In debating this, there is quite a lot of empirical (factual) evidence; and also a theoretical dispute between the main perspectives (see last section!) and the work of Weber on "The protestant ethic".

We can begin by noting that both the Marxist and the Functionalist perspectives agree that religion is essentially conservative. Functionalists say that it prevents social change by promoting value consensus and cultural homogeneity. It acts as a brake on rapid social change because it reinforces the key norms and values of society. Christianity prevents the family from changing too rapidly, for example, because it tends to support traditional "family values" and discourage alternatives such as promiscuity, homosexuality, and childlessness. This conservatism is seen by Functionalists as positive and desirable, as it maintains society and prevents it from fragmenting.

Marxists agree that religion is conservative, but say that this is undesirable because it conserves capitalism, existing class relations, and thereby helps to oppress the proletariat. For Marxists, religion is part of bourgeois ideology which keeps the proletariat in their place by giving them a false consciousness. This helps to prevent a proletarian revolution and the arrival of a communist (classless) society, so is therefore conservative. We might also note that feminists also tend to stress the conservative aspects of religions, attacking them for oppressing women and holding up female liberation.

Against these theoretical views on the conservative nature of religion, we can use the argument of Max Weber in his influential book "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism". Weber's main point is that Calvinism (an extreme form of Protestantism, which is a Christian sect) was, in the 16th & 17th centuries, the precondition for capitalist development. Different religious ethics (or outlooks) can lead to different economic outcomes. Calvinism was an extremely ascetic (plain, "no-frills", disliking luxury) religion, which valued dedication to work, self-discipline, and rational calculation. These qualities were ideal for the accumulation of capital (savings which can be invested). Capitalism did indeed develop first in countries where Calvinism was strong, so Weber said that Protestantism was the "Seed-bed" of capitalism. This means that under some (not all!) circumstances, religion can shape the economy. It can act as an agency of social change, and is not always conservative. This is obviously a major blow to Marxists, who argue that religion is passively shaped by the economy: here is Weber saying that the economy can be shaped by religion.

As well as this theoretical debate, you will need some empirical evidence. Points in favour of religion acting as a conservative force =

• Christianity allegedly oppressing women - against divorce, abortion, and supporting patriarchal attitudes such as traditional family values; masculine imagery.
• Islam allegedly oppressing women - polygyny; female circumcision; oppressive traditions such as veiling.
• Links between the state and religion - the Queen as head of the C.ofE.; Bishops in the House of Lords, etc.
• Religions supporting family values and heterosexism, and oppressing sexual minorities and sex outside of marriage
• Religions encouraging deference and respect towards elders, traditional authority, and organisational hierarchies.

• "Liberation theology" and "worker priests".
• "Islamism" - Islam acting as an emerging global political force.
• Various social and political movements linked to religion - eg Al Qaida
• Ideas that were originally religious entering secular society and influencing lifestyles - yoga, feng shui, meditation, etc.
• "Feminine spirituality" allegedly offering liberation for women.