RELIGIONANDPOLITICSINAMERICA:

ANEMPIRICALTESTOFINDIVIDUALISTVERSUSSOCIALMODELS

ThomasA.Hirschl(tah4@cornell.edu)isProfessorofDevelopmentSociologyatCornellUniversity.HereceivedhisPh.D.attheUniversityofWisconsin‐Madison,andhaspublishedwidelyonsocialclassandthelifecourse.Fax:607/254‐2896;phone:607‐255‐1688;address:DepartmentofDevelopmentSociology,WarrenHall,Ithaca,NY14853.JamesG.Booth(jb383@cornell.edu)isProfessorofStatisticsandComputationalBiologyatCornellUniversity.HereceivedhisPh.D.attheUniversityofKentuckyandisafellowofAmericanStatisticalAssociation. LelandL.Glenna(llg13@psu.edu)isAssistantProfessorofRuralSociologyatPennsylvaniaStateUniversity.HereceivedaPh.D.insociologyattheUniversityofMissouri,andaMasterofDivinity(MDiv)fromHarvardUniversity.BrandnQ.Green(bqg103@psu.edu)isPh.D.CandidateinRuralSociologyatPennsylvaniaStateUniversity.

ABSTRACT

ThispaperexaminesempiricaldataonvotingbehaviorinU.S.Presidentialelections,andweinterpretthefindingsusingasocialmodel.Theanalysisproceedsthroughthreestages:(1)wereviewcontemporarysocialscienceliteratureonU.S.Presidentialvoterchoice,(2)weproposeasocialmodelofvoterchoicewherereligiouseffectsonvoterchoicearecontextualizedbytheindividual'srelationshiptosociety,and(3)weempiricallyanalyze2008Presidentialelection,buildinguponanearlierpaperanalyzingthe1980‐2000elections.The2008analysispresentedhereincludesanewmeasureofreligiousidentitythatfitsthedatabetterandbolstersthecaseforthesocialmodel.Inaddition,thealternativemeasureisvalidatedbyaseparatesurvey.Theanalysisfindsthattheaffectofreligiousidentityonvoterchoiceencompassesasocialdimensiondefinedbytheindividual’srelationshiptosociety,andoperationalizedbyrace,class,andgender.Keywords:socialclass,voterchoice,religion,ideology,andpolitics.Acknowledgements:LisaDundonreadearlydraftsofthispaper,andprovidedvaluablefeedback.

2

TheroleofreligioninU.S.politicsisalong‐standingsocialsciencequestion

thatbeginswiththefoundingoftherepublicandensuingdebatesaboutthe

separationofchurchandstate.1Thisquestionre‐surfacedinrelationtothereligious

right'spoliticalpartisanshipthatgatheredmomentumduringthe1970s,and

reachedanapexinPresidentGWBush's2000and2004electoralvictories.

AttemptsbyDemocraticPartyactiviststocounterwitha"religiousleft"appearto

havebeenlessthansuccessful,perhapsbecausetheDemocraticcoalition

encompassesasecularelementthatviewsreligionasarusetoswayvotersaway

fromeconomicconcerns.2Thispartisancontextraisesanewsocialsciencequestions

aboutthestrengthandcharacterofreligiousinfluenceswithinU.S.politics.

ThispaperanalyzestheroleofreligiousidentityinU.S.Presidentialvoter

choiceinordertoaddressthefollowingtwoquestions.First,isreligiousidentity,in

fact,aninfluenceonvoterchoice?Second,totheextentinfluenceisfound,whatis

thecharacterofsaidinfluence?Doestheconcept"voterpreference"bestdefinethe

influence,oristheinfluencemoreeffectivelyconceptualizedinsomecollective,or

social,sense?

Inansweringthesequestionsweupdateandbuilduponanearlierpaperthat

comparedtherelativeeffectivenessofanindividual‐levelvoterpreferencemodel

againstasocialmodelinformedbyclassicaltheory.3Inthepreviouspaper,

empiricaltestswereconductedforU.S.Presidentialelectionsinanationalsample

coveringthe1980to2000elections.Thecurrentpaperisbaseduponaseparate

nationalsamplethatrecoversvoterchoiceforthe2008Presidentialelection,and

includesanalternativemeasureofreligiousidentitydesignedbythestudyauthors.

3

Thetestresultssuggestthatthealternativemeasureimprovesmodelfit.Finally,we

validatethealternativemeasureinaseparatesurveyofuniversityundergraduates,

andfindthatthemeasurehasvaliditywithinthisalternativecontext.

CURRENTRESEARCHONRELIGIOUSIDENTITYANDVOTERCHOICE

Muchoftheempiricalworkonreligionandpoliticspresumesthatreligious

identitycanbemeasuredsolelybyindividualvariables.Suchapproachestendto

deployone,ormore,ofthreedomainsofreligiousidentity:denominational

affiliation,frequencyofchurchattendanceor“religiouscommitment,”andreligious

beliefs.4Differentresearchersmayemphasizeoneormoreofthesedomainsover

theothers.ForexampleManzaandBrooksdeploya“multicategorydenominational

scheme”5toclassifyindividuals’self‐identifieddenomination,andthenmodelthe

extentthatthesecategoriespredictvoterchoiceandpartisanship.Muchoftheir

workisderivedfromanalyzesoftheNationalElectionStudies,andamongtheir

findingsareapost‐1980compositionalshiftof“evangelicalProtestants”and

CatholicstowardtheRepublicanParty,ashiftof“mainlineProtestants”towardthe

DemocraticParty,butlittle,orno,netreligious/politicalpolarization.Intheir

analysesManzaandBrooksregardthevalidityofdenominationalaffiliationinmuch

thesamewaythatscholarsanalyzingsocialclassregardoccupationalclassification

schemes.Thisissomewhatsurprisinggiventhesymbolic/ideationalcharacterof

religionincomparisontotherelativelymaterialcharacterofwork,andthe

functionaldivisionoflaborinsociety.

4

Otherresearchersobjecttoemphasizingdenominationalaffiliationto

measurereligiousidentity,arguingthatitfailstocapturethefullimportofreligious

behavior,andinparticulartheeffectofreligiousbeliefsthat“transcend

denominationaldoctrine."6StudiesbyLaymanutilizingtheNationalElectionSurvey

suggestthatreligiouspoliticalcleavagehas,infact,widenedconsiderablysince

1980aroundtheaxisof“doctrinalorthodoxy”definedbyacompositescoreof

beliefsabouttheBibleandwhetherrespondentsbelievetheyare“bornagain.”7In

accordwithManzaandBrooks,Laymanfindslittleornopost‐1980political

polarizationindenominationalaffiliation,howeverindividualswhoespouseliteral

interpretationsoftheBible,and/orbelievetheyare“bornagain,”havebecome

strongerRepublicanvotersincomparisontoindividualsespousingmoreliberaland

secularbeliefswhohavebecomestrongerDemocraticvoters.

