Political Religion and Church-State Issues

In this paper we examine public attitudes on the role of religion in the American political process, as well as some public policy implications of those attitudes. Although the current American legal regime may lean toward strict separationism, the political system has seen renewed religious activism over the past three decades. Historically, religious involvement in American politics has been quite common, but it has assumed new forms in recent years, as some religious groups have sought more accommodating relations between church and state. Thus, the sources of public support for religious activism are especially important for understanding the future for church-state issues, both those based on the First Amendment’s religion clauses and other policy questions touching religious values. To explain public attitudes on religious activism, we first review and evaluate two theories that underlie many interpretations of religion’s role in American politics, namely, the ethnoreligious and the religious restructuring perspectives. We argue that both perspectives may help us identify support for religious politics; we then use a hybrid classification to examine public reaction to religious politics in 2004. Next, we examine in depth the religious, political and demographic factors influencing Americans’ views on religion in politics. Finally, we consider the substantive implications of these findings for the future of church-state questions and for other religiously related constitutional issues. The 2004 presidential election provided an excellent window into religion’s role in contemporary American politics. Indeed, religion infused almost every part of the campaign. As one analysis put it, President Bush “showed himself willing to use religion forcefully to sharpen partisan divisions and highlight his own qualities as a leader,” while Kerry and the Democrats “faced obstacles in using religious rhetoric, in appealing to religion to underscore his qualities as a leader, and in benefiting from the political organization of religious groups.” Religion, this analysis concluded, “was at the heart of the campaign” (Muirhead et al. 2005, 222). Political scientists today are in a better position than ever to gauge the validity of that assertion. In recent years they have made important strides in understanding religion’s influence over political attitudes and behavior, both in the mass public and among activists. Indeed, religious variables routinely appear in the best analyses of voting (Miller and Shanks 1996), citizen activism (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995), and party politics (Layman 2001). And after the 2004 campaign a rich literature quickly emerged assessing religion’s influence on the results (Guth et al. 2006; Green, Wilcox and Rozell, 2006; Campbell, 2007). What has seldom been explored, however, is Americans’ basic orientation toward religious activity in political life. To what extent do citizens support the activity of religious groups, leaders and believers in the political world? What difference does it make to the policy environment, especially on church-state concerns? This paper begins to address those questions. Religious Politics: Two Perspectives Anyone perusing the burgeoning literature on religious politics is likely to be confused by many different classifications used by analysts. We think a scheme which taps best all the vital facets of religious faith will provide the most insight. To construct such a classification we must consider two competing views: the ethnoreligious perspective, stressing religious affiliation as the key to understanding, and the religious restructuring perspective, emphasizing changing patterns of belief and behavior. 1. The Ethnoreligious Perspective: The Centrality of Religious Traditions Pollsters and pundits have long relied implicitly on an ethnoreligious interpretation of American politics. As developed by historians, this theory identifies the key religious groups as the historic denominations born in Europe and later multiplying on America’s shores. Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists and a myriad other Protestants combined distinct religious worldviews with other cultural attributes, such as ethnicity, race or regional location. Protestants were soon joined by other traditions, including Catholics, Jews, Eastern Orthodox and other religious “minorities.” All these groups developed their own political cultures—often in conflict with neighboring religious groups—cultures fostered by religious leaders, houses of worship, and ethnic neighborhoods. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century, American party politics involved competing alliances of ethnoreligious groups (Jensen 1971; Kleppner 1979). The historical pattern was simple in outline—but complex in practice. In the North, the Whigs, and later the Republicans, wooed “pietist” or “evangelical” Protestants, while Democrats mobilized “liturgical” or “ritualistic” Catholics, Lutherans, Jews and Orthodox Christians, along with free-thinkers and some dissident Protestants. Republican and Democratic religious groups differed in moral worldviews, lifestyles and attitudes about the proper role of government. The Whig/Republican coalition was especially prone to favor a strong role for government in promoting public and private morality, while the diverse Democratic constituencies preferred neutral government and “personal liberty.” Campaigns sought to maximize the vote among a 1 We prefer “ethnoreligious” in preference to the “ethnocultural” label used by most historians (McCormick 1974) to keep our focus on the religious aspect of this interpretation of American electoral politics.