{"title":"宗教自由的反弹:来自言论自由的民意实验的证据","authors":"A. R. Lewis, Eric L. McDaniel","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001251","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Religious-freedom conflicts are prominent throughout US history (Sehat 2011); however, for much of the past century, religious freedom represented a pluralist, egalitarian aspiration. This correspondedwith growing levels of religious tolerance and support for the broad contours of religious liberty (Putnam and Campbell 2010). In recent decades, consensus has turned to division because religious freedom has taken center stage in our partisan culture wars and constitutional disputes (Bennett 2017; Lewis 2017; Wilson and Djupe 2020). Although activists and elites are at the helm of these debates over religious liberty, the mass public also is polarized over prominent religious-freedom issues, especially concerning LGBTQ rights and COVID-19 policies (Castle 2019; Mitchell 2016; Nortey 2022). In describing the polarization of religious liberty, academic and journalistic accounts have argued that support for religious freedom is related to preference from group-based exclusivity, such as Christian nationalism, social dominance, and traditionalism (Castle 2017; Gillman and Chemerinsky 2020; Goidel, Smentkowski, and Freeman 2016; Whitehead and Perry 2020). Although these ideological and psychological factors often are attributed to the mass public’s support for religious freedom, the mechanisms have not been tested directly. This study used an experimental survey design to examine how presenting vignettes that emphasize egalitarianism, religious nationalism, and social dominance affects support for three type of religious freedom. We found that reading messages about equality, nationalism, and social dominance does not increase support for religious freedom; however, it does spark backlash in certain cases, particularly among Independents and the non-religious.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"30 14 1","pages":"227 - 233"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Religious Freedom Backlash: Evidence from Public Opinion Experiments about Free Expression\",\"authors\":\"A. R. Lewis, Eric L. McDaniel\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1049096522001251\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Religious-freedom conflicts are prominent throughout US history (Sehat 2011); however, for much of the past century, religious freedom represented a pluralist, egalitarian aspiration. This correspondedwith growing levels of religious tolerance and support for the broad contours of religious liberty (Putnam and Campbell 2010). In recent decades, consensus has turned to division because religious freedom has taken center stage in our partisan culture wars and constitutional disputes (Bennett 2017; Lewis 2017; Wilson and Djupe 2020). Although activists and elites are at the helm of these debates over religious liberty, the mass public also is polarized over prominent religious-freedom issues, especially concerning LGBTQ rights and COVID-19 policies (Castle 2019; Mitchell 2016; Nortey 2022). In describing the polarization of religious liberty, academic and journalistic accounts have argued that support for religious freedom is related to preference from group-based exclusivity, such as Christian nationalism, social dominance, and traditionalism (Castle 2017; Gillman and Chemerinsky 2020; Goidel, Smentkowski, and Freeman 2016; Whitehead and Perry 2020). Although these ideological and psychological factors often are attributed to the mass public’s support for religious freedom, the mechanisms have not been tested directly. This study used an experimental survey design to examine how presenting vignettes that emphasize egalitarianism, religious nationalism, and social dominance affects support for three type of religious freedom. We found that reading messages about equality, nationalism, and social dominance does not increase support for religious freedom; however, it does spark backlash in certain cases, particularly among Independents and the non-religious.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ps-Political Science & Politics\",\"volume\":\"30 14 1\",\"pages\":\"227 - 233\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ps-Political Science & Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001251\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001251","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
宗教自由冲突在美国历史上一直很突出(Sehat 2011);然而,在过去一个世纪的大部分时间里,宗教自由代表了一种多元化、平等主义的愿望。这与不断增长的宗教宽容水平和对广泛的宗教自由的支持相对应(Putnam和Campbell 2010)。近几十年来,由于宗教自由在我们的党派文化战争和宪法纠纷中占据了中心位置,共识已经变成了分歧(Bennett 2017;刘易斯2017年;Wilson and Djupe 2020)。尽管活动人士和精英们主导着这些关于宗教自由的辩论,但大众在突出的宗教自由问题上也出现了两极分化,特别是在LGBTQ权利和COVID-19政策方面(Castle 2019;米切尔2016;Nortey 2022)。在描述宗教自由的两极分化时,学术和新闻报道认为,对宗教自由的支持与对基于群体的排他性的偏好有关,例如基督教民族主义、社会支配和传统主义(Castle 2017;Gillman and Chemerinsky 2020;Goidel, Smentkowski, and Freeman 2016;Whitehead and Perry 2020)。虽然这些意识形态和心理因素往往归因于大众对宗教自由的支持,但其机制尚未得到直接检验。本研究采用实验调查设计来检验强调平等主义、宗教民族主义和社会支配地位的小插曲如何影响对三种宗教自由的支持。我们发现,阅读有关平等、民族主义和社会支配地位的信息并没有增加对宗教自由的支持;然而,在某些情况下,它确实引发了反弹,特别是在无党派人士和非宗教人士中。
Religious Freedom Backlash: Evidence from Public Opinion Experiments about Free Expression
Religious-freedom conflicts are prominent throughout US history (Sehat 2011); however, for much of the past century, religious freedom represented a pluralist, egalitarian aspiration. This correspondedwith growing levels of religious tolerance and support for the broad contours of religious liberty (Putnam and Campbell 2010). In recent decades, consensus has turned to division because religious freedom has taken center stage in our partisan culture wars and constitutional disputes (Bennett 2017; Lewis 2017; Wilson and Djupe 2020). Although activists and elites are at the helm of these debates over religious liberty, the mass public also is polarized over prominent religious-freedom issues, especially concerning LGBTQ rights and COVID-19 policies (Castle 2019; Mitchell 2016; Nortey 2022). In describing the polarization of religious liberty, academic and journalistic accounts have argued that support for religious freedom is related to preference from group-based exclusivity, such as Christian nationalism, social dominance, and traditionalism (Castle 2017; Gillman and Chemerinsky 2020; Goidel, Smentkowski, and Freeman 2016; Whitehead and Perry 2020). Although these ideological and psychological factors often are attributed to the mass public’s support for religious freedom, the mechanisms have not been tested directly. This study used an experimental survey design to examine how presenting vignettes that emphasize egalitarianism, religious nationalism, and social dominance affects support for three type of religious freedom. We found that reading messages about equality, nationalism, and social dominance does not increase support for religious freedom; however, it does spark backlash in certain cases, particularly among Independents and the non-religious.
期刊介绍:
PS: Political Science & Politics provides critical analyses of contemporary political phenomena and is the journal of record for the discipline of political science reporting on research, teaching, and professional development. PS, begun in 1968, is the only quarterly professional news and commentary journal in the field and is the prime source of information on political scientists" achievements and professional concerns. PS: Political Science & Politics is sold ONLY as part of a joint subscription with American Political Science Review and Perspectives on Politics.