punishments for rule-
Key Takeaways: Theocracy

 A theocracy is a form of government in which priests or religious leaders rule in the
name of a deity or deities.
 Serving their divine leader or leaders rather than the citizens, theocracies are often
oppressive in function, with harsh punishment for rule-breakers.
 There is no separation of church and state in a true theocracy and the open
practice of only the country’s prevailing religion is allowed.
 There is no room for democracy and all decisions of a theocracy’s leader are
unquestionable.
49
Characteristics of a Theocracy
In a true theocracy, one or more deities are recognized as the supreme ruling authorities,
giving divinely inspired guidance to the humans who manage the day-to-day affairs of the
government. The head of state is assumed to have a personal connection with the deity
or deities of the civilization's religion or spiritual belief. A theocracy is often defined in
contrast to an ecclesiocracy, in which religious leaders direct the government but do not
claim that they act as earthly instruments of a deity. The papacy in the Papal States
occupies a middle ground between theocracy and ecclesiocracy since the pope does not
claim to be a prophet who receives direct revelation from God for translation into civil law
In theocracies, the ruler is simultaneously the head of government and religion. There is
no separation of church and state and open practice of only the prevailing religion is
allowed. The rulers in theocracies hold office by divine grace and conduct their rule
based on the prevailing religion. As the source of divine inspiration, sacred religious
books and texts govern all state operations and decisions. All power in a theocracy is
concentrated in a single institution, with no separation of powers. Since they are
assumed to be those that the deity would make, all decisions of a theocracy’s leader are
unquestionable.
There is no room for the processes of democracy in a true theocracy. For the population
to abide by and respect the will of the ruler and, by extension, that of the deity, those who
disagree with or fail to abide by the laws and the dictates of the religion are often
repressed and persecuted. Issues like marriage, reproductive rights, civil rights, and
punishment of criminals are also defined based on religious text. Under a theocracy,
residents of the country typically do not have religious freedom and are not able to vote
on governmental decisions.
Secular or non-religious governments can co-exist within a theocracy, delegating some

aspects of civil law to religious communities. In Israel, for example, marriage can be
performed only by officiates of the religious community to which the couples belong, and
no inter-faith or same-sex marriages performed within the country are legally recognized.
Most theocratic governments function similarly to either monarchies or dictatorships, as
those who hold political power serve the god of their religion first and the citizens of the
country next. Future leaders gain their positions either through family inheritance or by
having been chosen by the previous leaders.
Living in a Theocracy
Most people would find life under theocratic rule too limiting. It does not allow people to
live an individualistic “me-first” lifestyle. No single political party or organization can come
into power and what the rulers say is the law.
Considering the restrictive nature of their rule, it could be easy to assume that theocratic
countries are hotbeds of dissent. This, however, is rarely the case. Theocratic systems
rely on leadership from a deity that the people believe to be omnipotent. As a result, the
people trust that being empowered by that deity, their leaders will never deceive or
mislead them.
50
Theocratic governments are typically efficient and streamlined, with all directives rapidly
implemented down to the community level. The process of governing will not be slowed
by the conflict between opposing political parties. All political and social leaders within a
theocratic society will quickly fall in line with the rules established by the upper echelons
of their society. Unified by the same beliefs, people and groups within a theocracy will
work harmoniously toward the same goals.
Since people who live in a theocracy are quick to adhere to the law, crime rates are
comparatively low. Similar to most people who have grown up in democracies, citizens of
theocracies have been raised and thus conditioned to believe that their way of life is the
best way to exist. Most believe that remaining devout and serving their deity is the only
true way for them to exist. This helps to keep them committed to their deity, government,
culture, and way of life.
However, there are, of course, drawbacks to living under theocratic rule. Incompetent or
corrupt leaders are rarely challenged. To challenge a theocratic ruler or group is often
viewed as questioning the deity that they represent—potentially a sin.
Theocratic societies are generally intolerant and do not welcome immigrants or people of
different cultures or ethnic groups, especially those who do not share the same religious
beliefs as them. Minorities within a theocracy are usually forced to either assimilate to the
main culture or be shunned and potentially exiled from the country.
Theocratic societies tend to be static, rarely changing or allowing innovations to impact

