Transcript Politics and Religion Dr. Troy Gibson

Politics and Religion
Dr. Troy Gibson
I. Course Introduction
A. Why study religion and politics?
►
Relevance in Political History (Western Civilization)
►
Relevance in American History
►
Relevance in Political Philosophy
►
Relevance in Political Debate
►
Relevance in Political Outcomes (parties, policy, voting,
elections, groups, etc.)
►
Applies to us all? The political question, then, is not, How
does religion relate to non-religious politics? but rather,
What kind of politics—what stances, arguments, policies,
and principles—flow from different religions or ways of
understanding the world and life, whether they are older
(traditional) or newer ‘religions’? We will not understand the
political dynamics of the contemporary world until we
recognize the religiousness of all peoples and cultures and
the differences among their basic assumptions about human
flourishing and their diverse impacts on political and
economic developments.
*Someone may argue that religion ought not be relevant, but it
would be mistaken or naïve to say that it is not relevant.
The place of politics and religion in America
(comparatively speaking). Neither Iran, England,
France, or Sweden. No homework on Wednesday
nights; government offices closed on Sundays; out
on Easter and Christmas. Peter Berge: “If India is
the most religious country on our planet, and
Sweden is the least religious, America is a land of
Indians ruled by Swedes.” Instead, we have a sort
of “permissive establishment” of religion here, where
the major religion is accommodated in public life
(not oppressive, not prescriptive, not entirely
secular).
C. How will we study R&P? Where do we limit the
study? Course will focus mostly on most dominant
religious groups, movements, events, trends, in
American political history and behavior.
B.
II. But What about the Secularization thesis?
A. Definition: Religious belief and practice is (and ought to be)
decreasing in relevance & acceptance as human progress is
advanced through modernization and globalization.
B. Evidence – Religion is ‘safe’ and irrelevant
►
Decline of religiosity (in Europe, at least)
►
Rise of dualism (division of sacred/secular airtight
categories) and the privatization/secularization of
Christianity (America); paradigm shift; Christian and
religious categories, once taken for granted, no longer
welcome as lenses through which we must interpret the
world; from 1950-today America moved from dualism
towards postmodernism. (Example: Bible-theft).

How pervasive? Can you imagine a research program or
department who’s whole mission was to examine the
phenomenon of secularism?
►
Responses to naturalism by Christians, a new protestantism:
growth in subjective faith, growth in experiential faith;
growth in relative faith; growth in spiritualism; decline of
traditionalism and growth in secular marketing strategies (p.
15 Wald).
C. Causes of Secularization
1.
Dualism in Theology (Aquinas division of Nature and Grace)
2.
Dualism in Philosophy - Especially articulated in the thought of
Immanuel Kant, we divide knowledge, truth, and all activity into
revelation vs reason, science vs faith, fact vs value, etc. This,
we say, is the nature of knowledge and we add that matters of
faith, values, and revelation (religion) are of private use only
while matters of fact, science, and reason are of public use.
3.
Great Awakening’s identification of Christian life with individual
experience, not testable truth claims and corporate confessions
of faith.
4.
Surrender of the fundamentalists (1900-1970)
5. Rise of the secular left (1850-1950) - This group eventually
gained control of the public/social institutions and successfully
argued that anyone who wants to play with them must use their
ball (secular or naturalistic assumptions about the world).
Successfully changed basic understandings of science,
education at all levels, public philosophy, church-state doctrine,
model of personhood (from the soul to the psychologized self),
and journalism. Notice: interest was not a neutral public space,
but a new moral order (and toppling of the old Protestant one).
Next generation gave us the 1960s revolutions and
postmodernism.
6. Growth of Modern Government – Government was
once limited to “commerce and civil order” and the
church focused on charity and inculcation of goodness
and truth. But when gov’t expanded its role (welfareregulatory state), it pushed religion to those areas not
important enough to have received the help/control of
government (margins of public life).
7. Public Education – For secular elites, the goal was to
create universal centers of intellectual reconstruction,
where successive generations are trained exclusively
in secular methods and eventually secular
perspectives on. For protestants, it was to help the
poor and (and in some cases, undermine catholic
education). Result: secular thinking and secular
viewpoints training over 90% of the last few
generations. The 1960s was not accident. (Read p.
133 of Baker)
D. Challenges to secularization (in addition to the U.S. itself) –
(1) birth, marriage, immigration patterns in U.S. and
especially Europe (2) stable beliefs and practice of
evangelicals despite economic incline; regular church
attendance in U.S. well over 50% (3) growth of Islam and
Christianity worldwide (4) return of theology in American
evangelicalism (SBC 30% ministers Reformed) (5)
Argument that secularization is not non-religious; Some
religions are traditional, some are new, and among the
new religions are those guided by a secular faith, a belief
system held by communities whose gods--which they do
not acknowledge as gods—are the idols of human
autonomy, scientific rationality, technological progress, the
nation, economic growth, a communist future, or sheer
power in itself (6) argument that religion persists because
it, and not science, satisfies a basic human need, the
desire to explain and existence/life as meaningful (7)
resurgence of religion in public life in the name of
government neutrality (result of postmodernism)
Phil of Knowledge Premodernism
Modernism
Postmodernism
Starting Point
Personal-Absolute Man
God
Epistemic
Foundation
Revelation
(aided reason)
Reason (unaided) Relativism
Truth is…
a unified whole
a divided reality
(dualism)
Key Thinkers
St. Paul,
Augustine,
Pascal, Calvin
Descartes, Locke, Derrida, Foucault,
Kant,
Fish,
Schleiermacher
Kierkegaard,
Barth
Major Causes
Historical claims
of Christianity
Religious Wars
(1550-1650)
Worldviews
Historic
Deism, Secular Existentialism,
Christianity/Jud Humanism
New Age;
Nihilism
Self (I)
invented as we
go (story-telling)
Totalitarianism;
Scientific wars
(WWI, WWII,
Cold War
III. Worldview and Presuppositions
A. What is religion? A lot of the confusion about the role of
religion in politics comes from our assumptions about
religion, or how to define it. If religion means traditional
rituals or practices of organized faith communities, then
not all are religious (popular view in the West). If
religion means adherence (wittingly or otherwise) to a
philosophical system, basic beliefs about what is
ultimately real, true, right, valuable, and meaningful, then
everyone is religious; i.e., we all have a worldview.
B. 7 Worldview Questions from James Sire
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
What is prime reality?
What is the nature of external reality?
What is a human being?
What happens at death?
Why/how is it possible to know anything at all?
How do know right from wrong?
What is the meaning of human history?
C. If the worldview concept is correct
(everyone’s got one), then one could never
divorce religion from politics. Worldviews do
not cloud our judgment, they determine our
judgment. There is no “free-thinker,” can’t
judge religion except on the basis of another
religion; GK Chesterton and the universal reality
of dogmatism. AND. If politics is about the
authoritative allocation of values (choosing
which values to legislate), then politics
necessarily is informed by worldview
convictions about what values are best for
society.
IV. Religious Arguments in Public Discourse (Draw 2
Circles – Religion/Politics
A. NO! KEEP RELIGION IN CHURCH!
1. Simple argument

Different beliefs about God

Differences may lead to violence

With no certainty about religion, avoid religion in public
space
2. John Rawls and the doctrine of Public Reason
Problem: How can people committed to different worldviews
live/work 2gether as equals in a fair peaceful society?
Answer: Limit reasons to only those premises held in
common by all (‘overlapping’) and assume all citizens
participate from behind a ‘veil of ignorance’, where no
one knows what status they will hold in life. Result? Just
society and possibility of ongoing conversation in public.
3. Natural Law - In politics, we use science and reason
(accessible to all by God’s natural revelation). In
religion, we use special revelation (word of God).
Robert George agrees that religious reasons must
not be used as political reasons. He only argues
that Rawls must not limit political reasons to only
those reasons held in common by all people. As a
natural law philosopher, he insists that some truths
can be ascertained by all through unaided natural
reason and are therefore acceptable in the public
square, even if not all citizens recognize them or
even if these naturally discerned truths are rejected
by many. If Rawls requires ‘overlapping’ reasons,
George requires ‘natural’ reasons, but both
ultimately reject revealed or religious reasons.
B. YES! PERMIT THE DIFFERENT VOICES! (some public subject
matter, say justice, overlaps and is relevant in one’s religious
concerns; concentric circles)
1. Critiques of Rawls – Not consistent with liberal democracy, free
speech, or pluralism; discredits men like MLK and movements
like the abolition movement; inconsistent with government
neutrality since secularism/naturalism differ with Christianity,
for instance, only in content not form; conceived using a nonneutral view of human nature (individual, atomistic, utility
maximizing); conceived towards a desired result, the case of
abortion and slavery (original position vs public reason); selfdefeating since Rawls’ assertion that only reasons held in
common are permissible is itself a principle not held in
common by all, so it too should be excluded; conversion
shows that religious or worldview-premised arguments are
not “inaccessible”
2. Nicholas Wolterstorff’s critique of Richard Rorty (FROM THE
READING)
Key concepts in Political Theology
A. Opening questions - do the spheres overlap? A word about political
theology vs political ideology; or perhaps political idolatry?
Reductionism:
B. Key questions
1. What is breadth and depth of Creation-Fall-Redemption?
2. What is the nature of the kingdom of God/Christ? What about the
New Heavens and New Earth (passing away?)
3. When and how is that kingdom realized? (Millennium-Eschatology)
4. How adequate is natural revelation for all of life?
5.
Is the state supposed to enforce the moral law of God. What
about the first table?
C. Christ and Culture (Reinhold Neibhur)
►
Christ against Culture (opposition; ‘Holy Huddle’ escapism; the
culture is lost and evil and Christians should separate themselves
entirely); Quaker, “third-race” sectarians; Anabaptists traditions
►
Christ of Culture (agreement; whatever is good/enjoyable/helpful
in culture is coextensive with Christianity; no conflict at all); 19th
– 20th century liberal Protestantism (Jefferson)
V.
Christ above culture (grace perfects nature; synthesis where culture is finished off
by church; culture can lead you to God but church must take you the rest of the
way); Aquinas and Roman Catholic tradition
►
Christ and culture in paradox (tension; dualist); Lutheran
►
Christ transforms culture (reformational; creation is good being misdirected and is
in need of recreational work of Christ through Christians); Calvinistic and social
gospel movement
D. Political Theologies (Historic)
►
1.
Strong Separation Models – Baptist (historic) and Anabaptist traditions
(God’s rule ended at the cross); Fundamentalists early 20th century.
My kingdom is not of this world; Be ye not conformed to this world.
2. Interactive You are salt and light; In but not of the world; thy kingdom
come; cultural mandate in Genesis
► Indirect influence: Lutheran Two Kingdom theory (state is not evil,
but irrelevant for the church (except in gross injustice); Christians
are dual citizens of two non-overlapping God ordained kingdoms
operating under separate purposes, ethical codes, means, etc.).
► Direct influence: Vatican II-Roman Catholic (subsidiarity and
solidarity) and Dutch Reformed Protestant Principled-Pluralism
(this neo-Calvinist seeks to find biblical principles of justice that
apply without preference for one professed faith over another, in a
diverse society); Neo-evangelicalism (response to
fundamentalist withdrawal; engage every front, but tempered by
degree of scriptural clarity; expect neither utopia or ruin);
Liberation Theology (theology from the oppressed)
3. Strong Church-State Affinity – Trent Roman Catholic, Erastian-Anglican,
National Confessionalist and Christian
America groups (Puritans and the
Christian commonwealth). All authority
has been given to me in heaven and
earth (Matt. 28:18)
*Again, the key determinants of these
models is one’s view of eschatology
(when Christ returns), continuity
between testaments, view of the state
in NT (permissive or restrictive).
I. Religion in American Political History
A.
