Introduction
Place in this discussion means the "place" and "position" that religion, as an influential social structure, has occupied in the formed situations of collective life and, according to that, has reached a relationship with other social sectors and established connections. The answers given to the question of the place of religion are typically a function of the religious scholar's prior understanding and expectation of religion, which itself stems from the dominant discourse, the considerations he has gained from its historical history in a particular context, and the prevalent understanding that exists among its followers.
Materials& Method
In reviewing this literature, we have gone to three prominent sociologists who have different views on this subject. The examination focuses on the theories of Marx, Tocqueville, and Parsons concerning the place of religion in social life and on the different intellectual and social contexts through which they addressed this issue.
By reflecting on these three, we can arrive at two different references and paths in recognizing and determining the place of religion:
1. The dominant discourse and ideology accepted by the theorist;
2. The religion itself, which has been the subject of their study and has directly or indirectly answered this question.
In the first, religion is the subject and its place is determined by scholars according to the discourse and ideology involved. In the second, however, it itself is the one who claims and answers this question and calls upon its followers to strive to realize it.
The difference that arises in this regard is due to two factors. One is due to the reality facing the theorist and the other is related to his prior perspective. That is, whether the environmental realities of his period induce religion as an independent variable or a dependent variable; and whether his theoretical view and approach to religion is reductionist or non-reductionist. The effects of these elements can be clearly seen in the differences between these three theorists. They are completely different in environmental realities and in theoretical foundations they have varying degrees of reductionism, from strong to mild and even milder.
Discussion and Results
Apart from that negative view of religion, Marx has another theory that is more appropriate and that departs from that basic and well-known view. This theory can be found exclusively in the article "On the Jewish Question" and the criticism he made of Bruno Bauer's approach and strategy. What is important to us in this discussion is, first, the content of the answer he gave to the question of the place of religion, and second, the taint of this answer with her particular prejudices and orientations toward religion and the state.
While Bauer, based on her extreme strategy, did not see any place for religion in social life, Marx suggests civil society for it, because it is the place where individual interests and desires are proposed and pursued, and where conflicts emerge and arise.
Tocqueville's main issue, as the title of his book suggests, is "democracy." However, he pursues it more than the state, political structure, and the mechanism for electing rulers, but rather the habits and morals of individuals in society. It is through this path that he arrives at religion and its necessity in social life. The roles and functions that he attributes to religion in society and politics are typically indirect and unintentional; meaning that they are not targeted or demanded from the religious perspective.
Tocqueville does not provide a clear and positive answer to the question of the place of religion. What is certain, and what can be gleaned from his support for laicism, is that he does not tolerate the doctrinal and even institutional presence of religion in the public sphere; while emphasizing its indirect effects as morality and religious piety; and that is through the people who have been taught and adhered to it. The appropriate place for religion, therefore, is primarily in the hearts of ordinary people, and above that, its visible presence in the family and marital life, and finally in shaping the culture, customs, and temperaments of society.
Parsons, following Durkheim, also paid attention to the most important social sign of entering the modern era, namely "structural differentiation", but he pursued it in a different channel than institutional changes. Maintaining the agency and playing the role of religion in the new conditions will no longer be from an institutional position; rather, it will be through the lasting effects it has directly on the individual, which he also transmits and disseminates through his movements and movements in various social situations.
The revivalist Protestantism of the fifteenth century in Europe was motivated and conscious of religion and occurred with the prevention of protestant priests; In America, however, it began with immigration and a break from the historical and institutional constraints of religion, and was followed by the emergence of men of action in various social spheres. The religious situation in Parsons' time had reached a stage where, except among individuals, no other trace of it could be found in the institutional structure of society.
Based on cybernetic order and logic, each system is controlled and guided by that subsystem that has more and higher information. On this basis, Parsons places culture at the forefront, and as a result, religion, as one of the main components of culture, assumes a role as a model and norm-setting.
laicism, as a common response of all three theorists, is more than an explanatory theory based on the requirements of religion and the state; it is an ideological decision and strategy, based on the expectations they had of them and the goals they had for society and its individuals. An example of this expected response can be found in Marx's prejudice against religion, which he considered a false consciousness and ideology justifying class relations. For Tocqueville, laicism arose from the anti-church context of the French Revolution and from the liberalism that matured in the American experience of democracy. Parsons's path to this idea was slightly different, drawing on the social theology of Protestant Christianity, which had been strengthened in America, rather than on other ideologies.
Conclusion
From the examination of the reviewed theories that have answered this question, it became clear that all of them are similar in terms of having an ideological character, but different in terms of their selection. The accuracy and validity of these theories, in our opinion, is a function of their relevance to the subject and the case under consideration. For example, the deductive approach that dominates Marx's theory of religion has deprived her of the possibility of an appropriate response in general, because he has paid no attention to the social theology of religions and the influential differences between them, and has drawn everything based on her own prior attitude and expectations of religion. This defect is mitigated in Tocqueville and Parsons to the extent that they have shown loyalty to the Christian approach. Another advantage of their response may be that there were a remarkable affinity and compatibility between liberal expectations and the Protestant teachings emerging in America regarding the place of religion.