people. While some members of a theocratic society might enjoy modern luxury goods
and items, the vast majority of the population might not have access to them. This means
that things such as cable TV, the internet, or even cellphones will be viewed as tools for
increasing sin and noncompliance. Many people would be fearful of using these things
and being influenced by outsiders who use them.
Feminism, LGBTQ advocacy, and similar gender equality movements are seldom
tolerated in a theocratic society. Many theocracies conduct their systems based on their
deity’s religious mandates. If those mandates prescribe certain roles and duties to a
specific gender, then speaking out against them will not be allowed.
While people can own and operate businesses within a theocracy, those businesses
must follow established rules, laws, and norms mandated by the theocratic belief system.
These rules may prohibit businesses from innovating and maximizing profits. While some
businessmen inside of a theocracy will be able to operate relatively freely, most will not.
Similarly, while the average person can work, they cannot maximize their earning
potential. Theocratic society provides few opportunities for wealth, encourages
cooperation over competition, and generally negatively views material goods.
Theocracies in History
51
Throughout recorded history, many nations and tribal groups have existed under a
theocratic government, including many early civilizations.
Ancient Egypt
One of the best-known known examples of theocratic governments was that of Ancient
Egypt. Though it is divided into different periods, the theocratic rule of Egypt lasted for
about 3,000 years, from around 3150 BCE to around 30 BCE, creating and maintaining
one of the world's greatest ancient cultures in the process.
The government of ancient Egypt was a theocratic monarchy as the kings, or pharaohs,
ruled by a mandate from the gods, initially was seen as an intermediary between human
beings and the divine and were supposed to represent the gods' will through the laws
passed and policies approved. They were thought of as direct descendants of the Sun
God, Ra. While the pharaohs were the top representatives of the gods, they were also
guided by advisors and high priests in carrying out the gods’ wishes for constructing new
temples, creating laws, and providing for defence.
Biblical Israel
The term theocracy was first used by Jewish priest, historian, and military leader Flavius
Josephus in the first century AD to describe the characteristic government of the Jews.
Josephus argued that while mankind had developed many forms of rule, most could be
subsumed under the following three types: monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy.
However, according to Josephus, the government of the Jews was unique. Josephus
offered the term "theocracy" to describe this form of government in which God was the
sovereign and His word was law.
Describing the government of biblical Israel under Moses, Josephus wrote, “Our
legislator… ordained our government to be what, by a strained expression, may be
termed a theocracy, by ascribing the authority and power to God.” The Hebrews believed
that their government was by divine rule, whether under the original tribal form, the kingly
form, or the high priesthood after the Exile in 597 BCE until the rule of the Maccabees
around 167 BCE. The actual rulers or rulers, however, were held responsible directly to
God. As such, their deeds and policies could not be arbitrary. They did, however,
occasionally deviate from the divine task as shown by the examples of Kings Saul and
David. Witnessing such lapses, the prophets sought to correct them in the name of an
angry God.
Ancient China
During its nearly 3,000 years of recorded history, early China was ruled by several
dynasties that practiced theocratic forms of government, including the Shang and Zhou
Dynasties. During the Shang Dynasty, the priest-king was thought to communicate and
interpret the wishes of the gods and their ancestors. In 1046 BCE, the Shang Dynasty
was overthrown by the Zhou Dynasty, which used a claimed “Mandate of Heaven” as a
way to overthrow the government. This mandate stated that the current ruler was chosen
by a divine force.
Josephus' first-century definition of theocracy remained widely accepted until the
52
Enlightenment, when the term took on more universalistic and negative connotations,
especially when German philosopher Friedrich Hegel’s commentary on the relationship
between religion and government contrasted sharply with established theocratic
doctrines. “if the principle of the state is a complete totality, then church and state cannot
possibly be unrelated,” he wrote in 1789. The first recorded English use of theocracy
