Defining Religion: Catholicism vs. Snake-Handling Churches

In Dennis Covington’s book Salvation on Sand Mountain, he gives insight into the snake-handling churches throughout Appalachia and other locations: his primary focus being The Church of Jesus with Signs Following.  His accounts of the practices of this church have established some clear similarities and differences between them and my religious practice, Catholicism.

Many people may wonder how a religion that takes up snakes to represent God’s power, drinks strychnine, and speaks in tongues could share any similarities with the Catholic faith; there are, however, several similarities.  The services held at The Church of Jesus with Signs Following always include songs to worship God, a preacher who’s “sermon echoed the theme,” prayers for those who are in need of help, and often times an offering is collected (Covingtion, 72).  All of these aspects can be viewed during a typical Catholic service.  Throughout various points in Mass, we also sing songs to worship God, a priest always gives a sermon from which we can learn a lesson, prayer intentions are said for those who need the prayers of everyone, and an offering is collected during Mass. 

There are, however, some obvious differences between The Church of Jesus with Signs Following and the Catholic Mass.  Although we both worship God, snake-handling churches are more outspoken with their worship.  They often sing, dance, speak aloud, etc… during their services; Catholicism is much more reserved, however.  It would be viewed as disrespectful if a person were to shout, dance throughout the aisles, or sing while the priest is speaking during Mass.  Another main difference is the rituals performed during these two services.  In a Catholic Church, Communion is served at every service; however, “Rituals like Communion are rare events in snake-handling churches” (Covington, 115).  Also, the Catholic Church does not take up snakes or drink poison throughout our Mass; where as in a snake-handling church, this ritual is performed during almost every service.

Although there are differences between these religious practices, their legitimacy as a religion is equal.  Both religions exhibit the elementary forms of religious life per Durkheim, thus falling under the definition of a religion.  Totems, or sacred images/objects that represent shared spiritual beliefs, are present in both practices.  The Church of Jesus with Signs Following uses snakes to represent their shared belief that God is with them; Catholicism uses the Eucharist to represent this (Durkheim).  Also, the followers of these religions maintain a collective consciousness, or a group mind resulting from shared beliefs and rituals (Durkheim).  Lastly, effervescence, a heightened emotional feeling from being in a group, is exhibited in both religions (Durkheim).  Although they exhibit this effervescence in different ways - snake-handling churches being more open about it, while Catholics are more reserved and tend to internalize it - they still both partake in this elementary form.  Thus, although we may not share every ritual and practice with another religion, or perhaps, even lack understanding of another religion, it does not illegitimatize the validity of any religion.  As long as a belief system has followers that come together to practice said faith, the definition of this belief as a religion will be maintained.

Occupy Wall Street -- exploring mass behavior

There have been countless mass/collective movements throughout our history, one of the most recent being Occupy Wall Street.  Citizens involved in this movement are protesting the present conditions in which 1% of the population, namely the wealthiest individuals, hold all of the power, while the other 99% hold no power in today’s world.  The formation of this mass behavior cannot be attributed to random occurrence, but rather, there are sociological explanations for why individuals feel compelled to take part in these collective actions, and how these collective actions grow as a whole. 

As discussed in Robert Jay Lifton’s article, Nazi Doctors at Auschwitz, which explores the reasons to why ordinary individuals partook in the Auschwitz Holocaust practices, there is a “‘coherent community’ and ‘common effort’…in discussing…commitment to overcoming staggering national problems” (Lifton, 441).  Thus, individuals who share a generalized belief, or a belief about what needs to be changed, feel compelled to join together to fight for what they believe in (Smelser).  Also, mass hysteria causes individuals to lose their inhibitions.  In other words, those who may not normally protest on their own, feel more comfortable doing so in a group because their individual actions are incorporated into a larger system.

