Religion and the Parties
The media went wild in September of 2012 telling everyone that God left the Democratic party - they took out the one last reference to God in their platform. Romney then said they were “a party out of touch with the mainstream of American people.” Since the GOP had 12 references that year, some noted the difference.
Kenneth Wald explained, “Platforms are significant because they communicate a message to the voters that this party comes closest to and will best represent ‘our views’” (110).
Voters favor more or less connections between their party and religion depending on how they interpret the separation between church and state.
Affiliations matter - see in how Obama couldn't woo conservatives in 2008 or 2012. He tried to publicize his faith journey, but many still question his background.
Interesting: Obama hired “faith outreach staffers” in 2012 - unusual move, his positions on issues like same sex marriage and abortion likely undermined any progress he tried to make
With a partner, discuss whether political polarization is here to stay, if that is a problem, and why.

Religious Interests
Key to understanding religious interest mobilization and advocacy - like a crime it needs: motive, means, and opportunity
2/3rds of voters say churches should not directly endorse candidates, yet religion is a powerful motivator in politics, alliances between the parties and faith groups are stable and trackable for scholars
Any special interest, including religion, needs to articulate their message and raise their complaint. In our case, groups alone and together decide what is wrong, say it, and propose possible remedies.
What 3 things do religious groups need to act politically?
Social Justice - video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OgBDkckAAI (2:15), write your own definition of social justice and share it with a partner.

Churches and Politics
Cultural potential of religion
Religious interests don’t arise in a vacuum, they come from religious cultures. Cultures matter because they foster identity, create norms, and set relational boundaries. Religious culture comes with the supernatural/transcendent factor. It is powerful because it guides peoples actual daily lives, and spills over into other areas of belief. It inspires them to act collaboratively. How they act is dramatically influenced by the group’s position on the best kind of involvement in “the world.”
There is a spectrum of involvement by religious groups in politics, some see it as necessary like Catholics who work for social justice, while others like the Amish or Mennonites shun involvement.

Five Main Motives according to Kenneth Wald:
Group identity - group ID shapes worldview of each member dramatically, this has been proven globally - Israel, Sudan, Iraq, Lebanon, etc. We don’t see religious violence too often today in the US, but things like ISIS are a real threat.
Group status - the group can hold the opinion that society doesn’t value them enough and go on the defensive. Regardless of the group, “distinctive political identities” are frequently formed there. For example, with American Jews, the levels of education and income vary, but they are strongly tied to liberal politics. Why? “Because of their history as a diaspora people and a strong collective memory of persecution” they think of themselves “as a group on the margin of society, defensive and vulnerable to attack by the majority” (Wald, 119).
Theology - some religious people engage in politics so that what they believe can be reflected in their government’s policies. At times unlikely partnerships emerge in order to fight for a cause - such as with civil rights in the 60s. Today we see links being made between faith and politics by clergy, this may be because they are educated. Ex’s: Catholic bishops fighting ACA, Quakers objecting to the war in Iraq, Baptists fighting for gun control, etc.
Some scholars think ordinary voters are too superficial to make meaningful connections between faith and public policy - agree/disagree?
Another point with theology - studies show that how we perceive God impacts our political views (seeing God as vengeful - conservative, see God as kind/merciful - liberal). Also view of redemption - making Kingdom come on earth - transcendent motive for social justice (liberal), redemption will only happen in the next life, right living is key - (conservative)
Scholars make an interesting comparison between Jews and Lutherans in the US. Jews care about learning and charity for others - they are not focused so much on sin/eternity. Their theological perspective directs them change the world today. Meanwhile, Lutheran theology sees humans as inherently sinful and cannot be really free until eternity - if things aren’t working in the world today, wait it out, it’s all up to God anyway.
Important to realize that denominations/affiliations are not the end of the story in the link between faith and politics, mainline/evangelical protestants, liberal/traditional Catholics. Interesting to see how in recent years conservative Christians are working together with social liberals to combat international justice issues like human trafficking.
The battle between traditional and liberal comes up with certain hot-button issues like same-sex marriage, welfare, crime, death penalty, Obamacare etc.
As you listen to this quotation, decide whether it came from a traditionally liberal or conservative group and explain your answer to a partner (2:00):
“Christians believe that human beings - all of them - are infinitely-valued children of God...Adequate health care, therefore is a matter of preserving what our gracious God has made...Healthcare is not a privilege, reserved for those who can afford it, but a right that should be available, at high quality to all.”
- National Council of Churches (liberal)
Worldview - Voters evaluate candidates on their words during elections, likely because that is how they judge their worldview - Wald made an important point: “Since 1976, the presidential candidate who has talked the most about religion has won the election - even if he was not the most religious candidate” (126).
Institutional interests - Every faith group or coalition has a stake in national public policy - whether it be in terms of expression, funding, or programming. Depending on the issues and groups that care about them, mass mobilization can occur rapidly. One particularly important issue is religious schools - today 700,000 American students attend Christian schools. Keeping them going is a high priority for the relevant groups, and they consistently seek government funding for this intention.
Which of the five main motives would personally lead you to act, and why? Think about it and share your response with a neighbor (2:00).

