ORI GIN AL PA PER

Religion, Political Discourse, and Activism AmongVarying Racial/Ethnic Groups in America

R. Khari Brown

Received: 31 December 2010 / Accepted: 23 May 2011 / Published online: 28 July 2011

� Religious Research Association, Inc. 2011

Abstract The current study assesses the roles that political encouragement from

clergy and lay involvement in political discussions play in the political and civic

activism of varying racial/ethnic groups. Congregants are likely to participate in

varying forms of activism when asked by clergy because of the high levels of trust that

Americans have in their clergy and because political appeals are often communicated

in a culturally relevant manner. In addition, participation in political discussions

within houses of worship is likely to increase a sense of political agency and efficacy.

For almost all groups, lay political deliberation is associated with activism. However,

while political encouragement from clergy is associated with Black and Hispanic

activism, it plays a negligible role in motivating Whites and Caribbean Blacks to

action. Ideological symmetry between clergy and congregants may explain the degree

to which political appeals from clergy motivate varying racial/ethnic groups to action.

Keywords Religion � Political activism � Race/ethnicity

Introduction

Over the course of a year, tens of thousands of Americans hear messages within

houses of worship about their obligation as people of faith to take political action

regarding a host of policy issues (Dudley and Roozen 2001; Wuthnow 2000;

Jackson et al. 2004). The co-mingling of religion and politics in the US is an

outgrowth of a religious-civic culture grounded in principles of religious freedom

and guaranteed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (Wald and

Calhoun-Brown 2006). Such freedoms allow for a free expression and interpretation

R. K. Brown (&)

Department of Sociology, Faculty Administration Building, Wayne State University, 656 W. Kirby

St., 2245, Detroit, MI 48202, USA

e-mail: kharib@wayne.edu

123

Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322

DOI 10.1007/s13644-011-0013-6

of religion that contributes to a continuum of perspectives on the role of religion in

public affairs. On one end of this continuum, religion is viewed as maintaining a

distinct separation from public life. On the other end, social issues are viewed

through a prism of moral teachings that calls some to politically act and encourage

others to do the same (Lincoln and Mamiya 1990; Roozen et al. 1984). Americans

tend to be divided on these perspectives as roughly half report being comfortable

with their religious institutions involving themselves in politics (Pew 2008a). The

big question concerning this study is as follows; when congregants are encouraged

to engage in political activism, do they actually participate?

The answer to this question has important implications for activist clergy and

laity, civic and political organizations, and other entities interested in politically

mobilizing large groups of citizens. That roughly 85% of Americans claim

membership in some religious faith and half report attending houses of worship at

least once month speaks to the mobilization potential of such institutions (Pew

2008b). More Americans are members of, volunteer for, and donate money to

religious congregations than any other non-profit (Independent Sector 2001).

Religious institutions are also one of the top three organizations in which Americans

hold a high level of confidence (Saad 2005). Moreover, it is somewhat understand-

able that in the US, religious congregations represent a key political context. The

notion that religious congregations act as political contexts suggests that congre-

gants’ self interest is not the only factor that informs their willingness to take political

action. Rather, identification with the mission of one’s religious congregation as well

as the fellow members with whom congregants interact also shapes political attitudes

and behaviors (Djupe and Gilbert 2009; Guth et al. 1997; Huckfeldt et al. 1993;

Welch et al. 1993; Wald et al. 1988).

That being said, the potential influence of clergy and lay encouragement to

engage in political activism on actual political behavior may partially link to the

social capital resources of trust, reciprocity, and information sharing that exists

within religious congregations. Essentially, social capital refers to the connections

among individuals and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from

them (Coleman 1988; Putnam 2000). These social networks increase awareness of

opportunities that may improve individual and social group well-being. Because

Americans are able to choose their congregations, congregations are often a source

of friendships and social support with people of shared of interests and backgrounds.

Moreover, to the extent that worship-goers are encouraged by their clergy and

fellow congregants to become politically involved, many do so trusting that they are

engaging in acts that are in their best interests as well as that of their religious

community and larger society (Brown and Brown 2003; McDaniel 2008; Putnam

and Campbell 2010; Smith and Harris 2005).

Inducements from fellow congregants to engage in varying political activities

may also be effective because such appeals are often culturally relevant (Harris

1999; Pattillo-McCoy 1998). The cultural toolkit thesis suggests that group

members utilize symbols, stories, beliefs and rituals to gain an understanding of

their social reality (Swidler 1986). Such tools maintain the potential to connect

group members to political causes by serving as a means to interpret and legitimize

political goals. Politically astute clergy and lay activists rationalize the importance

302 Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322

123

of voting, campaigning, demonstrating and other forms of activism by using

common religious stories, analogies, songs, prayers and other cultural symbols that

resonate with the group experiences of their congregation (Harris 1999; Pattillo-

McCoy 1998). The fact that most members are unaware of the political stance of

their house of worship before joining and select congregations for nonpolitical

factors such as proximity, denomination, and a general sense of comfort speaks to

the potential importance of political messages heard within houses of worship to

political behavior (McKenzie 2002; Wald et al. 1988).

Past work on religion and politics has effectively assessed the importance of

clergy on the political behavior of laity. Interest in the impact of clergy on lay

political activism is understandable given the relatively high level of trust that

Americans have in their religious leaders (Saad 2005; Kohut and Rogers 2002).

Furthermore, senior clergy have a captive audience for at least once a week to

discuss their perspective on religious doctrine and its application to pressing issues

of the day. That being said, it is also important to investigate the role that laity may

play in their own political mobilization. Nearly two centuries ago, French

philosopher De Tocqueville (1873) argued that the democratic potential of

American religious congregations lies in the free space it provides citizens to

deliberate in small and informal groups about their roles in protecting and extending

their freedoms and opportunities. Along these lines, a number of qualitative studies

suggest that laity gain political efficacy when they are included in discussions about

issues that should concern their congregations, strategies to mobilize others around

such issues, and organizing meetings with political officials to address their

concerns (Warren 2001; Wood 2002).

The current study attempts to build from previous studies on congregation-based

political encouragement and political activism in two important ways. First, whereas

previous studies have focused almost exclusively on either Whites or Blacks, the

current study relies upon national samples of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and

Afro-Caribbean Americans. Secondly, previous studies tend to use global political

activism constructs that mask potential differences in the relationship between lay

and clergy political messages on protest, campaign, and lobbying behavior. These

studies also tend to exclude non-traditional political measures that assess group

discussions about community concerns. Such discussions are often an initial step to

collectively develop strategies to address such concerns (Owens 2009; Rosenstone

and Hansen 1993). In response, the current study investigates the role that lay

political deliberation and clergy political encouragement plays in the varying

political and civic activities of a racial/ethnically diverse group of Americans. In

doing so, the next three sections provide a review of past work on relationship

exposure to political messages in houses of worship on the political behavior of

native born Blacks, native born Whites, and immigrant populations.