FindingsparalleltoLayman’sarearticulatedwithinananalysisofanational

samplecollectedbyDriskell,EmbryandLyon.8Thisstudytestsfortheeffectsof

religiononpoliticalparticipation,andthereligiousmeasuresincludedenomination

aswellasbeliefs,specificallyquestionsaboutsocialjusticeandtheworldlyroleofa

deity.Thetestresultssuggestthatwhenindividualsbelievethatadeityintervenes

inworldlyaffairstheyarelesslikelytoparticipatepolitically;whenreligiousbeliefs

incorporateconcernsaboutsocialjustice,politicalparticipationismorelikely.The

multivariatetestresultsareconsistentwiththepropositionthattheeffectofbelief

isindependentoftheeffectofdenomination,andthestudyauthorscontendthat

relyingsolelyupondenominationunderstates,andmayevendistort,thestrengthof

thelinkbetweenreligiousidentityandpoliticalparticipation.Whencomparing

5

findingsfromtheDriskelletal.studytoLayman’sstudiesandtheBrooks/Manza

studies,itisapparentthatmeasurementdecisionsinfluenceresearchfindingsabout

religiouseffectsonpolitics.

Thereareadditionalapproachestomodelingreligionandpolitics,for

examplethe“civilreligion”modelthatfusespoliticswithreligion,ascribinga

transcendentgoaltopoliticalleadership,especiallywithregardtotheU.S.President

asthehighestelectedofficial.9Thisapproachcanbeoperationalizedusingsurvey

questionstoidentifycivilreligiousvoterswhomaybeinclinedtofavorcandidates

espousingcivilreligiousconcerns.Wimberly’sstudyofvotersandpublicofficialsin

Raleigh,NorthCarolinafoundevidencethatthisperspectiveexplainedacomponent

ofthe1972Presidentialvote(RichardNixonwastheputative“civilreligion”

candidate).10Yetanotherapproachinvestigatesreciprocalcausationbetween

religionandpolitics,andreportsevidencethatreligiousattendanceisaffectedby

politicalideologicalconservativism/liberalism,andvice‐versa,overtime,inacross‐

lagged,paneldesignutilizingtheNationalElectionStudy.11Thisstudysuggeststhat

religiousattendanceaffectspartyidentification,andthatpartyidentificationaffects

religiousattendance,raisingthepossibilitythatreligiousattendanceresultsfrom

theinteractionofsecularandsacredmotivationsand/orbehaviors.

Anissueencounteredbyresearchersattemptingtospecifyreligiouseffects

onpoliticsisthattheseeffectsmaynotbeuniformacrossindividuals.Forexample,

inastudyusingtheGeneralSocialSurvey,GreeleyandHoutreportevidencethat:12

6

LiteralinterpretationsoftheBibleandfrequentreligiouspractice

pushAfricanAmericanstowardtheDemocratsandwhitestowardthe

Republicans.Literalismintensifiesthediametricallyopposedpolitical

orientationsinthetwogroups;itpullsthemfurtherapartpolitically.

InthisinstanceAfricanAmericansandwhitesprovidingthesameresponsesto

GeneralSocialSurveyquestionsregardingbeliefsabouttheBible,andfrequencyof

churchattendance,haveopposedpoliticalpartisanship.Herereligionappearsasa

forcethatunitesindividualsofthesameraceinpartisanship,whilesimultaneously

dividingtheracesagainstoneanother.

Allofthestudiescitedinthisliteraturereviewmodeltheeffectofreligionon

politicsusing,implicitlyorexplicitly,rationalchoicetheoriesofindividualbehavior

andbeliefs.Totheextentthatstructuresaretheorized,theyaretreatedasthe

unintendedconsequencesofindividualactors.Religionasasocialstructureis

conceptualizedasanaggregationofindividualpreferencesthatservesasaresource

thatenablespeopletoactontheirbeliefs.13Incontrasttothisperspective,classical

theoristspositasocialtheoryofreligionandpoliticsthatisbeyondtherealmof

individualpreferences.

DURKHEIMANDMARXONRELIGION,IDEOLOGY,ANDSOCIALBEHAVIOR

InTheElementaryFormsofReligiousLifeDurkheimanalyzed

hunter/gathererarchivalrecordsandconcludedthatsocietyisthe“source”of

religion,andthatreligiousbeliefsandritualsservetoidealizethematerialand

7

mentaldependencyofindividualsuponsociety.14Farfrombeingtheaggregationof

individualpreferencesforDurkheim,religionprovidesthesharedcategoriesof

thoughtthatsustainssocialcohesion.

Durkheim’sdefinitionofreligionextendsbeyondtheboundariesofformal

religiousorganizations,andisrelatedtoMarx’sconceptionofideologyandsocial

reproduction.Marxviewedformalreligionasanindicatorofnegativesocial

conditions,abeliefsystemthatoppressedpeopleturntothewaysickindividuals

turntoopium.15NeverthelessDurkheimsharesMarx’smaterialisticontological

assumption,andacknowledgesthisinhisstatementthatthe“materialsubstrate”

setsparametersforintellectuallife.16

MarxandEngel’stheoryofsociety17(i.e.,“historicalmaterialism”)directly

impliessocialdependencyofindividuals,andtheirvariouswritingsdemonstrate

thatindividualstendtoexperiencethisdependencyinideologicalorreligious

terms.17Volume1ofCapitalisrepletewithreligiousreferencesandmetaphors.For

example,thetheoryofcommodityfetishismisintroducedwiththefollowing

sentences:“Acommodityappears,atfirstsight,averytrivialthing,andeasily

understood.Itsanalysisshowsthatitis,inreality,averyqueerthing,aboundingin

metaphysicalsubtletiesandtheologicalniceties.”18ThispassagereflectsMarx’s

themethatreligiousandideologicalunderstandingsanimatepopularconceptions

aboutsociety,andinthisinstancefacilitatethefetishismofcommoditieswhere

socialrelationshipsaretransposedontorelationshipsbetweenobjects.

Marx’stheoryofcommodityfetishismistheoreticallyparalleltoDurkheim’s

treatmentofthetoteminhunter/gatherersociety.Inbothinstancessocialrelations

8

intrinsictosocialreproductionaretransposedontothings.Thistheoreticalparallel

illustratestheircommonpropositionthatreligionand/orideologyrepresent

idealized,popularknowledgesystemsthatfacilitatesocialreproduction.ForMarx,

religionandideologyobscurethematerialinterestsofsocialrelationships,and

impedethetransformationofcapitalistsocialrelations.ForDurkheim,religious

beliefsandritualsperpetuatesocialcohesion.BothMarxandDurkheimdefine

religionand/orideologyasknowledgesystemsthatreflectandidealizethe

dependenceofindividualsuponsociety.

Recognizingthesocialdimensionofreligionoffersastarkcontrastto

rationalchoicetheories,whichtendtoattributereligiousmotivationtoindividual‐

levelpreferences,andfailtoconsiderhow“religiouscapital”maybeapportioned

unevenlyandindependentlyofindividualpreferences.However,awholesale

adoptionofasocialtheoryofreligionisnotwithoutpitfalls.Durkheim’sandMarx’s

theoriesofreligiontreatindividualbehaviorasthemereexpressionofthesocial

structure.Whatiscalledforisatheorythatincorporatestheindividual’s

dependencyonsocietywhilestillrecognizingthatreligiousexpressionandits

politicalconsequencesarenotpredetermined.