meaning, “a sacerdotal government under divine inspiration” appeared in 1622.
“Sacerdotal” doctrine ascribes sacrificial functions and spiritual or supernatural powers to
ordained priests. The more commonly recognized definition as a “priestly or religious
body wielding political and civil power” was recorded in 1825.
Modern Theocracies
The Enlightenment marked the end of theocracy in most Western countries. Today, only
a handful of theocracies remain. The most recent theocracy to adopt a different form of
government is Sudan, whose Islamic theocracy was replaced in 2019 by a struggling
democracy. Contemporary examples of theocracies include Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan,
Iran, and Vatican City.
Saudi Arabia
As an Islamic theocratic monarchy, and home to two of Islam’s most holy sites, the cities
of Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia has one of the most tightly controlled governments in
the world. Ruled exclusively by the House of Saud since 1932, the family has absolute
power. The Holy Quran and the Sunni School of Islam serve as the country’s constitution.
Despite the lack of a traditional constitution, Saudi Arabia does have a Basic Law of
Governance that guides justice, which must follow the rulings and teaching of Islamic law.
Although the law does not directly forbid other religions to be practiced in the country, the
practice of religions other than Islam is abhorred by the Saudis' muslin-majority society.
Those who reject the Islamic religious teachings within the country are given strict
punishment, which in some cases can include the death penalty.
Afghanistan
Similar to Saudi Arabia, Islam is the official religion of Afghanistan. The major foundations
of the country’s political institutions are based on Islamic Sharia Law. Political power lies
almost exclusively in the hands of the religious leaders of the regime, currently the
Taliban Islamic Movement. The stated ultimate goal of this fundamentalist Islamic regime
is to unify the Afghani people under a common religious law.
Iran
Located in what is considered the Middle East, the government of Iran is a mixed
theocratic government. The country has a supreme leader, president, and several
councils. However, the laws of the constitution and justice in the state are based on
Islamic law. In this manner, the government and constitution of Iran mix both theocratic
and democratic principles and elements. The constitution denotes that the ruler of the
state is the best-qualified mortal to interpret Islam and to ensure that the people of the
state strictly adhere to its principles. Before the formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
the country was ruled by Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, who was well-known for his
secular and U.S.-friendly attitudes. Following a revolution in 1979, the Shah was
overthrown from his position by the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who then
53
became the leader of Iran’s new Islamic State. Best remembered for orchestrating the
Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979, Khomeini implemented a political system based on
traditional Islamic beliefs, a role held today by Khomeini’s ardent student and ally, Ali
Khamenei.
Vatican City
Officially considered a city-state, the Vatican City is the only country in the world with an
absolute theocratic elective monarchy that is guided by the principles of a Christian
religious school of thought. Sometimes called the Holy See, Vatican City’s government
follows the laws and teaching of the Catholic religion. The Pope is the supreme power in
the country and leads the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Vatican
government. This is also perhaps the only monarchy in the world that is non-hereditary.
While the country does have a president, that president’s rule can be overturned by the
Pope.
Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-theocracy-721626
Source 11B
In Iran, a new generation rises. The theocracy strikes back.
Washington Post Editorial Board, 2022
What has been happening in Iran the past four weeks is not their father’s revolution. After
years of pent-up anger, young people are taking to the streets in a direct challenge to the
theocracy that has ruled since 1979, cheered on by prominent figures in culture and
sports. What began as a protest by women over oppressive hijab rules and their strict
enforcement by the “morality police” has fast become a broader generational and social
uprising. “Down with the dictator!” has become a common slogan throughout the country.
On Oct. 8, President Ebrahim Raisi addressed professors and students at Alzahra