Congregation-Based Political Messages and Black Political Activism

A history of racial discrimination and exclusion from civic and political institutions

led many African Americans to use their churches as spaces to discuss political

Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322 303

123

strategies and ultimately challenge a system of racial oppression (Calhoun-Brown

2003; Lincoln and Mamiya 1990; Morris 1984; Williams 2003). Black churches are

important to African Americans for many reasons; African Americans share a

memory of the activist Black church of the civil rights era and continue to recognize

Black churches as one of few institutions wholly dedicated to the spiritual,

emotional, and social-political betterment of Blacks (Billingsley 1999; Calhoun-

Brown 2003; Lincoln and Mamiya 1990). In addition, the disproportionate number

of Blacks outside of leadership roles in professional occupations and/or within civic

and/or political networks has made churches important spaces for Blacks to build

their civic skills (Verba et al. 1995). Serving in leadership roles on church boards,

organizing events for congregants, presenting announcements at worships services,

and other opportunities provide interested individuals with the skills and confidence

to engage in democratic politics (Calhoun-Brown 2003; Harris 1999; Verba et al.

1995). Moreover, it is somewhat sensible that Blacks have consistently been more

likely than have Whites to support their religious institutions engaging in varying

forms of procedural and protest politics (Lincoln and Mamiya 1990; Kohut et al.

2000). Along these lines, a growing body of research suggests that attending

congregations in which political matters are discussed contributes to heightened

levels of voting, campaign activism, communication with elected officials, and

engagement in protest politics among Blacks (Brown and Brown 2003; Brown and

Wolford 1994; Calhoun-Brown 1996; Fitzgerald and Spohn 2005; McClerking and

McDaniel 2005; Mckenzie 2004; Tate 1991).

Nonetheless, the relative roles of clergy and laity in politically mobilizing Black

congregants are not entirely clear. For example, Brown and Brown (2003) and

Fitzgerald and Spohn (2005) find that the more political messages that Blacks hear

in their houses of worship, the more likely they are to vote, campaign, contact

elected officials, and protest. However, by using a measure that combines lay and

clergy political messages, they are unable to compare the relative effects of clergy

and laity on congregant political activism. Other studies have included measures

that assess the impact of clergy or of the religious congregation as a whole on Black

political activism (Calhoun-Brown 1996; Tate 1991). Studies that have separated

constructs of clergy political encouragement from lay political deliberation found

that both constructs are associated with Black non-voting political activism

(McClerking and McDaniel 2005; McKenzie 2004). While the referenced studies do

not clarify the relative effects of lay deliberation and clergy encouragement on the

individual political and civic behaviors of African Americans, they represent the

only survey-based evidence of the relative importance of both clergy and laity to

Black political mobilization. The relevance of both is likely linked to the fact that

Black churches engaged in varying forms of political activism tend to frame

political activism as being consistent with a prophetic mission to support policies

aimed at bringing hope and opportunity to marginalized groups and opposing those

that do not (Harris 1999; Warren 2001; Wood 2002). Such framing is particularly

effective given that both Black clergy and laity overwhelmingly identify as and vote

Democratic (McDaniel 2003; Putnam and Campbell 2010). Along these lines, Black

clergy and their congregants share similar worldviews of what is required of

religious institutions and government to address the most pressing issues facing

304 Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322

123

Black communities as it relates to jobs, neighborhood crime, poverty, education,

health care, and other quality of life issues (McDaniel 2003; Wald and Calhoun-

Brown 2006).

Congregation-Based Political Messages and White Political Activism

While Whites attend worships services less often and report that religion provides

them with less guidance than for Blacks, their churches maintain political

infrastructures to pressure policy makers and recommend actions to local

congregations (Olson 2002; Taylor et al. 1996; Wald and Calhoun-Brown 2006).

For example, Evangelical Protestant organizations, such as Focus on the Family and

the National Association of Evangelicals, have played an important role in shaping

political discourse in regards to sexuality, abortion, decency in the media, and other

conservative Christian values (Wald and Calhoun-Brown 2006). Similarly, for over

30 years, the United States Conference on Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which

promotes and coordinates the agenda of the Catholic Church USA, has attempted to

influence national and local policy to place tighter restrictions on abortion,

euthanasia, the death penalty, and, more recently, stem cell research (Wald and

Calhoun-Brown 2006). Mainline Protestant denominations and organizations, such

as the National Council of Churches and the USCCB, have a history of pushing the

federal government to more aggressively address civil rights, social welfare,

immigration, human rights, war and peace, and other social justice concerns (Fowler

et al. 2006; Wald and Calhoun-Brown 2006).

Nonetheless, because clergy and laity from these religious bodies tend to differ

from one another ideologically and on specific policy issues, local clergy likely face

difficulty in convincing laity to take political action. For example, Mainline

Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, and Catholic Church tend to be more progressive

on poverty, war, and racial justice issues than the majority of their predominantly

white congregants (Cavendish 2004; Wald and Calhoun-Brown 2006). While

Evangelical Protestant clergy and laity tend to resemble one another on issues, such

as abortion, stem cell research, and gay rights, Mainline clergy tend to be more

liberal and Catholic clergy tend to be more conservative on these issues than their

congregants (Fowler et al. 2006; Wald and Calhoun-Brown 2006). In addition,

research conducted on the largely white Episcopal and Evangelical Lutheran

Churches suggests that most congregants do not believe that they share political

beliefs or are of the same political party as the majority of their fellow congregants

(Djupe and Gilbert 2009). If true across varying religious bodies within which

Whites predominate, such disparate opinions may partially explain why laity are

more hesitant than clergy of religious groups engaging in political activism. It may

also explain why some clergy avoid political discussion altogether out of fear of

alienating members of their flock. Such fears are not without merit given that

congregants become less likely to engage in varying forms of non-voting activism

when they are encouraged to do so by clergy of a different political party (Djupe and

Gilbert 2009).

Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322 305

123

Differences in political opinions may also explain why Episcopal and Lutheran

laity maintains a greater level of influence than do clergy over the issue positions

and political behavior of their fellow congregants (Djupe and Gilbert 2009). Lay

involvement in political discussions, particularly involving contentious subjects,

may be more effective because they are playing a role in shaping their

congregation’s issue positions and potential political strategies. Moreover, the

extent to which political discussions lead to White political activism, laity likely

plays a key mobilizing role.

Religion and Politics Among Immigrant Populations

The political influence of congregations outside the Black–white landscape is an

increasing subject of empirical inquiry. The immigrant status of Hispanic, Asian,

and Afro-Caribbean Americans is a key factor that distinguishes these groups from

Black and White Americans. Forty percent of Hispanics, 69% of Asians, and over

half of Afro-Caribbean Americans are first generation immigrants to the US (Lien

et al. 2004; Ramirez and de la Cruz 2003; Jackson et al. 2004). Congregations with

larger concentrations of these groups likely serve as assimilation centers where

newcomers can join friendship networks with those who share their native culture

and language (Ebaugh and Chafetz 2000). Such networks have the potential to

provide individuals with both emotional support and practical information in

applying for jobs, accessing social services, as well as introducing individuals to

American democratic life (Ebaugh and Chafetz 2000; Cnaan et al. 1999; Lien et al.

2004).