It may seem plausible to think that a large group, like the Occupy Wall Street group, will always have an effect on social order; however, other factors must be considered.  A collective group must have structural conduciveness, or avenues available for change, in order to work effectively (Smelser).  Also, one must consider the action of social control, or which people have social control (Smelser).  Although Occupy Wall Street has conducted expansive protests, these actions have not been given the attention, especially by the media, needed to make a worldwide statement, thus limiting their avenues for change.  This lack of media attention demonstrates the concept of action of social control.  The 1% of the population that Occupy Wall Street participants are protesting against are the same people that mediate media coverage, thus if they wish for this protest to be silenced and ignored by the media, they have control over that.  Even if media coverage is given, the people with social control (1% of the population) can dictate how this mass movement is depicted in media.  Thus, a shared belief among individuals, social order, resource availability, etc… all has an effect on the magnitude of mass behavior.

Weak Ties

Demonstration of how weak ties connect more people than strong ties do.

Many of us believe that it is our best friends, parents, etc… that we depend on everyday; much of this is due to the fact that society focuses on these strong bonds, or ties, that we create with those who are close to us.  I would like to challenge this dependence on strong ties, however, and take the stance that Mark Granovetter portrays with his article “The Strength of Weak Ties.”  Weak ties bring together individuals more often than strong ties do; we depend on these weak ties to get us through our daily activities.  We do not depend on our best friend to get us to campus, instruct our classes, take our money at the grocery store, and so on…  We depend on our weak ties with the bus driver, professor, or cashier to allow us to carry out our daily activities.  Although we do enjoy the strong ties we have created with others, it is the weak ties that greatly influence our day-to-day activities.

Yes, our strong ties may determine our overall intimate/enduring relationships in this world; however, it is weak ties that we depend on to connect us to a larger number of people.  Although these ties are “weak,” they can still have a significant impact on people’s lives; not only can they allow or prohibit a person from performing a daily task, they an also influence how a person acts on a daily basis.  This phenomenon can be seen in Liberty Mutual’s commercial (video below) in which a person who does a good deed causes another person to also perform a good deed.  Although we may perceive these ties as insignificant or weak, their consequences and impact are actually quite great. 

The Power of Authority: who decides our actions?

If someone instructed you to perform an action that went past your moral boundaries, would you?  What if it was a teacher, policeman, or a doctor?  Although many of us like to believe that we would not conform to what these individuals ask of us, in the end, most of us would heed to their wishes.  Why, you may ask, would a person perform an action that goes against what they believe in?  This phenomenon comes down to our perception of authority.  As Stanley Milgram demonstrated in his shock experiment, 26 out of the 40 (65%) participants shocked another subject with voltage that could kill someone, solely due to the fact that a person they perceived as having authority told them to do so (Milgram, 376). 

In our society, we often do not question authority; instead, we simply do what they ask without even thinking about it.  My psychology teacher in high school demonstrated society’s willingness to follow authoritative figures by simply asking the class to bring in a soda can the following day.  When we got to class the next day, he asked us why we all brought in the soda can; we saw this question as weird and somewhat obvious, and answered “well, because you told us to.”  My teacher made us see that, even though we had no idea why we would need the can, we simply obeyed his orders and did not question his request, due to the fact that he was a teacher and thus, in our eyes, had authority.

This phenomenon of authority and obedience not only explains why we listen to teachers, doctors, policemen, etc; it also explains greater social occurrences that take place, e.g. the Holocaust.  Many of us question how so many people could follow Hitler and his malevolent requests of them.  The answer to this simply lies in the fact that, as a society, we feel the need to obey an authoritative figure.  Many of us believe that we would never obey a person that told us to kill another being; however, in Milgram’s experiment 26 out of the 40 ordinary, everyday men, heeded to doing just that by delivering a lethal shock (Milgram, 376).  Although the shock was not real, none of the participants knew this at the time it was delivered.  Thus, obedience does not only affect the “weak-willed” or “mean-hearted,” everyone is subject to conformity and obedience, because society tells us that authority must be upheld.