ASOCIALTHEORYOFRELIGIOUSIDENTITYANDVOTERCHOICE

ThemodelweproposebearsarelationshiptoBourdieu’sconceptofsocial

capitalthatislinkedtotheunequaldistributionofpower.Forexample,Bourdieu

describeshowlanguagebecomesamarkerofclass,sinceitisanindicatorofasocial

group’sabilitytoengageincollectiveactiontoachievesocialreform.19Similarly,we

9

willargue,avoter’sreligiousbeliefmaybelinkedtoaparticularpartisan

preference,contingentuponthelocationofthatvoterwithinthestratificationorder.

Socialclass,race,genderrepresentdifferentialmaterialandideologicalinfluences

onhowindividualsexperiencesociety,anddifferentiallypatternreligiousinfluences

onpoliticalpartisanship.

Severalimplicationsfollowfromourproposedsocialtheoryofreligion,

ideology,politics,andsociety.First,religious/ideologicalbehaviorreflects

individualandcollectiveagencyinthecontextofsocialdependency,arelationship

thatindividualswilltendtoapprehendinsymbolicterms.Hencethestandard

measurementapproachthatattributesreligiousmotivationsolelytoindividual‐

levelpreferencesismisguided.Somesocialconstructthatrepresentsthis

dependencyiscalledfortomodelthesocialcharacterofreligion/ideology.Second,

totheextentthatreligiouseffectsaretheorizedsolelyintermsofindividual

preferences,theclassicalmodelisobviated.Researchthatdeploysatheoryof

individualpreferencestointegratecontextualmeasureswithindividualmeasuresof

religiousbehavioristheoreticallyincongruouswiththesocialtheoryoutlinedin

priorparagraphs.20

Inanearlieranalysiswemodeledreligiousidentityintermsofitsdifferential

expressionacrossthestratificationorderdefinedbyrace,class,andgender.Our

rationaleisthatindividualsexperiencesocietydifferentially,dependingupontheir

sociallocation,andthatthesethreedimensionsrepresentareasonablefirst

approximationoftheAmericanpeoples’stratificationexperience.21Second,that

politicsallocatesreal,aswellasthesymbolic,resources,andthatanindividual’s

10

abilitytoforwardclaimsonpoliticallydistributedresourcesisrelatedtohis/her

locationinthestratificationorder.Hencetheindividual’sreligiousidentityin

relationtopoliticsandwilltendtoberelatedtohis/herpositionwithinthe

stratificationorder.Thisleadsustohypothesizethattheeffectofreligiousidentity

onvoterchoiceiscontingentonsociallocation.Instandardindividualistmodels,

conversely,religiousidentityishypothesizedhaveanindependenteffectonvoter

choice,andthisindependenteffectisbelievednottobecontingentonrace,gender,

orsocialclass.Totheextentthatreligiousidentityeffectsonvoterchoiceare

independentofrace,class,andgender,theindividualistmodelissupported,andthe

proposedsocialmodelisnotsupported.

DATASOURCESANDMEASUREMENTRATIONALE

InthispaperweextendandbuilduponanalysisoftheGeneralSocialSurvey

(GSS),anationally representative, repeat cross-section sample of the English speaking,

non-institutional population age 18 and over.22 The GSS study analyzed voter choice for

the six Presidential elections during the period 1980 to 2000, and the data were derived

from 17 annual waves of data comprising 5,543 respondents with complete sets of

independent and dependent variables.

The analysis reported in this paper is based upon two new data sources. First, the

2009 Cornell National Social Survey (CNSS) was conducted by the Survey Research

Institute at Cornell University. The survey is a random sample of 1,000 households

within the United States, selecting one household member age 18 years of age and older.

The survey contains questions about Presidential voter choice in 2008, and repeats GSS

11

survey questions used to construct the independent and dependent variables in the GSS

analysis. The third data source is a survey of students taking “Introduction to Sociology”

at Cornell University during the spring, 2010, and represents an attempt to validate a new

biblical authority scale described in following paragraphs.

ThedependentvariablefortheGSS/CNSSanalysesisthebinaryvoting

preferencefortheRepublicanversusDemocraticPresidentialcandidate.We

excludenonvotersandthirdpartycandidatesfromtheanalysisinordertofocus

uponcandidatechoiceforthetwomajorpoliticalparties.Othervariablesonthe

righthandsideincluderelativefamilyincomeusedtoproxytheindividual’ssocial

class.Althoughincomeisnotthefavoredapproachformeasuringsocialclass,itis

widelyacknowledgedtobeimplicatedinclassposition.23Werecodefamilyincome

intoquartileswherequartile1isthebottom25percent.Othervariablesinthe

analysisarerace(whiteversusblack)andgender.IntheGSS,blacksarethesole

minoritygroupsufficientlylargeformultivariatestatisticalanalysis.

TheGSS/CNSSindependentvariablereligiousidentityisoperationalizedby

cross‐classifyingtwomeasures:biblicalauthorityandreligioustradition.Biblical

authorityisoperationalizedbytheanswertothismultiple‐choicequestioninthe

GSS:24

1.WhichofthesestatementscomesclosesttodescribingyourfeelingsabouttheBible?a.TheBibleistheactualwordofGodandistobetakenliterally,wordforword.b.TheBibleistheinspiredwordofGodbutnoteverythinginitshouldbetakenliterally,wordforword.c.TheBibleisanancientbookoffables,legends,history,andmoralpreceptsrecordedbymen.

12

ItisnotnecessarythattherespondentactuallyreadtheBibleorhasdirecttextual

knowledgeofit.Rather,thevariablemeasureswhethertheindividualpossesses

“feelings”thattheBibleisthe“literal”wordofGod,versustheinspiredwordofGod,

orabookoffables.Thebiblicalliteralismresponse(a)inparticular,isakintoMarx's

commodityfetishismandDurkheim'stotemism,insofarasitrepresentsthe

projectionofabeliefsystem("yourfeelings")ontoanobject,inthiscasethe

ChristianBible.

Thereareseveralreasonswhybiblicalauthorityisanappropriatevariableto

operationalizereligiousidentity.First,Riesebrodt’scomparativestudysuggeststhat

biblicalauthorityisakeycomponentofChristianfundamentalisminAmerican

society,andspecificallyidentifiesfundamentalismwithbiblicalliteralism.25

RespondentswhostatethattheBibleistheliteralwordofGodarethereforeina

leveragedpositionvis‐à‐vistheRepublicanParty’sstrategyofattracting

fundamentalistsandreligiousconservativesduringthestudyperiod.26

BecausetheGSSanalysisdemonstratedthatthesocialandpolitical

implicationsofbiblicalbeliefdifferaccordingtoreligioustradition,weincludethis

variableinourCNSSmeasureofreligiousidentity.TheGSS/CNSSmeasureof

religioustraditionisderivedfromtheGSSquestion,“Whatisyourreligious

preference?”27,andisusedtocreateameasurethatcorrespondstothemajortwo

religioustraditionsinAmericansociety:ProtestantandCatholic,versusallother

religioustraditionsandnon‐religiousindividuals.IntheGSSanalysiswesubdivided

BaptistsfromotherProtestantsbecauseBaptististhelargestdenominationwithin

thelargesttradition;howeverwefoundnosubstantivedifferencesbetweenBaptists

13

andotherProtestants,andthereforedonotsubdivideProtestantsintheCNSS

analysis.

