Using Matching to Investigate the Relationship between Religion and Tolerance

Burge, Ryan P.

doi:10.1017/s1755048312000569

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in a setting where interreligious contact is frequent and not necessarily always meaningful, the psychological security of religious belonging may gain salience at the expense of religious intolerance. Although religious participation and religious orthodoxy may also affect the perceptions of religious outgroups (Burge, ), we argue that globalization has increased the salience of symbolic attachments (e.g., religious identity) in shaping individual attitudes in relation to the other dimensions of religion.…”

Section: Religion and Tolerancementioning

confidence: 77%

“…This finding introduces an interesting puzzle as the scriptures of major religions promote tolerance of and love for fellow human beings. To solve this puzzle, a considerable deal of attention has been focused on how different dimensions of religion (“the 3Bs”—belief, belonging, behavior) are linked to political intolerance (Kellstedt et al., 1996) (see Burge () and Eisenstein () for two excellent reviews). Some scholars argue that members of only certain denominations are politically intolerant in the United States (Nunn, Crockett, and Williams, ; Beatty and Walter, ; Gay and Ellison, ), while others explain religious intolerance by strict beliefs—for example, biblical literalism (Wilcox and Jelen, ; Green et al., ) or religious convictions (Gibson, ).…”

Section: Religion and Tolerancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Globalization, Contact, and Religious Identity: A Cross‐National Analysis of Interreligious Favorability*

Ciftci

Nawaz

Sydiq³

2015

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This article examines cross‐national variation in interreligious favorability across the globe. We develop and test several hypotheses linking globalization to attitudes toward the religious other through mechanisms of religious belonging and contact. Methods Utilizing cross‐national data in 20 countries from the Pew Global Attitudes Surveys (2011), we run a series of multilevel and logistic regression estimations to test our hypotheses about global contact, religious identity, and interreligious favorability. Results We find that global contact has a positive effect on interreligious favorability, whereas holding religious identity increases negative sentiments toward religious outgroups. We also find that increased levels of globalization inhibit the negative impact of religious belonging and threat perceptions on favorable views of the religious other. Conclusion Although globalization increases the salience of religion as an exclusive identity category at the expense of decreased interreligious favorability, individuals become more conducive to interreligious tolerance thanks to frequent social contact at higher levels of globalization.

show abstract

Section: Religion and Tolerancementioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Religion and Tolerancementioning

confidence: 99%

Globalization, Contact, and Religious Identity: A Cross‐National Analysis of Interreligious Favorability*

Ciftci

Nawaz

Sydiq³

2015

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 1. When measuring support for abstract liberal-democratic principles or norms of democracy, the questions used to measure the concept “norms of democracy” typically tap into general support for democratic norms (such as free speech and legal rights) and/or questions tapping procedural support (e.g., majority vote, release on bail, the right to not be forced to testify against oneself). Our definition and measure for norms of democracy is consistent with this practice, which has a long history within political tolerance / democratic norm support research (Protho and Grigg 1960; McClosky 1964; Sullivan et al 1979; 1981; Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus 1982; McClosky and Brill 1983; Gibson 2002; 2006; Eisenstein 2006; Burge 2013). Thus, our research here defines and operationalizes support for democratic norms focusing more specifically on civil rights and civil liberties and not more broadly on American institutions (Congress, Presidency, Judicary) or larger institutional issues such as separation of powers. …”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 71%

Explaining Differing Democratic Norm Commitment: Rethinking the Religion-Psychological Security-Democratic Norm Support Connection

Eisenstein

Clark

2017

Politics and Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The psychological security index is an important predictor of democratic norm support. However, insufficient attention has been paid to the separate but independent contributions of dogmatism, self-esteem, and trust, the three components typically combined to create that index. Thus, we do not know the unique influence of these components on democratic norm commitment. We also do not know the exact nature of the influence of the multiple dimensions of religion (belief, belonging, behavior) on the separate psychological security components. Using structural equation modeling and two national surveys, we examine the religion-psychological security-democratic norm support relationship. Our findings do not fully support a negative association between religion and democratic values. In fact, no matter the influence of religious belief, belonging, or behavior on psychological security, the mediating link of psychological security to democratic norm support is what is most important. Indeed, any differences that manifest as a consequence of the various dimensions of religion disappear in the religion-psychological security-democratic norm support linkage. As such, anti-democratic values are a product of one's psychological attributes and are almost entirely unrelated to one's religion. Further, our findings challenge the theoretical underpinnings of the psychological security index, as we find little evidence that the separate components used to construct the composite measure, particularly trust, are an appropriate proxy for authoritarianism.

show abstract

“…52 There is a complicated relationship between religion and tolerance, but there is some evidence that some religious belief systems support a tolerant posture toward others. 53 In general, it seems that there are at least some circumstances in which interacting with others who hold different views can play the kind of positive role that Scheffler envisions.…”

Section: The Fraternity Versionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autonomy and Toleration as a Moral Attitude

Davis¹

2017

Journal of Social Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Philosophers have generally understood toleration to include three elements: i. A negative evaluative attitude toward the object of toleration. (Objection) ii. Refraining from or refusing to interfere with the object of toleration.(Allowance) iii. The power or capacity to interfere with the object of toleration. (Power) Call this the standard analysis of toleration.1 One notable feature of the standard analysis is that the allowance condition is quite weak. It is possible to successfully allow an object of toleration merely through inaction. If I am to tolerate something, I must merely withhold from "interfering" with the object of toleration or "preventing" it from occurring or being realized, or "suppressing" it. 2In contrast to the standard analysis, folk use of the concept sometimes implies that toleration cannot always be achieved through meeting an exclusively negative requirement. We can tolerate a friend's nettlesome partner by conversing with courtesy or extending an invitation to lunch. Someone who refuses to vote for a political candidate due to the candidate's religion (or lack of religion) might be accused of intolerance. A family of meat-eaters might show toleration for the values of their vegan dinner guests by taking care to avoid animal products in preparing a meal.3 This article will suggest that actors in political society sometimes use "toleration" and its cognates to describe a requirement that involves some positive attitudes or actions-beyond mere noninterference, non-suppression, and the like.To be clear, my dialectical aim in making this observation is not to challenge the standard analysis. 4 In a variety of other cases, it seems intuitive that an exclusively negative interpretation of the allowance condition is sufficient for toleration. How best to analyze the term is not my present interest. Rather, this article aims to address an independently important normative phenomenon: the value of our relationships with other members of our political communities. Political philosophers have long attended to moral significance of treating fellow citizens as "free and equal co-authors" of the law.5 Of course, this rich idea has also become the source of much debate, and my aim is also not to comment on how its suggestive appeal can be translated into a determinate standard of legitimacy or moral acceptability. I invoke the idea here only to call attention to the

show abstract

Using Matching to Investigate the Relationship between Religion and Tolerance

Cited by 14 publications

References 36 publications

Globalization, Contact, and Religious Identity: A Cross‐National Analysis of Interreligious Favorability*

Globalization, Contact, and Religious Identity: A Cross‐National Analysis of Interreligious Favorability*

Explaining Differing Democratic Norm Commitment: Rethinking the Religion-Psychological Security-Democratic Norm Support Connection

Autonomy and Toleration as a Moral Attitude

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About