1. Religion in America: Putnam & Campbell Religion & Politics, ctd. (Sociology 156)

2. Overt politicking relatively rare in church This may be due to ease of exit and unpopularity of overt politics in church, of which – 75% evangelicals – 80% Catholics – 85% mainline Protestants – 76% Black Protestants – 77% Jews disapprove. Overt politics more likely in liberal congregations – Only a small fraction of the population Self-reporting – What counts as politics? (421-422) – Does poverty? The environment? Homosexuality? 2

3. – 12.1 3

4. Despite relative rarity of politics, the ideological consensus, preexisting organization, and tight social networks of a church means that they can mobilize rapidly and effectively Example: Mormon church and Prop 8 But despite the tight social networks, even informal political activity is relatively rare at church 4

5. 12.3 5

6. Echo Chambers Religion-based social networks are an important influence on members’ politics – “Religiosity has a stronger connection to partisanship among people who have a high degree of religious socializing.” – Reinforce and harden political beliefs When political circumstances render particular beliefs salient (abortion, birth control, homosexuality, etc.) the churchgoing individual is embedded in a relatively homogenous social network which will highlight their salience – The denser the network, the more powerful this effect – “The most heavily Republican portion of the churchgoing population is people who rely on religion when making political decisions and are embedded in a dense social network, not the people who hear the most politics in church.” – Not necessarily conservative: Black Protestants exist in Democratic echo chamber (435-441) 6

7. – 12.4 7

8. Civic Engagement – 13.1 8

9. – 13.2 9

10. Comparing two people with identical community engagement, the one with the more frequent church attendance is more likely to give to & volunteer for both religious and secular causes Generosity shows some variation across traditions, but not much The issue is how much religion, not what religion – Further, religious Americans are more likely to – Belong to community organizations – Engage in community problem solving – Be active in civic and political life – Agitate for local social and political reform Across traditions, truer for Black Protestants, mainline Protestants, and Catholic than evangelicals (444-456) 10

11. » 13.3 11

12. This pattern holds true across the political spectrum – Religious liberals never less generous than religious conservatives, volunteer more often It is the level of religiosity that matters more than the political ideology Further, religious Americans more likely to condemn all violations of conventional morality (458-460) 12

13. 13.4 13

14. Ethical positions are uncorrelated with theological beliefs Salvation by faith or action, existence of hell, etc. It is level of enmeshment in a religious social network that produces these effects Only aspect of community-connectedness correlated with theology is trust Religious people more trusting than secular people, but fundamentalist beliefs are negatively correlated with trust – Belief in a more loving than judging God also correlated w/trust (463-470) 14

15. – 13.6 15

16. Americans tend toward tolerance – 13.4 16

17. – 13.9 17

18. – 13.10 18

19. – 13.11 19

20. – 13.13, note polarization 20

21. Increasing tolerance appears to be driven by generational succession Secular Americans more tolerant of all points of view Secular Americans also more robust defenders of civil rights Religious Americans more inclined to respect authority and tend to be more ready to shun dissent (479-489) – Given what we know from Durkheim re: strongly coherent societies, this makes sense when combined with higher levels of civic activity among the religious 21

22. These generalizations hold when gender, education, income, race, region, homeownership, length of residence, marital and parental status, ideology and age are controlled for – While it is plausible that there is a causal relationship, remember: Correlation ≠ Causation! 22