University in Tehran, reciting a poem that equated “rioters” with inconsequential flies.
Fearlessly, female students chanted back, “Get lost!” and “Mullahs, get lost!” The
demonstrators have been galvanized by a protest anthem, “Baraye,” from 25-year-old
musician Shervin Hajipour, with lyrics based on tweets expressing grievances with the
regime going back decades. They came in the aftermath of the death of Mahsa Amini,
22, while in police custody on Sept. 16, detained by Iran’s “morality police” for allegedly
wearing a headscarf improperly. Mr. Hajipour’s song, posted on Instagram, went viral
with 40 million views in less than 48 hours. He was detained Sept. 29 and accused of
“propaganda against the system” and “inciting people to violent acts” before being
released on bail and prohibited from leaving the country.
Then came the outrageous case of Sarina Esmaeilzadeh, a 16-year-old girl from
Mehrshahr in Karaj, who was fatally struck on the head by batons from security forces
during a protest Sept. 22. Authorities attempted to coerce her family into a videotaped
statement that she killed herself, according to the group Iran Human Rights, based in
Oslo. The family refused. The prosecutor went ahead anyway and declared the cause of
death to be suicide.
54
Actors, athletes and others spoke out, too — and were immediately punished. Mahmoud
Shahriari, a former presenter for Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, was detained by
a court order for “inciting riots and sympathizing with the enemy.” His offense: posting
messages in support of the protests on Instagram. Soccer star Ali Daei had his passport
revoked over a call for the government to “solve the problems of the Iranian people rather
than using repression, violence, and arrests.” Actor Hamid Farrokhnejad said Oct. 9 that
he had undergone hours of interrogation because of his support for the protests. “I was
summoned twice, interrogated for 10 hours and banned from leaving the country to prove
to me that I was wrong when I said that even a peaceful protest is not possible in this
country,” he said, Radio Farda reported.
It is not clear how many have been killed, but the total is clearly in the dozens across 17
provinces. Iran Human Rights says 185 are dead. The wide and unrelenting protests —
oil field workers joined this week, and ethnic minorities, too — have been met by the
regime with the usual mindless deployment of thugs, batons and guns. But what has
become clear is how deeply and broadly Iranians yearn for normalcy and to be free of the
dictatorial clerics. It is a spirit of disenchantment that cannot be arrested.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/13/iran-new-generation-rises-
theocracy-strikes-back/
Source 11C
The Conflict Between Communism and Religion
The Communist Review, 1924
Dear Comrade,
In the Forum of last month’s issue of the Communist Review, I noticed a very misleading
article entitled “Should We Combat Religion,” criticising the action of the Enlarged
Executive of the Comintern for attacking religion, and preaching Atheism in the interests
of Communism. According to the writing, “it is not religion itself that our Party should fight
against, but only the falsification of it in the interests of capitalist society.”
For a Communist to hold such a confusing opinion is, to say the least, dangerous—both
to himself and to the militant interests of the working class. The Christian teachings of the
I.L.P. before the war, led to pacifism, which is, judging from the words of Christ, true
Christianity, and pacifism lulls into inactivity the best fighting elements of the working
class, thereby leaving them entirely at the mercy of the capitalist class, without the will or
the means of resistance.
Would Lenin have accomplished the Revolution if he had adhered to the Christian
doctrine of pacifism instead of waging the class war? Will the Communist Parties in the
various countries overthrow capitalism by the Christian doctrine of love and gentle
persuasion instead of by the use of force!
No, decidedly not! No one can be consistently both a Christian and a Communist. A true
Christian believes in turning the other cheek, resisting not oppression, returning good for
55
evil. It would be madness for a Communist to adopt such an attitude towards the
oppression of the capitalist class.
According to Frederick Engels, so surely does the acceptance of the materialistic