TheGSSbiblicalbeliefscaleperformedasanticipatedintheanalysis,

howeverthestudyauthorsdevelopedquestionsaboutitsinterpretation.Ingeneral

weareunsurehowtointerpretthevariousresponsesbeyondhypothesesdescribed

bytheresearchliterature.Withtheintentionofcreatingamoreaccurateand

encompassingscalewescriptedadditionalbiblicalauthorityquestionsthatare

askedontheCNSSsurvey.Thesequestionsaredescribedinfollowingparagraphs.

ANALYSIS

ResultsfromtheGeneralSocialSurvey

Hirschl,Booth,andGlennausedatafromtheGSStoinvestigatethelink

betweenvoterchoiceandreligiousidentityinsixPresidentialelectionsfrom1980

to2000.Theyuselogisticregressionmodelstoassesstheassociationbetweenthe

choiceof4,754whitevotersbetweenRepublicanandDemocraticPresidential

candidatesandseveralpredictorsincludingtheirlevelofbiblicalauthorityas

measuredbyresponses“a”,“b,”or“c”totheGSSbiblicalbeliefquestiondescribedin

earlierparagraphs.Blackvoterswerenotmodeledduetotheroughly9tooneodds

ofblacksvotingDemocraticacrosseachofindependentvariablecategories.

Specifically,let denotetheprobabilityofvotingRepublican(versus

Democrat)forapersonofsex (female=1,male=2),religioustraditionj(1=Baptist,

2=otherProtestant,3=Catholic,4=other),andbiblicalauthoritylevelk(a=1,b=0,c=‐

1),inincomequartilel.OnemodelconsideredbyHirschletal.is

14

(1),

where“ln”denotesnaturallogarithm, (category1isthe“baseline”

categoryofeachfactor),and isanindicatorforCatholics.Thevariables,LandI,

areinteger“scores”thatallowfor(linear)trendsinthelogoddswithincreasing

levelsofbiblicalauthorityandincome.Thetwointeractiontermsinmodel(1)allow

theslopeofthetrendwithincreasinglevelsofbiblicalauthoritytovary

systematicallywithincreasingincome,andforthebaselineslope(i.e.inthefirst

incomequartile)tobedifferentforCatholics.Thisismostparsimoniouslogistic

modelconsideredbyHirschletal.thatisconsistentwiththeGSSdataintermsof

themodeldevianceor statistic.28Thereisasignificantdeteriorationinthefitif

anyofthemodelcomponentsareremoved.

Themodelimpliesaconstantgenderdifferenceregardlessoftheother

factorsrepresentedbytheparameter .Hirschletal.reportanestimated

value, ,whichimpliesthattheoddsamalevotesRepublicanareabout35%

higherthanthoseforafemale(since ),controllingforreligioustradition,

income,andbiblicalauthorityresponse.Differencesbetweenthereligioustradition

categoriesarealsoconstantwiththeexceptionofCatholics.Inparticular,Hirschlet

al.foundthatdifferencesinthevotingpatternsofBaptistsandotherProtestantsare

negligible.

15

TheanalysisoftheGSSdatainHirschletal.indicatesthatthebiblical

authorityresponseishighlypredictiveofvotingpreferenceamongProtestants,but

muchlesssoamongCatholics.Forexample,theyestimatedtheoddsthatafemale

Protestant,inthehighestincomequartile,votedRepublicantobe0.97ifshegave

response“c”(fables)tothebiblicalauthorityquestion.Theseoddsessentially

doubleto1.90ifshegaveresponse“b”(spiritual),anddoubleagainto3.70ifshe

gaveresponse“c”(literal).

ComparisonwiththeCornellNationalSocialSurvey

TheCNSSisasurveyofadults,aged18andover,whoareresidentsofthe

continentalUnitedStates,administeredbytheSurveyResearchInstituteatCornell.

Weanalyzedresponsesofthe1,000adultssurveyedin2009.Thissurveyincluded

fivequestionsconcerningbiblicalauthorityincludingquestion1fromtheGSS

discussedinpriorparagraphs(hereafterreferredtoasbiblicalauthorityquestion

1).Respondentswerealsoaskedwhomtheyvotedforinthe2008Presidential

election(McCain/PalinorObama/Biden).

WhitevotersinterviewedbytheCNSSfavoredMcCainoverObamaby1.1to

one,andblackvotersfavoredObamaby30toone.Thismarginmakesitimpractical

tomodelblackvoters,andrepresentsandevenhighermarginthanwasfound

duringthe1980to2000electionswheretheDemocraticmarginamongblackvoters

was9toone.ConsistentwiththeGSSdata,biblicalliteralismwithintheCNSSwas

foundtobehigheramongblackvoterscomparedtowhitevoters:inboththeCNSS

16

andtheGSS,approximatelyoneinthreeblacksandoneinfourwhitesanswered“a”

toquestion1.

Wefitmodel(1)tothe449whiterespondentswithcompletedataonall

relevantquestions,withtheonlymodificationbeingthatBaptistswerenot

separatelyidentifiedfromotherProtestants.Theresidualdevianceforthefittothe

ungroupeddatais523.8(df=441).Aftergroupingtherespondentsinto72

categoriesformedbycross‐classificationbygender,religioustradition,income

quartile,andbiblicalauthoritylevel,thesamemodelhadaresidualdevianceof78.9

(df=62).Themodelfitstotheungroupedandgroupeddataareidenticalintermsof

parameterestimatesandstandarderrors.However,thefittothegroupeddatacan

beusedtoassesslack‐of‐fit,althoughadmittedlysomeofthecellcountsaftercross‐

classificationaresmallandsothevalidityofthechi‐squaredtestissomewhat

questionable.Withthiscaveatthefitofmodel(1)totheCNSSdataappearstobe

reasonable.Wefurthernotethatthetwointeractiontermsinthemodelareonly

borderlinesignificant,presumablybecauseofthesmallersamplessizeintheCNSS.

ThegeneralpatternsofassociationintheCNSSdata(e.g.asmeasuredbythe

signsofthecoefficients)aresimilartothosereportedbyHirschletal.basedonthe

GSSdata.However,therearesomestrikingdifferencesintermsofthemagnitudes

oftheassociations.Forexample,theestimatedgenderdifferencefromtheCNSS

datais whichtranslatesintoanodds‐ratiocomparingtheoddsofamale

votingRepublicantothoseofafemale,controllingforotherfactors,of2.32.

Moreover,theresponsetothequestiononbiblicalauthorityisevenmorepredictive

ofvoterpreference(particularlyamongnon‐Catholics).Theestimatedoddsthata

17

femaleProtestant,inthehighestincomequartile,votedRepublican,is0.53tooneif

shegaveresponse“c”(fables)tothebiblicalauthorityquestion.Theseoddsare

multipliedbyafactoroffiveto2.53tooneifshegaveresponse“b”(spiritual),and

byanotherfactoroffiveto12.15tooneifshegaveresponse“a”(literal).Inlater

paragraphsweprovideinterpretationaboutwhythedirectionoftheCNSSgender

andbiblicalauthoritycoefficientsarethesameastheGSScoefficients,howeverthe

slopesareamplified.Wenextconsiderhowthenewbiblicalauthorityquestions

informthemodel.

