Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion最新文献

The 2010 U. S. Religious Census: Religious Congregations and Membership Survey (RCMS) is the most comprehensive picture of U.S. religious life, county by county. How thorough is the RCMS in covering local religious groups? To answer this question, three county snapshots were performed with collected data compared to the RCMS 2010 reported numbers. Data suggest that there has been an underreport by as much as 25 percent of the number of local congregations in these counties. New and emerging religious movements and denominations as well as ethnic congregations comprise much of this percentage, making it more imperative for scholars to develop methodologies and frameworks in order to capture these “others” and invisible churches in America.

W.E.B. Du Bois understood the critical role religion plays in power inequities in the, world. He was very acquainted with how it is used as a tool to exclude and subordinate human beings and yet, at the same time, serve as a source of refuge. This special issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion is a collection of articles that examines religion and social inequality from a variety of different angles with a Du Boisian lens. When we focus our lens on religion and social inequality, we are highlighting the ways in which religion plays a part in the unequal distribution of power across social groups in society. This special issue focuses on how religion impacts social life and the way individuals and groups embody or struggle to reclaim their agency within a context of silent oppression at times and not-so-silent oppression at others times at the personal-, group-, and global levels.

The foundation of religious measurement in surveys presumes that individual religious affiliation (“What is your present religion, if any?”) accurately describes the religious community in which respondents are involved. But what if it doesn't? In a recent survey of 4,000 Americans, we asked whether their current congregation matches their religious identity and about a fifth of Americans indicated that it does not. We document the degree of this inconsistency, its correlates, and its implications, focusing primarily on the politics that congregants are exposed to from clergy and the attitudes they hold about salient political matters. The identity-inconsistent attenders often vary significantly from identity-consistent attenders, which serves to introduce considerable measurement error in the use of a religious tradition measure to depict American religion. The results suggest that salient disagreement induces a sizable population to migrate to a congregation outside their religious identity.

This paper unites disparate literature to test the influence of religious belonging and behavior characteristics along with secular welfare boundaries on anti-immigrant attitudes. We suggest that welfare states varied in their religious foundations during the transition from religious-based solidarity to modern state-based solidarity and formulate a novel analytical framework to hypothesize effects across individuals and welfare regime types. Using eight waves of the European Social Survey (2002–16), we find that religious effects are strongest in welfare states with the most religious foundations, the Southern European welfare states, and weak in the universalist welfare states, which lacked historical state-church tensions. Other welfare types show a mix of religious effects, with some challenging expectations. Furthermore, Christian majority membership is often associated with heightened anti-immigrant attitudes, most consistently in contrast to the non-Christian minority. For welfare-based forms of inclusion, we find consistent institutional trust effects and two competing logics for secular boundaries: a propensity for welfare chauvinism and a culture of inclusion.

While posited as a unified ideology, Christian Nationalism (CN) actually contains two distinct views of what it means to be a “Christian Nation”—one which envisions a Christian civil society separate from the profanities of politics, what we call “Religious Traditionalism.” The other envisions a Christian federal government where power is wielded exclusively by ethno-religious insiders, or “Christian Statism.” Multiple waves of two national surveys confirm that current measures of CN contain these two factors, which have become increasingly divergent in the past 20 years. In addition, we find that Christian Statism predicts nativism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, and racial distrust while Religious Traditionalism, in most instances, predicts the opposite. Historically, Religious Traditionalists have always sought to influence civil society and focused mainly on family/sexual issues. But a different brand of CN has emerged, wherein all federal and state authority should rightfully and exclusively belong to Christian Statists.

This article contributes to the internationalization of survey methodology by discussing a case from a totalitarian state, the Islamic Republic of Iran. In 2020, GAMAAN (The Group for Measuring and Analyzing Attitudes in Iran) conducted an online survey on religion. The survey had 50,000 participants, around 90 percent of whom lived in Iran. This article discusses the result that, after weighting, 8 percent identified as Zoroastrian—many times the number of Zoroastrians as recorded by scholarship on Iranian Zoroastrianism. We dub this phenomenon “Survey Zoroastrianism” and offer an explanation for this finding. After describing the position of Zoroastrianism in modern Iran and adding two further online surveys conducted by GAMAAN in 2022, we discuss the Survey Zoroastrians’ demographics and their religious and political views. The analysis shows that participating in surveys beyond the government's control provided affordances for performing alternative identity aspirations tied to notions of nationalism and civilizational heritage.

Drawing on the distinction in mind perception between agency and experience, this research examined whether and how culture-based religion affects mind attribution to gods and Christians in a religious priming paradigm. When attributing mind to gods in Study 1, participants in the religious priming condition attributed more agency to gods than those in the neutral condition. When attributing mind to human religious targets in Study 2, religious participants in the religious priming condition attributed more experience to a Christian target than those in the neutral condition, while atheist participants in the religious priming condition attributed less experience to a Christian target than those in the neutral condition. In addition, religious participants in the religious priming condition attributed more experience to an atheist target than those in the neutral condition. Taken together, mind attribution to religious targets varied on agency and experience, and showed its own cultural features in China.

Ramadan is a time when Muslims experience an increased connection to God and an increased sense of belonging through communal acts of worship, but Muslim women are often excluded from many acts of worship due to religious restrictions while they are menstruating. This study innovatively applies concepts of “religious citizenship” and women's “triple roles” drawn from lived religion and feminist literature to a new context of Muslim women and their everyday practices. Based on research with more than 60 culturally diverse Melbourne Muslims who kept anonymous diaries before, during, and after Ramadan 2021, this analysis shows how Muslim women's understandings of religious belonging and connection in Ramadan are shaped by their own reconfigured approaches to worship and socialization alongside their everyday workload. It provides a unique opportunity to investigate the invisible challenges faced by Muslim women in worship and devotion during Ramadan.

Research finds that experiences of religious discrimination are often associated with poorer health outcomes. However, there remain important questions to consider gaps, including whether religious discrimination has similar health impacts on religious minority groups and religious majority groups, whether religious discrimination is equally harmful for both mental and physical health, and whether specific types of discrimination have different impacts on health. Using survey data from a probability sample of U.S. adults and measures representing a variety of discrimination experience types, our analyses suggest that religious discrimination is indeed harmful for health, but that experiences of religious discrimination do not universally affect mental and physical health in the same ways. Rather than significant differences in the health impacts of religious discrimination across different religious groups, we find more variation in the health impacts of different types of experiences with discrimination. Further, we find that mental health is negatively impacted by a wider range of experiences with religious discrimination than physical health. These findings are in line with social psychological research on the differential health impacts of discrimination, and they highlight the importance of context in studies of the health effects of religious discrimination.