Means, Opportunity and Clergy in Politics
Role of elites: leaders can package discontent about a policy into something to act upon politically.
Interesting paradox: studies show clergy often disseminate political messages to their flocks, and that these are well received when most polls show people do not favor clergy endorsing candidates.
Possible reason: clergy’s unique role as spokespeople for something that dramatically shapes people’s lives. When clergy tap into their group’s religious culture, use the resources of their institutions, and have a willing audience - political action can happen.
Why churches/congregations matter: they possess immense resources (money, space, leadership, culture, communication, people, social networks). The more people are engaged or committed to their groups, the more the congregation can motivate people to act politically.
Share with a neighbor why clergy have a unique role in religious/political activism (2:00).

Religious Activists
In 1970 there were 40 religious groups with lobbyists in DC, today there are +200.
There are 2 main types: Type 1 activist groups are tied to individual denominations, Type 2 are “individual membership” and often cross denominational boundaries.
For Type 2 groups to endure, they lean on victories while Type 1 can rest on the security of their institutional resources.
Type 2 groups have to be media savvy to get their message out - (why, what do they not have that Type 1 groups have? - free publicity, consistent audience, institutional resources, though some use blogs and youtube-type resources for publicity as well)
Interesting parallel with civil religion that talked about the priestly and prophetic role of the US President, some see the same roles at work in the media.
Priestly: lead faithful to affirm shared values and identity
Prophetic: provide application of beliefs to their critique of society and offer a forum for people to discuss how their beliefs impact their existence within the wider culture
Some call this “technopopulism:” rallying people through mass media with a particular lens (Focus on the Family, Christianity Today, Jewish World Review)
Tell a partner about the two types of activists, and how they are different (2:00).

Foreign Policy
Religious and secular groups alike compete to influence our foreign policy.
Groups are collaborating to tackle international issues like hunger, AIDS, and human trafficking.
Victories exist like the Trafficking Victims Protection Act started in 2000 and expanded in 2013.
A clear example is our policy in the Middle East. Here are some highlights:
Since 1948, the US has helped this new nation with materials, arms, financial help, and diplomacy. The issue has a moral character (persecuted survivors living in the midst of hostile nations yet striving for democracy).
The issue unites liberal protestants who embrace the humanitarian need with evangelicals who see it as part of their biblical worldview.
Interesting how Israel’s allies in the US have led to their issues being heard unlike those crying for US intervention in the Irish conflict between Catholics and protestants.
Throughout the various presidencies, helping Israel remained in US interests/foreign policy goals.
American Islamic Conference - case study/example
Zainab Al-Suwaij (granddaughter of Muslim leader in Iraq, teaching at Yale during Sept. 11th, tries to be part of the solution, as Fowler describes they want to promote moderate and nonviolent Islam as well as interfaith dialogue) www.aicongress.org/, she shows “globalization of American religious advocacy) and seeks to influence foreign policy through dialogue.
Share with a partner 2 trends in foreign policy that relate to religious groups (1:00).

