Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- List of Figures and Tables -- Preface and Acknowledgments -- 1. Introduction: Brian R. Calfano and Nazita Lajevardi -- 2. American Muslims and the State: Contexts and Contentions / Karam Dana and Matt A. Barreto -- 3. American Muslim Women in the Age of Trump (and Beyond) / Anwar Mhajne and Brian R. Calfano -- 4. The Unbearable Whiteness of Being Middle Eastern: Causes and Effects of the Racialization of Middle Eastern Americans / Nazita Lajevardi, Melissa R. Michelson, and Marianne Marar Yacobian -- 5. What Is More "American" to Do When the FBI Knocks on Your Door? Muslim Americans' Debates on Engagement with Law Enforcement / Ahmet Selim Tekelioglu -- 6. Muslim Expectations of U.S. Law Enforcement Behavior / Rachel M. Gillum -- 7. The 9/11 Mosque and Partisan Polarization / Kerem Ozan Kalkan -- 8. Priming Identity, Framing Community: Christians, Muslims, and Intergroup Trust / Brian R. Calfano, Oguzhan (Oz) Dincer, Danielle M. McLaughlin, and Yusuf Sarfati -- 9. Performance Politics: Negotiating Muslim and American Identities / Brian R. Calfano, Valerie Martinez-Ebers, Tony E. Carey Jr., and Alejandro J. Beutel -- 10. Gauging Political Tolerance through a List Experiment: Findings from a Survey of Muslim Americans / Youssef Chouhoud -- 11. Best Practices for Gathering Public Opinion Data among Muslim Americans / Matt A. Barreto and Karam Dana -- 12. Conclusions and New Directions for the Study of American Muslims / Brian R. Calfano and Nazita Lajevardi -- Contributors -- Index.

"Communication Dynamics in Religion and Politics" published on by Oxford University Press.

The exploration of the religious underpinnings of intolerance has long focused on the effects of religious behaviors and beliefs, but has ignored a variety of important facets of the religious experience that should bear on tolerance judgments: elite communication, religious values about how the world should be ordered, and social networks in churches. We focus on the communication of religious values and argue specifically that values should affect threat judgments and thus affect tolerance judgments indirectly. We test these assertions using data gathered in a survey experiment and find that priming exclusive religious values augments threat and thus reduces tolerance. Adapted from the source document.

Opinion about U.S. foreign intervention depends on both one's belief about how the world works and those cognitively available value conceptions about how it should work. Consistent with social identity theory, we argue that values can shape social group boundaries and that these boundaries are analogous to the position of the U.S. in the world. Thus, the religious values we explore neatly map onto opinion about whether U.S. intervention should be qualified in its scope and rationale. In this investigation, we first provide experimental tests of religious value priming conducted on Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We then assess the degree to which American Protestant clergy communicate these values. The results of both investigations support the efficacy of considering the communication of religious values in shaping public opinion on U.S. foreign intervention. Adapted from the source document.

The exploration of the religious underpinnings of intolerance has long focused on the effects of religious behaviors and beliefs, but has ignored a variety of important facets of the religious experience that should bear on tolerance judgments: elite communication, religious values about how the world should be ordered, and social networks in churches. We focus on the communication of religious values and argue specifically that values should affect threat judgments and thus affect tolerance judgments indirectly. We test these assertions using data gathered in a survey experiment and find that priming exclusive religious values augments threat and thus reduces tolerance.

Using data from a national survey of 465 American Muslims conducted just after the 2008 election season, the authors assess whether American Muslims are invested in the practices (political discussion, especially across lines of difference) and norms (tolerance) that many theorists suggest are crucial to the maintenance of liberal democracy. The authors find that American Muslims tend to be intolerant of acts against religion. The authors' explanation draws on intergroup relations theory, finding that post-September 11, 2001, discrimination served an educational function boosting tolerance, and disagreement in Muslim social networks tends to depress tolerance unless it is with an in-group discussion partner. Adapted from the source document.

Using data from a national survey of 465 American Muslims conducted just after the 2008 election season, the authors assess whether American Muslims are invested in the practices (political discussion, especially across lines of difference) and norms (tolerance) that many theorists suggest are crucial to the maintenance of liberal democracy. The authors find that American Muslims tend to be intolerant of acts against religion. The authors' explanation draws on intergroup relations theory, finding that post–September 11, 2001, discrimination served an educational function boosting tolerance, and disagreement in Muslim social networks tends to depress tolerance unless it is with an in-group discussion partner.

AbstractReligious appeals have been part and parcel of campaign strategy for decades. Most often, however, these appeals to have come from men, but little is known about howwomenwould fare using religious appeals on the campaign trail. To remedy this, we used an experimental design to examine voter reaction to religious appeals from a female and a male candidate competing for an open United States Senate seat. We find that women's use of religious appeals is governed by the dynamics of tokenism — reinforcing traditional gender stereotypes and serving to reduce voter support of the female candidate. This suggests that women must be careful in using a key campaign tool traditionally employed by men, and that this may affect the extent to which female candidates can effectively shape voter perceptions on the campaign trail.

AbstractWhile our intuition is that religious elites influence the political behavior of their audiences, just how that influence takes place is essentially unknown. Among many possible mechanisms, we investigate a new one: the effects of the decision-making process information that is included in elite statements. We believe that "process cues" paralleling those preferred by respondents bolster trust in the source and augment the ability to form determined attitudes. We test this proposition in the context of a survey experiment that focuses on environmental racism. We present competing arguments provided by a reverend and a professor, variably assigning the arguments and presence of elite process cues. We find that process cues do affect trust and attitudinal ambivalence, but in ways that challenge some pervasive assumptions about the integrity and importance of religious groups in politics.