The degree to which Asian, Hispanic, and Afro-Caribbean Americans go beyond

helping fellow congregants to politically advocating for their larger interests are

likely linked to the extent to which their congregations are affiliated with religious

groups with a history of political activism and support their interests. Worship

attendance is linked to citizenship and voter registration for both Asians and

Hispanics (Espinosa et al. 2003; Lien 2004). However, while Hispanic congrega-

tions are over-represented among congregations affiliated with faith-based com-

munity organizing firms, Asian congregations are under-represented (Wood and

Warren 2002). Community organizing often involves clergy and lay leaders

receiving training from professional organizers on methods to discuss their common

concerns with congregants and develop political strategies, such as lobbying,

protesting, and voting to collectively address such concerns (Wood and Warren

2002). This form of activism also often involves religious groups developing

political coalitions with racial/ethnic others in an effort to link the interest of

working class and poor urban minorities to that of suburban and middle class groups

(Warren 2001; Wood 2002). Hispanic involvement in such groups is, in part, a

function of the Hispanic presence in the Catholic Church, which, as mentioned

earlier, has a history of social justice activism and an infrastructure in place to

connect local congregations to political causes. Along these lines, concerns for the

poor and racial/ethnic inequality play a key role in the political activism of

individual Catholic priests (Jelen 2003). Moreover, the fact that Hispanic Americans

306 Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322

123

are disproportionately immigrant, poor, and live in poor communities likely

contributes to Hispanic laity agreeing with their clergy’s social justice oriented

position, particularly as it relates to the plight of poor immigrants (Cadena 1989;

Espinosa 2005). Ideological symmetry between Hispanic laity and their clergy may

partially explain why, following, Black Protestants, Latino Catholics report more

political activities in the form of political sermons, voter registration drives, and

protest marches at their place of worship than do all other ethnic and faith groups

(Putnam and Campbell 2010. As a result, it would not be too surprising if Hispanic

Americans were responsive to the political appeals from their clergy and laity.

Conversely, while Southeast Asian Americans tend to affiliate with Protestant

religions, Asian Indians tend to affiliate with non-Western religions that have of a

relatively short history of political engagement and maintain limited access to

political and community elites (Wuthnow and Hackett 2003). Such limited access

may reflect the under-representation of Asian elected officials and Asian Ameri-

cans’ subsequent lack of comfort in approaching elected officials about their unique

concerns. Along these lines, because Asian Americans, particularly southeast

Asians, are stereotyped as model minorities, some argue that elected officials

downplay their concerns as they believe Asians are less interested in politics than in

their own educational and economic mobility (Aptekar 2009). Such perceptions may

weaken efficacy to the point that even if encouraged to participate by clergy and/or

congregants, few may see the point of doing so. The under-representation of Asian

American congregations in more time-consuming forms of political activism may

also be a function of class and immigration status. Unlike Hispanic immigrants,

Asian immigrants are largely documented immigrants of the professional and

business class (Lien et al. 2004). Consequently, recruitment efforts by clergy or lay

leaders to join political causes aimed at increasing rights for what are perceived as

largely undocumented working class and poor immigrants may have little impact on

the political behavior of Asian Americans, even if such efforts were communicated

in a culturally relevant manner.

While both African Americans and Afro-Caribbean Americans are socially

constructed as Black, it is unclear if congregational leaders and laity play a similar

political mobilization role for these groups. On the one hand, Black Americans and

Caribbean Blacks maintain similar levels of spirituality, the importance of religion in

their lives, and church attendance (Chatters et al. 2009). Therefore, it may not be too

surprising if both groups maintained a similar level of trust in clergy that would

enable clergy to effectively mobilize congregants. In addition, Afro-Caribbean

immigrants likely face forms of racial discrimination that may increase their

receptivity to political appeals to join racial justice efforts. On the other hand, similar

to Asian Americans, the selectivity of the documented immigration process lends

itself to the migration of the most highly driven and resource rich individuals (Waters

1999). This contributes to Afro-Caribbeans being more highly educated, earning

higher incomes, and living in more affluent communities than do native-born Blacks

(Logan and Deane 2003). To that end, it is not clear that Afro Caribbean would be

too receptive to political encouragement from their clergy, who tend to be connected

to Black Protestant, Mainline, Catholic traditions and whose activism is often

informed by social justice concerns, such as poverty and social-economic inequality

Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322 307

123

(Barnes 2005; Brown 2008; Jelen 2003; McDaniel 2003; Smidt et al. 2003). This

leads to the following research question: To what extent is political encouragement

from clergy and congregant participation in political discussions associated with the

political behavior of varying racial/ethnic groups?

Sample

This study utilizes the 2004 National Politics Study (NPS) to test the relationship

between exposure to political discourse in houses of worship and political activism.

The primary goal of the NPS is to gather comparative data about individuals’

political attitudes, beliefs, aspirations, and behaviors at the beginning of the twenty-

first century. As such, this study is based on a national sample of individuals, aged

18 years or older, from a variety of different racial and ethnic groups. Interviews

occurred throughout the US in urban and rural centers of the country where

significant numbers of Black Americans reside. In total, 756 Black, 919 White, 757

Hispanic, 503 Asian, and 404 Afro-Caribbean Americans were interviewed. Each of

the NPS racial/ethnic groups were sampled from separate weighted sampling

frames. As a result, researchers must treat each racial/ethnic sample as a completely

separate study and not include them within the same analyses. The Program for

Research on Black Americans of the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social

Research went into the field in September of 2004 and concluded in February of

2005. All of the 3,309 interviews were conducted over the telephone. The

interviews were conducted in either English or Spanish, depending on the

preference of the respondent, and the overall response rate is 31%.1

Dependent Variables: Political and Community Activism

To assess levels of political activism, respondents were asked to report if they took

part in protest demonstrations, participated in a political campaign, contacted an

elected official about concerns on a public issue in the past 12 months. Respondents

were also asked if they attempted to persuade the vote choice of others during the

most recent election year. The protests, contact, and persuasion variables are all

dichotomously measured. Campaign activism consists of a three item additive index

that reports on whether or not during the past election year respondents had ever

attended a political meeting or rally in support of a particular candidate, given any

money to or helped raise money for a candidate, or worked for a political party or

campaigned for a political candidate. In total, the campaign activism index ranges

from 0 to 3 with three indicating that respondents are involved in all three types of

campaign activism.2Finally, respondents’ level of community activism is measured

1 This is comparable to the median response rate (30%) reported by Groves (2006) in his study of over

200 response rates in 35 published articles.2 See Appendix for a scores of the campaign and community activism indices for each racial/ethnic

group.

308 Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322

123

by a two-item additive index that reports on whether or not during the past year

respondents attended a meeting about an issue facing their community or schools,

and if they worked with others to deal with some issue facing their community. In

total, the community activism index ranges from 0 to 2 with two indicating that

respondents are involved in both types of community activism.

Independent Variables: Lay Political Discourse and Clergy Political

Encouragement

The clergy political encouragement variable assesses the degree to which, in the

past year, respondents were encouraged by their clergy, or someone in an official

position to; take some action on a political issue, such as sign a petition, write a

letter, attend a protest, march or demonstration, or get in touch with a public official.

The lay political deliberation measure assesses the extent to which, in the past year,

respondents participated in political discussions with others at their place of worship

(Table 1).