Religious Groupings based on affiliation surveys

Evangelical Protestants (26.3%) – trace their heritage to
the Protestant Reformation of 16th century and Great
Awakenings of the 18th and 19th centuries); doctrinal
distinctives: stress the final, reliable, and sufficient
authority of the Bible in all that it affirms; typically stress
the exclusive truth of Christianity and universal need for
justification before God through faith in the
substitutionary atoning work of Jesus Christ. E.g.
Southern Baptists, Presbyterian Church of America,
Assemblies of God.

Mainline Protestants (18%) – same heritage, but have
departed from the traditional doctrines (especially
regarding scripture: bible contains/becomes, but is not,
the very Word of God) from the Reformation in light of
modernity and scientific theories of Darwin (indeed, no
unifying system of doctrine). E.g. United Methodists,
PCUSA, United Church of Christ. Less likely to accept a
literal Hell or universal need for conversion. More likely
to stress social justice. *High percentage of evangelicals
attending mainline denominations (South).
 Roman Catholics (24%; 46% of immigrants are Catholic; 29%
of all Catholics are Latinos; youngest cohort split between
whites and Latinos) – considers itself to be the original and one
true church of Christ through apostolic succession from Peter
and the apostles. Distinguishing doctrines: Ecclesiastical
supremacy, necessity, and infallibility of the church, headed by
the Pope or Bishop of Rome in all matters of faith. Religious
authority is divided between tradition, scripture, and teaching
magisterium
 Historically Black Protestant denominations (7%); born out of
revivalism in the late 18th and early 19th century; largest is
Church of God in Christ
 Unaffiliated or Secular (16%; doubled in 20 years; 25% of 1829; 5-7% atheist or agnostic)
► Secular
(7) – free from” religion” and stress belief in the powers
of human reason over revelation in the discovery of truth (secular
humanism).
► Atheist, Agnostic (4) – considers the evidence for God’s existence
to be unpersuasive (they may then disbelieve or leave it at that).
► Unaffiliated Believers (5)
 Others: Mormon 2%; Jews 2%; Muslim 1-2%; Hindu,
Buddhist, Jehovah Witness, Orthodox, Other Christian, all
under 1% each
Brief Church and State History Leading to American Birth
“The American founders revolutionized the Western tradition of
religious liberty. But they also remained within this Western
tradition, dependent on its enduring and evolving postulates
about God and humanity, authority and liberty, church and
state.”
A.
First Millennium
1.
Christians came out of periods of extensive and intensive
persecution by the Romans. They were noncomformist
(refused to worship pagan gods or Ceasar) and agitators
(sought to transform pagan society with Christian morality;
charity, burials, infants, social customs). Emperor Julian
II.
“These impious Galileans not only feed their own poor, but ours also;
welcoming them into their agapae, they attract them, as children are
attracted, with cakes. Whilst the pagan priests neglect the poor, the
hated Galileans devote themselves to works of charity, and by a display
of false compassion have established and given effect to their pernicious
errors. See their love-feasts, and their tables spread for the indigent.
Such practice is common among them, and causes a contempt for our
gods.”
2.
Persecution ended when Emperor Constantine converted to
Christianity, signed the Edict of Milan (311) tolerating all
religious beliefs though privileging Christianity some.
3.
4.
B.
1.
2.
Future emperors, however, began to pursue a policy of preference
and control over Trinitarian Christianity (supreme over church and
state).
Augustine put these realities together in City of God (413-427),
where he argued that Christians are members of a different city
(not city of man), but it would be better for all if the rulers of the
city of man favored Christianity (though institutionally separate
from, if not under, church authority). BUT, few emperors could
resist urge to consolidate and control the spheres. He further
refutes Roman superiority as fulfillment of history (focal point).
Rather, no state (Christian or otherwise) can be identified as God’s
Kingdom on earth; heavenly kingdom is always future.
Papal Revolution – changed all that after 1050 when a series of
Popes moved towards ecclesiastical separation from and even
control of civil leaders (Catholic independence).
Canon Law - The papacy claimed expanded jurisdiction in law,
treatment of non-Christians, church life, and political matters. Out
of these papal pronouncements, we get “Canon Law” (first
modern body of international law). Based on notion that Pope had
“two-swords” (civil law and canon law, where canon in superior to
civil). Whole systems of law developed around seven sacraments
(baptism, eucharist, penance, orders, extreme unction,
confirmation, and marriage).
Rights – a whole body of legally recognized ‘rights’ emerged
out of this tradition. These rights constrained church/state and
protected the Catholic faithful (not others) from arbitrary or
oppressive ecclesiastical and civil decisions.
3.
This system of international law began to break down as
nation-state kings asserted their own territorial authority and
refused to recognize Canon Law as absolute/binding.
C.
Protestant Reformation (16th and 17th century); march toward
religious tolerance, liberty, disestablishment, constitutional
republicanism
1.
Luther’s contribution – (1) territorialized the faith;
establishment should be local (2) Two Kingdom Theory –
Christians are members of two God ordained, legitimate,
good kingdoms; The civil sphere administers law; church
administers Gospel.
2.
Anglicans nationalized the faith – model that was basically
NOT continued by new world protestants
3.
Anabaptists communalized the faith – emphasis was on the
irreconcilable differences between realm of religion/church
and realm of the world.
Calvin’s reformation congregationalized the faith; church was to
be ruled by elected leaders (pastors, elders, deacons) bound to
written confessions of faith
D.
Political Implications of PR: Reformers of both generations
articulated a political philosophy based upon their reading of
Scripture which denied the absolute authority of the state (or
people); considered rulers and subjects as equally valuable (same
as in church); placed the people and law above the king;
generally called for a federal-democratic, divided, political system
of limited government to deal with sinful tyranny; called for a
constitution which mirrored Biblical covenants where divine law
(perhaps 10 commandments) serves as a transcendent ground of
civil law (confession in church; covenant in politics);
acknowledged right of people to resist and depose a king who
violates the terms of covenant; insisted that we do not form
government based on self-interest or ideals that we ourselves
determine (read p. 13 Witte)
Note on church government – the most common forms of church
government (decision making structure) among the Reformers
was congregational (democratic) or presbyterian (federalrepublican). Clearly, many reformers came to believe that their
view of how church gov’t should be structured came to influence
how civil government should be structured (“Presbytery agreeth
with monarchy like God with the devil”)
4.
E. Constitutional Covenantalism: The Puritans viewed a covenant
as a social and divine promise: each participant in the
covenant is expected to do certain things. A violation of the
covenant could have the most disastrous consequences for
those who had entered therein. Following biblical precedents, a
covenant would also last from generation to generation. By
means of these covenants, Puritans were among the first
English speaking people to implement a government bound by
written words in a single document. Example, Deut 1:1-17
Comparing Covenants and Contracts:
► Covenants use Broad instead of Narrow language (no
loopholes)
► Covenants are solemn sacred promises instead of cold legal
words on paper
► Covenants are social/communitarian in nature instead of
individual (We instead of I)
► Covenants identify a collective purpose and identity
► Covenants are validated or sealed in the presence of and by an
external higher authority, typically God
*Think about a difference between marriage as a ‘covenant’ vs
‘contract’ and you might get the spirit of the distinction.
Reformation Political Thought
►
►
►
►
►
Political Sovereignty rests with God
 people  state
Ground of Natural Human
value/rights = Imago Deo
(originates with God)
Justification for Gov’t = ordained
by God at least to suppress evil
(original sin), promote common
good including proliferation of true
religion (more communitarian)
Constitution = morally-informed
pact between people having
independent/equal status,
constructing a limited gov’t based
upon voluntary consent and
established by promises made
before God.
Implications – Reformation political
thought led more to federalrepublicanism, with divine law
and God as supreme; elected reps
from each political unit, tribe,
church, state (Glorious Revolution,
English Civil War). Also Federal
Secular Enlightenment Political Thought
►
People  State
►
NHR ground = State of Nature, mutual and
unanimous consent, virtue of being human
(originates with humans)*
►
Why gov’t? Self-interest, protect natural
rights (life, liberty, property); return
individuals to natural state of autonomy;
more individualistic
►
Constitution is a legal contract among
people to form gov’t for sake of selfinterest, limited gov’t, and binds all
(posterity and immigrants)
►
Implications - Enlightenment thought led
more to democracy, with human law and
the majority as supreme (French
Revolution)
*Today’s liberal theorists like Rawls attempt to
ground freedom in something other than
natural rights/law (too religious) and
appeal only to what is rational.
I.
A.
1.
2.
3.
4.
B.
Religion and the Constitution in 18th Century America
Introduction - how did America come to accept/enshrine
principles of religious liberty, tolerance, disestablishment,
church-state separation?
Why look beyond the Constitution to understand the role of
religion in American politics?
Constitution sets outer boundaries (no prescription or
proscription of religion by government).
The records of the constitutional congresses’ debates on the
first amendment are brief/sketchy.
Limited to Congress, not states (“Congress shall make no
law…)
Framers intended for states to interpret these clauses and
appropriate them as they saw fit (Madison quote, Witte, p.
21)
To understand the intended relationship generally, at the time,
we must identify the principle players involved in forging the
consensus behind church-state relations in the 18th century
by looking at four groups: on the religion side, Puritans and
Evangelicals; on the political side, Enlightenment thinkers
and Classical Republicans.
II.
A.
1.
2.
3.
The four groups
American Puritans (dominant from 1630-1730) and the
Christian Commonwealth – having been persecuted and/or
religious regulation by both Catholic and especially Anglican
monarchies, this group took their Calvinism to America
(system of Christian theology stressing the utter sovereignty of
God in all things as well as the institutional separation of
church/state). Key group are Congregationalists.
Church and State are separate distinct ‘covenantal
associations’ or two seats of God’s authority. Church was
about preaching, sacraments, charity. State was about
enforcing law, punishing crime, instilling virtue, and order.
Clergy could not hold political office; political leaders could not
hold church office.
BUT, though not to be confounded, they were to be “close and
compact” (the community is a common project of both church
and state, so some interdependence). State provide church
with public properties, tax exemptions, subsidies, Sabbath Day
laws. Church provided state with meetinghouses/chapels,
community schools/libraries, maintenance of census rolls,
marriage, death certificates; offered ‘election day sermons’ to
promote civil participation.
Emphasis on community and local religious conformity led
to banishment of dissidents, like Quakers, Baptists, Catholics, Jews, etc.
Puritans were separatists from Anglicanism, but this did not initially
seem to require them to accept disestablishment or toleration at the
local level.
4.
Things changed, however, in 1689 (Toleration Act) as more and
different kinds of Protestants from around Europe sailed over. The
Act required toleration, but not full political equality of, other
traditional Protestant churches. More and more, the ‘covenantal’
idea of civil society (though not church society) was viewed as more
open and voluntarist by Puritans in terms of individual conscience
(open to other Christian sects). Came to celebrate, rather than
suppress, denominationalism in theology (idea that there are many
paths to God within orthodox Protestant Christianity) and toleration
of religious pluralism in civil society. Read pp. 25-26 Witte.
B. Evangelicals – Product of the Great Awakening (1720-1780).
1. Great Awakening - a series of evangelists (Wesley, Edwards,
Whitefield, Tennet) began to challenge the dry, rigid, religious
legalism (‘conversionless Christianity’ where salvation is conferred
through ritual or routine) and institutionalization, protection, of the
church by the state. Wanted fuller separation, more freedom of
association, and liberty of conscience (remember, these were either
new or unestablished groups like Baptists, Methodists, and
Presbyterians). John Leland, a Baptist fiery preach, said, “The
notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever.”
2.
C.
Isaac Backus, Reformed Baptist theologian mid to late 18th
century (p. 28) – Christianity should fear BOTH state
repression and support of religion. Establishment results in a
distraction from divine mandates and capture of established
church. Want to promote Christianity? Deregulate it.
