What impact do cues from religious elites have on followers, particularly when religious communities are internally divided? Could religious elites promote internal consensus, or would their cues stoke further internal polarization? This article utilizes the release of Pope Francis's encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si', to explore these questions. A unique survey experiment, conducted on a nationally representative sample of Catholic voters in the United States in late 2015, tests the impact of Francis' message relative to a similar message from unidentified environmental elites. In keeping with other studies of Laudato's impact in the United States, findings reveal real, but nuanced, effects from Francis' environmental cue. The Francis cue did impact conservatives and high religiosity Catholics, but these effects were not distinct from those on other Catholics in the sample, suggesting limitations in promoting consensus. Instead, responses to a Francis cue varied sharply depending on pre-existing views of Francis' leadership.

To what extent is it possible for American Jews to maintain a deep emotional connection to Israel while criticizing the actions of the Israeli government? This long-debated question echoes earlier investigations of different forms of patriotism toward one's home country. Drawing on two 2019 surveys of American Jews, we find that, like Americans in general, Jewish liberals and conservatives express different forms of patriotism toward both Israel and America. Jewish conservatives tend to oppose criticism of Israel and America for any reason, while Jewish liberals view criticism as an important part of “caring” about both countries. Both forms of patriotism are positively associated with stronger emotional connections to the relevant country. These results suggest that emotional connection to Israel represents a form of social identification with Israel and that lower levels of connection to Israel among some American Jews are driven more by apathy than active criticism or hostility.

The paper explores the relation between religion and populism in Israel. Jewish identity has been an important marker of citizenship and belonging in Israel since its inception. The founders of the Zionist movement and the dominant elites of early statehood remained dependent upon Jewish religion to demarcate national boundaries and legitimate territorial claims. With the establishment of the state, Jewish identity helped create and legitimate a segmented citizenship regime that secured privilege for Jews. Gradually, and especially in the past two decades, Jewishness became more contested, demarcating not only Jews from non-Jews but also “authentic” Jews from allegedly “cosmopolitan elites,” thus becoming part of populist politics, central to Israeli politics. The complex relation between religion and populism in Israel is demonstrated by the development of two populist parties; an “inclusive” one (Shas) and an “exclusionary” one (Likud). The study of the two parties shows the role of religious identities, tropes, and symbols in boundary-making and political strategies. In Israel, religion functions both as the positive content of the political community (the ethnos––the Jewish people—is conflated with the demos) and the demands for inclusion; and as the marker of a threat (non-Jewish citizens, asylum seekers, and allegedly disloyal secular elites).

This study delves into how non-Shi‘a Lebanese assess Hezbollah and its activities. Having provided empirical evidence that Hezbollah has garnered positive perception in Lebanon, it asks what explains a substantial increase or decrease in favorable attitudes toward Hezbollah among Christians, Sunnis, and Druze? It argues that those who perceive Hezbollah as a resistance organization, as it often describes itself; the political alliance across sectarian groups; as well as insecurity caused by armed groups such as Sunni militant groups and ISIS, all combine to moderate people's views toward Hezbollah. Using an original, nationally representative face-to-face survey in Lebanon in 2015 and employing a multivariate statistical method, it finds that those who hold unfavorable views of the United States, those who support the political alliance of which Hezbollah is part, and those who support the Assad regime in Syria are likely to have a positive perception of Hezbollah and or its activities in the region.

Following two decades of a state-supported patriotic campaign, the Russian Orthodox Church has dramatically increased its presence in the public sphere: in the Armed Forces, in public schools and universities, and even in retirement houses and prisons. The Church's recent activities seem to have no territorial limits: they reach up to the space station “Mir” and the Russian Antarctic Station, as well as the (Russian) Orthodox believers in 62 states. Using a critical discourse analysis of the speeches of top Church leaders as our main methodological tool, our research explores the Church's policies on patriotism and patriotic education, its re-interpretation of historical memory, and the role of the Church in Russian politics. We try to show that while the Church's agenda and approach to politics are idiosyncratic, the Church has become a key actor with an increasingly important political role.

Although prior research has explored the demographic characteristics, religious practices, and beliefs of modern Pagans, their political attitudes and actions have yet to be studied in depth. Further, most extant research is based on non-random samples of Pagans which calls into question the generalizability of prior findings. This article examines Pagans' political attitudes and behavior using a representative sample of Pagans in the United States drawn from the 2014 Pew Religious Landscape Study. Descriptive and multivariate analyses show that Pagan religious identity shapes political views and behavior despite the varied and decentralized nature of Paganism. Overall, Pagans are relatively liberal and supportive of issues common across Pagan traditions like the environment and LGBTQ rights. However, Pagans are somewhat less politically engaged than non-Pagans as evidenced by their lower levels of party identity and voter registration.

A persistent concern for democratic theorists is the degree to which religious authority trumps democratic authority. This is often assessed using generic measures of religiosity or religious beliefs ill-suited to the task. Moreover, while religion is linked to dogmatism and authoritarianism, this begs the question how much influence religion has independent of psychological dispositions. We attempt to add to these debates with a new measure of religious authority. We draw on data gathered from three samples—a sample of Christian clergy from 2014, a national sample of 1,000 Americans from Spring 2016, and a national sample of 1,010 Protestants from 2019. We examine the distribution of the religious authority measure and then compare its effects of the measure in the context of authoritarian child-rearing values, deliberative values, and democratic norms. The results indicate religious authority values represent a distinct measurement of how people connect to religion in politically salient ways.

The contemporary Religious Left (RL) in the United States has proven to be somewhat of an enigma, both for academics and for the activists and voters who desire such a movement to thrive. In this paper, I look at one piece of the puzzle: is the RL able to mobilize supporters to political activity? Combining data from both the individual and movement level, this paper tests whether activity at the movement level of the RL can translate into individual supporters' political activity. Using existing data for 2008 and newly collected data on the RL in the 2016 election cycle, I find that the movement was successful in mobilizing constituents in 2008, but not in 2016. This can be linked to the Democrats' effort to engage religious voters in 2008, and its inability to do so in 2016.