University of Utah
A Clash of Civilizations? The Influence of Religion on Public Opinion of U.S Foreign Policy in
the Middle East
Author(s): Jody C. Baumgartner, Peter L. Francia, Jonathan S. Morris
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 2 (Jun., 2008), pp. 171-179
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the University of Utah
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20299723 .
Accessed: 12/12/2011 05:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. and University of Utah are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Political Research Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
A Clash
Political Research Quarterly
Volume 61 Number 2
June 2008 171-179
>2008 University of Utah
of Civilizations?
10.1177/1065912907307288
The Influence of Religion on Public Opinion
Policy in theMiddle East
http://prq.sagepub.com
hosted at
of U.S. Foreign
http://online.sagepub.com
Jody C Baumgartner
Peter L. Francia
Jonathan S. Morris
East
Carolina
North
Greenville,
University,
Carolina
The authors argue in this study that religious beliefs play a significant role in predicting American public opinion on
foreign policy issues in theMiddle East. Their findings reveal that Evangelical Christians have remained strong sup
porters of a hawkish foreign policy toward theMiddle East, even as overall public support for the IraqWar declines.
are among the strongest supporters of Israel and hold more negative views of Islam
They also find that Evangelicals
than others. These results reinforce the growing importance of the "faith factor" in public opinion and American pol
as a whole.
itics
Keywords:
Evangelical
a November
Christians; foreign policy; Middle
2006
article
of
the American
Science Review, Kenneth Wald and Clyde
In Political
to "rediscover"
Wilcox
called for political
scientists
the "faith factor." They wrote,
"Apart from econom
ics and geography,
it is hard to find a social science
that has given less attention
science"
(Wald and Wilcox
to religion than political
2006, 523). The authors
for example,
that the American
Journal
noted,
of
and
the
American
Review
each
Sociology
Sociology
four times as many articles with a religious
published
title
as
the American
Political
Science
Review
did
from 1906 to 2002.
Of
across
the religion
articles
that have been published
most of the scholar
social science disciplines,
on
the past two decades
has focused
conflicts
so-called
cul
religious-secular
concerning
ture war
such as abortion,
issues,
gay rights, and
(Hunter 1991; Cook, Jelen, and Wilcox
pornography
ship during
1992; Wald
Carmines
1992; Guth et al. 1996; Layman and
1997;
Sherkat
and Ellison
2001; White
2003). However,
erably less attention devoted
1997; Layman
there has been consid
to the influence
of reli
on foreign policy
in shaping public
gion
opinion
issues. As one noted scholar concluded,
"the role of
religion
national
in explaining
attitudes
is somewhat
relations
toward
limited"
issues of inter
(Jelen 1994,
391). More
recently, James Guth, an expert on reli
"Whatever progress over
observed,
gion and politics,
East; public
opinion;
the past decade
attitudes,
to include
policy
efforts
religion
in explaining
there have
religious
These
the sources
of foreign
been
systematic
few
variables"
(2006, 3).
in
the political
particularly
to the need for additional
shortcomings,
literature, point
research on religion's role in shaping public opinion on
foreign policy issues. To fill this gap in the literature,
science
we examine
policy
because
the role of religion in shaping U.S. foreign
East. We focus on theMiddle East
in theMiddle
it is the region that has most dominated
the
public agenda since the IraqWar began in 2003. There
are also strong reasons to suspect that religious beliefs
are especially
important to understanding
public opin
ion toward U.S.
in theMiddle
East. First,
several prominent Evangelical
Christian
leaders (e.g.,
James Dobson,
have
Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson)
been vocal supporters of the war and President Bush's
foreign policy
foreign policy in the region. By contrast, Catholic bish
the National
Council
of Churches,
several
ops,
constituent mainline
and many black
denominations,
Protestant
denominations
These
elite
Iraq War.
there might
be distinct
have
cues
publicly
would
opposed
the
that
suggest
differences
among
religious
on issues such as the Iraq War or Middle
Americans
East foreign policy issues more generally.
Second, biblical
interpretation may also shape for
eign policy attitudes. Those with a literal interpreta
tion of the Bible believe
that the land of Palestine
171
172
Political Research Quarterly
permanently
belongs
to Israel and that world
conflict,
especially conflict in theMiddle East, is a possible
sign of Armageddon
as described
Christ
and
the
imminent
in the book
return
of Revelation.
of
As
Boyer (2003) explained, "Formany believers in bib
lical prophecy,
the Bush
administration's
go-it-alone
attitude toward the Israeli
foreign policy, hands-off
Palestinian
and proposed war on Iraq are not
conflict,
or an exten
simply actions in the national self-interest
on terrorism,
sion of the war
but part of an unfolding
divine
plan."
