









































Religion Generates Individual & Social Control:


Religion Generates Individual and Social Control: 
Focusing On Values, Beliefs, Morals, Sex, and Marriage 

 
 

Johanna Orrante 
Department of Sociology 

California State University, Los Angeles 
 

 
In today’s society one must ask if religion is used for individual 
and social control.  Prevalent historical arguments include one 
can do no wrong if they follow god’s ideologies, god is persistent 
in the mind, and that religions form boundaries for those who 
abide by these guidelines. It is argued that religion is a basis of 
social control and factors that are affected include values, beliefs, 
morals, sex and marriage.  

 

1Religion embraces the holy, the 
good, and the truth in individuals; 
ultimately creating a set of beliefs, 
norms, and values for society to follow.  
It has been argued that one of the many 
reasons for religious existence is to 
provide an effective means for con-
trolling individuals and society at whole. 
Whether that is the reason why religion 
exists is debatable, but it is certainly true 
that control is one of the functions of 
religion.  The idea that religion is used 
as a source of individual and social 
control increases as society, people, and 
ideas of religiosity progress with time.  
This paper examines a variety of factors 
that are controlled by religion: 
examining values, beliefs, morals, sex, 
and marriage. Furthermore, it will 
become evident that religion generates 
individual and social control. 
                                                 
Johanna Orrante is a graduate student at 
the Department of Sociology, California 
State University.  Her paper was initially 
submitted to Soc. 445 Sociology of 
Religion, taught by Dr. Rick Fraser in 
Fall 2007. 

Religion controls an individual’s 
actions by referring to God as the main 
controller of the self or the individual.  
Anderson (2006) argues that something 
is good because God commands it and 
something is morally wrong because 
God forbids us to take part in it.  This 
simply means that human and social 
agents do not always behave as they 
ought to behave, and think as they ought 
to think. Humans are restrained from 
their true human nature when trying to 
follow the right and wrong of God’s 
commands- someone who is physically 
non-existent. It is almost as though one 
can do no wrong when one believes in 
God because God always exists in your 
conscience and mind.  Religion ascends 
into the mind, takes over, and excludes 
the true essence of the individual. 
Religion, in this circumstance alienates 
the individual from his or her own self. 
Thus, religious affiliation eventually 
generates social and individual control. 

Religion identifies and associates 
itself with the right, the wrong, the good, 
and the bad.  As one furthers their 
relationship with or without religious 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 40-43) 
 



RELIGION AND SOCIAL CONTROLby Johanna Orrante 41

affiliation, it is evident that there are 
disciplines or categories that are set to be 
either religious (with values) or non-
religious (without values).  Roccas 
(2005: 749) uncovered the relationship 
between religiosity and values to provide 
a better understanding of what it means 
to be religious or non-religious:  “Values 
express what people believe to be good 
or bad, and what they think should or 
should not be done”.  This is especially 
important because this implies that 
religion provides a basis for prevailing 
norms and social structure, therefore 
encouraging the acceptance of the social 
order and discouraging questioning and 
innovation. In addition to Roccas’ 
convictions, those who are religious 
possess a set of good values, while those 
who are not religious carry bad values or 
no values at all.  With that said, it 
becomes transparent that religion 
controls the individual’s values, morals, 
beliefs and meaning system. 

Religion constructs the mind, 
directing the individual into thinking 
what is perceived as sacred or not sacred 
in society.  Religion dictates a meaning 
system for individuals. Silberman (2005) 
stated religion can be described as a 
meaning system that is unique in 
centering on addressing the quest for 
meaning.  This greatly impacts society 
and the individual by establishing a 
foundation for a belief system. The 
religious foundation that one acquires 
allows individuals to give meaning to 
life experiences, as well as to set goals, 
plan activities, and most importantly set 
order to their behavior.  It can be said 
that religion sets social and individual 
margins that control individual and 
social behaviors, daily activities, and 
personal goals. Religions form 

boundaries for those who abide by the 
guidelines.  I would believe that these 
religious laws would make an 
individual’s well-being unsatisfying, but 
according to Weigand (2006) this is 
untrue.  

Life is not only satisfying to 
those who participate in religious 
activities, institutions, or roles.  Religion 
tends to persuade people into believing a 
certain way, therefore promoting 
individual and social control.  Weigand 
(2006) believed that religiosity and well-
being have a causal effect.  The more 
one participates in religious activities, 
the more they are satisfied as well-
beings.  If religion did not come to exist 
people would find satisfaction and 
happiness amongst other activities and  
institutions.  People would also find 
alternate ways to correspond themselves 
to groups in which they relate and 
identify with.  One’s well being cannot 
simply rely on religion, however 
people’s minds tend to be persuaded into 
thinking that religion makes life more 
valuable, pleasant, and meaningful.  On 
a more individual level, religion can 
make people more cooperative and 
friendly. 

Religion produces social control 
by promoting the notion that religious 
affiliation and beliefs bring out the good 
in people.  Morgan (1983) examined the 
religion-morality link at the individual 
level in everyday life.  His findings 
indicate that people who are more 
religious seem more friendly and 
cooperative than less religious people.  
This is a significant analysis because 
Morgan’s findings agree with the notion 
that religion is a driving source that 
generates cooperation among individuals 
and society.  Religious institutions lure 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 40-43) 
  



RELIGION AND SOCIAL CONTROLby Johanna Orrante 42

people in by proclaiming that religion 
makes and creates the good in people 
and as well in society.  This perception 
advertises that the more religious one is, 
the better he or she is as a human being.  
Alternatively, there have been several 
cases where Catholic priests have been 
involved with the molestation of young, 
innocent children.  These priests are 
known to be God’s deliverers and are 
looked upon as God-like figures.  With 
this example, it can be said that religion 
does not bring out the good in people. 
However, religion persuades individuals 
and society into believing that people are 
good or bad based on their interests, 
affiliations, actions, or decisions. 

