Search

Why did some Americans volunteer to provide relief to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack victims, their families, or workers? This paper uses data from the 2002 Religion and Public Activism Survey, a nationally representative sample of adult Americans, which show that 10 percent of Americans volunteered to help victims of the terrorist attacks in some way to address this question. We argue that the act of volunteering in response to September 11 depended on levels of identification with victims of the tragedy. One of the strongest factors was personal identification with victims, which was built through personal networks such as knowing someone who was killed or in danger during the attacks, and through personal feelings of responsibility to help others in need. Identification was also constructed through involvement in social events such as community candlelight vigils that reflected on, framed, and reinforced the significance of the disaster in a communal setting. In addition, identification: with victims was built through a patriotic response to the tragedy, which, we argue, motivated Americans to defend the society with which they were emotionally identified and to see victims as part of the American family to which they were obligated to help in times of need. We argue that emotions matter for disaster relief but that sorrow rather than anger is important for generating identification with victims and thus volunteering for 9/11 relief efforts. These arguments are used to explain gender and political party differences in 9/11 volunteering. Finally, embeddedness in religious congregations promoted volunteering for 9/11 relief efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this last decade of the twentieth century, taxpayers and politicians seem united in their disdain for the system of "public welfare" in the United States. At the same time, the idea of "private charity" is held in high regard; some observers argue that public welfare should he dismantled and replaced with private charity. A simple question leads this paper: How are the moralities of "private charity" discursively formed? Here I examine how the moralities of charity and its clients are produced through the texts of the New York Times "Neediest Cases" charity appeals from 1912 through 1992. I read these campaigns as producing multiple moralities: Charity is formed as a sacred morality of religion, an all but sacred morality of democratic community, an economic morality of individualistic capitalism, and a human morality of compassion. I argue that this multiplicity of moralities gives the idea of charity its political and rhetorical power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The religiosity of scientists is a persistent topic of interest and debate among both popular and academic commentators. Researchers look to this population as a case study for understanding the intellectual tensions between religion and science and the possible secularizing effects of education. There is little systematic study, however, of religious belief and identity among academic scientists at elite institutions, leaving a lacuna of knowledge in this area. This absence of data exists at a time when the intersection between religion and science is reaching heightened public attention. Especially with increased tensions surrounding teaching evolution in the public schools, understanding what kind of resources scientists have (particularly in terms of their own religious beliefs and practices) to transmit science to a broader religiously-motivated public is crucial. Using data from a recent survey of academic scientists at twenty-one elite U.S. research universities, we compare the religious beliefs and practices of natural and social scientists within seven disciplines as well as academic scientists to the general population. We find that field-specific and interdisciplinary differences are not as significant in predicting religiosity as other research suggests. Instead, demographic factors such as age, marital status, and presence of children in the household are the strongest predictors of religious difference among scientists. In particular, religiosity in the home as a child is the most important predictor of present religiosity among this group of scientists. We discuss the relevance these findings have for understanding issues related to current theory and public debate about the intersection between religion and science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]