Michael Gerson, columnist for the Washington Post, cites American Grace in how the millennial generation has profoundly different attitudes towards gay marriage and the GOP will ultimately have to adjust their views.  He writes that a recent Harvard IOP poll of millennials showed that economic issues were much more salient for them than cultural concerns.

“But looking beyond a single election, it is undeniable that America is in the midst of a large, consequential shift in the attitudes of the [...]]]>

Flickr/ariel

Michael Gerson, columnist for the Washington Post, cites American Grace in how the millennial generation has profoundly different attitudes towards gay marriage and the GOP will ultimately have to adjust their views.  He writes that a recent Harvard IOP poll of millennials showed that economic issues were much more salient for them than cultural concerns.

“But looking beyond a single election, it is undeniable that America is in the midst of a large, consequential shift in the attitudes of the rising generation. A recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Berkley Center at Georgetown University found millennials to be less religiously affiliated than their parents. A majority thinks that government “is getting too involved in the issue of morality.”

The pace of these changes is so rapid that sociologists are having a hard time keeping up. In the 2006 data sample that informed the first edition of Robert Putnam and David Campbell’s indispensable “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us,” 25 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds described their religious preference as “none.” The result of the 2011 sample, printed in the second edition, was 33 percent. In five years, support for gay marriage in that age group went from 48 percent to 60 percent….

It is easy to infer that the Republican Party — as the more religious and culturally conservative party — is doomed in the long run. But long-term political trends don’t apply that neatly. America is not becoming Sweden — though Vermont tries its best. Many millennials hold traditional moral views, as well as politically conservative ones. (A solid majority believes that government has gotten bigger because it has done “things that people should do for themselves.”) Ideology will continue to vary greatly by region. The defining issues of one decade can be overwhelmed or invisible in the next.

But Republicans and conservatives will be forced to make some adjustments over time.”

Nancy

Here’s Rabbi Justus Baird’s unsolicited advice to Rick Santorum (kibbutzing) on his campaign strategy in the Huffington Post. Bolded items drawn from American Grace:

Excerpt: I know you’re crazy-campaign-busy…..News about your recent campaign event in Greenwell Springs, La., inspired me to send you this note. …I know you were there, but just to remind you of what [Pastor Dennis Terry] said so passionately on Monday:

“This nation was founded as a Christian nation, the God of Abraham, the God Isaac, and the God [...]]]>

Flickr/boris.rasin

Here’s Rabbi Justus Baird’s unsolicited advice to Rick Santorum (kibbutzing) on his campaign strategy in the Huffington Post. Bolded items drawn from American Grace:

Excerpt: I know you’re crazy-campaign-busy…..News about your recent campaign event in Greenwell Springs, La., inspired me to send you this note. …I know you were there, but just to remind you of what [Pastor Dennis Terry] said so passionately on Monday:

“This nation was founded as a Christian nation, the God of Abraham, the God Isaac, and the God of Jacob. There’s only one God — there’s only one God and his name is Jesus. I’m tired of people telling me that I can’t say those words. I’m tired of people telling us as Christians that we can’t voice our beliefs, or we can no longer pray in public. Listen to me: if you don’t love America and you don’t like the way we do things, I’ve got one thing to say: Get out! We don’t worship Buddha. I said we don’t worship Buddha. We don’t worship Muhammad. We don’t worship Allah. We worship God. We worship God’s son Jesus Christ.”
Mr, Santorum, here’s the thing: it’s kind-of true that America is a Christian nation. Snobby sociologists tell us that a little more than three-quarters of Americans identify as Christian…. You and I both know that leaves around 65 million Americans who don’t identify as Christian, but let’s keep things simple and leave them out of the equation for the moment.

The free, unrequested rabbinic advice I wanted to give to you is this:…Since you’re trying to get elected president and all, I thought it might be useful for you to have this holy data [about Americans' beliefs] at your fingertips:

Eighty-seven percent of American Christians under age 35 believe that non-Christians can go to heaven, and the same is true about 70 percent of those 65 and older. I know. The first time I read that polling data, I was like, no way! Bad Christians! Haven’t you read John 3:16 and 14:6? I mean, come on, you call yourself Christians and yet you think people who don’t believe in Jesus can get into heaven?

