Search

Scholars assume that religious values, attitudes, and discourses have shaped American politics since the founding era despite official adherence to the principle of church-state separation. Many presidents have used religious symbolism and rhetoric as a political strategy for electoral gain, to influence public policy, and to justify military action. Presidents are also widely viewed as the "high priests" of America's "civil religion" because they perpetuate the widely shared American perception that God has particularly blessed the United States (Bellah 1967). Nevertheless, our knowledge about the nature and role of religious rhetoric is extremely limited at this time. Religion and politics scholars and sociologists of religion alike often assume that religion influences presidential leadership, but their assumption has not been subjected to rigorous empirical testing. Moreover, presidential scholars have ignored the role of religion on the American presidency. Our paper marks the beginning of a major study of the ways in which presidents strategically employ religious rhetoric. We are principally concerned with the question of whether and how the use of religious rhetoric by presidents hasvaried over time. In this paper, we begin the process of analyzing presidential rhetoric by assessing the use of substantive and symbolic religious rhetoric in the public speeches and statements made by Ronald Reagan during his two terms in office, 1981-1989. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars assume that religious values, attitudes, and discourses have shaped American politics since the founding era despite official adherence to the principle of church-state separation. Many presidents have used religious symbolism and rhetoric as a political strategy for electoral gain, to influence public policy, and to justify military action. Presidents are also widely viewed as the "high priests" of America's "civil religion," because they perpetuate the widely shared American perception that God has particularly blessed the United States (Bellah 1967). Nevertheless, our knowledge about the nature and role of religious rhetoric is extremely limited at this time. Religion and politics scholars and sociologists often assume that religion influences presidential leadership, but their assumption has not been subjected to rigorous empirical testing. Moreover, presidency scholars have ignored the role of religion on the American presidency. Our paper marks the beginning of a major study of the ways in which presidents strategically employ religious rhetoric. We are principally concerned with the question of whether and how the use of religious rhetoric by presidents has varied over time. In this paper, we begin the process of analyzing presidential rhetoric by assessing the use of substantive and symbolic religious rhetoric in the public speeches and statements made by Ronald Reagan during his first term in office, 1981-1984. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The important effect of gender on American politics is a well-established feature of contemporary American politics at both the mass and elite levels. However, exactly how gender matters is open to considerable debate. In this paper, we test several hypotheses about how gender affects politics among an increasingly important set of activists: clergy in the major Protestant denominations. We employ data from a major new survey of clergy in twenty-two religious traditions to test our hypotheses. Previous research has found a considerable gender gap in political alignment between female and male clergy, with female clergy being more liberal and Democratic. Women clergy have also been found to be more active in politics than their male counterparts. Can these differences between assigned directly to gender, or are other factors at work? And if gender does have an independent effect on political attitudes and behaviors, by what means is gender connected to politics? We will develop and test a path model of political alignment and political participation among female and male clergy. We will employ four types of variables. (1) We will investigate basic demographic factors, such as education and age, as it may be that differences by gender are products of these other factors. (2) We will consider theological orientations, as it may be that gender differences are attributable to views of biblical authority and similar religious beliefs. (3) We will consider the impact of personal experience: perhaps women differ from men because professional experiences, including minority status within their denominations and gender discrimination. (4) We will consider the institutional context in which clergy work, such as the denomination’s view of women clergy and encouragement by male colleagues. It may be that gender gaps result from the presence or absence of specific opportunities that confront female and male clergy. We expect to find that gender has a small, direct influence on political alignment and participation after controlling for all these factors. However, we expect larger indirect influences through other demographic, theological, personal, and contextual variables. Thus, the analysis will reveal evidence of how gender matters, but also whether gender is likely to be fundamental determinant of political attitudes and actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much has been made of the religious right and its recent influence in American politics. In this paper, I grapple with the question of whether there might be some semblance of a religious left to counter the religious right. Despite the existence of a network of elite-level organizations, the extent to which people at the mass level might identify with a religious left is quite unclear. Using data collected in July 2006 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, I analyze the demographic, religious, and political characteristics of individuals at the mass level who self-identify as progressive Protestants, with the thought that they might be counted as potential allies of a resurgent Protestant left. To what extent do progressive Protestants possess politically relevant resources? What are their personal political priorities? ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]