Table 1 Proportion of Americans that engaged in political/community activism and are exposed to

political messages at their places of worship

African-

Americans

Hispanic

Americans

White

Americans

Afro-

Caribbean

Americans

Asian-

Americans

Community activism

Attend meeting about a

community issue

41.27 26.55 31.45 39.11 32.01

Work with others on a

community issue

45.63 22.99 38.96 41.58 32.41

Protest 6.88 6.08 10.34 8.66 7.55

Persuade vote choice 44.71 39.63 54.73 46.53 49.70

Campaign activism

Give or raise money for a

candidate

17.99 8.59 26.44 14.85 14.12

Worked on a candidate’s political

campaign

24.34 12.42 27.20 17.08 11.73

Attend political meeting for

candidate

18.99 12.95 18.72 18.56 13.12

Contact Public Officials 20.11 13.47 31.34 18.07 14.71

Congregation-based political messages

Discuss politics with other

congregants (lay political

discourse)

33.07 15.46 26.33 32.18 17.89

Clergy encourages political

activism (clergy political

encouragement)

28.70 13.21 22.96 28.22 11.93

N 756 757 919 404 503

Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322 309

123

Control Variables

In an attempt to replicate the analytical approach of past studies on congregation-

based political messages and political activism, the current study controls for

frequency of worship attendance,3 if people are in leadership position within their

congregation, denominational affiliation,4 college education, family income,

employment status, gender, and residence in the South.

Statistical Methods

Because all of the dependent variables are either dichotomous or categorical, odds

ratios for logit and ordered logit regression analyses are employed to investigate this

study’s central research question.

Results

These analyses indicate that participating in political discussions in houses of

worship and being encouraged by congregational leaders to become active is not

uniformly associated with political activism for varying racial/ethnic groups. For

African Americans and Hispanics, to a lesser extent, both participating in political

discussions and being encouraged to participate contributes to heightened political

activism. However, while participating in political discussions contributes to White

and Afro-Caribbean political activism, being encouraged to do so by congregational

leaders does not. In contrast, exposure to such worship-based political communi-

cation is largely unrelated to Asian American activism. The discussion below

expounds upon these relationships.

Table 2 indicates that both participating in political discussions in houses of

worship and being encouraged by congregational leaders to participate in the

political process largely contribute to Black political activism. The lone exception is

the protest model in which encouragement by congregational leaders is unrelated to

this form of political activism. These analyses also suggest that college graduates

tend to be more politically active than non-college graduates. The remaining

variables are largely unrelated to Black American political behavior.

While not as consistent, Table 3 indicates that, like Blacks, Hispanic activism is

influenced by participating in political discussions and being encouraged by

congregational leaders. More specifically, encouragement to participate in politics

by congregational leaders is largely associated with all forms of activism save

protest politics. Participation in political discussions in houses of worship is

associated with Hispanic community activism, protest politics, and attempting to

3 Missing values for worship attendance, Clergy Political Encouragement, Congregant political

discourse, age, and income are replaced by imputed regression scores. The imputed variables do not

substantively or significantly change the outcomes of the analyses.4 The coding scheme for denomination is included in Appendix.

310 Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322

123

persuade the vote choice of others. These analyses also indicate that college

graduates are more likely than others to participate in all forms of activism.

Immigrants, however, are less likely than are others to campaign, contact elected

officials, and engage in community activism. The remaining variables are largely

unrelated to Hispanic American political behavior.

In contrast to Blacks and Hispanics, Table 4 indicates that participating in

political discussions is more salient to White political behavior than being

encouraged to do so by congregational leaders. Whites that participate in political

Table 2 Impact of church-based lay and clergy political messages on Black American activism: logit/

ordinal logit: odds ratios

Community

activism

Campaign Contact Persuade vote

choice

Protest

Clergy political

encouragement

2.113 1.915 1.665 1.868 1.528

(0.358)** (0.339)** (0.360)* (0.352)** (0.525)

Lay political discourse 2.041 1.997 1.759 3.478 2.855

(0.339)** (0.348)** (0.379)** (0.654)** (1.007)**

Worship attendance 1.093 0.923 1.141 0.858 0.839

(0.089) (0.082) (0.132) (0.077) (0.147)

Congregational leader 1.330 1.079 1.267 0.672 1.124

(0.257) (0.219) (0.305) (0.147) (0.455)

Black Protestant 0.879 0.669 0.855 0.935 0.528

(0.231) (0.189) (0.331) (0.263) (0.288)

Evangelical Protestant 0.983 0.623 0.869 0.890 0.736

(0.277) (0.192) (0.359) (0.271) (0.416)

Other Christian 1.432 0.876 0.821 0.905 0.542

(0.443) (0.280) (0.366) (0.301) (0.355)

Other faith 1.006 0.999 1.006 1.002 1.010

(0.004) (0.004) (0.005) (0.004) (0.006)

College 1.772 2.283 2.726 1.611 1.990

(0.292)** (0.388)** (0.562)** (0.295)** (0.647)*

Income 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

Employed 1.181 1.211 1.252 1.152 1.440

(0.180) (0.205) (0.268) (0.195) (0.489)

Age 1.001 1.026 0.995 0.999 0.980

(0.006) (0.006)** (0.008) (0.006) (0.012)

Female 1.094 1.075 1.072 0.795 0.861

(0.171) (0.182) (0.233) (0.138) (0.278)

South 1.058 0.851 1.113 0.804 0.448

(0.165) (0.142) (0.246) (0.138) (0.170)*

N 756 756 756 756 756

Standard errors in parentheses

* p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01

Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322 311

123

discussions are more likely than others to participate in all forms of political

activism. In contrast, while Whites that are encouraged by congregational leaders

are more likely than others to contact their elected officials, they are no more likely

to participate in other forms of activism. These analyses also suggest that college

graduates are consistently more likely than others to engage in political activism.

All things being equal, worship attendance tends to suppress campaign, protest, and

persuasion politics. Conversely, congregational leaders are more likely to contact

Table 3 Impact of church-based lay and clergy political messages on Hispanic American activism: logit/

ordinal logit: odds ratios

Community

activism

Campaign Contact Persuade vote

choice

Protest

Clergy political

encouragement

2.203 1.348 1.207 2.898 4.771

(0.472)** (0.349) (0.376) (0.682)** (1.988)**

Lay political discourse 2.645 2.740 1.984 2.049 1.870

(0.604)** (0.675)** (0.601)* (0.513)** (0.844)

Worship attendance 1.176 1.032 0.884 0.853 1.159

(0.108) (0.107) (0.114) (0.077) (0.234)

Congregational leader 0.983 1.253 1.371 0.960 0.595

(0.274) (0.395) (0.521) (0.279) (0.406)

Evangelical Protestant 0.717 0.620 0.478 0.707 0.058

(0.243) (0.248) (0.199) (0.225) (0.039)**

Catholic 0.875 0.923 0.356 0.437 0.124

(0.238) (0.297) (0.117)** (0.112)** (0.052)**

Other faith 1.713 1.180 0.511 0.836 0.245

(0.621) (0.516) (0.240) (0.302) (0.155)*

College 2.094 3.308 2.562 2.427 3.037

(0.411)** (0.691)** (0.651)** (0.502)** (1.174)**

Income 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

Employed 1.010 0.932 1.078 0.969 1.007

(0.174) (0.185) (0.266) (0.166) (0.367)

Age 0.995 1.015 0.996 0.997 0.950

(0.007) (0.008)* (0.010) (0.007) (0.017)**

Female 0.870 0.933 0.858 0.628 0.486

(0.152) (0.186) (0.214) (0.111)** (0.195)

South 0.677 1.280 0.988 1.146 0.318

(0.124)* (0.265) (0.255) (0.211) (0.136)**

Immigrant 0.553 0.479 0.522 0.870 0.821

(0.091)** (0.090)** (0.121)** (0.142) (0.285)

N 757 757 757 757 757

Standard errors in parentheses

* p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01

312 Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322

123

elected officials and engage in protests. The remaining variables are largely

unrelated to White American political behavior.