Besides, the state and church are not working on the same
projects (maintaining order vs proclaiming gospel) or using
the same means (sword vs means of grace). He coined term
separation of church and state. Led evangelicals in pushing
for constitutional means of disestablishing religion.
Enlightenment views – provided theory complementing
evangelical theology on religious liberty. Locke argued that
the state only exists to protect life, liberty and property
(man’s ‘outward’ concerns), not to promote religion (man’s
‘inward’ concern). Laws cannot touch one’s mind, which is
the object of religious activity. He did, however, argue that
state laws would only ‘seldom’ conflict with Christian values
and he refused to tolerate atheists altogether (can’t be
trusted to keep promises or oaths). Saw disestablishment
and religious liberty as solution to violent religious conflict
(political instability). Summarized by Madison well (p. 31
Witte).
Republican Views – spokespersons were Washington, Adams,
Benjamin Rush, etc. If Enlightenment thinkers (like
Jefferson) naturally aligned with Evangelicals, Classical
Republicans naturally aligned with old Puritans. Agree with
both E’s on disestablishment and liberty of conscience, BUT
wanted the state/public square feature a common religious
ethic (non-sectarian and theologically specific). They
stressed the utility of Christianity as a prerequisite to happy
citizens, effective/efficient good government (pillar of society
and necessary for its peace, prosperity, and endurance).
Read p. 33. Their approach was similar to Massachusetts
constitution (see p. 34-35)
E. Establishment of Civil or Public Religion - Result, the
Classical Republicans won out. First, it won out in the first
Continental Congresses through official actions/proclamations
(chaplains, schools, missionaries, prayers, Northwest
Ordinance 1878). Second, won out among states by leaving
alone state establishment practices (promoting even
particular denominations). Third, it won out in time (we
continue to favor or accommodate, in a number of official and
unofficial ways, generic monotheism and Christianity in
everything from money to White House Christmas.
D.
Forging the First Amendment at the
Constitutional Convention
I.
A.
B.
C.
The Context of Religion Clauses leading up (1774-1787)
Paid chaplains to lead prayer at Cont Congress entire time.
Thanksgiving day and fast-day proclamations (1775), one of
four proclamations “it is the indispensable duty of all men to
adore the superintending Providence of the Almighty God.”
Also urged all men to “express the grateful feelings of their
hearts” by “publick humiliation, fasting, and prayer” and
“confess and deplore our many sins” and pray that “it may
please God through the Merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to
forgive and blot them out of Remembrance,” that God would
grant the “promotion and enlargement of that Kingdom,
which consisteth in Righteousness, Peace, Joy, in the Holy
Ghost.”
Voted to fund the procurement of 20k Bibles for distribution
in the States (never done due to lack of funds; later merely
encouraged states to have “one or more new and correct
editions of the Old and New Testament to be printed…”
D.
E.
II.
A.
B.
C.
Writers of the Articles of Confederation refused to prohibit
religious tests for public office holding
Resulting sentiment captured in the Northwest Ordinance
AFTER the First Amendment was written. On the one hand,
in the territory no one was to be “molested” on account of
his religion, but religion was to be promoted in the territory
by the government.
Drafting Process
House version: “Congress shall make no law establishing
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall
the rights of conscience be infringed.” Elsewhere, a sixth
amendment would say, “No person religiously scrupulous
shall be compelled to bear arms in person.
Senate version (three early versions defeated read p. 8788). Senate version (#19 p. 88): Congress shall make no
law establishing articles of faith or mode of worship, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
A conference committee (HR and S) composed of a crosssection of our four groups gave us our current/final version
with no surviving debate details.
III.
A.
B.
1.
2.
3.
How are we to make sense of their unclear intentions? Two
possibilities:
Thinner reading – clauses set outer boundaries of appropriate
congressional actions on religion (neither prescribe nor proscribe).
Leaves open later discussion and perhaps legislation on religion.
Based on fact that earlier drafts had more sweeping language and
were rejected (Congress shall not ‘touch’ or ‘favor’ or ‘prefer’
religion). Instead, they adopted ‘respecting’ (point to) establishing
religion.
Thicker readings – (more reading in to the words)
Congress – not binding on the states
Shall make no law – no new laws, but confirming existing ones?
Probably not, since new laws easily passed that did in fact touch on
religion.
Respecting an establishment – could refer to C not touching a state
established religion (6 had them then); or could mean C cannot pass
laws aimed at promoting an established religion (respecting is an
umbrella term touching on doctrines; required worship, mandatory
tithing, etc.); so on the first view, concern is not interfering with
states; on the second, the concern would have been not to allow
Congress to move in the direction of a national established church
(with all attendant laws). The first reading gives Congress no
guidance on national laws affecting religion; the second gives them
guidance, but does not allow much beyond what was already
commonplace (chaplains, religious education, etc.). Conclusion?
Non-preferentialism – a mixture of these views suggesting that all
the founders intended (or could agree upon) was to outlaw an
established national religion, but allows for support of religion
in general. Put positively, C can “touch” religion so long as it
favors no particular one. This view explains the various laws
touching on religion (chaplains, etc.). This view has a harder
time explaining the word “respecting” however.
4. Prohibiting Free Exercise – umbrella term referring to all that
is meant by free exercise; this reading would mean that it
merely prevents C from prohibiting free exercise of religion
(they dropped the liberty of conscience clause)
5. Religion – IMPORTANT DEFINITION; to get free exercise, it
must be religious; to constitute establishment it must be a
religion (or religious); what is the pale of recognized religion?
Then it did not go beyond monotheism (Jews, Islam, Deism,
Christianity, etc.). What about conscientious objectors?
In the end, we get a new experiment, despite the lack of clarity,
when it comes to church state relations. Read Madison p.
100-101.
Religion Clause Interpretation prior to 1947
Introduction – very few national laws touching on religion (or
challenging existing laws doing so). Religion laws were left to
states (and the development of new state constitutions).
II.
State Constitutional treatments of free ex & establishment
A.
Free Exercise - State constitutions articulated and stipulated very
detailed religious liberty and conscience laws (far beyond first
amendment language), recognized reality of and equality
between religious groups (explosion after 2nd Great Awakening);
they moved towards greater separation between church and state
(two states banned clergy from political office until 1978 and
several states adopted “Blaine” amendments which prohibited tax
dollars from being spent on any church or sectarian institution or
activity).
*Motivation behind Blaine amendments and support for compulsory &
expanded public education came especially from two sources:
Secularists, who wanted to de-Christianized society & antiCatholic Protestants (latter group wanted protect the dominant
Protestant ethos (mode of thought) which permeated American
society from Catholic immigration.
B. Disestablishment – only 7 of 12 had disestablishment statements,
but the reality of religious pluralism and the strong free exercise
language probably made it unnecessary for the other five.
I.
*Yet, most of the constitutions grounded or justified their protections of
religious liberty in their understanding of what ‘Almighty God’ would
have us do to fellow persons.
III.
Law in action vs Law on the books; Frontier as the release valve
(1787-1947)
A.
Challenge and legacy of the Founders: state sought to balance the
general freedom of all private religions with the general patronage of
one common public religion (Protestant Christianity) with dissenters
moving (or moving West) for greater freedom. In short, promote
both pluralism & civil religion.
B.
A measure of discrimination still occurred (NE against Quakers,
Baptists, Methodists; NY, NJ, PA against Unitarians, Adventists,
Christian Science; South against Catholics; and all against Jews,
Native American religion, and Islam).
C.
Civil religion continued – symbols (crucifixes, In God We Trust, etc.),
Ten Commandments, national prayers, ‘blue-laws’ (Sunday
observance, blasphemy, etc.), official holidays were Christian,
property grants/subsidies for poor Christian
churches/charities/schools; mandatory chapel and Bible teaching in
public schools; laws banning polygamy, prostitution, pornography,
gambling, often banned as offenses to Christian morality. Legal
defense? Christianity is a part of the common law tradition (bedrock
or foundation of law).
D.
E.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
F.
Getting out of town or state – religious minorities in an area just
moved around until they were more comfortable (Mormons
moved from NY to Ohio to MO to IL to Utah then ‘colonized’ NV
and ID). Free spirits moved to Mountain West and Oregon or
Washington.
Religious diversity reached all time high at the turn of the
century (1900). Why?
2nd Great Awakening (1820-1860) – complete abandonment of
tradition, creeds, and confessions; stressed new experiential
thing in Christian (common message was ‘Restoration’).
‘Reconquest’ of eastern seaboard by Baptists, Methodists, and
Catholics
Civil War – intradenominational divisions = new den
Civil War amendments freed not only slaves but latent AfricanAmerican churches
Immigration – European (especially Catholics) and some Eastern
(Buddhist, Hinduism, etc.).
Key Result – MAJOR change in religious landscape (Table 5.1).
From Anglican and Reformed/Calvinist to Evangelical. Irony?
Evangelicals far more interested in separation of c/s but far
more interested in an implicit endorsement by state/society of
basic Protestant Christian values.
IV.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Rise of the Secularists (1870-1920) – originally allies with
Evangelicals on establishment and liberty of conscience.
But now moved to take over knowledge production centers
of society (education, law, science) by extricating elite
institutions of society and the Protestant cultural hegemony,
of any thing like a public or relevant Christian worldview.
Aim to change what the US Supreme Court said was true of
America (if one takes “a view of American life as expressed
by its laws, its business, its customs and its society, we find
everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth…that this
is a Christian nation.” Unanimous opinion, 1892).
Education, always first. A new “progressivist” (i.e.,
naturalistic) vision of knowledge came to dominate higher
ed, so that Christian higher ed (nearly all colleges at the
time) began relegating religion to chapel service and
graduation ceremonies (Is Danforth chapel necessary?).
Science and religion recast into “warfare” models rather
than “complimentary” models.
Legal realism replaced natural law as basis of law (no
immutable truths, but evolving subjective basis).
F.
V.
A.
B.
Pop culture – basic Christian ethic in mass public ed
derooted; collective understanding of the human person
changed from divinely created focused on morality and
character to modern psychological constructions of the
self centering on personality, instinct, and desire; leading
cultural leaders, speakers, moralizers were Protestants
before bur now replaced by new cultural authorities in
journalism and social sciences
Supreme Court (Polygamy, the Mormons, a case in point)
Prior to 1940, SC reviewed a few state laws on religion,
but not under First Amendment scrutiny (said Congress,
not States). Only used principles of law and fairness (17
cases during this time).
But this changed in 1862, when Congress made
Polygamy a federal crime and in 1882, laws were passed
barring polygamists and plural cohabiters from voting,
holding office, and serving on juries. In 1887, sought to
dismantle the Mormon Church altogether (siezing its
property) since it was seen as a haven for illegal
polygamists.
C.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Mormonism
Cases - Reynolds v. United States (1879), Davis v. Beason
(1890), and CJCLDS vs U.S. (1890) – all featured Mormons
challenging these laws (law against bigamy, mandatory antipolygamy oath, gov’t dissolving the Mormon church’s
charter).
Rulings – SC upheld Congressional law in each instance, not
even entertaining Mormon free exercise claims (protects
beliefs, not actions, they said).
Context of national fear of Mormons? Smith’s frequent
political language/gestures (ran for president, formed militias,
spoke of building a kingdom headed by Mormons in America;
polygamy and birth rates, mystery in Utah); though not
through violent rebellion.
Court’s reaction (p. 128 Bradley).
Issue resloved when Utah sought statehood and the LDS
church disavowed polygamy is right in this age.
Consequence: Court reduced free exercise to a minimalist
guarantee of liberty of conscience ALONE (mere opinions
can’t be touched).
Modern Free Exercise Law
I.
A.
B.
C.
II.
A.
B.
Introduction
New Era (erosion of federalism in religious liberty law) where
religious liberty is influenced more by US SC rather than
states. First 150 years, 31 religious liberty cases NONE using
the first amendment. Last 70 years, 130 religious liberty
cases, MOST using first amendment. Why?