For these reasons, we
Wald
see ample justification
to heed
to
call
"rediscover"
the
(2006)
and Wilcox's
"faith factor" in the study of American
public opinion
on foreign policy. WTiile several scholars have exam
on the importance
of religion
in
ined or commented
shaping public opinion on foreign policy issues in gen
eral (see, e.g., Hero 1973;Wittkopf 1990; Ribuffo
1998) and foreign policy in theMiddle East (Mayer
2004; Boyer 2005; Daniels 2005; Guth et al. 2005;
Smidt 2005; Phillips 2006), our study is unique in that
it relies on data from surveys taken after overall public
for the Iraq War.
support began to drop significantly
Pew
for the
from
the
Research
data
Center
Using
People & the Press, we find that religion is a signifi
cant factor in predicting
support for the Bush adminis
East policy.
tration's increasingly
unpopular Middle
Specifically,
we find
strongest supporters
Middle
East, despite
stand out as the
that Evangelicals
of a hawkish foreign
sharp declines
for the IraqWar.
policy in the
in overall public
support
We also examine
public opinion toward the state of
consider critical to the
Israel, which many Evangelicals
second coming of Christ, as well as attitudes toward
Islam as a religion. Our results again indicate that
different attitudes than
have significantly
Evangelicals
Americans
do with other religious beliefs. Evangelicals
express more sympathy for Israel and a greater likeli
hood of describing Islam as the world's most violent reli
they provide
gion. Our results are important because
circum
evidence
that even in the face of ever-trying
stances in Iraq, religion remains a significant variable
in understanding
public
opinion
toward American
foreign policy in theMiddle East.
and
public opinion on foreign policy matters
as
as
the decisions
that leaders make
well
character
between
Lippmann's
Gabriel
1950,
early
the
was
foreign
explicitly
normative
con
concern
over
focus was
the
nexus
pub
Almond
narrowed
the
focus
and
people do not pay a great deal of atten
tion to foreign affairs. At least partly as the result of
this, most experts considered public opinion about for
that most
eign policy to be highly volatile and "so lacking in
structure
and
coherence
that
they might
as 'non-attitudes'"
described
best
be
Research
(Holsti 2006,58).
consistent
the
with
foreign policy
opinion was
that mass
lacked ideological
popular notion
opinion
foundation or constraint (Converse
1964).
on
Using data from Gallup, JohnMueller (2002) pro
posed
"eleven
propositions"
regarding
our understand
ing of foreign policy opinion. In addition to finding
some support for the Almond-Lippmann
that the public still pays
particular,
international
little tolerance
affairs), he suggested
for losing American
consensus
little attention
that the public
lives inmatters
(in
to
has
that
lack a direct
link to national security. This is particu
to our study of foreign policy attitudes
relevant
larly
toward the war in Iraq and the Middle East in general.
While many equate foreign policy in these areas to the
general war on terror, the connection
This might
explain
straightforward.
is not necessarily
why overall sup
port for continued efforts in Iraq has waned as the con
flict has progressed.
our understanding
of foreign
Although
policy
the
has
advanced
past few decades,
during
opinion
few
relatively
studies
have
examined
the sources
of
foreign policy beliefs (Holsti 2006, 63; but see Hero
1973;Martin 1999), including the influence of reli
gious factors (Jelen 1994; Guth 2006). Nevertheless,
there
is reason
to believe
an effect
on public
Churches)
policy
about World
opinion
with public
primarily
I and II and the Cold War. A common
cerned
War
on
opinion,
subject (Holsti 2006, 55-88). The prevailing wisdom
was
Almond
Protestants
literature
tracts on public
work in what many consider
expanded on Lippmann's
on
the pioneering
study
public opinion of foreign pol
For
several decades, an "Almond
1960).
icy (Almond
consensus"
dominated
Lippmann
thinking about this
issues.
The
general
was Walter
lished afterWorld War I (Lippmann 1922, 1925). In
have
Public Opinion of Foreign Policy
or interna
izing the American
public as isolationist
tionalist. The foundation
for this work
that religious
beliefs will
of
foreign policy
opinion
for
noted,
the American
(e.g.,
took a "more
that
example,
Council
conservative
some
of Christian
and nationalist
and foreign policy"
position on domestic
assertion.
Other studies confirm Almond's
(1960,180).
Jelen (1994)
were hawkish on a number of
that Evangelicals
international issues. In a study of public opinion on for
found
eign policy from 1974 to 1986,Wittkopf (1990) found
Baumgartner et al. /A Clash of Civilizations?