ACompositeMeasureofBiblicalAuthority

Inadditiontobiblicalauthorityquestion1,participantsintheCNSSwere

askedwhethertheyagreed(yesorno)withthefollowingfourstatementsaboutthe

Bible:

2.TheBibleshouldhelpguidepoliticaldecisions.

3.TheBibleistobereadliterally.

4.TheBibleiswithoutcontradiction.

5.TheBibleisanauthoritativedocumentwhichhasmoralrulesI

mustfollow.

Thus,theCNSSdatacontainsfivecategoricalresponsesrelatingtorespondents’

viewsofbiblicalauthority.

Inprincipleitispossibletoextendmodel(1)byaddingtermsassociated

withdummyvariablesforeachbinary(yes/no)response,butwiththepossibilityof

multi‐wayinteractionsaswellasmulticollinearity,thisapproachisnotveryfruitful.

18

Insteadwecreateacompositebiblicalauthorityindexbasedonallfivecategorical

variablesrelatingtofeelings/beliefsabouttheBiblethatcanbeusedinmodel(1)in

placeofthethreelevelscorebasedonQuestion1alone.

(Figure1abouthere.)

Thecompositeindexforeachindividualisdefinedastheir1stprinciple

coordinatescorefromamultiplecorrespondenceanalysisofthefivecategorical

variables.Multiplecorrespondenceanalysis(MCA)canbethoughtofastheanalog

ofprinciplecomponentsanalysisforcategoricalvariables.29Themultiple

correspondencemapisaplotoftheresponsesonthefirsttwoprincipledimensions.

ThismapisgiveninFigure1fortheresponsestothequestionandstatements

concerningviewsabouttheBible.Themapsuggestsanorderingoftheresponseson

a1‐dimensionalcontinuousscale,namelythe1stprinciplecoordinate.Thus,for

example,responses“a”and“c”toQuestion1are,respectively,atthepositiveand

negativeextremes,whileresponse“b”isinthemiddleofthescale.A“no”response

toStatement5isclosetotheresponse“c”forQuestion1atthenegativeendofthe

scale.Ontheotherhanda“yes”responsetoStatement5isinthepositivepartofthe

scale,butsomedistancefromthepositiveextreme.

Asavalidationexperimentweaskedstudentsin“IntroductiontoSociology”

(DSOC1101)atCornellUniversityduringthespringof2010torateeachofthe11

responsestoQuestion1,andStatements2‐5,concerningbiblicalauthority.The

studentswereaskedtousea5‐pointLikertscalewith1representingaresponse

19

indicatingtherespondentisa“non‐Christian/atheist/religiouscynic,”and5

indicatingan“evangelicalChristian/biblicalliteralist”respondent.Theaverage

ratingsgivenbythestudentsoftheelevenresponseswereremarkablyconsistent

withtheprinciplecoordinatescoresobtainedbyMCA.Theseaveragesarebasedon

108studentswhogavelogicallycoherentscores.Forexample,studentswho

assignedascoreofonetoeveryresponsewereeliminated.

(Table1abouthere.)

Table1showshowthestudentsratedtheelevenresponses,sortedaccording

toaverageLikertscore.1ThisorderingisthesameasthatbasedontheMCA1st

principlecoordinatewiththeexceptionthattheorderofresponses4.yand3.yare

switched.However,thescoresforthesetworesponsesarealmostidenticalbothin

theCNSSdataandthestudentsurvey.Infact,thespacingsofthescoresfromthe

twodatasetsareremarkablysimilar.Themaindifferenceisthatthestudentsrate

response“b”toquestion1closertothehigher(biblicalliteralist)endofthescale.

ResultsforCNSSusingtheCompositeMeasure

Table2givestheparameterestimatesandstandarderrorsobtainedby

fittingmodel(1)totheCNSS(whitevoter)datausingthesimplemeasureofbiblical

authoritybasedontheresponsestobiblicalauthorityquestion1alone,andalso

usingthecompositemeasurediscussedabovebasedonresponsestoquestion1and

20

statements2‐5.Thecompositemeasurehasbeenscaledsothat‐1istheaverage

scoreforparticipantswhogaveresponse“c”(fables)toquestion1,and1isthe

averageforthosewhogaveresponse“a”(literal).Thiswasdonesothatthescales

arecomparableinthetwomodelfits.Theparameterestimatesaresimilarinthe

twofits,butkeymodelcomponentssuchasgender,andthetwointeractionsterms

involvingthebiblicalauthorityscore,areconsiderablymoresignificantwhenthe

compositescoreisused.Moreover,theimprovementinthemodelfitisquite

dramaticwiththecompositescore,theresidualdeviancebeing479.7(df=437),

comparedwith523.8(df=441)withthesimplescore.Thecompositescore

effectivelyusesupfouradditionaldegreesoffreedombecauseitisbasedonfive

responsesratherthanone.

(Table2andFigure2abouthere.)

Figure2providesagraphicaldescriptionofmodel(1)deployingthe

compositebiblicalauthorityscale;thecompositescaleisalsothex‐axisinFigure2.

Notethatthelinesextendsbeyond‐1and+1becausetheseintegervaluesaresetto

theaveragevalueofarespondentwhoanswered“c”and“a,”respectively,tobiblical

authorityquestion1.Infacttherearerespondentswithmoreextremescoresthan

theaveragevaluesforrespondentsanswering“c”and“a,”andhencethegraphlines

extendbeyond‐1and+1.ThegraphlinesrepresentProtestant(red),Catholic

(green),andother(blue),andmenaresymbolizedbysquares,womenbytriangles.

Thedensityofsquaresandtrianglesrepresentssampledensity.They‐axisisthe

21

naturallogodds,andcomputedtobesymmetricalaboutzero.Valuesof‐1and+1

represent2.72toonepreferencefortheDemocratsandRepublicans,respectively;

valuesof‐2and+2represent7.39toonepreferencetheDemocratsand

Republicans,respectively;andvaluesof‐4and+4represent54.60toonepreference

fortheDemocratsandRepublicans,respectively.

SeveralfeaturesofFigure2arenoteworthy,inparticulartheextremesplit

withintheProtestanttradition.Atlowlevelsbiblicalauthority(Mean=‐1),andat

allincomelevels,ProtestantsleantowardtheDemocratsbyanoddsof

approximatelytwotoone;howeverathighlevelsofbiblicalauthority(Mean=+1)

ProtestantsarestrongRepublicanpartisans,andthepartisanshipoddsintensifyas

incomeincreases.Forexample,Protestantmenare7tooneRepublicanvotersatthe

lowestincomequartile,and50tooneatthehighestincomequartile.Catholics

followadifferentpattern.AtthelowestincomequartileCatholicsarepartisan

neutralatalllevelsofbiblicalauthority;asincomeincreasestheslopebecomesless

flat,andapartisansplitemergesalongthelinesofbiblicalauthoritywithinthe

third,andespeciallythefourth,incomequartiles.Finally,the“other”group,whichis

aresidualcollectionofreligiousandnonreligiousidentities,displayabiblical

authoritypolarizationpatternsimilartoProtestants,butnotasextreme.Thuswe

surmisethatincomeintensificationofreligiousidentityisgeneralthroughoutthe

sample:theslopesofthethreelinesincreaseacrosseachoftheincomequartiles,

suggestingthattheeffectofreligiousidentityonvoterchoiceiscontingenton

income,heretakenasanindicatorofsocialclass.