Incorporation – apply many of the Bill of Rights to states.
Consequences – states have not stopped legislating on
religion, but must keep one eye on constitutional law.
Problem is, 70 years of religious liberty law has been fraught
with inconsistencies.
Mapping Modern Free Exercise Doctrine
Key points of conflict - Cases feature conflicts between private
religious practice/belief and governmental power/action.
Claimants argue that some law “prohibits” their free exercise
of religion by burdening (inhibiting acts of worship;
commanding them to do something that conflicts with their
doctrines/practices; discriminates by burdening their religious
activities but not those of others).
Easy cases – Jehovah Witnesses forced to swear an oath or
Jews forced to remove a yarmulke.
Hard cases – unemployment insurance is denied to an
applicant because he refuses to work on Saturday for
religious reasons; a secular humanist refuses to serve in the
military; a religious university refuses to accept blacks
because it thinks the Bible requires separation of races; a
business requires devotion attendance for all employees.
*One rather consistent doctrine is that free exercise claims must
be “sincere” rather than contrived (this means religious
probing). Again, court has to explore and define what is
religious (naturalist faith and a farmland shrine? Personal
religious convictions. Etc.)
III. Free Exercise Case law
A. Scrutiny level – if “low-level” (rational basis), then law is
upheld if it is reasonably related to a legitimate government
interest; if “high-level” (strict scrutiny), the law is upheld
only if gov’t interest is compelling and if it is narrowly
tailored to achieve that interest (last resort and least
offensive). So, what level of scrutiny did court use in
Reynolds (the Mormon cases)?
B.
Scherbert and Smith – since Reynolds, court moved in a
heightened scrutiny direction.
C.
Scherbert vs. Verner (1963) – Scherbert gave us the strict
scrutiny test in FE cases (compelling interest and narrowly
tailored). This favored religious minorities.
2.
Employment Division v. Smith (1990) – Court rejected strict
scrutiny and adopted a low-level test. A law is valid so long
as it is facially neutral and generally applicable. If not, strict
scrutiny test.
3.
Evaluation of Smith - The ‘Smith test” was used to overturn a
local anti-Santeria law in FL, but critics remain. They see the
test is a return to Reynolds (strict scrutiny) and hurting
religious minorities (if generally applicable, tough). Congress
reacted to Smith with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
(1993), but the SC ruled that the Act was unconstitutional
when applied to the states. So, we are left with Smith test
for state law (low-level) and RFRA in federal law.
4. Court reluctant to apply Smith because it seemed to disfavor
minorities, but Smith is still the most frequently used test for
Free Exercise featuring state law challenges. From mid1990s to Locke vs Davey (2004), court even signaled that it
might consider “unequal access” to government funds as a
violation of free exercise, but Locke presents serious setback
to that trend.
1.
Modern Establishment Clause
I.
A.
B.
C.
Introduction
Nature of conflict – government has taken an
action “respecting an establishment of religion”
(e.g., coercing participation in religious activity;
improper public use of religious places or things;
allied with religious causes or groups; discriminates
in favor of one religious interest over others).
No other body of Const. Law is more ambiguous or
difficult to follow
Standards vary broadly under three headings
1. Separationism – government may take no
actions that aid religion, either directly or perhaps
even indirectly
2. Accommodationism – government may show or
provide non-preferential support for religion
3. Differing views of ‘Neutrality’ (gray area)
Strict Separation – Justice Hugo Black articulated this doctrine in
the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township
decision. Used Jefferson’s metaphor from his letter to the
Dansbury Baptists as the lens through we interpret the
establishment clause. Years later, the court constructed an
allegedly clearer and more relaxed test for deciding establishment
clause cases. Neutrality means secular according to this view.
Black’s language: "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First
Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal
Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid
one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.
Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain
away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief
or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for
entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church
attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or
small, can be levied to support any religious activities or
institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they
may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the
Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In
the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation
between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.
I.
A.
Lemon test – A law is constitutional (not guilty of
establishment) if:
► It has a ‘secular purpose’
► It’s ‘primary effect’ neither ‘advances nor inhibits religion’
► Does not ‘foster an excessive entanglement with religion’
B. Lemon’s criticisms –
1. Why a secular purpose and what is a secular purpose?
Justice Potter, we may be moving toward “an establishment
of the religion of secularism.” Does Lemon exempt newer
philosophies like liberalism/secularism? Does this empty
traditional public religious promotions like civil religion of all
substance (Nebraska chaplain does not aid religion)? In
1961 (McGowan v. State of MD), Justice Earl Warren UPHELD
Sunday closing laws. But, he did so using Lemon finding no
violation of the first prong. “Secular justifications have been
advanced for making Sunday a day of rest, a day when
people may recover from the labors of the week just passed
and may physically and mentally prepare for the week’s work
to come…” MD’s law “merely happens to coincide or
harmonize with the tents of some or all religions.”
Can excessive entanglement be avoided? If government must be sure
to avoid advancing religion, then won’t it be progressively entangled
with it? Is this feasible in the age of the modern state (if gov’t gets
in, religion get out; but gov’t gets in everywhere today)
3.
Result – often ignored, partially applied, inconsistently interpreted,
heavy criticism from all sides on the court (Paul Marshall quote p. 129
of his book). Most on the SC today have largely, though not explicitly,
abandoned the test (favoring either the old strict separation principle,
or accommodation, or equal treatment/positive neutrality principle).
II. Accommodation - like Strict Separation, this groups recognizes a real
philosophical difference in religion and secularism, but insists that the
only intention behind the establishment clause is to prevent the
establishment of a particular church/denomination/religion. Beyond
that, governments are free to promote/support religion nonpreferentially. Clearest articulation in Rehnquist’s critique of Black and
Stewart’s dissent in Engel v. Vitale (“I cannot see how an ‘official
religion’ is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it.
On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children
to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of
sharing in the spiritual heritage of our nation…Since the days of John
Marshall, our Crier [of the SC] has said, ‘God save the U.S. and this
Honorable Court’…It was all summed up by this Court just ten years
ago in a single sentence, ‘We are a religious people whose institutions
presuppose a Supreme Being.’”
2.
Rehnquist dissent in Wallace (handout)
IV.
Equal Treatment or ‘Positive Neutrality’ (government must be
evenhanded between religion and irreligion).
A.
Based on philosophy in part and supported by a series of SC
decisions (especially Rosenberger).
1.
Philosophy – religion is utterly pervasive in all human
endeavors but takes many forms (some include a god, gods,
no god). Religion is functionally synonymous with the concept
of ‘worldview’. In an atmosphere of proliferating religious
pluralism (progressively since founding), government neutrality
requires that it be evenhanded between worldview adherents.
This respects everyone’s free exercise of religion in the public
space. Example of Univ. of Alabama physiology prof. As
James Reichley put it, “Banishment of religion does not
represent neutrality between religion and secularism; conduct
of public institutions without any acknowledgement of religion
IS secularism.” This is increasingly relevant in an age where
government activity and religious activity increasingly overlap.
Tend to argue that the intention of the founders is that
government be neutral (evanhanded) between real worldviews
operating in society (at first, only Christian denominations, but
then different religions, and today religious and secular
worldviews).
2. Series of cases from early 90s to 2000: equal access to school and
university facilities, required a school to rent facilities to a church to
show religious film, required a state to fund the religious education
of a blind student, overturned previous decision now allowing
public school teachers to provide remedial instruction in religiously
based schools.
3.
Public policy support (Charitable Choice Act 1996) – federal
government may not exclude faith-based charities from contracting
with government to provide social services if it opens itself up to
bids from other private sector (secular) charities.
4.
Rosenberger vs Univ of Virginia (1995) – Kennedy “We have held
that the guarantee of neutrality is respected, not offended, when
the government, following neutral criteria and evenhanded policies,
extends benefits to recipients whose ideologies and viewpoints,
including religious ones, are broad and diverse.” Basically, UVA
could choose to fund none, or all, but if it chose to fund secular
organizations it must also fund religious ones. Souter’s dissent –
“The Court today, for the first time, approves direct funding of core
religious activities by an arm of the State….The Univ exercises the
power of the State to compel a student to pay [for] it, and the use
of any part of it for the direct support of religious activity thus
strikes at what we have repeatedly held to be at the heart of the
prohibition on establishment.”
►The
only other viable establishment
standard worth noting is O’Conner’s
‘endorsement’ test. In it, she wants to
know only if the government’s actions
would be construed by the ‘objective
observer’ as endorsement of religion. So,
in Wallace vs. Jaffree, Alabama’s moment
of silence was unconstitutional to her
because the statute said students should
pause for a “moment of silence or prayer.”
If prayer had been excluded from the
language, she said she had no problem
with it. But saying prayer implied
endorsement of a religious activity.
The New Christian Right
I.
A.
B.
Introduction
It’s ‘New’ because evangelicals had been heavily involved in
politics in the 19th century (anti-slavery, Sunday closing laws,
humane treatment of Native Americans, prohibition, public
education, the Progressive Movement and government action
against industrialization or raw-capitalism abuses, etc.).
The Secular Revolution (fueled by urbanization, modern
science and technology, economic prosperity and intentional
organized effort to displace the Protestant public ethos with a
secular one) and rise of Protestant Liberalism on one hand
combined with rise of Dispensationalism among most
evangelicals (infatuation with end-times prophecy, pessimism
about the last days, and the imminent return of Christ) caused
many evangelicals to exit culture or politics and see it as
unrelated to the church’s mission. In the 1950s and 1960s,
Falwell said that a preacher would be judged by God for
becoming involved in politics. They felt safe, however, in the
South and rural parts of the country (still more numerous)
even if elite centers turned secular. The paradigm shift was
seen as happening somewhere else, not small-town America.
First stirrings prior to the 1970s – Democratic
Party elected JFK (Catholic) in 1960; Barry
Goldwater nominated as Republican 1964;
George Wallace ran as an independent in
1968 (all of this weakened white evangelical
tie to Dems).
So what caused the shift to the GOP and Rise of
the New Christian Right (political
reawakening)?
C.
II. Rise of the New Christian Right (NCR): The Causes
►
Evangelicals began to climb the socio-economic ladder (19401960, white SBC averaged just under 8 years of formal
education; by 1970 it was 11). With more money and
education they acquired a new interest/stake in politics as well
as more resources to engage it.
►
Theological divisions came first (then cleared up w/ divorces);
the progressives vs the orthodox. Religious camps in the past
were typically denominational; alliances across denominational
boundaries were rare. But, in the 20th century, theological
orthodoxy became the most important dividing line among the
religious, not denomination. Traditional Catholics discovered
they had more enemies within Catholic circles than among the
evangelicals (same could be said of Protestants regarding their
own denominations). In the 20th century, churches responded
to theological liberalism by splitting off (PCA) or reforming from
within (SBC). Today, what matters most in Protestantism is
orthodox belief (evangelicalism), not church affiliation (sharing
pulpits increasingly common; Falwell). These theological
alliances provided the framework for future political alliances
and organizations in the Christian Right (Pat Robertson Charismatic, D. James Kennedy - Presbyterian, and Jerry Falwell
- Baptist).
‘Status Politics’ and Emergence of Culture War issues, especially as
partisan issues (that is, when parties and candidates took sides,
religious views on culture war issues became divided not just
theologically but now along party lines as well). Dramatic increases
in and moral acceptance of teen pregnancy and births (% of births to
unmarried teens grew from 15 to 70%), illegitimacy (5% 1960 to
40% today, much more dramatic for minorities with blacks, for
example currently at 70% up from 22% in 1960), crime,
pornography, # and rate of abortions (million a year), television
content (Seinfeld’s “The Contest” vs The Andy Griffith cast),
sexualization of youth culture/entertainment (and stat associated rise
in promiscuity), working mothers, cohabitation, age and likelihood of
marriage, ratio of divorces to marriages (.26 to .51), social
acceptance of homosexuality, % children living with both married bioparents (88 to 65), juvenile delinquency (17 per 1000 juveniles to
55); disintegration of traditional family; Supreme Court opinions
involving abortion, secularization of public schools, school prayer,
homosexual rights, creationism, sex education, suicide, gender
indifferences, pornography and first amendment, etc. Read p. 108109 of Brewer and Stonecash.