173
that while
religion was not an especially
important vari
more
were
in
Protestants
conservative
able,
generally
and seculars.
foreign policy matters than were Catholics
only 6 percent said their religious
non-Evangelicals,
leaders had a "great deal" of influence on the same
leaders
said their religious
subject, and 16 percent
(1998) came to a similar conclusion but asserted
that foreign policy hawks tended to be more theologi
cally conservative Protestants, whereas doves were likely
had "some"
Ribuffo
to be theological liberals (see also Daniels 2005). Most
are qualitative in nature or rely
data, and none are current
of these studies, however,
on descriptive
primarily
on for
to account
for post-Iraq public opinion
matters.
eign policy
these observations
in the literature,
Beyond
enough
there is
reason
to expect that some specific religious vari
good
ables should matter. We expect that those who consider
themselves Evangelical
should demonstrate
Christians
greater
policy
There
East
support for a hard-line stance on Middle
as well as continued support for the war in Iraq.
are several reasons to expect this.
leaders
First, many
have
taken strong
in Iraq. For
Evangelical
in support of the war
positions
Pat
the founder of the Christian
Robertson,
example,
public
Islam
Coalition,
branded
religion,"
American
suggesting
left," need
a "bloody,
brutal
of
type
that Americans,
the
"especially
to "wake up" to the "danger" of
Islam (Robertson labeled Islam 2006). Franklin
son of Billy Graham,
Graham,
stated "that Islam
is an
evil and wicked religion" (Nightline report 2006).
was
Falwell
Jerry
Muhammad
"I
think
saying,
later apologized;
Falwell
And
the president
sorry 2002).
Gary Bauer,
of the organization
American
Values?a
group with
close ties to the Evangelical
community?suggested
on more
quoted
a terrorist"
as
was
than one occasion
the Middle
are
East
(he
that the United
in a "clash
of
States
and
civilizations"
(Goldberg 2002; Slavin 2002; Whitehead
2004).
A
be consistent
with
some research
on the role of
For example,
a significant percentage
similar to Evangelical
parishioners,
that "the nation
is faced with
of Evangelical
leaders, believe
an apocalyptic
threat"
with
Center
2003).
to
Evangelicals
in the Middle
East more
are
is that these policies
in "dispensational
a belief
forces of good (Christians) and evil (theAnti-Christ).
This battle (including a shorter period known as the
Tribulation) will end with the second coming of
Christ, who will vanquish theAnti-Christ and estab
lish 1,000 years of peace on earth (see Kilde 2004;
Weber
of
2004). The doctrine also requires the existence
an Israeli state and foretells
of
the destruction
the ancient city that Saddam Hussein
had
Babylon,
rebuilt in the 1980s. The doctrine was first popular
ized by John Nelson Darby in Great Britain during
the nineteenth
United
in the
century and later Cyrus Scofield
whose
annotated version of the Bible
States,
(known as the Scofield Bible, first published in 1909
and revised
pensational
in 1917)
became
premillennial
a main
source
of dis
and
funda
eschatology
mentalist teaching (Boyer 2003; Wagner 2003;
Schaefer 2004). Recent empirical evidence suggests
that many Evangelicals
take dispensational
premil
lennial doctrine seriously. One poll found that 71 per
cent of Evangelicals
believe
that Armageddon
will
unfold as described by the book of Revelation
(Princeton Research Associates
1999).
To appreciate
the influence of this doctrine further,
one can look to the success of the Left Behind book
talist
elite cues in shaping public opinion (Zaller 1992).
(Pew Research
that we expect
(also referred to as "premillennial
premillennialism"
in interpretations
Rooted
of the
dispensationalism").
of
books
Daniel
and Revelation,
pre
dispensational
an
millennialism
that
battle
between
the
predicts
epic
and Islam"
would
consistent
generally
novels
views of Islam 2003).
(Evangelical
to suggest that Evangelical
is also evidence
same positions,
these
which
parishioners
adopt
reason
support hard-line
policies
than would other Americans
leaders found
Indeed, a survey of 350 Evangelical
that 45 percent agreed with the statement,
"The war
a
war
terrorism
is
between
theWest
against
basically
There
influence
second
series by Timothy
and Jerry Jenkins. These
LaHaye
the
end
of
the
world from a fundamen
"depict
and chronicle
the
(Mead 2006)
perspective"
as
of
several
Christians
bat
struggles
born-again
they
tle forces of the Anti-Christ
Since
(Forbes 2004).
more
than
of
60
million
these
books
have
1995,
copies
one in ten adults (9 percent)
and
one in five of all born-again Christians
(19 per
cent) have read at least one of the books in the series
Similar
books
and
(Forbes
2004).
(e.g., Lindsey
been
sold. Almost
almost
(Yankelovich 2005). In addition, a spring 2003 poll
Carlson 1970; Duty 1975) containing prophetic, anti
conducted
Muslim
Center reported that
by the Pew Research
17 percent of Evangelicals
said that their religious
leaders had a "great deal" of influence on how they
viewed
religious
the
conflict
leaders
in Iraq, and 33 percent
said
had "some"
influence.
Among
messages
are also popular with
Evangelicals
(Boyer 2003).