Like Whites, Table 5 indicates that Afro-Caribbeans that participate in political

discussions are more likely than others to participate in all forms of activism.

Alternatively, while individuals that are encouraged by congregational leaders to

engage in political activism are more likely than others to participate in political

campaigns, they are no more likely to participate in other forms of activism. These

analyses also indicate that immigrants are less likely than others to; campaign,

Table 4 Impact of church-based lay and clergy political messages on White American activism: logit/

ordinal logit: odds ratios

Community

activism

Campaign Contact Persuade vote

choice

Protest

Clergy political

encouragement

1.343 1.321 1.828 1.227 1.634

(0.223) (0.230) (0.344)** (0.224) (0.493)

Lay political discourse 2.185 1.933 1.816 2.196 3.100

(0.361)** (0.331)** (0.337)** (0.400)** (0.971)**

Worship attendance 1.052 0.827 0.854 0.793 0.531

(0.085) (0.069)* (0.080) (0.066)** (0.087)**

Congregational leader 1.213 1.366 1.586 1.175 2.567

(0.238) (0.275) (0.349)* (0.248) (0.957)*

Evangelical Protestant 0.636 0.991 1.302 0.672 0.382

(0.157) (0.253) (0.380) (0.175) (0.176)*

Mainline Protestant 0.815 1.252 1.435 0.766 0.491

(0.195) (0.306) (0.404) (0.196) (0.201)

Catholic 0.656 1.003 1.037 0.815 0.702

(0.156) (0.246) (0.294) (0.204) (0.274)

Other faith 0.817 1.076 1.354 0.711 0.763

(0.182) (0.247) (0.357) (0.170) (0.258)

College 1.779 2.353 1.812 1.611 2.301

(0.241)** (0.332)** (0.283)** (0.232)** (0.568)**

Income 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

Employed 1.205 1.069 0.895 1.004 1.060

(0.177) (0.165) (0.150) (0.156) (0.271)

Female 0.897 0.945 1.000 0.918 1.420

(0.122) (0.133) (0.158) (0.133) (0.345)

South 0.889 0.734 0.768 0.940 0.720

(0.130) (0.110)* (0.129) (0.145) (0.192)

Age 0.989 1.022 0.995 1.000 0.991

(0.006) (0.006)** (0.006) (0.006) (0.010)

N 919 919 919 919 919

Standard errors in parentheses

* p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01

Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322 313

123

contact elected officials, and engage in community activism. Conversely, college

graduates are more likely to engage in these behaviors. The remaining variables are

largely unrelated to Afro-Caribbean American political behavior.

Contrary to all other racial/ethnic groups, Table 6 suggests that exposure to

worship-based political discourse is largely unrelated to Asian American activism.

The lone exception is the persuasion model in which both participation in political

Table 5 Impact of church-based lay and clergy political messages on Afro-Caribbean American

activism: logit/ordinal logit: odds ratios

Community

activism

Campaign Contact Persuade vote

choice

Protest

Clergy political

encouragement

1.537 2.034 1.487 1.179 1.850

(0.361) (0.522)** (0.483) (0.307) (0.810)

Lay political discourse 2.141 1.909 4.244 2.601 3.807

(0.500)** (0.495)* (1.421)** (0.668)** (1.752)**

Worship attendance 1.152 0.852 0.945 0.689 0.676

(0.135) (0.114) (0.163) (0.088)** (0.160)

Congregation leader 1.552 1.437 0.632 1.500 1.873

(0.427) (0.435) (0.250) (0.456) (0.938)

Black Protestant 1.293 1.361 0.249 0.737 0.101

(0.464) (0.619) (0.136)* (0.283) (0.089)**

Evangelical Protestant 0.935 1.671 0.793 0.897 0.662

(0.342) (0.769) (0.391) (0.349) (0.420)

Catholic 1.168 1.888 1.039 0.787 1.149

(0.425) (0.862) (0.510) (0.310) (0.708)

Other faith 0.955 0.863 0.502 0.956 0.805

(0.393) (0.446) (0.285) (0.420) (0.555)

College 1.872 2.099 3.219 1.127 1.366

(0.425)** (0.519)** (0.978)** (0.280) (0.579)

Income 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

Employed 1.363 0.794 1.122 0.987 0.739

(0.280) (0.189) (0.341) (0.217) (0.296)

Female 1.043 0.589 1.013 0.473 1.257

(0.246) (0.152)* (0.343) (0.124)** (0.559)

South 0.753 0.710 0.934 1.349 1.021

(0.185) (0.204) (0.347) (0.358) (0.483)

Age 0.993 1.037 1.000 0.989 1.005

(0.008) (0.010)** (0.012) (0.008) (0.015)

Immigrant 0.387 0.588 0.520 0.742 0.565

(0.084)** (0.145)* (0.161)* (0.172) (0.233)

N 404 404 404 404 404

Standard errors in parentheses

* p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01

314 Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322

123

discussions and encouragement from congregational leaders is associated with

Asian American efforts in persuading vote choices. These analyses also indicate

that, barring persuasion politics, immigrants are less likely than others to participate

in political activism. The remaining variables are largely unrelated to Asian

American political behavior.

Table 6 Impact of church-based lay and clergy political messages on Asian American activism: logit/

ordinal logit: odds ratios

Community

activism

Campaign Contact Persuade vote

choice

Protest

Clergy political

encouragement

1.258 1.231 0.903 1.855 1.031

(0.349) (0.391) (0.368) (0.540)* (0.582)

Lay political discourse 1.512 1.144 2.026 2.262 2.132

(0.456) (0.394) (0.827) (0.757)* (1.272)

Worship attendance 1.291 0.958 1.272 0.908 1.096

(0.170) (0.143) (0.236) (0.122) (0.298)

Congregation leader 0.680 0.985 1.300 1.418 1.936

(0.221) (0.372) (0.576) (0.484) (1.265)

Evangelical Protestant 0.576 0.865 0.508 0.977 0.365

(0.203) (0.349) (0.255) (0.352) (0.275)

Other Christian 0.642 1.400 0.748 1.050 0.407

(0.205) (0.493) (0.334) (0.345) (0.278)

Eastern religions 0.912 1.305 0.593 0.989 1.613

(0.257) (0.437) (0.285) (0.290) (0.847)

Other faith 0.337 0.918 0.563 0.885 0.474

(0.121)** (0.345) (0.276) (0.288) (0.327)

College 0.913 1.644 0.634 0.854 2.516

(0.214) (0.475) (0.212) (0.203) (1.389)

Income 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

Employed 1.618 1.237 1.356 1.503 2.264

(0.339)* (0.297) (0.417) (0.319) (1.070)

Female 0.999 1.529 1.292 1.022 2.368

(0.205) (0.374) (0.395) (0.219) (0.944)*

South 0.713 0.958 0.583 0.795 0.681

(0.165) (0.252) (0.220) (0.184) (0.345)

Age 1.009 1.016 1.017 1.005 0.976

(0.008) (0.009) (0.011) (0.008) (0.016)

Immigrant 0.530 0.473 0.278 0.826 0.295

(0.111)** (0.112)** (0.078)** (0.182) (0.111)**

N 503 503 503 503 503

Standard errors in parentheses

* p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01

Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322 315

123

Discussion

The current study builds from previous work on religion and politics by assessing

the relative roles that clergy political encouragement and lay political discourse

have in motivating varying racial/ethnic groups to engage in political and civic

activism. While lay deliberation tends to have a similar effect in motivating varying

racial/ethnic groups to action, political encouragement from clergy does not. The

degree to which clergy and laity share ideological perspectives may contribute to

the effectiveness of clergy in using religious stories, prayers, and other cultural

symbols to convince congregants to take political action (Djupe and Gilbert 2009).