► Media – The NCR drawing on its institutional base (churches), took
advantage of technological advancements and opportunities (from
radio and television to webcasts and satellite, “Justice Sunday”).
1000 of 9000 radio stations are religious.
►
►
Influenced by the approach of NeoEvangelicals (Carl
Henry) and Reconstructionists (D. James Kennedy;
Graham and Christianity Today) – prior to the 1970s,
evangelicals largely believed (as good fundamentalists
and dispensationalists) that this world did not matter
much (‘so heavenly minded they’re of no earthly good’).
In fact, things were going to get irreversibly worse just
prior to Christ’s return (prophecy). The church should
concern itself only with saving souls, not ‘worldly’ things
like politics (weapons of our warfare are not carnal).
But the NeoEvangelicals and Reconstructionists, for
different reasons, successfully convinced the others
that God commands Christians to be concerned with all
fronts/spheres in God’s World and Christians must reject
the division of human affairs into “sacred” and “secular”
categories (Francis Schaeffer called the philosopher of
the Christian Right – stretch though); rather the Lord is
Lord over all (including politics; i.e., render unto Caesar;
redeem the culture; kingdom work extends to politics;
etc.). "When I was growing up," recalls Fundamentalist
Pastor Keith Gephart of Alameda, Calif., "I always heard
that churches should stay out of politics. Now it seems
almost a sin not to get involved.“
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKUYqXOuNxM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUMuUWpgokQ&feature=related (4:25 mark)
A giving people – evangelicals give money and time. They give lots
of money and time. They give more money and time than other
more casual religious & non-religious people. Not only do they
give lots to their churches, but they give significantly more to
other religious and non-religious non-profits (including charities
and political interest groups) than others. They are more likely to
believe they should and less likely to make excuses when they
don’t than others. The NCR, with all of its fund-raising and group
membership drives, have thrived on this.
► Two Waves - first, occurring in the late 1970s, was at the top (in
D.C.) with narrow lobbying groups; the GOP and DEM parties sort
of took sides with Reagan speaking the language of evangelicals
(Connerly vs Reagan answer to D. James Kennedy’s question);
however, little success changing public policy during Reagan
years. Second wave came after Pat Robertson’s failed presidential
bid. Controlled by secular conservative strategists, featured
grassroots mass membership organizations (Christian Coalition),
different more inclusive/secular language and style (defending not
Christian America but Family Values), and more inclusive of
political conservative agenda rather than Biblical morality (not just
anti-pornography and abortion but also for term limits, strong
defense, and Balanced Budget Amendment, and tax cuts. Second
wave far more successful as evidenced by Republican Revolution
in 1994 and the Contract with America.
III. Who is the NCR?
►
Evangelicals, but disproportionately fundamentalist (fewer
confessional and reformed folk). Historian George Marsden
jokes, “A fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry about
something.” A fundamentalist, though no longer apolitical, is
typically far more politically concerned about the moral behavior
of non-believers than other evangelicals.
►
Groups – Started with the Moral Majority, then the Christian
Coalition, now the American Family Association (but also, Family
Research Council, Focus on the Family, Center for Reclaiming
America, Alliance Defense Fund, Traditional Values Coalition,
Concerned Women of America, Eagle Forum, etc.)
►
People – James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, D. James
Kennedy, Tony Perkins, Chuck Colson, Phyllis Schaffley
IV. Changes in the NCR – though the number of NCR identifiers and
sympathizers has not seriously changed since the early 80s, the
NCR has experienced a few changes:
►
Less visible in the GOP – Many believe that the 1992 GOP
convention hurt the Republicans because so many keynote
speakers were NCR representatives (Pat Buchanan, Pat
Robertson). Today, they are rarely allowed to speak at the GOP
and the few that do have softened their rhetoric.
►
►
►
►
V.
►
Focus a bit less on national elections and more on state and local
political issues (gay marriage; abortion)
Has occasionally expanded its issue list, but this has been hard
(why include lower taxes and immigration reform? Why exclude
environmental policy?
Appears to be more “mainstream” and less organizational and
peripheral inside the GOP.
A gradually growing group of evangelicals share the same values on
cultural issues, vote GOP, but have more diverse views on other
issues and do not like to be identified with the NCR. They would
laugh at my Lord’s Prayer joke.
Assessing the success of the NCR
Some have argued that the NCR has been ineffective given its
goals. Abortion is still legal, cultural change (“moral decline”) has
only increased more rapidly, no significant number of evangelicals
elected to major offices, GOP inaction in terms of policy priorities,
DEM party liberalized even more after 2000. This has led many,
including some of its earlier leaders and founders, to declare it a
failure and seek alternative (non-political) solutions to perceived
cultural problems (see books by Cal Thomas, “Blinded by Might”
and David Kuo, “Tempting Faith”). Politics is ‘downstream’ from
culture. Also, consider GOP candidates. Evangelical influence?

►
Internal Criticism remains – from its inception, some argued
that Schaeffer’s original vision was never realized or embraced.
The movement never really developed (or allowed themselves
to be informed by) a coherent biblical worldview of all life
FIRST. Rather, it simply became a lapdog of the GOP with no
public theology worked out at all (Ready, Shoot, Aim! OR the
God Says That Settles It approach). There was no intellectualtheological reformation among evangelicals, just a UNcagedtiger knee-jerk reaction to cultural displacement and rise of
secularism and liberalism. Basically, the internal critics (usually
the Neoevangelical crowd) argue that unlike Catholicism and
the Reformed and Confessional tradition, the Christian Right
did not get the ‘cart before the horse’ (public theology before
political activism). It exposed itself to and tasted political
power without a firm theological basis and got ‘captured’,
embarrassed, frustrated, scorned and mocked. It was merely
floundering about with no underlying anchor.
Others point to GOP success (elections); evangelical voter
mobilization for GOP, Supreme Court appointments, Democratic
moderation in the 90s, return of faith in politics (Obama) and a
few minor victories here and there as evidence of success. On
the cultural front, a significant resurgence of the mind in
evangelicalism and prominent evangelical scholarship; also, rise
of major evangelical players among elite places of influence and
power (White House, Harvard, Wall Street, Hollywood, etc.).
Religious Groups at the Center
Introduction: Despite the rather simplistic understanding of religion and
politics in America (religious conservatives vs religious liberals with
seculars; called ‘Culture War’), some have argued it is more
complex than that (African Americans, Muslims, Catholics, etc.).
That is, different kinds of religious people look to and interpret
politics differently according to their underlying theological
traditions (African Americans favor expanded government programs
for poor; Lincoln saw the Civil War as divine judgment; evangelicals
want protection for Christians in Sudan; Jews want protection for
Israel; Mainline Protestants favor environmental protections; many
Catholics oppose both abortion and death penalty but favor
government healthcare for the poor).
I.
Mainline Protestants (14% of pop and falling) - their numbers are
dwindling rapidly around the world.
A.
Theological differences with evangelicals - disagree with
evangelicals over a number of theological issues surfacing in the
early 1900s from the ‘fundamentalist-modernist controversy’ (Bible
IS the Word of God vs Bible CONTAINS the Word of God; Christ is
the ONLY way vs ONE way; Primary mission of the church is
evangelism vs Social Gospel or social reform). MP’s less likely to
attend church weekly or engage in personal devotional activities.
B.
Political differences – originally they were Republicans, but are
conflicted today leaning DEM. They are somewhat more
politically liberal (on issues) than evangelicals but comparable to
Catholics (see Table 2.4 Wilson) and a bit more politically
involved (probably goes with higher college education rates).
The less observant MPs split their votes between Obama and
McCain in 2008, but weekly attendees voted for McCain over
Obama by 10points.
II.
A.
B.
C.
1.
Religious Left (Liberals)
Theological differences with Mainline (the middle)
and evangelicals (the right). Look at Table 3.3 in
Wilson
Political differences – table 3.4; religious liberalism
leads to political liberalism for this group
Potential for a New Christian Left? Difficult…
Theological disunity or incohesion - Principle
difference between the Religious Right and Left:
The Religious Right believes in objectively revealed
Truth, the Religious Left does not. As a starting
principle, the Religious Left accepts theologically
the notion that Truth is not and can not be
objectively known (except, perhaps, the tiny little
group of evangelicals in it). If it is not objectively
known and if everyone has their own version…
of it and if these versions must be equally weighted for
pluralism’s sake (highest value), then how can a unified
policy position, agenda, crusade ever be marked out?
Pluralism trumps conviction and may leave the movement
without a leg to stand on (NYT article). “We are a
religious voice.” Okay, what does that voice say? Uh, I
don’t know, I don’t want to speak for anyone or impose
my values on others or say that someone else is wrong or
that I am right…The NCR is united around a common
authority, the scriptures (or a God who speaks infallibly).
What authority unites the RL? Indeed, a theological tenet
of liberalism is the rejection of any common objective
authority in theology.
2. Weak institutional structure; The institutional structure
(churches) that so helped the NCR get off the ground and
stay in the air just isn’t there among the RL. Mainliners
are not as liberal as their leaders and the # of churchgoing
blacks is falling or joining white evangelical churches.
Couple that with low attendance among whites and you do
not have the institutional resources the NCR did for
starting up and staying afloat.
3.
4.
Tension with seculars in DEM leadership and
among activists. Number of seculars, atheists,
agnostic, and other unaffiliated has increased
dramatically over the last 30 years (roughly
doubled from 8-16, though some dispute here).
% of seculars in DEM party activists considerably
higher. Modern liberals may say: have we not
always insisted that religion should not be our
guide/motive in politics?
Lack of religious influence over political ideology
(Kohut reports that 31% of people cite religious
beliefs as connected to their political
conservatism, 6% connect it with political
liberalism). This is especially true on the noncultural or social issues like welfare.
These have led many strategists to suggest that Dems “give up” on the
“Sunday vote” and be careful to solidify the left’s most loyal and
promising constituent groups (racial minorities, the unmarried,
especially unmarried women, the lowest on the socio-economic
ladder, and seculars, atheists, and other unaffiliated). Somewhat
parallel situation between the GOP and blacks.
B. Hope for it? Why?
►
African-Americans – no significant sign of changing loyalties. This
group is the second most likely to cite religious beliefs as a
motivating factor for their political preferences.
►
Mainliners are not necessarily a spent force in politics. They may
be divided today politically (and theologically in terms of laity vs
leadership), but they still represent a formidable potential religious
political group with vast resources, a strong history of “social
gospel” and political engagement (Walter Rauschenbusch), and an
established institutional structure in place.
►
Catholics are not firmly in the GOP camp, even traditional ones.
Their support for the GOP can hardly be considered unconditional.
They are relatively new supporters and may change; GOP support
for policies out of accord with Rome may lead Catholics back home
(War, social services, death penalty, etc.).
Roman Catholics: A useless label politically?
I.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Intro – a potentially significant voting bloc
25% of electorate, but concentrated in swing states
(midwestern)
Only had two major party nominees with one winner (Kerry
and JFK)
Probably the hardest religious group to explain, at least in
terms of religious factors (theology or practice); typically
counter-intuitive these days
Drift towards the GOP since 1960s, but not due to
Catholicism (weakening of Catholic identity as a useful tool
in explaining Catholic political behavior)
Before, as late as 1960s, RCs exhibited group-based political
behavior (behaved more uniformly, based on their shared
group identity) and favored the Democratic party handsdown. They were part of the previous 1945 realignment
where Dems had support of low SES folk as well as
minorities of all kinds. Today, ideological preferences seem
to trump group identity among Catholics. IN other words,
they (Catholic whites) are behaving like non-Catholic whites
and their political behavior can be explained similarly.