A
third
consideration
of Evangelicals
might
affect
is
that
some
two-thirds
interpret the Bible literally, which
their positions
on foreign
policy matters,
174 Political Research Quarterly
support for Israel. Biblical
notably
that the Bible states unequivocally
literalists
believe
that God
gave
land of Palestine to the Jewish people and that this
is permanently
gift
valid. One
cited pas
commonly
30:3
(King James version):
saith the Lord, that I will
come,
days
"For,
bring
lo, the
the cap
tivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the Lord:
cause them to return to the land that I gave
their fathers, and they shall possess
it." Greater
sup
could be the result of
port for Israel, in other words,
to Biblical
literalism.
greater adherence
and I will
Indeed, literal biblical beliefs seem to have an
effect
on public opinion toward the Israeli-Palestinian
For example, one recent survey suggests that
conflict.
63
of Evangelicals
percent
that events
believe
in
Israel are essential to fulfilling biblical prophecy
and politics
2003). Another
than one in five Americans
(Religion
that more
survey
reports
(21 percent)
as the primary
reason for
cited "religious
beliefs"
on the Israeli-Palestinian
their position
conflict. This
reason was
rience
cited more
(8 percent),
than personal expe
frequently
the views
of family or friends
(4 percent), or education (19 percent). Only the
media had a greater influence (35 percent) than
religion (Pew Research Center 2006b).
there
Finally,
examined
is some
recent
the connection
research
between
that has
beliefs
religious
and foreign policy attitudes. Corwin Smidt (2005)
examined
public's
U.S.-led
how
influenced
the American
religion
attitudes on Islam as well as support for the
invasion of Iraq that began in 2003 (see also
Cimino 2005). Using data from late 2002, Smidt
found
that religiosity,
affilia
including Evangelical
an individual was "born again" was
tion and whether
associated
significantly
removing
Saddam
Evangelical
overall view
Christians
Jews
affiliations
religious
on the public's
foreign
were
divided
fairly
2003),
(Cooperman
black Protestants,
power
held a more
more
religion.
also might
the war
earlier,
on
force.
negative
likely
to
have
an
before
including
mainline
action
military
the National
Council
of
from
Churches, which
represents 50 million members
various different faiths that include thirty-six Protestant
and Methodists)
and
(e.g., Lutherans,
Episcopalians,
Orthodox
denominations,
publicly
opposed
Bishops,
Catholics
the Iraq
of Catholic
Conference
65
represents
million
(Nieves 2002). Church
Roman
leaders in the
were
American
also very active
to the war. Groups,
community
in organizing
their opposition
such as Black Voices
for Peace, worked
in close
alliance with African American
churches
(St. George
and Fernandez
conservative
2003). Even culturally
black churches, such as the Church of God in Christ
(which represents some 6million followers), publicly
opposed the IraqWar (Milbank 2003).
Public
in the
opinion
concerning
foreign policy
East more
as
such
support for
generally,
some
to
is
as
reveal
divisions
Israel,
likely
religious
well. Previous
for example,
indicates
that
research,
Middle
Jews are, not surprisingly,
and sup
very sympathetic
of
Israel
Eizenstat
(see, e.g.,
1990; Green
portive
are also
Protestants
2004). Mainline
sympathetic
toward Israel, as are Roman Catholics,
to a
although
slightly lesser degree (Pew Research Center 2005).
unlike
very few mainline
Evangelicals,
and Catholics
support Israel on the basis
or biblical grounds
that
(i.e., they believe
However,
Protestants
of religious
God gave the land to the Jews). As a recent Pew
believe
vey showed, 69 percent of Evangelicals
to the Jews
Israel
Catholics.
of mainline
percent
were
Black
Protestants
gave
smaller
27
white
Evangelicals,
believe
God
they
with
that
compared
Protestants
much
and
to
closer
60 percent
reporting
to the Jews
Israel
gave
sur
to a much
God
that
(Pew
Research Center 2006b). Yet despite their religious
black Protestants
beliefs,
least sympathetic
toward
are
typically
among
the
Israel
(Green 2004).
of the previous
research on religion and for
toward the Middle
East, however,
eign policy opinion
has been performed
before public
support began to
Most
for the Iraq War. According
to the
it was not until late November
Gallup Organization,
2004 that public support for the war dropped
to less
drop
significantly
than 50 percent,
opinions. While
the Iraq War
policy
about
many other Christians,
and some
Catholics,
Protestants,
opposed
even began. As noted
view
with
and were
a violent
agree
Other
hawkish
from
further
of Muslims
that Islam was
effect
amore
with
Hussein
the National
which
African
sage supporting this belief comes from the book of
Jeremiah
as did
War,
the
and it was
not until
June 2005
that
public support dropped to less than 40 percent. In this
we anticipate
that religious convictions
environment,
become
very
significant
to understanding
public
opinion on foreign policy in theMiddle East. Rising
death
media
tolls,
financial
and negative
costs,
the Iraq War
should have the
on Evangelicals
because of their firm reli
spiraling
reports about
least effect
gious beliefs that conflict in theMiddle East is part
of
a divine
Evangelicals
issues related
plan. We
will show
to foreign
therefore
the most
policy
that
hypothesize
distinctive
views on
in the Middle
East.