Laity that share similar worldviews with clergy likely trust that clergy have their

best interests in mind when encouraging political action. Hispanic and African

American clergy and laity largely share similar positions on the most pressing issues

facing their communities (Wald and Calhoun-Brown 2006; Warren 2001; Wood

2002). That is, both clergy and laity tend to point to the role structural forces such as

lack of jobs, poor educational systems, and other social constraints play in their

relatively poor quality of life. Both clergy and laity also share fairly similar

positions on the role of religious institutions and government in correcting these ills

(Lincoln and Mamiya 1990; McDaniel 2003; Wald and Calhoun-Brown 2006). As a

consequence, Blacks and Hispanics likely trust that their clergy are acting in their

best interests when encouraging political action. Such trust may partially account

for why, outside of Evangelical Protestants and Mormons, Black Protestants are

more likely than other racial/ethnic and faith groups to rely upon their religion when

making decisions about policy issues and political candidates (Putnam and

Campbell 2010).

Conversely, laity that disagree with the policy perspectives of their clergy are

likely wary of clergy political mobilization efforts. Past research suggests that

White congregants of varying denominational backgrounds tend not share

ideological perspectives with their religious leaders or fellow congregants (Djupe

and Gilbert 2009; Wald and Calhoun-Brown 2006). Such differences of opinion

may explain why their clergy play a limited role in motivating political action.

These findings are consistent with past work that suggested that Mainline Protestant

and Catholic clergy that went against White congregant preferences in encouraging

action in support of civil rights and against the Vietnam War were largely

ineffective in motivating action (Findlay 1993; Hadden 1970; McGreevy 1998). In

some cases, Mainline and Catholic lay leaders instigated counter-movements aimed

at having their clergy removed for encouraging such political action (Findlay 1993;

Hadden 1970; Quinley 1974). Similar factors may be at play for Afro-Caribbean

Americans. Although socially constructed as Black, class and cultural differences

between Black Americans and Afro-Caribbean Americans contribute to these

groups maintaining different perspectives on existing economic opportunities and,

subsequently, the role of government and religious institutions in expanding

opportunities for marginalized groups (Rogers 2004; Waters 1999). The fact that

roughly 60% of Afro-Caribbean Americans religious persons attend congregations

affiliated with Black Protestant, Mainline Protestant, and Catholic faiths makes it

probable that their clergy take more of a social justice perspective when critiquing

316 Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322

123

policy and encouraging political action (Jelen 2003; Smidt et al. 2003). It is

somewhat understandable then, that appeals from clergy for Afro-Caribbeans to

engage in political/civic acts would fall upon deaf ears.

However, at this point, the provided explanations for why clergy matter to the

political behavior of Blacks and Hispanics and not to that of Whites, Asians, and

Afro-Caribbean Americans are speculative. The current data, unfortunately, does

not allow one to contrast the policy and ideological positions of clergy with that of

their laity. This is an important limitation because clergy are more willing than are

others to encourage their congregants to take stands on political issues if they

believe their congregants support their political stances (Guth et al. 1997). That said,

net of denominational affiliation, it is also plausible that Black and Hispanic clergy

are made aware of more opportunities to become politically engaged in their houses

of worship. However, because the NPS does not assess the number of political

messages to which laypersons are exposed, it is unclear if individuals that hear

messages in houses of worship hear them every worship service, once a year, or

somewhere in between. This omission may have some bearing upon the current

study given that Black and Hispanic religious congregations are over over-

represented among faith-based community organizing firms while predominantly

White congregations are under-represented (Wood and Warren 2002). As

mentioned earlier, these firms operate as local social movement centers that

mobilize congregations around salient issues (Wood 2002). Moreover, it is

conceivable that clergy of affiliated congregations are more likely than are others

to discuss and encourage their laity to take stands on social issues. Indeed, Putnam

and Campbell (2010) find that Black Protestants followed by Latino Catholics are

more likely than are other racial and faith groups to attend religious congregations

that preach political sermons, host voter registration drives, and organize

demonstrations and marches. Issues of clergy-lay ideological symmetry and

possibly the number of worship-based political messages in which different

racial/ethnic groups are exposed may account for the impact of clergy on the

political behavior of Black and Hispanic Americans but not for White, Asian, and

Afro-Caribbean Americans. However, because of data limitations, there is a need

for future research to assess if this is indeed the case.

On the other hand, lay political deliberation contributes to all groups, save Asian

Americans, engaging in political activism. Deliberation likely works because

congregants are involved in the process of agreeing upon the position that their

congregations as a whole and individual congregants should take. In doing so,

differences of opinion are articulated and compromises made to accommodate such

differences. To the extent that congregants are listening and allowed to speak, such

discussions, particularly in small group settings, are likely to provide the time

needed to build trust and for individuals to comfortably make political decisions that

reflect their faith beliefs. This is not to dismiss the role that clergy play in informing

the political behavior of congregants as politically interested clergy often provides a

welcoming environment for congregants to discuss politics. Nevertheless, it is clear

that if congregants are to politically mobilized, particularly in congregational

settings in which partisan and ideological differences exist, congregants have to be

part of the deliberative process.

Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322 317

123

Unlike all other groups, neither clergy political encouragement nor lay political

discussions relate to Asian American political and/or civic activism. As mentioned

earlier, the fact that Asian Americans tend to affiliate with non-Western faiths that

are fairly disconnected from political leaders may play a role in the ineffectiveness

of clergy and laity in encouraging Asian American activism. Similarly, stereotypes

from elected officials that Asians are politically disinterested may also reduce

political efficacy among Asians and render political appeals from clergy and laity

ineffective. However, it is also possible that this study under-estimate the above

relationships by excluding measures that assess involvement in the politics of

countries in which Asian Americans have migrated. The 2001/2002 Pilot National

Asian American Political Survey (PNAAPS) indicates that worship attendance

increases contact between Asian migrants and persons in their home countries. Such

contact may help immigrants, their friends, and family maintain interest in the

political happenings of their native countries and, if so inclined, make informed

decisions about individuals and/or organizations to support. Kurien (2001) reports

that Hindu and Muslim Indian American expatriates have and continue to play a

role in influencing politics in India by financing the campaigns of preferred leaders

and organizations. While the current study is unable to make empirical make claims

on this matter, it is not implausible that political discussions of clergy and laity

contribute to heightened Asian American interests and involvement in the politics of

their native countries. It is also possible that the role of clergy and laity on the

political behavior of Hispanic and Afro-Caribbean Americans has been somewhat

diminished by this study’s lack of attention to international political involvement.