I’ve been wrong before, but my kishkes (Jewish guts) tell me that if most American Christians think non-Christians will go to heaven, it probably means they don’t want to kick all non-Christians out of America.  In fact, if you hang with too many Christians-who-hate-non-Christians, you might actually alienate Christian voters themselves! That would be so ironic, I know, but I really think it’s true — because most Christians actually hang out with non-Christians. American Christians know someone from work or the neighborhood or their family who is Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, atheist or agnostic and they know they’re good American folk too. In fact, two out of three Americans have an extended family member of a different religion. Americans even have more close friends of a different religion than we have kids (2.4 friends vs. 2.1 kids)!

If I could offer you a free soundbite, it would be this: America is both a great Christian nation AND the most religiously diverse nation in the world! That’s why we’re so great! Disclaimer: I haven’t done the message testing on that one with focus groups of voters.

Read full post by Rabbi Justus N. Baird here:

Robert Putnam discussed “God and Caesar in America” with leaders from the Council on Foreign Relations on March 21, 2012 and took their questions.

Excerpt:

We’ve seen rapid growth of inequality in America and much more than that the decline of economic mobility in the next generation….Increasingly, the most important determinant of how you do in life is how well-educated and wealthy your parents were.  Even if you’re hard-working and smart, kids coming from working-class backgrounds, not just among blacks but also among [...]]]>

Flickr/atlebrunvoll

Robert Putnam discussed “God and Caesar in America” with leaders from the Council on Foreign Relations on March 21, 2012 and took their questions.

Excerpt:

We’ve seen rapid growth of inequality in America and much more than that the decline of economic mobility in the next generation….Increasingly, the most important determinant of how you do in life is how well-educated and wealthy your parents were.  Even if you’re hard-working and smart, kids coming from working-class backgrounds, not just among blacks but also among whites — this is a class issue –  [increasingly don’t have a fair chance].  The issue I’m currently focused on is how did it happen that we’ve had a rapid decline in the opportunities for kids coming from less well-off backgrounds.

I remember very vividly in my youth, in a small Republican pretty conservative mid-west town in the mid-50s.  As the issue of Brown vs. Board of Education came onto the screen, I remember my conservative pastor saying in a sermon “racism is a sin.”  He was not just saying racism is bad or we ought to fix this for national security reasons; he was making a connection between my religious beliefs and social justice.  What I’m worried about is that almost no one in America is saying today that the fact that increasingly some of our kids in America won’t have a chance to get ahead because of decisions their parents made, I think is a sin.  I think it’s awful.   I’m not talking about the distribution of income.  The issue of kids’ chances is not on the agenda of almost any major religious group in America.  And I think that is an appalling indictment of religion in America.  I’m not talking about a prophetic voice; I’m talking about them saying ‘this is wrong.’

Audio available here.

Abstract from Laura Olson’s piece on American Grace which she calls “monumental”, “sweeping and broad”:

“Given the importance of religion in [...]]]> The March 2012 issue of Perspectives on Politics (Vol. 10, Issue 1) has a “Review Symposium on Religion and American Public Life”.  The issue has 4 reviews of American Grace (which they mistakenly call “Saving Grace” in their online edition) by Laura R. Olson (Clemnson), Jean Bethke Elshtain (University of Chicago), David Sehat (Georgia State Univ.) and Jon A. Shields (Claremont McKenna College).  [Unformatted version here.]

Abstract from Laura Olson’s piece on American Grace which she calls “monumental”, “sweeping and broad”:

“Given the importance of religion in American life and the influence of Putnam’s broad agenda on much current social science research on social capital and civic engagement, we have decided to organize a symposium around the book, centered on three questions: 1) How is American Grace related to Putnam’s earlier work, particularly Bowling Alone, and what are the implications of the continuities and/or discontinuities between these works? 2) What kind of a work of political science is American Grace, and how does it compare to other important recent work dealing with religion and politics in the United States? 3) What are the strengths and weaknesses of Putnam and Campbell’s account of “how religion divides and unites us,” and what is the best way of thinking about the contemporary significance of religion and politics in the United States and about the ways that the religious landscape challenges U.S. politics and U.S. political science?”