Baumgartner et al. /A Clash of Civilizations?
comes from the March 2006 News
Data and Method
our analysis, we
from the Pew Research
To conduct
surveys
rely on data from three
Center for the People
& the Press: the 2005 News Interest Index/Religion
Overflow Survey, the 2005 Pew Forum on Religion &
Public Life, and theMarch 2006 News Interest Index
Survey. The News Interest Index/Religion Overflow
Survey occurred from July 13 to 17,2005.
on telephone
of the survey are based
drawn from a nationally
representative
The
results
interviews
of
sample
1,502 adults (eighteen years of age or older) in the
continental
error
States.
United
for
the data
is ?3
The margin
of sampling
The
survey on
percent.
Religion & Public Life took place from July 7 to 17,
2005. Data
drawn
views
for this survey came from telephone
inter
from a nationally
representative
sample
of 2,000 adults (eighteen years of age or older) in the
continental
United
States.
of
The margin
sampling
error for the data is ?2.4 percent. The March 2006
Interest
News
to
Index
came
12 and
from March
8
Survey occurred
from telephone
drawn
interviews
of 1,405
sample
representative
Survey. This
that I name
item asked, "Which
do you
think of
175
Interest Index
one of the religions
as most
violent?
Islam, Judaism, or Hinduism?"
Christianity,
serve as the dependent
These seven questions
vari
in this study. We coded 1 for any answer that
indicated approval for George W. Bush's policies,
the
or
We
for
Israel.
all
coded
IraqWar,
support
negative
toward Bush,
the Iraq War, or support for
responses
ables
who answered
Israel as 0. Respondents
"don't know"
were not included
in the analysis.
In the
on
item that measured
views
the most violent
reli
or refused
listed Islam as 1 and all
gion, we coded those who
as 0. Because
other responses
of the binary nature of
seven
the
variables, we rely on maximum
dependent
likelihood estimation (probit analysis) to test for the
effects
of
religion,
while
for political,
controlling
factors.
social, and demographic
The primary independent
in our analysis
variables
are a series of religious measures.
Our study takes an
is simply a short
ethno-religious
approach, which
hand
adults (eighteen years of age or older) in the conti
nental United States. The margin of error for the data
for combining
denomina
religious
attributes (e.g., Hispanic
Catholics,
or white Evangelicals).
black Protestants,
We believe
this approach is the most
logical for studying foreign
is ?3 percent. (For more information
veys, see http://people-press.org.)
conflicts
policy opinion given that ethno-religious
often at the center of international
conflict. Using
a nationally
from
These
opinion
We
three
on
allow
surveys
seven foreign
us
about
these
to examine
policy-related
sur
public
questions.
selected questions that deal primarily with the
Middle
biblical
from
East,
given
prophecies.
that the region is a major focus of
come
The first four questions
the 2005 News
Interest
Index/Religion
reference
tions and cultural
perspective,
the major
reported
we
categorize
survey
ethno-religious
These
belonging.
group
include
respondents
to which
are
this
into
they
(in no particular
order): (1) mainline Protestant, (2) Evangelical
Christian, (3) black Protestant, (4)white Catholic, (5)
nonwhite Catholic, (6) other Christian, (7) Jewish, (8)
Overflow
cover
Survey. Three of these four questions
the specific policies
of George W. Bush. For these
were
"Do you
items,
asked,
survey
respondents
of the way George W. Bush is
approve or disapprove
or (9) no religious affiliation
other non-Christian,
(for
an excellent
on these various
discussion
different
et al. 2000).
groups, see Steensland
handling: (1) The situation in Iraq; (2) Terrorist
from
threats; (3) The nation's
foreign policy?" The fourth
no specific mention
from
item
the survey made
of
"Do
think
the
U.S.
Bush,
you
asking respondents,
or the wrong
the right decision
made
decision
in
force against Iraq?"
using military
come from
The next two questions
The Evangelical
two religion
Church?"
Pew
Roman
"other
two questions
ask, (1) "In the dispute between
Israel and the Palestinians, which
side do you sympa
thize with more,
Israel or the Palestinians?"
(2)
situation these days, do
"Thinking about the Mideast
The
you think the U.S. should take Israel's side more, less or
about as much as it has in the past?" The final question
The
who
on Religion & Public Life. These are more gen
eral questions about American
foreign policy in Israel.
the 2005
measure
was
constructed
The first question
asked,
questions.