Indeed, the more Mexican migrants attend worship services, the more likely they are

to vote in their home country elections (Enrico and Wayne 2005).

In sum, this study suggests clergy play a negligible role in motivating Whites and

Caribbean Blacks to civic and political action, but are more effective in motivating

Blacks and Hispanic Americans. The greater level of clergy/lay ideological

symmetry among Black and Hispanic Americans relative to other ethnic groups may

account for such differences. However, as stated earlier, further research is needed

to test this claim. For almost all racial/ethnic groups, however, lay political

deliberation is associated with activism.

Appendix

Variable Coding

This study relies on Steensland et al.’s (2000) classification of religious

denominations. Membership status in national religious organizations such as the

National Council of Churches and the National Association of Evangelicals are used

to classify various Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian

denominations into Evangelical, Mainline, and historically Black Protestant

traditions. Respondents were divided into the nominal categories of Evangelical,

Mainline Protestant, Catholic, Black Protestant, Eastern Religions (e.g. Buddhists

and Hindus), other-faiths, and secular. The secular category includes those who do

318 Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322

123

not identify with or affiliate with a religion. This study’s denominational/religious

groupings are consistent with the denominational/religious groupings as recorded

within two of the largest ongoing national public opinion surveys in the US, the

General Social Survey and the American National Election Survey.

References

Aptekar, Sofya. 2009. Organizational life and political incorporation of two Asian immigrant groups: A

case study. Ethnic and Racial Studies 32(9): 1511–1533.

Barnes, Sandra L. 2005. Black Church culture and community action. Social Forces 84(2): 967–994.

Billingsley, Andrew. 1999. Mighty like a river: The black church and social reform. Oxford University

Press, USA.

Brown, R. Khari. 2008. Denominational differences in white christian housing related racial attitudes. TheJournal of Religion and Society 10: 1–20.

Brown, R. Khari, and Ronald E. Brown. 2003. Faith and works: Church-based social capital resources and

African American political activism. Social Forces 82(2): 617–641.

Brown, Ronald E., and Monica L. Wolford. 1994. Religious resources and African-American political

action. National Political Science Review 4: 30–48.

Cadena, Gilbert R. 1989. Chicano clergy and the emergence of liberation theology. Hispanic Journal ofBehavioral Sciences 11(2): 107–121.

Calhoun-Brown, Allison. 1996. African American Churches and political mobilization. Journal ofPolitics of Politics 58: 935–953.

Calhoun-Brown, Allison. 2003. What a fellowship: Civil society, African American Churches, and public

life. In New day begun: African American Churches and civic culture in Post-Civil Rights America,

ed. R. Drew Smith, 39–57. Durham: Duke University Press.

Cavendish, C. James. 2004. A research report commemorating the 25th anniversary of brothers & sistersto us: Looking back seeing today’s reality pressing forward. Washington D.C.: United States

Conference of Catholic Bishops Inc. http://www.usccb.org/saac/25threalities.shtml.

Chatters, Linda M., Robert J. Taylor, Kai M. Bullard, and James S. Jackson. 2009. Race and ethnic

differences in religious involvement: African Americans, Caribbean Blacks and Non-Hispanic

Whites. Ethnic and Racial Studies 32: 1143–1163.

Cnaan, Ram A., Robert J. Wineburg, and Stephanie C. Boddie. 1999. The newer deal: Social work andreligion in partnership. New York: Columbia University Press.

Coleman, James Samuel. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal ofSociology 94(suppl): S95–S120.

De Tocqueville, Alex. 1873. Democracy in America. Boston: John Allyn, Publisher, Late Server, Francis

& Co.

Djupe, Paul A., and Christopher P. Gilbert. 2009. The political influence of churches. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Dudley, Carl S., and David A. Roozen. 2001. Faith communities today: A report on Religion in theUnited States today. Hartford Institute for Religion Research: Hartford Seminary. hirr.hartsem.edu.

Table 7 Reliability estimates for campaign and community activism indices

Black Hispanic White Caribbean Asian

Community activism (attended a community

meeting and worked with others on a community

issue)

0.6711 0.7176 0.6373 0.7169 0.6976

Campaign (attended a political meeting, given

money to a candidate, worked for a political party)

0.6504 0.5936 0.6766 0.6882 0.6295

Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322 319

123

Ebaugh, Helen Rose, and Janet Saltzman Chafetz. 2000. Structural adaptations in immigrant

congregations. Sociology of Religion 61(2): 135–153.

Espinosa, Gaston. 2005. Latino Churches in faith-based political and social action in the United States

(pg. 279–306). In Latino religions and civic activism in the United States, ed. Gaston Espinosa,

Virgilio Elizondo, and Jesse Miranda. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Espinosa, Gaston, Virgilio Elizondo, and Jesse Miranda. 2003. Hispanic churches in American publiclife: Summary of findings. 2nd ed. Center for the Study of Latino Religion. Institute for Latino

Studies, University of Notre Dame.

Findlay, James F. 1993. Church people in the struggle: The National Council of Churches and the BlackFreedom Movement, 1950–1970. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fitzgerald, Scott T., and Ryan E. Spohn. 2005. Pulpits and platforms: The role of the Church in

determining protest among Black Americans. Social Forces 84(2): 1015–1048.

Fowler, Robert Booth, Allen D. Hertzke, Laura R. Olson, and Kevin R. den Dulk. 2004. Religion andpolitics in America: Faith, culture and strategic choices, 3rd ed. Boulder: Westview Press.

Groves, Robert M. 2006. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. The PublicOpinion Quarterly 70(5): 646–675.

Guth, James L., John C. Green, Corwin E. Smidt, Lyman A. Kellstedt, and Margaret Poloma. 1997. Thebully pulpit: The politics of Protestant clergy. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

Hadden, Jeffrey K. 1970. The Gathering storm in the churches: The widening gap between clergy andLaymen. Garden City: Doubleday and Co., Inc.

Harris, Frederick C. 1999. Something within: Religion in African-American political activism. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Huckfeldt, Robert, Eric Plutzer, and John Sprague. 1993. Alternative contexts of political behavior:

Churches, neighborhoods, and individuals. The Journal of Politics 55(2): 365–381.

Independent Sector. 2001. The new nonprofit almanac in brief: Facts and figures on the IndependentSector 2001. http://test.independentsector.org/PDFs/inbrief.pdf. Retrieved 14 Oct 2009.

Jackson, James S., Vincent L. Hutchings, Ronald Brown, and Cara Wong. 2004. National Politics Study,

2004 [Computer file]. ICPSR24483-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political

and Social Research [distributor], 2009–03–23. doi:10.3886/ICPSR24483.

Jelen, Ted G. 2003. Catholic priests and the political order: The political behavior of Catholic Priests.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42(4): 591–604.

Kohut, Andrew, and Melissa Rogers. 2002. Americans struggle with religion’s role at home and abroad. Pew

Research Center For The People & The Press/Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Washington,

DC. Accessed at http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Press_Room/Press_Releases/poll2002.pdf.

