Evangelicals and Political Tolerance

Abstract

The article explores four possible explanations for the lower levels of political tolerance of evangelical Christians. First, these differences could be spurious, due to demographic differences. Second, evangelicals may be less tolerant of atheists, homosexuals, and communists, but more tolerant of groups on the other side of the political spectrum, suggesting a group effect. Third, evangelical intolerance may be the result of higher levels of religiosity. Finally, the religious doctrine of evangelicals may produce greater levels of intolerance. Using data from a national survey on tolerance and from the General Social Survey, the article concludes that demographic variables and religiosity are partial explanations for the greater intolerance of evangelicals. Group affect seems to play no role: evangelicals are less tolerant of communists, atheists, racists, and militarists. Finally, religious doctrine plays a major role in explaining evangelical intolerance.

Rethinking the Relationship between Religion and Political Tolerance in the US

“…Second, higher levels of doctrinal orthodoxy/orthodox beliefs (what Sullivan et al, 1982, called fundamentalism) may lead to increased intolerance. Both of these hypotheses are well supported by a bevy of past research (Beatty & Walter, 1984;Nunn et al, 1978;Smidt & Penning, 1982;Stouffer, [1955Stouffer, [ ] 1992Sullivan et al, 1982;Wilcox & Jelen, 1990) and these are the findings that one should expect. The third hypothesis is the possibility that the relationship between religion and political tolerance is spurious.…”

“…2 Religion is conceptualized as having three distinct, yet interrelated dimensions: religious belief, religious belonging, and religious behavior (Carwardine, 1993;Jelen, 1991;Kellstedt, 1993;Kellstedt, Green, Guth, & Smidt, 1996;Layman & Green, 1998;Wuthnow, 1988). example, Beatty & Walter, 1984;Corbett, 1982;Erskine & Siegal, 1975;Filsinger, 1976;Nunn et al, 1978;Smidt & Penning, 1982;Sullivan et al, 1982;Wilcox & Jelen, 1990). So why bother to reinvestigate what looks like an ''open and shut'' case?…”

“…Of particular interest and focus, e.g., the two most important questions that are the focus of re-examination here are the effects of religious commitment and doctrinal orthodoxy on political tolerance. Previous research (Beatty & Walter, 1984;Nunn et al, 1978;Smidt & Penning, 1982;Stouffer, [1955Stouffer, [ ] 1992Wilcox & Jelen, 1990) suggests religious commitment directly influences political tolerance so that as commitment increases political tolerance decreases; it also suggests that as doctrinal orthodoxy increases so does political intolerance (Wilcox & Jelen, 1990).…”

“…According to Wilcox and Jelen (1990), fundamentalism (what is referenced here as doctrinal orthodoxy) leads to increased levels of perceived threat. Also, in the words of Layman and Green (1998, p. 2), ''Believing is the central motivation for religious belonging and behaving, and is made up of cognitions about the nature of the divine and humankind's relationship to it (Leege & Kellstedt, 1993).''…”

“…Many of them (for various reasons, such as use of secondary data analysis) could not employ the content-controlled tolerance measure developed by Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus (e.g., Beatty & Walter, 1984;Filsinger, 1976;Smidt & Penning, 1982;Wilcox & Jelen, 1990). 8 In addition, many of the political tolerance studies (e.g., Beatty & Walter, 1984;Cutler & Kaufman, 1975;Davis, 1975;Filsinger, 1976;Smidt & Penning, 1982;Wilcox & Jelen, 1990)-did not incorporate two of the most important predictors of political tolerance, threat perception and support for norms of democracy (Marcus et al, 1995;Sullivan et al, 1982); 9 neither did they control for a secure personality, 10 which also was found to be an important psychological predictor of political tolerance (Davis, 1995;Marcus et al 1995;Peffley et al 2001;Sullivan et al 1982).…”