"What is your religious preference?Protestant,
Roman
or an orthodox
Catholic,
Jewish, Muslim,
Mormon,
or Russian
church
such as the Greek
Orthodox
those
Forum
Christian
second
identified
question was
themselves
a follow-up
for
as Protestant,
Orthodox
Mormon,
Christian,
or
not
did
know.
It
"Would
asked,
religion,"
as
a
describe
yourself
'born-again' Evangelical
Catholic,
you
or not?" Those who answered
Christian,
"yes" were
coded as Evangelical
of black
(with the exception
see
below).
respondents;
explanation
A
in
significant
portion of the black Protestants
as Evangelical
identified
themselves
surveys
Christians.
There was also a small amount of overlap
our
176 Political Research Quarterly
Table 1
Religion and Public Opinion on Foreign Policy in theMiddle East
of
Approve
Bush's
Handling
of Iraq
Variable
Catholic
Nonwhite
Catholic
Other Christian
Jewish
non
Other
Approve
of Bush's
on Terror
Foreign
Policy
0.441
(.169)**
0.551
(.179)**
0.277
(.249)
0.024
(.288)
of War
Agree That United
States Should Take
Agree Use of
Force in IraqWas
Israel's
Sympathy
Toward Israel
Right Decision
More
-0.056
0190)
0.380 0117)*** 0.539 0143)***
-0.238 0211)
-0.2310187)
0.119 0120)
-0.077
(.156)
-0. .441 (.574)
0. .001 (.229)
-0.151
(.456)
-0.582
(.576)
-0.057
-0.343
(.219)
-0.121
(.237)
-0. .665 (.727)
-0. .471 (.359)
-1.139
0706)
-0.834
(.758)
-0.081
-0.088
0. .517 (.170)**
-0. .119(.295)
0. 107(.184)
Evangelical
Black Protestant
White
Approve
of Bush's Handling
0.139 0175)
0.006 0286)
-0.231
(.267)
0.302 0156)
0.392
0.048
Side
-0.329
0.368
-0.200
(.202)
1.115 0556)*
(.157)*
(.187)
Religion
0.327 0150)*
0.116 0149)
0.450
(.419)
(.339)
-0.030
(.220)
-0.462
(.369)
(.340)**
-0.194
(.388)
-0.345
(.338)
-0.412 0351)
-0.252
(.203)
-1.121
(.349)***
-0.228
-0.157
0126)
-0.349
0163)*
-0.118
0120)***
-0.030
(.134)
-0.213
(.143)
1.034
Violent
Often
0.070 (.236)
(.373)
Agree Islam
Is the Most
0.006 0313)
(.239)
0.045
(.189)
Christian
No
religious
affiliation
(.195)
1. .420 0140)***
-0. .571 (.146)***
0. .0990119)
Republican
Democrat
Male
Education
Income
Constant
LR chi-square
n
(.185)
1.219 0150)***
-0.578
1.351
(.150)***
-0.057
0126)
-0.045
(.042)
-0.076
(.026)**
(.033)
-0.004
(.020)
-0. .016 (.041)
0. .0320031)
-0.048
0.034
(.030)
-0. .761 (.239)***
308. 49***
-0.047
(.227)
226.90***
308.59***
690
677
642
(.038)
0.046
-0.343
(.246)
Center for the People & the Press's July 2005 News
Interest Index Survey.
Life, and March 2006 News
are probit estimates.
Coefficients
Standard errors are in parentheses.
Source:
1.220 0100)***
(.149)***
-0.796
0130)***
0.098 0114)
(.202)
Pew Research
-0.424
0.390
0.003 0122)
0.115 0099)
(.089)***
0.110 0077)
-0.038
0.004
0.069 0158)
-0.016
443.70***
Interest
0.327 0110)**
(.330)
0.541
(.138)***
-0.044
0129)
0.338 0108)**
-0.104
(.036)**
0.134
(.037)***
(.025)
-0.040
(.027)
0.024
(.026)
(.213)
-0.455
(.227)*
62.19***
742
Survey,
-0.670
(.218)**
74.85***
847
Overflow
Index/Religion
-0.242
(.032)
98.66***
1,395
(.211)
673
July 2005
Pew Forum
on Religion
& Public
Note:
*p < .05. **/? < .01. ***/? < .001 (two-tailed).
between
other Christian
and self-identification
faiths, such as Catholicism,
as an Evangelical.
Because we
as a mutually
Evangelicals
we
a
to
in
had
decision-rule
category,
apply
on
of
the previous
research
Based
coding.
treated
self-identified
exclusive
our
Steensland et al. (2000), Wilcox
and Larson (2006),
factors that are common
in most
studies
demographic
on
that focus
include controls
public opinion. These
for gender (coded 1 for male and 0 for female),
educa
tion (coded 1 to 7, with higher values indicating
and income (coded 1 to 9,
greater levels of education),
with higher values indicating greater levels of income).
black
treated self-identified
(2006), we
as unique from nonblack Evangelicals
and
as
non-Protestant
self-identified
Evangelicals
and Guth
Protestants
coded
Christians,
non-Evangelical
of what
definition
agreed-on
Evangelical
2006). For
themselves
Christian
as they fall outside
the
the American
constitutes
and Larson
(see Wilcox
the few Catholics who identified
base
instance,
as Evangelical
Christians
were
not coded
as Evangelicals
treat mainline
but as Catholics. We
as
the reference category for our analysis.
