Recent debates in political theory have seen political liberals advocate and defend a doctrine of restraint, according to which citizens may not rely solely on religious reasons when supporting their favored public policies. This debate notwithstanding, very rarely have social scientists assessed the extent to which citizens actually violate this doctrine. This article evaluates the “political decision-making” model of political liberalism. Data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults are used to test this model for legalization of same-sex marriage. Our analyses show that while only a very small percentage of U.S. support this policy solely on the basis of their religious convictions, roughly a quarter oppose it for religious reasons alone. Furthermore, we find that higher levels of religious service attendance and importance of religious faith as well as affiliation with evangelical and black Protestantism significantly increase the likelihood of same-sex marriage opposition entirely on religious grounds.

Islam has emerged as the focus of immigration and diversity debates in Europe, especially in relation to the incorporation of Islam within political democracy. Using the least-liked group approach, the present study investigates political tolerance among Sunni and Alevi Muslims of Turkish origin living in Germany and the Netherlands. A relatively low level of political tolerance was found with higher intolerance of Alevis compared to Sunnis which was due to Alevis' strong rejection of religious fundamentalists. For both Muslim subgroups and in both countries, stronger religious group identification was associated with higher tolerance. Political tolerance was also found to be lower in Germany than in the Netherlands and in the latter country tolerance was positively associated with host national identification. The findings show that Islamic belief, Muslim group identification and the host national context are important for political tolerance.

This research focuses on the variable “psychological security” as a mediating influence for religion, and its influence on political tolerance. While the composite variable of "psychological security" (typically measured by dogmatism, self-esteem, and trust) has been part of many studies of political tolerance, insufficient attention has been paid to the influence of these separate indicators. This is problematic because certain religious beliefs, practices, and/or affiliations may contribute differentially to the particular components of psychological security that are linked with greater political intolerance. So, we do not know “if” and “how” religion may influence these separate psychological security components or the mediating influence of these components in the religionpsychological security-political tolerance connection. The objective of this project is to “unpack” the unique influence of the psychological security components in our understanding of political tolerance and to assess the mediating influence of these same components on the relationship between religion and tolerance.

What is the appropriate place for religious argument in the public realm of a liberal-democratic polity? The primary competing positions have been a “liberal” account and a “revisionist” response arguing for a greater role for religious argument in liberal democracy than the liberal position is ordinarily understood to allow. Liberals and their revisionist critics disagree about whether restraints on religious arguments and justifications are justified and desirable. Jürgen Habermas has intervened in this debate with a provocative account of the place of religion in the public sphere. Habermas presents his account as an alternative to both the liberal and the revisionist perspectives, and purports to do justice to the legitimate claims of each without falling prey to the failings of either. This article critically analyzes Habermas's interesting proposal and argues that it does not succeed.

In recent decades, Evangelical churches in the United States have expanded their outreach to Latino immigrants, seeking to incorporate these new Americans into their churches. We investigate the implications of this movement by examining the impact of church affiliation on Latino immigrants’ conceptions of what it means to be “fully American.” Relying on the 2006 Latino National Survey, we find that church affiliation significantly impacts immigrants’ beliefs about what it means to “be American” in the eyes of other Americans and the likelihood of identifying themselves as “American.” Specifically, Protestant Latinos (be they mainline or Evangelical) are more likely than Catholic Latinos (the majority of Latinos) to identify as American and to believe that Americans think being a Christian is a defining feature of American identity. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings.

Scholars contend that correctly applying religious cues is crucial to winning political elections. This article examines the effect of general religious cues by conducting an experiment on a national sample (N = 520). Through the use of a fictitious congressional candidate's webpage, we examine how subtle and overt religious cues interact with citizen religiosity to affect political evaluations. The findings demonstrate that politicians who use overt religious cues run the risk of alienating a large portion of potential voters. Religious cues do, however, appear to become more effective as citizens become more religious. We also find some evidence that overt religious cues are more polarizing than subtle religious cues. This article provides a foundation from which to more thoroughly consider how general religious cues can affect political outcomes and how these cues may interact with other factors.

The Christian Right is a long-standing social movement with a reputation for mobilization and activism at all levels of American politics. The Christian Progressive movement is a manifestation of religiously motivated political activity largely opposed to the policy goals of the Christian Right. Some have questioned, however, whether Christian Progressives have the internal cohesion to mobilize voters, activists, and movement organizations toward their policy goals. In this article, I update an existing measure of Christian Right influence and introduce a parallel measure for Christian Progressives. Analyses of these indices show that the Christian Progressive movement is visible and active in many states, though not the engine of influence that the Christian Right remains.

This article combines the research strands of moral politics and political behavior by focusing on the effect of individual and contextual religiosity on individual vote decisions in popular initiatives and public referenda concerning morally charged issues. We rely on a total of 13 surveys with 1,000 respondents each conducted after every referendum on moral policies in Switzerland between 1992 and 2012. Results based on cross-classified multilevel models show that religious behaving instead of nominal religious belonging plays a crucial role in decision making on moral issues. This supports the idea that the traditional confessional cleavage is replaced by a new religious cleavage that divides the religious from the secular. This newer cleavage is characterized by party alignments that extend from electoral to direct democratic voting behavior. Overall, our study lends support to previous findings drawn from American research on moral politics, direct democracies, and the public role of religion.