conception of history lead to the exclusion of religion that the attempt to couple them
betrays charlatanism, or lack of thought. It is indeed surprising that any member of the
Communist Party who naturally accepts the materialistic conception of history, which
leaves no room for divine influence in the making of history should wish to introduce
religion into the Party. If we adopted religion, the result would be disastrous.
I would advise Comrade Baldwin, and all wavering comrades to study Bishop Brown’s
“Communism and Christianism,” price 1/-, published by the Communist Party, which ably
describes the conflict between religion and Communism.
It should be the duty of every member of the Party to read this book, written to a Christian
Socialist by an American bishop converted from orthodox Christianity to Communism,
from which the following is a quotation—
“The contradiction in terms known as the Christian Socialist is inevitably antagonistic to

working class interests and the waging of the class struggle. His policy (that of the
Christian Socialist) is the conciliation of classes, the fraternity of robbers and robbed, not
the end of classes. His avowed object, indeed, is usually to purge the Socialist movement
of its materialism, and this means to purge it of its Socialism, and to divert from its
materialisms to the fruitless chasing of spiritual will-o’-the-wisps. A Christian Socialist is,
indeed, an anti-Socialist.”
I will conclude with the memorable words of Comrade Trotsky—
“And therefore, we adopt a ruthlessly irreconcilable attitude to anyone who utters a single
word to the effect that mysticism or religious sentimentality might be combined with
Communism. Religiousness is irreconcilable with the Marxian standpoint.
“We are of opinion that Atheism, as an inseparable element of the materialist view of life,
is a necessary condition for the theoretical education of the revolutionist.
“He who believes in another world is not capable of concentrating all his passion on the
transformation of this one."
Yours fraternally,
LESLIE MASON,
Barrow Branch
Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/
periodicals/communist_review/1924/02/mason.htm
Source 11D
56
China’s religion problem: Why the Chinese Communist Party views

religious belief as a threat
John Powers, 2019
Beginning in the earliest grades, Chinese students are subjected to anti-religious