Protestants
nine groups (with 1
We dummy code the remaining
in the group
indicating membership
no membership
in the group).
and 0 indicating
is often one of
lines. Foreign policy
beyond religious
in
American
issues
the most contentious
poli
partisan
tics (Meernick and Ault 2001). We therefore control for
partisan
for Republican
Independents/no
We also control
The
1 confirm
in Table
that
displayed
have significantly
different
foreign pol
on all of the issues
than other Americans
results
Evangelicals
icy opinions
that we
examined
in our
As
analysis.
expected,
to
approve of Bush's
Evangelicals
likely
the war on terror, and
of the Iraq War,
handling
Bush's
overall foreign policy
than other Americans
are more
are. Most
Of course, foreign policy opinion is likely to differ
identification
The Effect of Religion on
Foreign Policy Opinion
a dummy measure
by including
and Democratic
respondents,
leaving
as the reference category.
preference
and
for the standard socioeconomic
is that this relation
however,
impressive,
for the respondents'
ship holds even after controlling
This
identification.
confirms
the powerful
and
party
in
influence
of
shaping public
independent
religion
opinion
on what
have
become
the most
salient
for
eign policy matters during the past few years.
The next set of questions
deals with force in Iraq
and relations with Israel. Once again, there is a sta
tistically
significant
relationship
for Evangelicals.
Baumgartner et al. /A Clash of Civilizations?
The
are more
that Evangelicals
likely
to agree that the use of force in
indicate
results
than other Americans
Iraq was the right decision, and they are more likely than
to have sympathy for Israel in its dis
other Americans
and to agree that the United
the
with
Palestinians
pute
States should take Israel's side more
as the final
column
in Table
than Christianity,
Judaism, or Hinduism.
1 demonstrates
that Evangelical
Table
Overall,
is the only religious
indicator that consis
affiliation
The
only
cantly influences
dent
variables
is
Judaism,
which
ment
with
toward
sympathy
that the United
States should
more
often.
associated
The
highly
significant,
that the powerful
do not diminish
is positively
Israel and agree
take Israel's
identification
party
but it is important
variables
to note
side
are
of these political predictors
the effects of Evangelicalism.
Table 2 summarizes the predicted effects of the
Evangelical
ables from Table
at their mean
on each
1while
values.
of the dependent
vari
holding all control measures
The
cell
are the proba
entries
bility of a positive outcome (coded 1) in each probit
model
the Evangelical
varying
predictor
versus
As
the esti
(Evangelical
non-Evangelical).
mates
the
of
the
variable
indicate,
impact
Evangelical
while
on each dependent
is quite impressive. The
variable
between
and non
differences
predicted
Evangelicals
seven
at
reach
least
.10
for
all
Evangelicals
dependent
are
and in some instances,
the differences
variables,
more
than twice that level. For example,
the proba
bility of approving of President Bush's foreign policy
to .60
.39 (?.03) for non-Evangelicals
jumps from
even
for
the
when
model controls
(?.06)
Evangelicals
for all other independent
variables
party
(including
for Israel
Furthermore,
sympathy
.47 (?.02) for non-Evangelicals
to .67
for Evangelicals.
These
rather large effects
identification).
jumps from
(?.04)
confirm
the powerful
and substantive
on
beliefs
Evangelical
foreign policy
significance
of
opinion.
Discussion
.35 (?.03)
.55 (?.05)
.20
Approve of Bush's
handling of war
.55 (?.03)
.71 (?.05)
.16
Approve of Bush's
.39 (?.03)
.60 (?.06)
.21
foreign policy
Agree use of force
in Iraqwas right
.49 (?.02)
.64 (?.04)
.15
.47 (?.02)
.67 (?.04)
.20
.13 (?.01)
.23 (?.04)
.10
.67 (?.02)
.78 (?.04)
.11
terror
decision
Sympathy toward
Israel
Agree thatUnited
States should take
side more
between
results
religion
confirm
overall
there
is a connection
and foreign policy opinion. Specifi
are more
Christians
supportive
cally, Evangelical
of President
Bush's
and his
that
foreign
foreign
policy
policy. Also,
on
the Iraq War
we found that
often
Agree Islam is the
most violent religion
Source: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press's July
2005 News Interest Index/Religion Overflow Survey, July 2005
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, andMarch 2006 News
Interest
Index
Survey.