22

(Figure3abouthere.)

ROCcurvesshowingthepredictiveaccuracyofmodel(1)withsimpleand

compositescoresrespectivelyareplottedinFigure3.Thecurvesareplotsofthe

(in‐sample)sensitivity(theprobabilityapersoniscorrectlypredictedtovote

Republican)againstoneminussensitivity(theprobabilityapersonisincorrectly

predictedtovoteRepublican)astheclassificationcutoffvariesbetween1and0.

(ThemodelclassifiesapersonashavingvotedRepublicanatcutoffδifπ>δ,whereπ

istheirfittedprobabilityofhavingvotedRepublican.)TheROCcurveforthe

compositemeasureliesalmostuniformlyabovethatforthesimplemeasure

indicatingsuperiorsensitivityandspecificityatnearlyallvaluesofδ.Thus,it

appearsthatthecompositescoreisamuchmorerefinedmeasureintermsof

capturingtheassociationbetweenbiblicalauthorityandvoterchoice.

IntegratedModelingProcedures

Thestatisticalanalysisdescribedintheprevioussectioninvolvedtwo

distinctstages.Atthefirststageweconstructedanindexofbiblicalauthorityusing

MCA.Thisindexwasthenusedasapredictorofvotingpreferenceinalogistic

regressionmodel.Wealsoconductedasinglestage,integrated,analysisinwhichan

indexwasconstructedaspartofthemodelfittingprocessasfollows.Definethe

indexforagivensubjectasaweightedaverage, ,oftheir5

responses,where istheresponsetoquestion1,codedas1forresponse“a”,0for

“b”and‐1for“c”,andwhere istheresponsetoStatementsm=2,3,4and5,

23

coded‐1for“no”and1for“yes.”Thecoefficientsintheweightedaveragecanbe

estimatedwhilesimultaneouslyfittingmodel(1)byiterativelyupdatingthetwo

setsofparameters.Thisprocessresultedinanevenfurtherimprovedfit

( ,df=437),howeverthequalitativeconclusionsfromthefitted

parametersareessentiallyunchanged.TherawdataandRcodeforthismodelare

availablefromtheauthors.30

DISCUSSION

Inthispaperwesetouttoanalyzetherelationshipbetweenreligiousidentity

andvoterchoice,andre‐testasetofempiricalfindingsidentifiedbyanearlier

analysis.Theearlieranalysisfoundthatthattheaffectofreligiousidentityonvoter

choiceisnotindependent,butratheriscontingentontheindividual’sgender,class,

andracestatus.Thepresentanalysisisconsistentwiththeearlierstudy,although

samplesizelimitationspreventafullexplorationofthenuancesofgender

dependency.31Thepresentanalysisdeploysanewbiblicalauthorityscalethatis

foundtoprovideabettermodelfitincomparisontothescaleusedintheearlier

analysis.

Beforeinterpretingthefindings,wefirstdelineatewhatwebelievetobethe

twomostsignificantlimitationsofthepresentstudy.Thefirstisthatthestudy

samplesizeis445whitevotersand62blackvoters;allbuttwooftheblacksreport

votingforObama.Thislimitsthenumberofparametersthatcanbemodeledforthe

whitesub‐sample,andreiteratesthestrongDemocraticleaningamongblacksfound

inthepriorstudyofsixPresidentialelections.Whilethewhitesamplesizerestricts

24

thecomplexityofthemodelsthatcanbeconsidered,itpresentsanopportunityfor

empiricaltestingfocusedontherevisedbiblicalauthorityscale.Additionallythe

revisedbiblicalauthorityscaleisvalidatedbyasurveyofuniversity

undergraduates.

Asecondlimitationofthepresentstudyisthatitmeasuresoneperiodof

timeandonePresidentialelection,andmaynotberepresentativeofothertime

periods/Presidentialelections.Howeverbecausethe2008modelresultsare

generallyconsistentwiththepreviousstudyofsixPresidentialelections,webelieve

wearemoreorlessjustifiedingeneralizingthe2008findingstothelonger,prior

periodoftime.

InapriorstudywedeployedabiblicalauthorityscaleavailableintheGSS

becauseitcametheclosest,amongavailableconstructs,tosatisfyingtheoretical

specificationsidentifiedbyourtheoryofChristianfundamentalismandthe

ideologicalfunctionoftheChristianBiblewithinAmericansociety.Inthepresent

analysisweproposewhatwebelievetobeanimprovedbiblicalauthorityscale,and

empiricalanalysiswithinanationallyrepresentativesurveysuggeststhatit

comprisesahierarchical,one‐dimensionalscale.Thescalehierarchyisconfirmedby

asurveyofuniversityundergraduates,suggestingithasrobustvalidity.Thuswe

findevidencethatthescaleisasociallyvalidmeasureofbiblicalauthority.

Asecondfeatureofthenewbiblicalauthorityscaleisthatitdramatically

improvesstatisticalfitwithinamodelofPresidentialvoterchoice,incomparisonto

theGSSscale.Itbetterexplainstherelationshipbetweenreligiousidentityandvoter

choice(seetheROCcurvesinFigure3,andrelativemodeldeviancesdescribedin

25

priorparagraphs),andthisimprovedfitsuggeststhatbiblicalauthorityisa

componentofreligiousidentityinfluencinglargenumbersofvoters,andespecially

Protestantvoters,whenevaluatingvoterchoice.Furthermore,whenthescaleis

estimatedaspartofasingle‐stagefittingprocedure,themodelfitisfurther

improved,providingadditionalevidencethatbiblicalauthorityrelatedreligious

identitypredictsvoterchoicedecisionsinU.S.Presidentialelections.

Thissetofempiricalfindingsisconsistentwiththesocialmodelproposedby

DurkheimandMarxwherereligionisasociallyderivedentitythatfacilitatessocial

cohesion.Specifically,itisapparentthatbiblicalbeliefservestounitesocially

definedgroupsinpoliticalpartisanship.Thisunityisnotderivedfromsacredtext,

butratheristransposedontothesacredtextbysocialgroupspossessingshared

experiences,ideologies,andmateriallocations.

Ifonedisagreeswiththisinterpretation,thenaquestionposedbythe

obtainedrelationshipbetweenreligiousidentityandvoterchoiceisthecharacterof

analternativeinterpretation.Doestheobtainedrelationshipsolelyreflectthe

agencyofindividualvoterchoice,ordoesasocialelemententerin?Second,ifthere

isasocialelement,whatisthecharacterofthisputativesocialelement?In

answeringthisquestionwerelyupontheconceptofsocialdependencyimpliedby

Durkheim’sandMarx’sanalysesofreligion,andreasonthatindividuals’experience

ofsocialdependencywillvary,dependingupontheirlocationinsociety.Specifically

weproposethatthepartisanconsequencesofreligiousidentityarecontingentupon

race,class,andgender.

26

ManysocialanalystsviewraceasthewidestdividewithintheAmerican

stratificationorder,andthevoterchoiceanalysishereinsuggestsitisalsothe

widestdivideinpoliticalpartisanshiplinkedtoreligiousidentity.Whereassocial

class,gender,andreligiousidentitysplitwhitevoterpartisanship,theblackvoteis

stronglyDemocraticacrosseachofthesedimensions.Whitebiblicalliteralistsare

strongRepublicanvoters,andblackbiblicalliteralistsandareequallystrong

Democraticvoters,notbecausethesetwogroupsreaddifferentBibles,butbecause

theirexperiencesofsocietyaredifferent,andhencetheirreligiousidentitiesand

politicalpartisanshiparecoloredbytheexperienceofrace.