propaganda. They learn that religion is a ‘feudal superstition’ (封建迷信); a remnant of the
past that holds the country back and is responsible for many of its problems.
In Tibet, Buddhist monasteries have police stations on their premises, and monks and
nuns are under constant surveillance. At least one million Uighurs in Muslim-majority
Xinjiang are incarcerated in concentration camps where they are forced to repeat anti-
Muslim statements. The men are required to shave their beards, and in order to be
released, prisoners must eat pork and desecrate copies of the Koran.
The government describes the camps as ‘job-training centres’ where students eagerly
learn skills that will help them improve their economic fortunes. But images of prison-like
structures surrounded by high chain-link fences topped by barbed wire make it clear that
this is a massive, government-funded assault on religion whose purpose is to force
Muslims to abandon their faith. This has also been corroborated by accounts of former
detainees who were released and managed to reach countries where they were able to
tell their stories.
In recent decades the level of repression has increased significantly. At the same time,
churches, temples, and monasteries attract large numbers of devotees
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is officially atheist, and religious believers are
forbidden to join it. At the same time, the Party claims to adhere to the constitution
promulgated in 1982, which contains provisions for freedom of religion. The constitution
also appears to guarantee other freedoms that are present in the legal codes of Western
democracies, but closer examination reveals that it is not an instrument to which the
people can appeal if their rights are infringed. Rather, it is a tool of control whose
interpretation and application lie entirely in the hands of the party-state.
The Chinese Constitution only allows the practice of ‘normal religious activities’ (正常的宗
教活动), narrowly defined as practices undertaken at times and places approved by the
state that support the government and its policies. These include the dogma that religions
are purely human creations, that God and other supernatural beings do not exist, and
that all religions have a predictable trajectory from inception to increasing popularity,
followed by their inevitable decline and disappearance.
Mao Zedong (1893–1976), China’s paramount leader following the revolution of 1949
until his death, declared that because backward people are attached to their religions, the
Party should allow this process to unfold according to its preordained teleology, with
additional help and guidance in the form of propaganda and education in science and
rationality.
57
In recent decades, however, the level of repression has increased significantly. At the
same time, churches, temples and monasteries are attracting large numbers of devotees,
and even official figures admit an overall surge in religious attachment across the
country. Government sources state that there are 200 million religious believers today,
but external experts often estimate more than double that figure.
Religious groups that agree to abide by the government’s restrictions are grudgingly
allowed to continue their activities. However, they are expected to work to instil patriotic
values in their congregations and they must also accede to the principle that their beliefs
and practices are superstitious nonsense. They also have to agree to work with the
government in its efforts to speed up the inevitable demise of all religions, including their
own. This is what ‘normal religious activity’ looks like to the CCP.
So why is the Chinese Communist Party – which allows no opposition and controls the
world’s largest army and second-largest economy – afraid of Catholics attending mass,
Buddhist monks chanting mantras, or Muslims gathered for Friday prayers? Part of the
answer lies in China’s past, and the other side of the story relates to more recent events
and the Party’s interpretation of Marxism.
Religion and the state have long had a contentious relationship in China. There have
been a number of religion-inspired movements, such as the Yellow Turbans (黄巾) in the
second century CE, who engaged in armed rebellion against different governments and
in some cases severely weakened them. The most recent threat, however, came with the
demise of the Soviet Union and the liberation of its conquered territories in Eastern
Europe – events which were celebrated around the world as a triumph of freedom but
viewed as a global catastrophe by China’s leaders. The overthrow of the Soviet regime
signified a repudiation of the sort of Marxism-Leninism that is still the official dogma of the
People’s Republic of China (PRC) today.
The CCP dispatched researchers to Russia and Poland to determine what had gone
wrong there. However, Party ideology prevented anyone from discussing the main
problems, such as repression, economic stagnation and the horrors of the Soviet gulag.
Instead, the conclusion was that religion was to blame. The impetus of revolution in
Eastern Europe had nothing to do with flaws in the implementation of Marxism-Leninism,
but rather lay in the persistence of religious faith. Consequently, the CCP’s current
religion policies are an extension of the lessons drawn from analysing China’s own
history and the demise of the ideologically aligned European Marxist states.
If all of this seems to be a farfetched over-reaction to a non-existent threat and overreach

by the CCP, then that’s because it is. But it is also important to recognise the role of
ideology and propaganda in China. Right from its inception, the PRC has been a
propaganda state. The government controls all media outlets, and propaganda pervades
all levels of society. The CCP’s efforts to control opinion are based on a belief in the
infinite malleability of the public psyche.
Inspired by American propagandists including Walter Lipmann (1889–1974) and Edward

Bernays (1891–1995), the CCP assumes that if a government wants to change the
58
content of its citizens’ beliefs, it can. This is the background to a nationwide programme
of ‘patriotic education’ (爱国主义教育), which is particularly pervasive in minority areas
like Tibet and Xinjiang.
Religious believers, particularly leaders such as Buddhist monks and nuns or Muslim
imams, are forced to participate in the ongoing propaganda indoctrination and to publicly
endorse government-produced versions of their faiths. Chinese Christians, for example,
are expected to reject salvation by faith and the Resurrection (because Marxist
materialism denies the possibility of life after death). Buddhists are required to adopt a
version of their religion created by non-Buddhists that fails to include most of the core
principles and practices encoded in their scriptures.
Is such propaganda likely to succeed? Past history suggests that it will not, and
adherence to traditional articles of faith still remains strong in Tibet and Xinjiang.
Moreover, recent studies have concluded that when belief in a counter-narrative is
strong, it tends to persist despite any level of coercion or propaganda.
My recent book analyses CCP propaganda and the strategies of resistance employed by
Tibetan Buddhists in response. During recent visits to the region, I have experienced a
climate of fear far exceeding anything I have encountered before, and attacks on religion
have become more intrusive and widespread. But Tibetans’ faith appears to remain
strong, and religious practice has become an act of resistance against the state.
The CCP’s efforts to subvert religion and force believers to adopt versions of their faiths
that narrowly equate them with Chinese patriotism have clearly failed to achieve their
objective. However, the Party is an authoritarian organisation, and its leaders have
seldom demonstrated an ability to change course when policies fail. So it is likely that the
repression will continue, and those religious adherents who bear the brunt of the coercion
will become increasingly resistant to their government’s message. Given this, perhaps it
is not surprising that the Party views the persistence of such beliefs as an existential
threat.
Source: https://theasiadialogue.com/2019/10/17/chinas-religion-problem-why-the-
chinese-communist-party-views-religious-belief-as-a-threat/
59