II.
A.
B.
C.
III.
A.
B.
Political Behavior
Partisanship - Gap between Dems and GOP among Catholics in
1960s was 45 points; today it has vanished (Table 4.1). Only
30% of RCs identified as Dems in 2004 compared to 60% in
1960s.
Voting – Went from 83% JFK in 1960 to a bare majority
bouncing around in recent cycles (Carter then Reagan; Clinton
then Bush both times).
Comparison to non-Catholic whites? Since 1990s, roughly
similar (slightly more w-RCs GOP than non-C whites).
Explaining RC political behavior
Socio-economic changes (began to look like non-C whites in
terms of education/income/occupation); as they moved up,
the upper-class tilt towards the GOP was more appealing.
1952 10% attended college; today 50% do.
Ideology – turns out that many w-RCs simply parroted what
other whites were doing in the period (196-2000), finding a
home for their ideology (mostly politically conservative) in the
GOP. That is, they were driven by factors unassociated with
their Catholicism but ideology (race, government spending and
social welfare and taxes, anti-communism, etc.).
C.
IV.
A.
1.
2.
3.
What about the ‘culture war’ that is supposed to
explain white evangelical political behavior since the
1970s? Not so much, in fact, hardly at all. Religiosity
does NOT appear to be a driving force behind RC
political behavior these days (whether we are talking
PID, voting, or policy preferences).
Who’s calling the shots? Rome? Is Rome calling the
shots? Does not appear so. That is, their political
preferences seem out of line with RC-Vatican social
teachings.
Why less RC uniformity/control/influence over
members?
Secularization of Catholics (table 4.2)
Vatican II or Changes in Vatican ecclesiology (p. 95)
Generational evidence (Pre-Vatican II; Vatican II; PostVatican II age cohorts); Table 4.4
B. Basically, Catholicism is not explaining w-RC
political behavior much today.
C. Irony – Christianity matters politically (drives
how people vote and so on) over other factors
(education, income, ideology, race, region)
WHEN at least two things are happening: First,
the church has a clear and rich social teaching
tradition AND when laypeople sit under and
obediently receive that teaching regularly.
Clearly RC, far more than evangelicals, have the
former (rich tradition of social teaching or church
instructions to society at large). The latter
scenario has changed dramatically since Vatican
II.
Summary, they are more independent, less loyal,
and not caught up in a culture war if there is
one. They are behaving politically under little
influence from Rome.
Black (Protestants) and Latinos
“For many minority communities, it is difficult to separate religious
culture from the culture of the minority group.” Kenneth
Wald
I. African-American Protestants
A.
Black churches
1.
History: due to racial segregation, black churches and
denominations were established separately from white ones.
Theology was rarely the point of division.
2.
Black freedom – Black church movement = first black
freedom movement.
3.
Became medium for civil society in the black community
(absence of other viable institutions). Many secular
activities were facilitated through black churches as a result
(e.g., taxes, voter registration, publishing, funeral
arrangements, entertainment events)
B.
Religion as basis for cultural cohesion – “The black church”
refers to hundreds of disparate administratively, but largely
united informally, organizations.
C.
D.
1.
2.
Political Activism – unlike white evangelicals in the later 19th and
early 20th century (Great Reversal), black Protestants have a long
tradition of viewing faith and church as vehicles of political and
social change (e.g., MLK and the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference; Question: should he/they have been rebuked for
mixing faith and politics?), even though like most white evangelical
denominations they largely abandoned any underlying theological
work in favor of atheological revivalism in the early 19th century.
But a common thread throughout it’s history are polemical parallels
drawm between the Hebrew Exodus and Christ as deliverer and
American slavery/racial discrimination (Lincoln a ‘type’ of Christ in
the same way Moses was) as well as the doctrine of Christian
equality before God (In Christ there is neither slave nor free, greek
nor jew…from every tribe tongue and nation…). So you hear this
in the political sermons of many Civil Rights ministers “I have seen
the promised land…” and “Go tell it on the mountain, let my people
go…” and “I have a dream…”
Political behavior - Black voting since the end of mandatory racial
segregation and the Civil Rights act has reflected this unity.
Turnout - Frequent black churchgoers are more likely to vote than
others (same as non-blacks). Their #’s only slightly less than
whites.
Explaining the political effectiveness of Black churches:
►
►
►
4.
Church environment = platform for political learning. Unique
historical position; high esteem extended to ministers
(Hattiesburg signs); unabashedly political polemically; site for
direct and indirect political networking.
Source for fostering social capital – churches foster the
development of interpersonal trust, access to networks, beliefs
about community responsibility (applies to churches in general).
AA church culture has always been theologically politically
engaged – prayer, song, dialogue, rituals, and Christian imagery.
This group of religious adherents are more likely than any other
to have and attend church meetings about politics.
Political liberalism – interesting contrast with Mormons. BP’s are
theologically orthodox in beliefs but politically liberal. Mormons
not theologically orthodox, but politically conservative. BPs are
mostly conservative, like white evangelicals, on moral-cultural
issues (e.g., gay marriage; school prayer, etc.), but nothing else
(even slippage here regarding abortion). PID: Blacks are the
most reliable voting bloc in America (favoring Dems); again
largely facilitated by the church, especially in the south (half of
all AAs live in the South). Significant surge when Jesse Jackson
ran in 1984 & 88. In 2004, over 65% identify as DEM and over
90% voted for Kerry).
Common to have Dem candidates visit black churches due to their
dependence upon the black vote. If the GOP suddenly received
20% of the black vote, they would virtually always win the White
House (10% would usually do).
E.
Changes in Black-Protestant politics?
1.
Frustration with perceived limited progress (we are a “tool” of the
Dem Party). Always has been an element calling for more
aggression and independence politically (Malcom X, Black
Panthers, Nation of Islam). the Dem Party takes AAs for granted,
not enacting the legislation they usually promote (in other words,
there is a challenge in influencing election outcomes and policy
outcomes).
2.
Radical vs conservative revolution.
3.
Church attendance among AAs dropping significantly (formerly
80% down to under 40%), especially among young, men, and
poor.
4.
Takeover of secular political leaders in politics (ministers no
longer monopolize political power; link between black voters and
politicians less and less mediated by black ministers)
4. Nature of black church has changed - increasingly caught up
in the larger charismatic/Pentecostal and prosperity gospel
movement which is more apolitical (e.g., TD Jakes); now
15-20% of AAs are no longer members of BP churches;
many are joining racially mixed churches, with white
churches far more welcoming than decades ago.
F.
Black Public Theology – (p. 134-135 Wilson). To fill the
void (much in the same way Neoevangelicals did in the
1940s), two movements emerged.
1.
Black Liberation Theology – God has a unique relationship
with African Americans (James Cone “Black Power is the
gospel of Jesus Christ”). Read Cleage p. 137 in Wilson.
BLT was a kind of bridge between the black identity,
radical, separationist Islamic movement of Malcolm X with
the Christian social gospel movement of MLK Jr. Also, it
was a reversal of sorts of white-supremacy religious beliefs
among some white ‘Christians’.
In BLT, the emphasis is NOT Christ as God (virgin birth,
substitutionary atonement, resurrection, Son, etc.; these are seen
as unhelpful ‘white’ holdover doctrines that must be jettisoned by
black Christians); it is Christ as black liberator (leader of a
movement to radically reverse fortunes in society between
oppressor and oppressed). This movement is identified with the
broader liberal Protestant theology stressing this world only and
most importantly, the notion that Christianity is utterly malleable
adaptable and meant to be finally interpreted by the individual
adherent or group; it is not a fixed body of truths laid down in
propositional form by God Himself, Christ Himself and His apostles
and prophets once for all time; the ‘faith delivered once for all’
Jude). It is also a blending of Marxist themes/ideas with
theological themes. BLT has largely failed at attracting BPs.
2. Prosperity Gospel – a recent development among mostly
charasmatic Protestants, especially popular among AA
charasmatics, this understanding of Christianity is that God
intends for believers to be materially prosperous (Christ’s mission
was to empower and advance the physical well-being of His
people here on earth). Advanced especially through television
ministries like Trinity Broadcasting Network and personal
ministries of preachers like T.D. Jakes, Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen,
Benny Hinn, and Paul Crouch. Dollar quote p. 141 Wilson
If BLT teaches that blacks will obtain radical progress
through social and political revolution, PG teaches
they will get it through radical faith actions
(planting ‘seeds’) and spiritual empowerment (Holy
Ghost work). But they both deemphasize
traditional Christian doctrines and concerns and
focus on the immediate physical needs (or wants)
of people. Another major point of departure, the
BLT movement is decidedly socialist and politically
liberal in orientation (Obama’s church); but the PG
movement (at least the leadership) is far less
committed to the Dem party and often explicitly
supportive of the GOP (Fred Price Crenshaw 16000
member church). Read Wilson p. 159. Could be
an ‘new’ opportunity for the GOP (something other
than reaching out with culture war issues)
I.
Latinos
A. Changing demographic dynamic among RCs (next
slide)
Age and Racial Composition of Catholicism
All Catholics
18-29
White
65%
Black
2
Other/Mixed
Total
40-49
50-59
60-69
70+
Among Catholics ages...
% who are...
Latino
30-39
47%
51%
68%
75%
78%
85%
3
2
2
2
3
1
29
45
44
26
20
17
12
4
5
3
4
4
2
2
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Church Attendance
Latino Catholics
Latino Evangelicals
Weekly
43%
74%
Less than Weekly
50
23
Never
7
3
B Catholicism among Latinos (4.5% total pop and 60% of Latinos).
The Spanish conquistadores brought its Catholicism and its
language to the Americas in the 16thC. Latino Catholics
immigrated to North America prior to the Puritans. Emphasize
Catholic Marion doctrines and family a bit more than other
Catholics. But…
1.
Many others are cold towards Catholicism; associate it with
historical conquest; lack of Spanish-speaking masses; American
Catholicism has been associated with Irish immigrants; have
been relatively few Hispanic Catholic bishops here and abroad;
first Mexican-American bishop installed in 1970; religious focus
different among Latino Catholics and Euro-American Catholics
2.
Defections and declining replacement: % of Latino Catholics is
falling (despite Catholic growth among other people groups).
C. Protestants and Latinos – Protestants, especially evangelicals,
charasmatics and pentecostals have attracted large numbers of
native born Latinos (have Latino services, Latino youth groups,
etc.) Pentecostals and charasmatics, who stress miraculous
gifts of the Holy Spirit, personal empowerment, and non-elitism
in church, have directly fashioned their message to very
respondent Latinos (estimated 5m Latino Pentecostals). Today,
Latinos are 60% Catholic, 23% evangelical, 7% mainline, 9%
unaffiliated. 58% went for Bush in 2004, but flipped in 08.
Latino faith and politics – far less likely to see or use
church as a vehicle for political action (more likely to set
up secular political organizations for that; church deals
more with the strictly spiritual). But some see political
potential among Latinos because of its population
growth in America (37m, 150% growth since 1980).
More likely than blacks to disapprove of churches
expressing political views.
1. For the GOP: Latinos, especially among protestant
Latinos, are more socially conservative on abortion,
homosexuality, and “family values” issues. 70% favor
school prayer and 60% favor school vouchers. Bush has
done well among Latinos compared to blacks (44% in
2004, 34% in 2000; 63% Latino P; 31% Latino C). He
included many Latinos among his friends and appointees
both in DC and Texas. Latinos are mostly Democratic,
but Latino Protestants are divided and evangelical
Latinos are slightly more Republican. But BIG shift
(14pts swing) for Obama in 2008 (Kerry got 53% but
Obama got 67%).
C.