Socialclassisalsoacontingencyintherelationshipbetweenreligious

identityandvoterchoice.Asincomerises,doctrinalpolarizationwithinreligious

traditionssharpens(seeFigure2).Thustheexperienceofsocialclassleadsto

differingpoliticalconsequenceswithinthesamereligioustraditionsandbiblical

beliefsets.

Inthisanalysiswelackthesamplesizetoexploregendernuancesidentified

bythepreviousstudywherebiblicalbeliefandincomewereco‐contingenciesinthe

effectofgenderonvoterchoice.Thepresentanalysisidentifiesaconstanteffectof

genderonvoterchoice,andwenotethatthiseffectamplifiedin2008,comparedto

the1980–2000Presidentialelections.Themagnitudeofthe2008gendereffect

overshadowsthe7percentgendergapreportedbytheexitpolls32becausethe

computedgendereffect,unliketheexitpollmargin,isnetofothervariablesin

model(1).Ourresultssuggestthathigh‐income,biblicalliteralist,Protestant

women,votedRepublicanbya12toonemargin.Thusbiblicalauthorityandsocial

27

class,inthecontextofaneteffectthatfavoredtheDemocraticcandidate,splitwhite

women’spartisanshipinthe2008Presidentialelections.

Incomparingthepresentpaperwiththepreviousone,severaldifferences

emerge,firstthatthe2008electionapparentlyamplifiedtheblackoddsofvoting

Democratic.ThisishardlysurprisingsincetheDemocraticcandidatewasan

African‐American,andwhosecandidacywasgenerallyhailedassymbolizingthe

forwardmarchofcivilrights.Second,the2008electionamplifiedtheoddsamong

whitemen,amongthewhiteupperclass,andamongwhitebiblicalliteralists,of

votingRepublican.Thuswesurmisethe2008electionwaspolarizingacrossrace,

gender,socialclass,andreligiouslines,incomparisontothe1980–2000

Presidentialelections.

Ourfindingregarding2008voterpolarizationisdistinctfromotherresearch

findingsregardingreligiouspolarization,forexamplethestudiesbyLaymanand

Driskelletal.describedinearlierparagraphs.Intheseotherstudiesreligious

identityistreatedasanindependentinfluenceonpoliticsthatderivesfrom

variationinindividualvoterpreferences.Inthepresentstudyreligiousidentityis

conceivedasnotonlyembeddedwithintheindividual;itisalsoembeddedwithin

society.Religiousidentitythereforeservesasamarkerforthepartisan

relationshipsofstratificationgroupswithinthesocialandpoliticalorder,reflecting

theeffortsofthesegroupstoobtainpoliticallydistributedresources,toseekredress

forperceived,orreal,injustices,etc.

Thefindingsreportedbythispapersuggestthattheaffectofreligious

identityonvoterchoiceencompassesasocialdimension,andisnotsolelyan

28

individualchoice.Thesocialdimensionisdefinedbytheindividual’srelationshipto

society,andcanbeoperationalizedusingstratificationcategories.Thusaparticular

religiousidentityisfoundtotriggerdifferentvoterchoices,contingentonthe

individual’srace,class,andgenderstatus.Finally,thefindingsareconsistentwith

theinsightsofDurkheimandMarxwhocharacterizereligionasapopular

worldviewrelatedtosocialcohesionandtosocialreproduction.

29

Notes

1.IsaacKramnickandR.LaurenceMoore,TheGodlessConstitution:AMoralDefense

oftheSecularState,(NewYork:W.W.Norton,2005).

2.ThomasFrank,What’sthematterwithKansas:HowConservativesWontheHeart

ofAmerica,(NewYork:MetropolitanBooks,2004);GeoffreyLayman,TheGreat

Divide:ReligiousandCulturalConflictinAmericanPartyPolitics,(NewYork:

ColumbiaUniversityPress,2001);KevinPhillips,AmericanTheocracy:ThePeriland

PoliticsofRadicalReligion,Oil,andBorrowedMoneyinthe21stCentury,(NewYork:

Viking,2006).

3.ThomasA.Hirschl,JamesG.BoothandLelandL.Glenna,“TheLinkBetweenVoter

ChoiceandReligiousIdentityinContemporarySociety:BringingClassicalTheory

BackIn.”SocialScienceQuarterly90no.4(2009):927‐944.

4.AndrewGreeleyandMichaelHout,TheTruthAboutConservativeChristians,

(Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2006);DavidKnoke,“Religion,

StratificationandPolitics:Americaninthe1960s,”AmericanJournalofPolitical

Science18no.2(1974):331‐345;GeoffreyLayman,TheGreatDivide:Religiousand

CulturalConflictinAmericanPartyPolitics;JeffManzaandClemBrooks,“The

ReligiousFactorinU.S.PresidentialElections,1960‐1992,"TheAmericanJournalof

Sociology103no.1(1997):38‐81;StratosPatrikios,“AmericanRepublican

Religion?DisentanglingtheCausalLinkBetweenReligionandPoliticsintheUS,”

PoliticalBehavior30no.3(2008):367‐389;DarrenE.Sherkat,andChristopherG.

Ellison,“RecentDevelopmentsandCurrentControversiesintheSociologyof

30

Religion,”AnnualReviewofSociology25(1999):363‐394;andRobertD.Woodberry

andChristianS.Smith,“FundamentalismEtAl:ConservativeProtestantsin

America,”AnnualReviewofSociology24(1998):25‐56.

5.ManzaandBrooks,“TheReligiousFactorinU.S.PresidentialElections,1960‐

1992,"p.40;seealsoClemBrooksandJeffManza,“AGreatDivide:Religionand

PoliticalChangeinU.S.NationalElections,1972‐2000,”TheSociologicalQuarterly45

no.3(2004):421‐450;_____,“GroupSize,Turnout,andPoliticalAlignmentsandthe

DevelopmentofU.S.PartyCoalitions,1960‐1992,”EuropeanSociologicalReview15

no.4(1999):369‐389;_____,“TheGenderGapinU.S.PresidentialElections:When?

Why?Implications?,"TheAmericanJournalofSociology103no.5(1998):1235‐

1266.

6.GeoffreyLayman“ReligionandPoliticalBehaviorintheUnitedStates:TheImpact

ofBeliefs,Affiliations,andCommitmentFrom1980to1994.”ThePublicOpinion

Quarterly61no.2(1997):288‐316,p.310

7.ibid,p.291;seealsoLayman,TheGreatDivide:ReligiousandCulturalConflictin

AmericanPartyPolitics.

8.RobynDriskell,ElizabethEmbry,andLarryLyon,“FaithandPolitics:The

InfluenceofReligiousBeliefsonPoliticalParticipation,”SocialScienceQuarterly89

no.2(2008):294‐314.

9.Bellah,RobertN.,“CivilReligioninAmerica,”Daedalus117no.3(1988):97‐118.