Module 1A - People - Religion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Module 1A - People - Religion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 1A - People - Religion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Year 12 ATAR Religion & Life – Unit 3

 How social factors impact on how people

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2021 Census – Religious

Using Sources 1A, 1B and 1C.

1. Outline the place of religion in Australian society.

2. Identify significant trends emerging over time.

I haven’t gone to see a movie on a Saturday or Friday night ever.

philosophy that Islam teaches—of compassion, peace, submission, tolerance, and

I do believe in rituals. Like Ramadan is coming up next week. Do I plan on fasting

I don’t like organized prayer. Every once in a while I go to services, but I

Consumerism And Materialism

As a consequence to materialism, the tendency to purchase goods and services is

The Effects Of Consumerism And Materialism On Mental Health

If we take a look at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to evaluate the motivations of

So what would happen if we were all to collectively reduce our consumption?

of office. There’d be a recession; maybe even a depression. This all-consuming

In an attempt to isolate the self-expressive variable, the researchers conducted another

The capitalism of post-satiety

I think of Pope Francis as our latest superhero.

He has expressed his intention to include more women in decision-making roles,

Like Jesus, Francis shows us that listening to others—and especially those

(to Father): It wasn’t easy, was it?

Mr. MOSHE YOSEF DAUM: No.

What We Expect of God

Was the Covenant Broken?

How Religious Beliefs May Change After Trauma

How 9/11 Affected People's Religious Beliefs

The primary findings of the study can be summarized by the following:

Your Religious Beliefs and Recovering From a Traumatic Event

How did the 9/11 attacks affect American Muslims?

Physical assault, emotional abuse and discrimination, alongside an often-politicized

Have there been any areas of progress?

“Aggressive secularism” can be defined as a radical expression of secularism, which

Martha Nussbaum, while almost exclusively referring to cases of intolerance against

Moreover, Christian convictions on marriage, sexual relations or other questions not

Taylor’s "exclusivist secularism" is not the benign "secularity" — the separation of

Aggressive secularism was once thought to be a primarily European malady. Then it

Damnation be upon us! We are officially a nation of heathens.

A former Catholic, a French existentialist and a happy-clappy Humanist are as different

We’re hungry for the truth

We’d better use our libraries or we’ll lose them

Only oldies can afford gardens

Key Takeaways: Theocracy

Secular or non-religious governments can co-exist within a theocracy, delegating some

Theocratic societies tend to be static, rarely changing or allowing innovations to impact

Josephus' first-century definition of theocracy remained widely accepted until the

On Oct. 8, President Ebrahim Raisi addressed professors and students at Alzahra

According to Frederick Engels, so surely does the acceptance of the materialistic

“The contradiction in terms known as the Christian Socialist is inevitably antagonistic to

I will conclude with the memorable words of Comrade Trotsky—

China’s religion problem: Why the Chinese Communist Party views

Beginning in the earliest grades, Chinese students are subjected to anti-religious

If all of this seems to be a farfetched over-reaction to a non-existent threat and overreach

Inspired by American propagandists including Walter Lipmann (1889–1974) and Edward

You might also like