How is religion changing in the twenty-first century? In the global era; religion has leapt onto the world stage; often in contradictory ways. Some religious activists are antagonistic and engage in protests; violent acts; and political challenges. Others are positive and help to shape an emerging transnational civil society. In addition; a new global religion may be in the making; providing a moral and spiritual basis for a worldwide community of concern about environmental issues; human rights; and international peace. God in the Tumult of the Global Square explores all of these directions; based on a five-year Luce Foundation project that involved religious leaders; scholars; and public figures in workshops held in Cairo; Moscow; Delhi; Shanghai; Buenos Aires; and Santa Barbara. In this book; the voices of these religious observers around the world express both the hopes and fears about new forms of religion in the global age.
#61501 in Books imusti 2011-10-04Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.00 x .74 x 6.00l; .96 #File Name: 0520271467320 pagesUniversity of California Press
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Five StarsBy CustomerSuch a great book! LIKE NEW!10 of 13 people found the following review helpful. Not as insightful as I'd hopedBy Kindle CustomerI am not as impressed with this book as I'd hoped. I guess it is a good anthropological study on the women in these Philadelphia neighborhoods; but I was hoping for more insight. Perhaps it is not the fault of the book; though. Perhaps I was hoping that the women the themselves would have more insight.58 of 63 people found the following review helpful. Keep the baby; screw up generations and communities; who cares?By Sarah SodaI couldn't put it down. The book was very well written. I found the book to be very objective primarily. The author is trying to make sense of why women in underprivileged communities choose to bear children but also choose for the most part to forgo marriage indefinitely. There are a few salient points she really drives home. 1. These women really love their children and would not be the women they are today without them (does that give them a right to screw up a future adults life to save their own?) 2. The men that impregnate these women are not marriageable material (domestic violence; drugs; incarceration; etc.) in any sense of the word for the overwhelming majority (half of those children born to these women are those same men) and 3. They see marriage as something they aspire to someday when they have a house; a career; an education; and some material comfort. In the event the marriage doesn't work out they can kick the guy to the curb and still have their stuff in tact to care for the children. As with any good social science book; it begs more questions than answers. That is where I part ways with the soft brushstrokes of this book. My questions are ones that disturb me. A fifteen year old teenage girl wants nothing but to leave her home; strike out on her own; have independence; not be under anyone's rule. That is a typical teenager under the best of circumstances in any class in America. The big difference is these kids have no parental guidance at that point. The easiest thing in the world to do is be a bad parent. All you have to do is nothing. When a teenager becomes too hard to deal with by a person who was never allowed to fully mature herself; let her get pregnant and start a whole new life cycle. A fifteen year old female children playing grown up house at the cost of taxpayers is disturbing. Fifteen year old male children being held responsible for mistakes for 18 years when they were not given adequate parental supervision and guidance by a person who was never allowed to fully mature herself is disturbing. They are in a pressure cooker with no way out; no wonder they blow to drugs; alcohol and incarceration. The fact that these mothers and grandmothers encourage an eighteen year old who does not want to have a child and has no way to support a child to go through with the pregnancy because she may not get another chance is completely disturbing. I think that the question "Why have them out of wedlock?" is unimportant. I think the real question is "Why have them when you have no means whatsoever to support them?" and the answer is because the government will support them. If that option did not exist; as in the fifties; it would be a different scenario. I am not saying go back to the fifties; but I am saying we should ask the hard politically incorrect questions if we want real solutions.