2. For the DEMs: More Latino Catholics are Democrats (45%) but
most voted for Kerry (56%); but among the “most committed”
to religion and evangelical these numbers fall dramatically;
Latino Protestants are more likely to identify than Catholics to be
Republican. Latinos are generally more liberal on “non-morality”
issues like government social services spending, especially as
income goes down; So, it would be good politically for DEMs if
Latinos got poorer, less religious or more nominally Catholic, and
turned out more in elections.
3. Are Latino politics driven by ethnicity or faith?
► Issues (Wilson 177): Really hard to say, but Latinos are divided
along religious lines (secular, Catholic, Protestant) on a few
issues.
► Party/Vote – at least in 2004, Latino Protestants were
significantly more likely to be Republican or vote that way than
Latino Catholics (40% more likely to be GOP). In fact, Latinos
increased their support for Bush in 2004 by over 30pts and this
change was due almost entirely due to Latino Protestant
movement.
4. Conclusion: It appears that politically, Latino Protestantism is
having a much greater distinct effect on Latinos than simply
being Latino or Latino Catholicism (latter two tend to behave
similarly).

A.
1.
2.
3.
4.
American Jews
The Jews – 2% of population; monotheistic with the Torah
(OT) as their sacred text. Central religious figure = Moses.
Political Characteristics of Jews
Demographically well-off
Disproportionately influential/represented in culture: in law,
business, politics, journalism, and entertainment. High
voting rates, concentrated in heavily populated states.
Politically liberal – liberalism is often seen as the essence of
Judaism itself, though this view is controversial given the
conservatism of orthodox Jews. Most scholars see
liberalism (and attachment to the Democratic party) as not
necessarily theologically driven, but a byproduct of history
(minority status and target of bigotry; i.e., anti-Semitism).
Jews sought protection from pro-minority rights groups, not
social services directed to the poor (not many Jews
represented here). Strong alliance in the 1950s and 60s
between blacks and Jews (Jewish CR workers massively
overrepresented in the movement).
Voting results – 2008 election 74% Obama
4. Jewish Liberalism has been threatened by (1) Estrangement between
blacks and Jews when blacks moved to urban centers and favored
“community control” challenging Jewish statuses (got violent in
NYC) and Affirmative-Action became a national issue not always
favored by Jews. (2) The pro-Israel position became associated
with the GOP. (3) the Neoconservative movement and culture war.
The Neoconservatives (group of former liberals turned
conservative on many issues) in their publications Commentary and
Public Interest (Irving Kristol, Normon Podhertz, and today Bill
Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, David Horowitz) urged Jews to leave
political liberalism because Dems were weak on Israel and soft on
communism, pushing Aff-Action, creating cyclically dependent
impoverished groups, and pushing values that were inconsistent
with the Torah. Further, Jesse Jackson did not help when he
referred to Jews as ‘Hymies’ and NYC as ‘Hymietown’; also Louis
Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam described Judaism as a
‘dirty’ religion. Both men were seen befriending PLO leader Yasir
Arafat and supporting a Palestinian state (fed perceived rebirth of
black anti-Semitism). BUT, short-lived after Carter failed to get a
majority. Gap between Dem support between Jews and non-Jews
rose from 20% in 1984 to over 40% today (perhaps more afraid of
evangelical Republicans like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell than
black Dems like Jesse Jackson).
5.
B.
C.
1.
2.
►
►
►
D.
1.
Why the fear of EP Republicans? Historical discrimination by
“Christian government” against Jews. The Christian Right seemed to
be anti-democratic and anti-pluralistic to Jews.
But…Dispensationalism?
3 groupings: Reform (39%); Conservative (33%); Orthodox (21%;
most traditional).
Religious Characteristics
Synagogue attendance very low (less than 25% once a month).
Label is increasingly an ethnic identity more than indicating a religious
practice
Increasingly secular in worldview
Losing culturally distinctive identity (especially among young)
Intermarriage growing (50% today) and birthrates lower than
necessary to replace population
Political ideology and Judaism
Theological liberalism dominates Judaism today (3/4s either
Reform or Conservative). Theology of “deeds not creeds”
such that Atheism or Agnosticism is theoretically and
practically tenable in much of Jewish thought. Reform
Judaism more or less approximates the secular enlightenment
philosophy.
1.
E.
1.
2.
3.
►
History of persecution – fostered concern for religious
minorities and other disadvantaged groups.
Orthodox are the most Politically Conservative
Ultraconservative Jews (like Hasidic Jews) hold politically
conservative views on cultural and social issues. However,
this group often practices withdrawal much like the
fundamentalist Protestants in years past, so the GOP benefits
of Orthodox Judaism is waning if it ever existed due to
secularization of Jews today 29% of young non-o Jews rate
Israel high on their priority list compared to 60 of older non-o
Jews). Seems younger Jews care far less about Israel today
because they care far less about Judaism today (increasingly
being reduced to an ethnic label, not a traditional religious
commitment).
Was and is prominent among the “NeoConservatives” (Irving
Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Bill Kristol,
and David Horowitz; Weekly Standard).
American Jews and Israel – has connected Jews to American
conservatism quite frequently.
U.S. is a strong ally of Israel and the GOP is consistently seen
as Israel’s strongest supporters
►
►
Dispensational Theology among Protestants – according to DT,
Christians (really everyone) are commanded to be especially kind
towards and protective of the Jews as God’s chosen people.
Pastor John Hagee and the “Christian Zionist” movement calls for
the U.S. and Christ’s church, as instruments of God’s prophetic
fulfillment of land promises to Israel found in the OT, to
tenaciously defend and fight against Israel’s enemies and protect
her as the place where Christ will one day occupy the throne of
David in Jerusalem to re-establish his earthly kingdom. But
despite many cases of affinity between evangelical leaders and
grateful Jewish ones, the specter of necessary conversion still
haunts this relationship. Quick side: Christian theologians have
disagreed on what to make of Jews in the New Covenant age
(after Christ’s death and resurrection). Is there still a divine plan
targeting Jewish people and Israel or is there now only one
people of God with no particular ongoing divine interest Jews? At
the extremes are so called ‘dual covenant’ (two people; two
salvific plans) and ‘replacement’ theologies (the church simply
replaced Israel when Christ came; ethnic Israel/Judaism is no
longer a meaningful category in God’s mind).
The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee is among the top
five most powerful lobbies in D.C.
From the Jerusalem Post (orthodox Jewish newspaper):
“There are fewer and fewer [evangelical leaders who subscribe to
replacement theology] as time goes along. They are seeing,
finally, the error of replacement theology. The vast majority of
evangelicals do not believe in replacement theology.
Evangelicals believe that Israel has a Bible mandate to the land,
a divine covenant for the land of Israel, forever. That the Jewish
people are chosen of God and are the apple of God’s eye. That
Christians have a Bible mandate to be supportive of Israel and
the Jewish people, to demonstrate to the Jewish people what
they have not experienced from Christianity for 2,000 years…
the love of God.”
- Source: Evangelicals seeing the error of replacement theology,
The Jerusalem Post, Israel, Mar. 20, 2006
One other little thing, the vast majority also believe that Jews
must repent and believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ to be
saved. Still a ‘problem’ for the alliance.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS
or Mormons)
I.
A.
B.
LDS Church
Who? 3% (4-6million); nearly all white; much higher levels
of church attendance/activity than others; fastest growing
religious group; heavily concentrated geographically in Utah
(70%) and a few other Mountain West states (Idaho 27%)
History: established in 1830 by Joseph Smith, who claimed
to have receive revelation from the angel Moroni (and
“golden plates” were buried near his NY home, the
information of which translated into the Book of Mormon
(book of beliefs and historical claims, written by various
men; teaches that ancient Israelite prophets – ancestors of
Native Americans – sailed to the Americas from Jerusalem
in 600bc foretelling the coming of the Messiah; Christ came
to them and gave them a “second testimony” after His
resurrection and ascension; one of 4 inspired books in
Mormon theology; Bible, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and
Covenants). Mormons taught the concept of ‘unified just
communities; and set these up as they migrated to Utah in
the 19th century, Smith, killed 1844, replaced by B. Young.
C.
Basic Beliefs – God is a physical man who achieve deity
through righteous living (model for man). He and his
wife produced spirit offspring who later came to earth in
human form in order to be more like God (imitation).
Their inability to do so perfectly prompted God to send
Jesus Christ, our eldest brother, to suffer for their sins;
world rejected the his gospel and church fell away from
truth shortly after his ascension, his church was
“restored” in 1830; full salvation is achieved through faith,
repentance, obedience to God, baptism, receipt of the
Holy Ghost; all spirit children will return to God (‘Heavenly
Father’) at judgment with varying degrees of
reward/punishment. Zion is the New Jerusalem, a future
place in America (Independence, MO), where Christ will
return and rule in person as the former tribes of Israel
reunite; prophets and apostles still hear from God within
the context of the LDS leadership (President); very slow
small minority trend today is towards inclusivism and
even universal salvation; less dogmatic on sacred text
than before.
Most controversial historically: polygamy (officially
discontinued in 1890); baptism of the dead; limiting
priesthood to white men only (ended in 1978)
Most appealing to non-Mormons – sealing of
families/marriages ‘for time and eternity’ or the physical
reuniting/reconstitution of families together in the afterlife
as now.
D. Political History – Mormons were treated with suspicion
by many Americans. Their communalism, separatism
(People’s Political Party), alleged heresy, bloc voting,
support for polygamy and consequent growth, and early
provocative political-militant language by Prophets (also
Mountain Meadows Massacre) led many to take a extreme
political action against them (Sup Ct actually upheld a law
legally dissolving the organization). Assimilative actions by
the church (abandon polygamy, dissolve Party, encourage
traditional political behavior including two-party state etc.)
resulted in recognition of Utah as a state in 1896.
E. Mormons and Politics today – extremely politically cohesive religious
group (85% vote GOP; more supportive of GOP than evangelicals;
second only to blacks as the most loyal partisan coalition); dominate
business, news media, and politics in Utah where 80% state
legislators are Mormon; claim 16 congressional seats plus other key
political figures like Sen Orrin Hatch, Senate majority leader Harry
Ried, 2008 GOP primary contender Mitt Romney. “Strict church” (i.e.,
highly active religious life 0 tithing, hours per week in church
meetings, volunteerism, large families, dietary restrictions, extensive
church regulation/discipline – ‘temple permits’ and excommunication
are significant carrots and sticks; these coupled with necessary
obedience to the head of the LDS church (President) produces great
cohesion, political cohesion too, and potential for member
mobilization on anything (from natural disasters to referenda – like
gay marriage votes). Wilson calls this “dry-kindling” capacity unlike
other groups (evangelicals and Catholics). BUT LDS leaders rarely
use it (kind of a reserved right). LDS tend to be culturally
conservative on cultural issues (more conservative on gender roles,
abortion, gay marriage than evangelicals), but a bit less than
evangelicals on ‘non-morality’ issues). Though members are heavily
GOP in behavior, the church is FAR LESS explicitly political or attached
to political entities like parties (unlike the Christian Right and
evangelicals and Catholics in general, who hear more political
messages at church than Mormons). Recently, the LDS church voted
to support anti-discrimination policies in Utah protecting gays.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=27
96070n&tag=related;photovideo
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=37
84251n&tag=related;photovideo
Case in point – 2000 primary election, LDS Church leaders decided to
make two announcements to their members concerning the
initiative to ban gay marriage or Prop 22 (1. letter explaining LDS
position; 2. letter encouraging Mormons to become active with
time and money). Results, tremendous immediate mobilized and
organized anti-gay marriage movement in CA.
F.
Constraints on Mormon political influence – same as before
regarding theology (seen as a ‘cult’ by many Christians); plus they
are geographically constrained. Will evangelicals support Romney?
G.