Religion plays a prevalent role in 
the controversial topic of abortion.  
O’Conner and Berkman (1995) ex-
amined the impact of the Roman 
Catholic Church and conservative Prot-
estant churches on the state abortion 
policy.  The authors concluded religion 
is a significant factor in abortion policy.  
Abortion is a very personal matter that 
lies mainly in the emotional state of the 
individual.  Religion perceives abortion 
as sinful and links it to a murderous and 
inhuman act.  The abortion policy that 
stemmed from religious belief tries to 
overlook the personal decisions of the 
individual as the true needs and feelings 
of the individual are being completely 
avoided.  Religion in this circumstance 
blinds the individual from making an 
important decision of their own that can 
possibly affect their life forever.  People 
should trust within themselves and look 
past religious beliefs, values, and norms 
in order to make choices such as 
aborting a child. Motherhood is an 
option and should remain a private 
choice just as one’s sex life should be.  

 Religion also possesses control 
over an individual’s sex life or sexual 
activity.  Examples of this include when 
you can have sex, how many partners 
you choose to have sexual encounters 
with, and who you are allowed to have 
sex with. In most religious cases, an 
individual is allowed to have sex after 
marriage, with the opposite sex, with a 
partner who is within your religion, and 
with the person you choose to marry.  
Barkan (2006) examined the relationship 
between religiosity and the number of 
sexual partners among adults. The major 
findings indicated religiosity reduces the 
number of partners and does so partly 
because of moral disapproval and 
premarital sex.  Moreover, religion is 
used in a way to calm and limit people’s 
sexual desires or thoughts.  Sex is based 
on the ideas of morality and the values 
of people and society.  People should 
have the free will to choose whom they 
want to have sexual relationships with 
and should also have the right to decide 
the number of people they choose to 
have sex with.  Along with sexual ac-
tivity, religion impacts marriage as well. 

Religion has a tremendous 
impact on laws of marriage.  Olsen, 
Cadge and Harrison (2006) analyzed the 
relationship between religion and public 
opinion regarding same sex marriage, 
civil unions, and the federal con-
stitutional amendment that would 
prohibit gay marriage.   Denike (2007) is 
a researcher whose analysis questions 
the terms by which extending marriage 
to same sex couples has been posed, 
advanced, and resisted in Canada and the 
United States in the past years. The 
religious standards of same-sex mar-
riages that Olsen et al. examined are 
difficult for individuals to abide by.  A 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 40-43) 
  



RELIGION AND SOCIAL CONTROLby Johanna Orrante 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 40-43) 
  

43

human is a human regardless of their 
sexual preference or their choice in life 
long partners.  Why should one’s 
selection in a mate become restricted by 
ones religious standards?  A homo-
geneous couple should be able to further 
their relationship and be able to par-
ticipate in a marital ceremony that 
officially unionizes their relationship as 
one.  Same-sex marriages should not be 
resisted but religion continues to over-
ride ones sexual preference and prohibit 
homosexual couples from wedding.  If 
religion is associated with well-being 
and happiness, one would think religion 
would accept and ameliorate the idea of 
gay marriages.  
 Furthermore, a social group and 
its religion can tell individuals what they 
must believe, acknowledge, and do, but 
in the end the individual must act 
according to his or her own thoughts or 
actions. Religion involves personal emo-
tions, thoughts, and behaviors; therefore 
individuals are free to commit them-
selves to which ever religious or non-
religious system they prefer.  Religion, 
amongst other social agents, influences 
and modifies the nature of society and 
most importantly the individual by 
providing moral beliefs, and values that 
must be followed.  These morals, values, 
and beliefs greatly impact and influence 
the believer; generating individual and 
social control over them. 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Anderson, Pamela S. 2006. “Can We 

Love as God Loves?”  Theology & 
Sexuality 12:143-163. 

Barkan, Steven E.  2006. “Religiosity 
and Premarital Sex in Adult-hood.”  

Journal for The Scientific Study of 
Religion  45:407-417. 

Brandt, Sarah. 2004. “Religious Homo-
gamy and Marital Satis-faction: 
Couples That Pray together, Stay 
Together.”  Sociological View-
points 20:11-20. 

Denike, Margaret. 2007. “Religion, 
Rights, and Relationships:  The 
Dream of Relational Equality.”  
Hypatia 22:71-91. 

Johnstone, Ronald L. 2007. Religion in 
Society:  A Sociology of Religion 
8th Edition. New Jersey: Prentice 
Hall 

Morgan, S.  Philip.  (1983), “A Research 
Note on Religion and Morality:  
Are Religious People Nice 
People?”  Social Forces 61:683-
692. 

O’Conner, Robert E. and Micael B. 
Berkman. 1995. “Religious De-
terminants of State Abortion 
Policy.”  Social Science Quar-terly 
76:447-459. 

Olson, Laura R., Wendy Cadge, and 
James T. Harrison. 2006. “Religion 
and Public Opinion about Same-
Sex Marriage.”  Social Science 
Quarterly 87:340-360. 

Roccas, Sonia. 2005. “Religion and 
Value Systems.”  Journal of Social 
Issues 61:747 -759. 

Silberman, Israela.  2005. “Religion as a 
Meaning System:  Implications for 
the New Millenium.”   Jour-nal of 
Social Issues 61:641-663. 

Weigand, Katherine E. and Howard M. 
Weiss. 2006. “Affective Re-actions 
to the Thought of God:  
Moderating Effects of Image of 
God.”  Journal of Happiness 
Studies  7:23-40. 


