We conduct a multilevel examination of the relationship between religiosity and democratic citizenship norms and behaviors using International Social Survey Program data. We analyze how democratic engagement varies according to individual and national average religious involvement in 28 predominantly-Christian democracies. We find that (1) individual-level religious attendance is positively linked to both what people say (norms) and what they do (participation); (2) nations with higher aggregate national attendance participate less politically; and (3) the relationship between individual-level religious engagement and citizenship varies by national religious context. More specifically, individual religious attendance matters more where it is more distinctive (i.e., in more secular countries). Individual-level religious participation is generally conducive to citizenship, but its impact is context-dependent.

Despite evidence of the political salience of family issues, little work has been done to understand how Americans link family issues to their support of various parties and politicians. This study examines whether respondents think party/politician views on family issues are important and asks respondents to provide examples of relevant family issues. Using data from the 2003 Constructing the Family telephone survey conducted at the Indiana University Center for Survey Research, we find that most respondents claim that a party’s/politician’s views on family issues are important to them. Further analysis reveals that, among people who believe family issues are important, the belief is explained differently, with the sample split between a focus on the characteristics of policymakers as compared to the policy itself. The authors conclude that these differing approaches to family issues may stem from the patchwork system of legislation for families in the United States.

Since the founding of the state of Israel, Israeli social movements have paralleled those of Western democracies, but with a concentration of movements that have pressed for national security and religion. In 1948, Israel was established as a Jewish state and was born out of a contested, transnational movement started in 1870, known as Zionism. As a result of its roots in Zionism, the early stages of Israeli government co‐opted social movement organizations for the purposes of state building. This created a political system that allowed social movement organizations (SMOs) easy access to the Israeli polity.

Zionism means different things to different people depending on their ethnic, religious, and national identities, but it is defined most succinctly as, “a movement seeking to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law” (Engel 2009: 1). The term Zionism comes from the word “Zion,” a biblical name for Jerusalem. In August 1897, over two hundred Jews met in Basel, Switzerland, to establish the World Zionist Congress and founded the Zionist Organization (ZO). This event marked the formal establishment of the Zionist movement. From its inception this transnational movement has worked to establish a sovereign state the Jewish people could call home. It finally achieved its primary goal on May 14, 1948 when the state of Israel was established as a sovereign Jewish homeland.