Excerpt from Jean Bethke Elshtain’s review who wonders whether the fact that religious and secular Americans get along better today has the consequence of making religion less of a conviction and more of a preference:

“This work  [American Grace] has already acquired the status of an “instant classic.”  The primary reason for this is the reputation of Robert Putnam, one of our most influential political scientists and the author of Bowling Alone , a book whose title helped to “name” the debate about the fate of American civil society in the 1990s.  The honorific status of this new and heft tome is well-deserved. American Grace is exemplary in displaying social science at its best.  Its great strenth lies in the careful, calibrated use of empirical data absent the methodological fetishism that too often often mars contemporary political science.”

And later she writes,  ”All of this is quite interesting, but it scarcely accounts for the buzz surrounding American Grace. That has been generated by the fact that many find it remarkable — although regular churchgoers likely do not — that religious devout Americans who are regular churchgoers are far more likely to be generous, to be involved in American civic life, both for church-based and secular efforts, and to do volunteer work. The data here are impressive…It is difficult to come upon findings as robust as those that Putnam and Campbell offer…. If you add the generosity — religious Americans are the core of our extraordinary philanthropic ttradition — to the fact that ‘religious people are unusually active in civic life’, you see quite readily how important regular churchgoers are to the vitality and well-being of American civic life. It is important to stress here that this involvement is across the board, not just in efforts that are church-based or have some overt religious theme or purpose. And this is the second reason that the book is so important.”

Jon Shields opines incorrectly that Putnam and Campbell celebrate the “half-hearted faith” of American mainstream contemporary religion.  Assuming that American religion is half-hearted, he surmises that it will be harder to sustain social protest and progressive movements without the intolerant “true believers” that he believes stoke such movements.

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a good ice breaker to open the discussion of American Grace, keeping in mind that not everyone is comfortable talking about his/her religion. Take a piece of paper and list your 5 closest friends. Next to their names, jot down their religion. Are there any surprises? Do you know everyone’s religion? Are they all your religion—and if so, did you already know this? Are you surprised by this?

2. How important is it to you to worship in a [...]]]> Excerpt:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a good ice breaker to open the discussion of American Grace, keeping in mind that not everyone is comfortable talking about his/her religion. Take a piece of paper and list your 5 closest friends. Next to their names, jot down their religion. Are there any surprises? Do you know everyone’s religion? Are they all your religion—and if so, did you already know this? Are you surprised by this?

2. How important is it to you to worship in a congregation? In other words, can you imagine belonging to the same religion but just worshipping at home? If you are someone who is spiritual but does not belong to a congregation, can you talk about what this is like?

3. In the Ethnicity, Gender, and Religion vignette, how do you feel about Pastor White’s stance on gender as a fundamental keystone for modern religion? Even if you would not join a congregation in which women have a second-class role, can you understand how it could be attractive or comfortable to some women?

4. Discuss the ways in which politics and religion overlap as presented in Chapter 10. Consider Pastor Hammond of LWCC, Beth Emet synagogue, and the Mormon congregation in Utah. How do your own politics align with your faith? Do you feel that your religion has influenced your politics, or have your political views influenced your religious choices?

5. Do you think it is good for the country when faith and partisan politics are closely aligned? Refer to Figure 11.2 and the increasing correlation between Republican identification and religious attendance in the last decade in considering your answer.

6. If you belong to a religious congregation, is there anything in any of the vignettes that you would like to see in your own congregation? For example, more emphasis on small groups, greater focus on community activism, or a different style of worship service?

Read the whole reading group discussion guide here.

Get copy of paperback of American Grace here (2012).

Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell have a piece in the March/April 2012 Foreign Affairs, including new findings from the 2011 Faith Matters Survey:

Excerpt:

From the day the Pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower, religion has played a prominent role in American public life. The faithful have been vital participants in nearly every major social movement in U.S. history, progressive as well as conservative. Still, the close intertwining of religion and politics in the last 40 years is unusual, especially in the [...]]]>

Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell have a piece in the March/April 2012 Foreign Affairs, including new findings from the 2011 Faith Matters Survey:

Excerpt:

From the day the Pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower, religion has played a prominent role in American public life. The faithful have been vital participants in nearly every major social movement in U.S. history, progressive as well as conservative. Still, the close intertwining of religion and politics in the last 40 years is unusual, especially in the degree of the politicization of religion itself. Indeed, religion’s influence on U.S. politics has hit a high-water mark, especially on the right. Yet at the same time, its role in Americans’ personal lives is ebbing. As religion and politics have become entangled, many Americans, especially younger ones, have pulled away from religion. And that correlation turns out to be causal, not coincidental.

It is no surprise that religion and politics should be connected to some degree in a highly religious and democratic nation. In the nineteenth century, U.S. political parties were divided along sectarian lines: pietistic versus liturgical, low church versus high church, Protestant versus Catholic. But whereas the past saw partisans of different religions (often with an ethnic tinge) face off in the political arena, today partisan divisions are not defined by denomination; rather, they pit religiously devout conservatives against secular progressives. Moreover, to a degree not seen since at least the 1850s (and perhaps not even then), religious mobilization is now tied directly to party politics.

Read rest of article here.

Read paperback of American Grace (containing epilogue with new 2012 findings).

Some are critical of American Grace, but the first post by Prof. of Sociology John Torpey at CUNY calls American Grace an outstanding example of public sociology:  sociological research that combines high-rigor with high-relevance

To see the whole series, visit here.

A response from Putnam and Campbell will be posted shortly.  Excerpt below:

“We have been struck by his [David Hollinger's] comment that the [...]]]> A series of commentaries on American Grace appear at the Immanent Frame blog (run by the Social Science Research Council).

Some are critical of American Grace, but the first post by Prof. of Sociology John Torpey at CUNY calls American Grace an outstanding example of public sociology:  sociological research that combines high-rigor with high-relevance

To see the whole series, visit here.

A response from Putnam and Campbell will be posted shortly.  Excerpt below:

“We have been struck by his [David Hollinger's] comment that the form of religion we describe is ‘bland’ or, more pointedly, that blurred religious boundaries mean that Americans do not take their religion very seriously.  Other critics, too, have commented on the tolerant religiosity described in American Grace, but unlike Hollinger, argued that such a religion is hardly worthy of the name.  Wilfred McClay, writing in the Wall Street Journal, noted that ‘Surely there is something ironic about preferring a form of religion that asks us to admire and study the great prophets and preachers while warning us against imitating them and their true-believing faith.’  Like Hollinger, theologian Charles Mathewes accepts our empirical description of American religion, but unlike Hollinger, he rejects the idea that ‘bland is beautiful.’  In a panel discussion at the 2011 American Academy of Religion annual meeting Mathewes argued that ‘American Grace is very bad news for American religion and civic life, because churches seem unable to offer a thick counter-narrative to contemporary society.’

“If Americans do not take their religion all that seriously, or fail to insist on its superiority to other religions, does this mean that religion has lost its ability to inspire change—either for individuals or society as a whole? Of all the questions to arise in the commentary surrounding American Grace, this is perhaps the most interesting, important and, ultimately, impossible to answer. Have we reached the end of prophetic religion?  Is ecumenism ineluctably unable to stir souls?  Must a prophetic religion be intolerant of those who disagree?  Our own history suggests not.  The civil rights movement certainly involved a prophetic call for personal and social reform, yet united Americans of many different faiths.  America would be a meaner place without the recurrent challenge to accepted ways that religiously-rooted social movements have posed throughout our history, but we’re unconvinced that prophetic religion is intrinsically incompatible with religious pluralism.”