Kohut, Andrew, John C. Green, Scott Keeter, and Robert C. Toth. 2000. The diminishing divide:Religion’s changing role in American politics. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

Kurien, Prema. 2001. Religion, ethnicity and politics: Hindu and Muslim Indian immigrants in the United

States. Ethnic and Racial Studies 24(2): 263–293.

Lien, Pei-tei. 2004. Religion and political adaptation among Asian Americans: An empirical assessment

from the Pilot National Asian American Political Survey. In Asian American Religions: The makingand remaking of borders and boundaries, ed. Tony Carnes, and Fenggang Yang. New York:

New York University Press.

Lien, Pei-tei, M.Margaret Conway, and Janelle Wong. 2004. The politics of Asian Americans: Diversityand community. New York: Routledge.

Lincoln, C.Eric, and Lawrence.E. Mamiya. 1990. The Black Church in the African-American experience.

Durham: Duke University Press.

Logan, John R., and Glenn Deane. 2003. Black diversity in metropolitan America. Lewis Mumford

Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research, University at Albany. Accessed at http://

www.s4.brown.edu/cen2000/BlackWhite/BlackDiversityReport/black-diversity01.htm.

Marcelli, Enrico A., and Wayne A. Cornelius. 2005. Immigrant voting in home-country elections:

Potential consequences of extending the franchise to expatriate Mexicans residing in the United

States. Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 21(2): 429–460.

McClerking, Harwood K., and Eric L. McDaniel. 2005. Belonging and doing: Political Churches and

Black political participation. Political Psychology 26(5): 721–733.

McDaniel, Eric. 2003. Black clergy in the 2000 election. The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion42(4): 533–546.

McDaniel, Eric. 2008. Politics in the Pews: The political mobilization of Black Churches. Ann Arbor:

The University of Michigan Press.

320 Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322

123

McGreevy, John T. 1998. Parish boundaries: The catholic encounter with race in the twentieth-centuryurban north. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Mckenzie, Brian D. 2004. Religious social networks, indirect mobilization, and African-American

political participation. Political Research Quarterly 57: 621–632.

McKenzie, Brian D. 2002. Free to choose: Qualitative evidence of voluntary religious behavior and its

implications for political participation in America. Unpublished Manuscript, University of

Michigan.

Morris, Aldon D. 1984. The origins of the civil rights movement: Black communities organizing forchange. New York: Free Press.

Olson, Laura R. 2002. Mainline Protestant Washington Offices and the Political Lives of Clergy. In TheQuiet Hand of God: Faith-based activism and the public role of Mainline Protestantism, ed. Robert

Wuthnow, and John H. Evans. Berkley: The University of California Press.

Owens, Michael Leo. 2009. God and government in the Ghetto: The politics of church–statecollaboration in Black America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Pattillo-McCoy, Mary. 1998. Church culture as a strategy of action in the Black community. AmericanSociological Review 63: 767–784.

Pew Research Center and Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life (Pew). 2008a. Some social conservativedisillusionment: More Americans question religion’s role in politics. Washington DC: Pew Forum

on Religion & Public Life and Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/445.pdf.

Pew Research Center and Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life (Pew). 2008b. U.S. Religious LandscapeSurvey: Religious affiliation: Diverse and dynamic. Washington DC: Pew Research Center.

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf.

Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Putnam, Robert D., and David E. Campbell. 2010. American Grace: How religion divides and unites us.

New York: Simon & Schuster.

Quinley, Harold E. 1974. The prophetic clergy: Social activism among protestant ministers. New York:

Wiley.

Ramirez, Roberto R., and G. Patricia de la Cruz. 2003. The Hispanic population in the United States:March 2002: Current population reports, June: P20-545. Washington: U.S. Census Bureau: U.S.

Department of Commerce: Economics and Statistics Administration.

Rogers, Reuel R. 2004. Race-based coalitions among minority groups Afro-Caribbean Immigrants and

African-Americans in New York City. Urban Affairs Review 39(3): 283–317.

Roozen, David A., William McKinney, and Jackson W. Carroll. 1984. Varieties of religious presence:Mission in public life. Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press.

Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization participation, and democracy, inAmerica. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Saad, Lydia. 2005. Military again tops ‘‘Confidence in Institutions’’ list: Ratings of the President,

Congress, and the Supreme Court are all down. Gallup News Service. http://www.gallup.

com/poll/16555/Military-Again-Tops-Confidence-Institutions-List.aspx. Retrieved 14 Oct 2009.

Smidt, Corwin, Sue Crawford, Meklissa Deckman, Donald Gray, Dan Hofrenning, Laura Olson, Sherrie

Steiner, and Beau Weston. 2003. The political attitudes and activities of Mainline Protestant Clergy

in the Election of 2000: A study of six denominations. The Journal for the Scientific Study ofReligion 42(4): 515–532.

Smith, R. Drew, and Fredrick C. Harris. 2005. Black Churches and local politics: Clergy influenceorganizational partnerships, and civic empowerment. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,

Inc.

Steensland, Brian, Jerry Z. Park, Mark D. Regnerus, Lynn D. Robinson, W. Bradford Wilcox, and Robert

D. Woodberry. 2000. The measure of American Religion: Toward improving the state of the art.

Social Forces 79(1): 291–318.

Swidler, Ann. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review 51:

273–286.

Tate, Katherine. 1991. Black political participation in the 1984 and 1988 Presidential elections. AmericanPolitical Science Review 85(4): 1159–1176.

Taylor, Robert Joseph, Linda M. Chatters, Rukmalie Jayakody, and Jeffrey S. Levin. 1996. Black and

White differences in religious participation: A multisample comparison. Journal for the ScientificStudy of Religion 35(4): 403–410.

Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322 321

123

Verba, Sidney, Kay L. Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism inAmerican politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wald, Kenneth D., and Allison Calhoun-Brown. 2006. Religion and politics in the United States.

Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Wald, Kenneth D., Dennis E. Owen, and Samuel S. Hill Jr. 1988. Churches as political communities.

American Political Science Review 82(2): 531–548.

Warren, Mark C. 2001. Dry bones rattling: Community building to revitalize American democracy.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Waters, Mary. 1999. Black identities: West Indian immigrant dreams and American realities. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Welch, Michael R., David C. Leege, Kenneth D. Wald, and Lyman A. Kellstedt. 1993. Are the sheep

hearing the shepherds?: Cue perceptions, congregational responses, and political communication

processes. In Rediscovering the religious factor in American politics, ed. David C. Leege, and

Lyman A. Kellstedt. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

Williams, Johnny E. 2003. African-American religion and the civil rights movement in Arkansas.Jackson: University of Mississippi Press.

Wood, Richard L. 2002. Faith in action: Religion race and democratic organizing in America. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Wood, Richard L., and Mark R. Warren. 2002. A different face of faith-based politics: Social capital and

community organizing in the public arena. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy22(9/10): 6–54.

Wuthnow, Robert. 2000. Religion and politics survey, 2000. The Pew Charitable Trusts. http://www.

thearda.com/Archive/Files/Descriptions/RELPOL2000.asp.

Wuthnow, Robert, and Conrad Hackett Robert. 2003. The social integration of practitioners of Non-

Western religions in the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42(4): 651–667.

322 Rev Relig Res (2011) 53:301–322

123