10.RonaldC.Wimberly,“CivilReligionandtheChoiceforPresident:Nixonin’72.”

SocialForces59no.1(1980):44‐61.

31

11.StratosPatrikios,“AmericanRepublicanReligion?DisentanglingtheCausalLink

BetweenReligionandPoliticsintheUS,”PoliticalBehavior30no.3(2008):367‐

389.

12.GreeleyandHout,TheTruthAboutConservativeChristians,p.72.

13.SeeAndrewGreeleyforaconciseexplanationoftherationalchoiceperspective,

“ColemanRevisited:ReligiousStructuresasaSourceofSocialCapital,”American

BehavioralScientist40no.5(1997):587‐594.

14.EmileDurkheim,TheElementaryFormsofReligiousLife,(NewYork:Oxford

UniversityPress,2001),p.313.

15.AndrewM.McKinnon,"ReadingOpiumofthePeople:Expression,Protest,and

theDialecticsofReligion,"CriticalSociology31nos.1‐2(2005):15‐38.

16.Durkheim,TheElementaryFormsofReligiousLife,pp.318‐319.

17.KarlMarxandFrederickEngels..“PrefacetoAContributiontotheCritiqueof

PoliticalEconomy,”Pp.502‐506inKarlMarxandFrederickEngelsSelectedWorks,

Volume1,(Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1969);_____,“Feuerbach.Oppositionofthe

MaterialisticandIdealisticOutlooks,”Pp.16‐80inKarlMarxandFrederickEngels

SelectedWorks,Volume1,(Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1969);seeespeciallythe

descriptionofFrenchpeasantsinKarlMarx,The18thBrumaireofLouisBonaparte

[electronicresource],(London:ElectricBookCo,2001).

18.KarlMarx,Capital:ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,Volume1,(NewYork:

InternationalPublishers,1970),p.71.

19.PierreBourdieu,LanguageandSymbolicPower,translatedbyGinoRaymondand

MatthewAdamson,(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1991),p.127.

32

20.MarkD.Regenerus,DavidSikkinkandChristianS.Smith,“Votingandthe

ChristianRight:ContextualandIndividualPatternsofElectoralInfluence,"Social

Forces77no.4(1999):1375‐1401.

21.DavidB.Grusky(ed.),SocialStratification:Class,Race,andGenderinSociological

Perspective,(Boulder,CO:WestviewPress,2003).

22.Hirschl,BoothandGlenna,“TheLinkBetweenVoterChoiceandReligious

IdentityinContemporarySociety:BringingClassicalTheoryBackIn.”

23.G.WilliamDomhoff,WhoRulesAmerica?:PowerandPolitics,4thEdition,(Boston:

McGrawHill,2002);RobertPerrucciandEarlWysong,TheNewClassSociety,3rd

Edition,(Lanham,Md:Rowman&Littlefield,2007);ErikO.Wright,“TheContinuing

RelevanceofClassAnalysis–Comments,”TheoryandSociety25no.5(1996):693‐

716.

24.JamesA.Davis,TomW.SmithandPeterV.Marsden,GeneralSocialSurveys,

1972­2004[CumulativeFile],(AnnArbor,MI:Inter‐universityConsortiumfor

PoliticalandSocialResearch,retrievedDecember12,2005,

http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR‐SERIES/00028.xml),p.197

25.MartinRiesebrodt,PiousPassion:TheEmergenceofModernFundamentalismin

theUnitedStatesandIran,(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1993);PeterL.

Berger,“TheClassStruggleinAmericanReligion,”TheChristianCentury25

February(1981):194‐199.

26.JohnC.Danforth,“IntheNameofPolitics,”NewYorkTimes,March30,2005;

Phillips,AmericanTheocracy:ThePerilandPoliticsofRadicalReligion,Oil,and

BorrowedMoneyinthe21stCentury.

33

27.Davis,SmithandMarsden,GeneralSocialSurveys,1972­2004[CumulativeFile],

p.169.

28.Agresti,A.,CategoricalDataAnalysis,(JohnWiley&Sons,1990),Section3.3.2.

29.MichaelGreenacreandJörgBlasius,MultipleCorrespondenceAnalysisand

RelatedMethods,(BocaRaton,LA:Chapman&Hall/CRC,2006).

30.RDevelopmentCoreTeam,R:ALanguageandEnvironmentforStatistical

Computing,RFoundationforStatisticalComputing,(Vienna,Austria:http://www.R‐

project.org,2010).

31.Hirschl,Booth,andGlenna,“TheLinkBetweenVoterChoiceandReligious

IdentityinContemporarySociety:BringingClassicalTheoryBackIn,”seeModel2.

32.CenterforAmericanWomenandPolitics,TheGenderGap:VotingChoicesin

PresidentialElections,2008,DownloadedfromtheInternet4August2010,

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/gender_gap.php#Facts.

34

Table1:RespondentRatingsofBiblicalAuthorityQuestion1andStatements2–5,108StudentsEnrolledinIntroductorySociology,CornellUniversity,Fall,2009*Response Q1.c S5.n S2.n S3.n S4.n Q1.b S5.y S2.y S4.y S3.y Q1.aAverageScore 1.37 1.48 1.70 1.96 2.34 3.56 4.41 4.51 4.73 4.75 4.89

*SeearticletextforexplanationofscoresderivedfromLikertscalemeans.

35

Table2:FitsofModel(1)totheCNSSDataUsingaSimpleMeasureofBiblicalAuthorityBasedSolelyonQuestion1,andaCompositeMeasureBasedonResponsestoQuestion1andStatements2‐5.***,**,*,and#indicatesignificanceatthe0.001,0.01,0.05and0.1levelsrespectively.

SimpleBiblicalAuthorityScore

CompositeBiblicalAuthorityScore

Parameter Estimate Std.Error Estimate Std.Error

Intercept 0.674* 0.306 0.435 0.325Gender=female

(male)

‐0.840*** 0.219 ‐0.923*** 0.231

Rel=Catholic(Protestant) ‐0.633* 0.254 ‐0.636* 0.283

Rel=Other(Protestant) ‐0.871** 0.287 ‐0.757* 0.306

BiblicalAuthority

(linearslope)0.458 0.356 0.754* 0.341

Income(linearslope)

0.064 0.098 0.245* 0.114

CatholicXBiblicalAuthority

‐0.771# 0.405 ‐0.987** 0.362

IncomeXBiblicalAuthority

0.278# 0.142 0.318* 0.143

36

Figure1:MultipleCorrespondenceMapofResponsestoQuestionandStatementsConcerningBiblicalAuthority*

*Thedatalabelscorrespondtoresponsestobiblicalauthorityquestion1andstatements2–5,e.g.,S5.ndenotesa“no”responsetostatement5,etc.Thefirstprinciplecoordinateexplains96.8%ofinertia.

37

Figure2:FittedNaturalLogOddsofVotingRepublicanVersusDemocratic(y‐axis),byBiblicalAuthority(compositescale;x‐axis),Income,Gender,andReligiousTradition

38

Figure3:ROCcurvesBasedonPredictionofRepublicanVoteUsingModel(1)*

*Thebluecurveisforthemodelfitusingthesimple“biblicalauthority”scorebasedonQuestion1,andtheredcurveisforthemodelfitusingthecompositescorebasedonQuestion1andStatements2‐5.