Excerpt:

As an evangelical Christian who believes the Republican Party does not have a monopoly on moral values, I believe this discussion [of values and politics] is long overdue. The “compassionate conservatism” espoused by President George W. Bush and many prominent evangelical leaders has been supplanted by a Tea Party ideology that bears more resemblance to the [...]]]> Rev. Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, writes in the Washington Post on 11/10/2011:

Excerpt:

As an evangelical Christian who believes the Republican Party does not have a monopoly on moral values, I believe this discussion [of values and politics] is long overdue. The “compassionate conservatism” espoused by President George W. Bush and many prominent evangelical leaders has been supplanted by a Tea Party ideology that bears more resemblance to the anti-Christian philosophy of Ayn Rand than it does to the Gospel.

Whether the Christian duty to love our neighbors is compatible with a political movement that embraces radical individualism and rejects the ethic of collective responsibility is a central question as the GOP attempts to cement the Tea Party and the religious right into a cohesive base. Tea Party activists and Republican leaders have consistently targeted for cutbacks vital government programs that protect the poor, the elderly, children and other vulnerable Americans. Yet calls for shared sacrifice and proposals to modestly raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to fund investments and protections that promote the common good are derided as “class warfare.” This is what passes for family values?

Social conservative leaders have shrewdly recalibrated for an election in which the economy is the top concern for voters. Baptizing as a “moral agenda” tax cuts for the wealthy, steep budget cuts to programs that save lives and deregulation of Wall Street takes a lot of nerve. But the Family Research Council — which organized last month’s Values Voter summit — and Christian conservative operatives advance a political agenda by suggesting that the priorities of corporations and the GOP fit snugly with the teachings of Jesus.

This might be good politics, but it’s bad theology. Most “values voters” with even a minimal degree of biblical literacy recognize that the Hebrew prophets and Jesus warned the powerful not to afflict the poor and comfort the rich. These bedrock Judeo-Christian principles are flouted by conservatives who demand cuts to nutrition programs that help low-income women feed their children even as they defend tax loopholes for some of the world’s wealthiest ­people.

At a time when our nation is plagued by the worst poverty rates in decades, religious leaders are not buying this narrow ideological agenda. In fact, evangelicals, Catholic bishops and Protestant leaders are leading a “Circle of Protection” campaign to defend government programs that provide a basic measure of dignity and security to those struggling to make ends meet. We are also urging a balanced approach to deficit reduction that doesn’t put the greatest burden on those hit hardest by the economic crisis.

Read:”The values debate we’re not having” (Washington Post op-ed, 11/10/2011)

We’ll report in the epilogue to the paperback copy of Robert Putnam and David Campbell’s American Grace (to come out early in 2012) on how amidst this Great Recession, attitudes towards redistribution have become more negative and ironically, views toward the rich have improved while views toward the poor have worsened.

+++

Note: Gary A. Marx, Duluth, Ga., E.D.  of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, writes in response to Cizik’s column:

Surely a Christian with Mr. Cizik’s theological education would concede that individual responsibility, an individual relationship with Christ and individual salvation are at the core of Christian theology.

“Government/collective responsibility” is a secular tenet of the modernist left; it’s not part of Christian theology. For this reason, voluntary charitable giving is a recognized Christian virtue, as exemplified in the biblical story of the poor woman who gave her last coin in offering. Compulsory government taxation is relegated in the Gospel to the status of “giving unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

I agree with Mr. Cizik that “the Republican Party does not have a monopoly on moral values.” Rather, I believe that God, through His revealed word, does. Registering millions of new Christian voters can be nothing but a good thing. If churchgoing Christians tend to vote Republican, perhaps Mr. Cizik ought to reflect on why that is.

In answer to Mr. Marx’s letter, read American Grace on how Christians voting Republicans is only a more recent trend.  Back in the 1950s and 1960s, churched Americans were no more or less likely to vote Republican.  Starting in the 1980s, thanks to the Christian Right, the Republican Party intentionally started differentiating from the Democratic Party on the small number of wedge issues where opinions between churched and unchurched Americans significantly differed (mainly relating to issues of sex: abortion, gay marriage, etc.).