Political irony between LDS and Evangelicals/Catholics – the LDS is
rigidly hierarchical in church government like Catholics (Pope –
Prophet; Teaching Magisterium – General Authorities; Dioceses –
Stakes; Churches – Wards). The RC is less politically neutral (at
the top) as well. BUT, the RC does not create the political
grassroots activity and consistent cohesion that the LDS church
does (probably due to lack of voluntarism, strict church, and church
activity which gives rise to political activism among RC). On the
other hand, the Christian Right and evangelical leaders expend
great efforts to mobilize voters, but it is far less able to do so (in as
dependable, sustained, reliable, cohesive manner) as LDS leaders
do because it lacks the single centralized authority structure (there
is not evangelical ‘church’). (Story of LDS pres Sith speaking with
Truman about getting food/supplies on the ground in post-WWII
Europe. Truly an unmatched Relief Society – doctrine to store up
one year’s worth of food for end times.)
American Muslims and Islam
I. American Muslims – (1% roughly; 3 million people; rapidly outpacing
Jews in number; 1,500 mosques up from 1 in 1930; nearly all 1st
or 2nd generation immigrants with 65% foreign born)
A.
Very diverse (American Islam is second only to Mecca in
diversity). Of Muslim immigrants, 24% come from Arab region,
26% come from Pakistan, Iran, and other South Asia, rest come
from throughout the world). Of native-born (35% of total Muslim
pop), 20% are African-American and 15% are other; also of
Native-born, 21% are converts compared to 14% born Muslim.
B.
Demographics and attitudes – middle class (socioeconomically)
and mainstream. Here we see the difference in American
Muslims compared to those around the world (sometimes a
distinction is drawn between ‘Islamists’ and ‘Muslims’). A much
higher percent of Muslims here give responses closer to the
mainstream opinion of other Americans compared to Muslims in
Europe and Middle-East (they are wealthier, only a minority think
of themselves as “Muslims first,” larger majorities consider life to
be good here for women, and larger shares, though a bare
majority, are concerned about and condemning of Islamic
extremism.” Only 1% American Muslims say suicide bombings
against civilians are justified for sake of Islam, higher
percentages say they are justified in Europe. Very little favor of
Al Qaeda (5%) compared to European Muslims.
C.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Political views:
9/11 impact: 53% Muslims say life is harder since 9/11,
though only 25% report discrimination.
War on Terror: There is strong opposition to the War in Iraq,
half disagree with war in Afghanistan, and over half do not
consider the War on Terror a ‘sincere effort’ among Muslims
compared to the general population (split on Iraq, strong
majorities on Afghan and Terror wars).
Though 47% of American Muslims say they are Muslim first
before American, 60% of young Muslims say so (42% of
Christians say they are Christian first). Of high commitment
Muslims, 70% say Muslim first (59% for Christian
counterparts).
Only 11% favor the GOP compared to 51% favoring the Dems
(71% voted for Kerry, but 89% voting for Obama).
About as many (49%) of American Muslims want Mosques to
stay apolitical compared to 43% who say they should not (for
Christians, this number is almost exactly flipped).
Interestingly, by a large margin more foreign and native born
Muslims than African-American Muslims say that immigrant
Muslims should try to assimilate (47% of AAs say don’t).
Islam (brief history and beliefs)
History – Mohammed, the central figure in Islam, lived in the late
6th and early 7th century in and near Mecca; claimed to have
received revelation from Allah (via the angel Gabriel) throughout
his life; his sermons and teachings are set down in the Quran
(Islamic sacred text); won enough converts through preaching
and conquest of nearby cities to eventually make all the Arabian
peninsula Islamic
B.
Theology – One God; many prophets (Noah, Abraham, Moses,
Jesus and Mohammed); God created angels (some good some
evil); The Qur’an is the final revelation of God (the Hadith is
another holy book but of lesser authority); Judgment is coming
(heaven and hell) and is based on unquestioned obedience to
Allah and his prophet Mohammed. To be a Muslim (or remain
so), one must confess “There is no God but Allah, and
Muhammad is his messenger”; pray five times a day; fast through
the ninth lunar month of Ramadan; give alms to the needy (1/40
of income); Make trip to Mecca in one’s lifetime. Some include a
6th “pillar” of Jihad (various interpretations)
C.
Two broad divisions: Shi’ite (Shia) and Sunni are divided originally
over who the appropriate successor to Mohammed is.
1. Shia believe that the leader of Islam (Imam) should be appointed by
God through each descendent of Mohammed (first was Ali, a
cousin and then son-in-law of Mohammed).
II.
A.
Iran (90%) as well as Hezbollah (a militant hardcore Islamic
party/paramilitary group in Lebanon calling for the
extermination of Israel); 2003 Iraqi elections/constitution
favored by Shia.
2.
Sunni, larger of the two, recognize the first four Caliphs and
the means of selecting them as appropriate (election). Sunni
are a slight minority but was most dominate force in Iraq
(Hussein was Sunni); Al Queda is Sunni too; Taliban & most
of Afghanistan are Sunni (80%).
C. Islam in American Society/Politics – 40% Black Muslim (historically
separatist); 25% South Asian (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh);
12% Arab
1.
Fear among many in the West (much less so here) is that Muslims
will engage politics with the purpose of enacting/enforcing Sharia
Law or a Caliphate (Islamic law regulating everything from
religious practice to crime control to foreign affairs to daily dress).
Clearly advocated by sizable Islamic groups in Europe, but not as
much here. Kenneth Wald notes the difference in America between
‘Muslims’ and ‘Islamists’ (Islamists are the minority favoring
immediate enforcement of Sharia law).
2. Key political groups – Islamic Society of North America – concerned
with civil liberties protections for Muslims, especially after 9/11.
3. 9/11 and its aftermath has caused many Muslims to unite in order to
refute and fight against mischaracterizations of American Muslims.
3. Conservative on Social Affairs, but liberal on welfare state – since
they are typically socially conservative, many thought that Muslims
may become an ally of the GOP (majority voted for Bush in 2000).
But 9/11 and the War on Terror changed all that (90% backed
Obama in 2008)
4.
Prospects for an effective Muslim political movement are
ambiguous. Must deal with ethnic differences brought from abroad;
modernity or secular appeal of modernity in America as well as
the distinct Black Muslim movement in America; relations to Jews,
view of women, etc. May have been united around the War, but
no clear common political agenda outside it.
III.
Nation of Islam: Rise and Decline
A.
Islam in America has been around as long as there have been
slaves in America (15-20% of African slaves were probably
Muslim). Most of these converted to something else (for many
reasons).
B.
Resurgence in the 20th century: The Honorable Elijah Muhammed
and the Nation of Islam (1930s).
1.
Set up as a separatist alternative to Christianity (“white man’s
religion”), which was blamed as a tool for white racism.
2.
Nationalistic, typically calling for a separate society for black
people where the principles of Islam would govern.
3.
Rose in influence during the Black Nationalist, Black Power,
movements in the 1960s and featured Malcolm X.
4.
Controversy put the movement on the back burner when internal
corruption charges surfaced concerning Elijah Muhammed, and
when Malcolm X returned from a pilgrim trip to Mecca and argued
that the Nation of Islam was a departure from orthodox Islam,
especially concerning racial separatism.
5. When Elijah Muhammed died, N of I split into two factions
(most following his son who was more mainstream and less
separatist – called American Society of Muslims). But another
group/person has been the most visible/vocal face of the
Nation of Islam.
6. Louis Farrakhan – continued the nationalistic and separatist
vision of Muhammed. Appeals to urban males; calls a separate
community with alternative values; in his public speeches, often
uses traditional Christian phrases or stories, children’s songs,
Bible passages, sayings of Jesus, to illustrate his points and
connect with Black protestants.
7. Distinct doctrines – God manifested himself in human form to a
black Muslim in the 1930s; E. Muhammed was another prophet
of Allah; from the original black man, all races were created;
several thousand years ago, Yakub (mad scientist) developed
an experiment ultimately created a ‘race of devils’ (whites and
Jews); whites are not worthy of evangelism and are not
permitted as members to the NOI.
Secularists, AntiFundamentalists, The New Atheists
I.
Seculars – as there are different types of worldviews among
theists, there are different kinds of worldviews among
secularists as well…but generally…
A.
Basic beliefs
1.
Ultimate reality – all we “know” is that the material world
exists, so we must function as such.
2.
Truth – combination of science or reason and personal
judgment gives us our sense of truth; typically some form of
evidentialism (faith is belief in the absence of evidence OR no
one should believe anything without empircal evidence).
3.
Ethics – Self-referential or subjectively determined; morality is
relative to person, time, place, culture
4.
Destiny – either a meaningless future of non-existence
(nihilism) or a triumphant age of human progress/victory over
war, disease, poverty (humanism).
5.
Man’s basic problem – cultural institutions that impede the
progress/freedom of the individual (could be capitalism,
marriage, social norms, government, but certainly religion).
John Lennon - Imagine
B. Defined perhaps more by what they are not (Read Reich p. 19 in
Hunter Baker’s book)
Historical origins – fullest articulation came during
the secular Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries)
and late 19th Darwinian philosophies about how the
world works.
D.
Profile of American seculars – 14% of pop, up from
10 50 years ago, though number of “unaffiliated”
has doubled from 8 to 16% today; 48% of seculars
under 35; a bit more with college education (15%);
income same as other groups, except above $150k)
II.
Rise of the Secular Left or Antifundamentalists in
American politics
A. History – culturally, there has been an public
outspoken anti-fundamentalist sentiment going
back to the early 1900s when secular Darwinian
thinkers gained control of cultural institutions, like
newspapers and popularized an image of a
Christian fundamentalist as half-wits, ignoramuses,
menaces to Western civilization, backwoods, trash.
C.
Some social scientists also began to publicize the view that
fundamentalists were threats to democratic society.
B.
Before 1980s, despite these strong views and conflicts in the
culture, fundamentalist and antifundamentalist views &
disagreements WERE NOT yet contextualized in politically
meaningful ways (i.e., no partisan animus; similar to what
was happening in the Christian church prior to the 1970s). It
would take a religious realignment (rise of Christian Right)
before “a negative cultural referent became a full-blown political
referent to secularists and other anti-fundamentalists). Until
then, both parties were dominated by those accepting a basic
Judeo-Christian ethic regarding authority, sexuality, and the
family.
III. Culture War between the Parties?
A.
Growing Secular prominence in the Democratic Party – 1992
first time white delegates to Dem convention twice as likely to
identify as irreligious as GOP counterparts.
B.
1992 convention, GOP delegates reserved their “coolest”
attitudes towards feminists, environmentalists, and pro-choicers
(over unionists, liberals, Democratis, blacks, Hispanics, etc.). By
contrast, Dems reserved their coolest attitudes towards one
group, Christian fundamentalists (more than half Dem delegates
gave them a 0 out of hundred).
Culture War in the Electorate?
A.
Electorate divided into three groups: Traditionalists (19), Seculars
(12%), and religious moderates (69%).
1.
Traditional – regular prayer/church attendance, accepted Bible as divine
and authoritative, religion = important guide for them.
2.
Secular – no scriptural authority, no prayer/church attendance, no
religious guidance in life, no affiliation.
Survey data shows the following profile of Seculars: morality = relativistic,
more than half self-identify as liberal, just as powerful a determinant of
attitudes on social issues as religion is for traditionalists, far less willing
to stress the importance of traditional family forms, sexual mores, and
far more pro-choice; far more hostile to acceptance of public role for
religion in public square, antipathy towards Catholic Church and
especially evangelicals or fundamentalists.
Key point: Just as evangelicals have grown in prominence among Republicans
(both among voters and in the party itself; much is made of this); the
same is true concerning seculars and anti-fundamentalists among Dems.
In fact, antagonism towards Christian fundamentalists is a strong
predictor of vote choice in every election cycle since 1992. For instance,
43% of Kerry’s white voters came from anti-fundamentalists while 2/3s
of Bush’s voters came from those expressing positive views of both the
Catholic Church and Christian fundamentalists.
IV.