Religion & Political Action
Fowler p. 124 (what works)
Agreeable tradition/theology - enter the political realm or not and how
Internal strength/unity - challenge for Catholics, intensity of commitment, effective leaders, resources
Strategic location - access and voice
Constraints from other groups - outside pressure - network of grassroots members that can bring pressure on leaders, money matters here too
Favorable spirit of the times

Moral Politics
Morality issues come up when one group tries to transform their beliefs into public policy. Examples: abortion, pornography, traditional/same-sex marriage).
When voters make decisions about these issues, they go right to their beliefs and don’t spend time in intellectual debate. Also, most of us think we are experts on these issues.
The concentration of people who hold certain positions can matter in terms of policy and government action.
For example, researchers found in 2004 that the # of death sentences in each state varied depending on the concentration of members of conservative Christian churches. Some say they see crimes as the fruits of bad choices while liberals see crime as the fruit of inequality and social injustice.
This too impacts their perceptions of social welfare - whether people should get welfare because of injustice, or they shouldn’t because they are lazy people who can’t get their act together.
Interesting trend - perception of same sex marriage issue seems to have shifted from morality to equality, it is a “rights” issue not a moral question. Do you think this could jeopardize conservative politicians or the Republican party, and why?
US moral political landscape welcomes issues connected to social regulation (behavior policies) like abortion, marriage, lottery/gambling, teaching creationism)
Tell a partner what recent shift took place in a marriage-related issue and your take on it (2:00).

Tactics/Effectiveness
In many ways, religious advocacy groups act like any other interest group. In trying to participate in the policy making process, “they decide whether to focus on the local, state, or national level and must determine how to apply political pressure through political campaigning, lobbying, or direct action” (Wald, 112).
Lobbying: attempts to pressure the political system in order to shift public policy. There are 2 types:
Type 1: Insider - policy-making process, elite level
Tactics include: office visits, asking for regulatory changes, tracking data
Type 2: Outsider - big issues in the public square, mass populous level
Tactics include: demonstrations, boycotts, prayer services, marches, PR campaigns
60% of religious advocacy groups use social media as Fowler tells us (132). They use technology to interact directly with people - surveys, blogs, etc. 89% use mass email - Talk with a partner about whether or not this will continue to be used at the same rate, and why?
Write down the 2 main tactics used in religious advocacy (1:00).

Community Activists and Faith Groups
Many activists today are tapping into the passions and strengths of faith groups. Experts point out that they tend to go local on this - your personal minister telling you to hire immigrants for your construction firm rather than a mass email from your Congressman). Highlights from the relevant sections in Fowler:
Both individuals and groups have influence in US politics
Religious group activism in politics has become increasingly pluralistic
Most groups operate in tax exempt status who educate but don’t directly endorse candidates
Huge growth in the 1970s - the number of religious groups lobbying government exceeded non-religious groups (“flowering”), paralleled the expanded regulatory role of the government
216 organized, funded offices with staff in DC today - size does not parallel influence, some rise as others fall, they pursue a range of issues
Pages 137-147 have summaries of where different religious groups are today (liberal protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, evangelical protestant, and Muslim)
To look at one, evangelical protestants: Fowler reminds us:
Lots of media and scholarly focus in recent decades
Care about a spectrum of issues (prisoners’ rights, life, marriage)
Predicted to fade out, but not the case today. Obama’s election possibly fueled increased mobilization against an imminent threat
Paradoxical because the Christian Right has influenced elections but not public policy
Share with a neighbor how religious advocacy has changed in recent decades (1:00).

Presidents
Religion and the presidency is a course in itself. Briefly, he has a unique position to influence policy in religious matters and moral issues. Also interesting to see what each President’s “God strategy” is - political priesthood, prophetic language
The jury is out about whether or not a president’s religious background influences his political decisions.
Interesting to see percentages of presidential affiliations over history. For example, there have been 11/39 Episcopalians, 6/39 Presbyterians, 1/39 Catholics, 4/39 Baptists, and no Jews or Muslims.
Scholars compare GW Bush with Obama, both Protestants, but Obama said growing up he had “Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, and animist religious experiences.” After law school, Obama became a Christian, says it is the “source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis” in his life.
Yet Bush’s evangelical disposition led him to take conservative social positions, while Obama’s liberal tendencies lead him towards liberal social policies.
Think about, then share with a partner what your “God Strategy” would be if you were president (3:00).