Although American society is religiously pluralistic, not all religious groups enjoy equal levels of public approval and support. Indeed, America has a history of viewing members of nontraditional religious groups with considerable distrust and suspicion. Two religious groups in particular — Muslims and Mormons — have come under fire in recent years, though not necessarily for the same reasons. Muslims and Mormons have frequently been viewed as outside the mainstream of American culture and, perhaps for that reason, have suffered from discrimination, threats, and violence. This article examines Americans' views of these two important and rapidly growing groups, using social identity theory as the primary vehicle of analysis. The theory proves useful in helping us explain variance in Americans' views of these two groups. While a variety of social, political and religious variables help to explain Americans' views of Muslims and Mormons, religious variables have the greatest impact.
This article focuses on the political participation of ministers from five evangelical Protestant denominations that differ in theology, polity, and history. Despite such differences, these clergy respond to political influences in much the same fashion. We find that the standard theories of political participation have varying success in accounting for their political involvement. Sociodemographic explanations provide little help, but psychological engagement with politics has more explanatory power. Professional role orientations are the best predictors of actual participation. And the clergy who see moral reform issues as the most important confronting the country—and who hold conservative views on such issues—are most likely to become engaged. Finally, membership in Christian Right organizations serves to elicit more activity than might occur if ministers were left to internally motivated participation. Despite the emphasis on other contextual variables in some work on clerical politics, we find that communications exposures, congregational influences, and even the support of clerical colleagues have very limited independent effects on political involvement.
This research note examines the hypothesis that the impact of state legislative term limits on legislators' career planning varies by political context. A comparison of the career planning of legislative candidates from Michigan, a state with relatively restrictive term limits and a high degree of legislative professionalism, with candidates from Oklahoma, a state with less restrictive term limits and somewhat less professionalism, support this view. In addition, the data reveal substantial differences between supporters and opponents of term limits with respect to institutional loyalty and zdesiredcareer patterns.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.