Note: The predicted probabilities are based on the multivariate
results inTable 1,with all other variables held at theirmean. We
relied on CLARIFY to generate the estimates (see King, Tomz,
andWittenberg 2000; Tomz, Wittenberg, and King 2001 formore
information). The standard errors generated by CLARIFY are in
parentheses.
are more likely to support Israel and to view
Evangelicals
Islam as the most violent religion. A few earlier studies
have pointed to similar relationships, but our findings
confirm
that Evangelical
support for the Bush adminis
tration's hawkish
approach to foreign policy has not
in the years following
waned
the 2003 invasion in Iraq
even though American military deaths and Iraqi casualties
have been much greater in number than most anticipated.
It is important to note, however, that since the 2003 inva
sion of Iraq, support for the war among Evangelicals
has
declined overall, but at amuch slower rate than that of the
data from the Pew Research
general public. Aggregate
Center demonstrate
that at the outset of the invasion,
support for President Bush's handling of the
Evangelical
conflict
Our
Evangelical Difference
Approve of Bush's
handling of Iraq
Israel's
again
effects
variable
Non
Evangelical
on
on foreign policy
public opinion
other religious variable
that signifi
more than one of the seven depen
influences
tently
issues.
Table 2
Predicted Probabilities for Public Opinion on
Foreign Policy in theMiddle East
in theMiddle
1 indicates,
are significantly more
likely than other
to agree that Islam is amore violent religion
East. Finally,
Evangelicals
Americans
often
177
was
only 5 points higher than the general
late
2005, this gap had grown to 13 percent.
public's. By
As our results indicate, the effect of Evangelical beliefs
on foreign policy attitudes toward the Middle East
statistically significant even after controlling for
the respondent's party identification. This suggests
that
remained
178
Political Research Quarterly
Evangelicals'
foreign policy opinions transcend partisan
a larger religious effect. These findings
and
into
ship
tap
are important because
evi
they provide confirmatory
Duty,
prepared
that Evangelical
once
again
differently
the findings
affiliation
Falwell
almost
two-thirds
to Israel
the
of main
foreign
policy.
to take a more
not
hard-line
new
conflict
generate
demonstrated
that issue
to watch
that
war
on terror and
and
James
the
New
York:
Paul
prophecy.
-.
S.
Praeger.
2003. When
policy:
NC:
AlterNet,
February
biblical
foreign
policy meets
20.
http://www.alternet.org/
O.
Duke
Cimino,
H. Badaracco.
2005. No
Richard.
Evangelical
Research
Waco,
on Islam
discourse
TX: Baylor
God
American
religious
groups
opinion,
1937-1969.
of belief
E. 1964. The nature
Philip
In
ed.
and
discontent,
Ideology
publics.
IL: Free Press.
Glencoe,
David
Cook, Elizabeth, Ted Jelen, and Clyde Wilcox.
two absolutes:
abortion.
Cooperman,
backlash
Daniels,
most
American
Boulder,
Alan.
public
opinion
CO: Greenwood.
2003.
for Iraq War.
and
1992. Between
worried
organizations
15.
Post, March
Washington
Jewish
Joseph P. 2005. Religious
international-policy
preferences
31:273-301.
Interactions
International
the
United
York:
New
Basic
York:
Books.
attitudes:
foreign
policy
and doctrine.
How
American
did Left BehinxTs
particular
In Rapture,
and
revelation,
"Left Behind"
H. Kilde.
New York:
vision
of
the end of
D.
Bruce
ed.
series,
Palgrave.
of statistical
and presen
analyses:
Improving
interpretation
Journal
44:347-61.
Political
Science
of
The great
divide:
2001.
and cul
Religious
party
and Edward
politics:
and U.S.
political
New
politics.
G.
York:
Carmines.
Religious
behavior.
Columbia
1997.
Cultural
traditionalism,
post
of Politics
Journal
59:751-77.
and C. C. Carlson.
1970. The
late,
Hal,
Lindsey,
Books.
earth. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Walter.
New York:
1922. Public
opinion.
Lippmann,
about
States.
New
Religion
of denomination
develop?
the
Exploring
and Jeanne
materialism,
of
affiliation and individual
in
2004.
C,
Layman,
Geoffrey
in American
conflict
Apter.
the politics
wars.
Durham,
policy.
foreign
and
Layman,
Geoffrey.
in American
tural conflict
Press.
University
in mass
E.
H.
times
tation. American
of Religious
systems
Culture
1991.
1994.
American
view foreign
King, Gary,Michael Tomz, and JasonWittenberg. 2000. Making the
47:162-74.
Converse,
D.
the effects
Jeanne
Forbes
in common: American
after 91W.Review
1973.
2006. Making
G.
Ted
times:
Press.
University
and Corwin
in rank-and-file
Press.
University
R.
Ole
the end
story/15221.
2005. Biblical policy and foreign policy. In Quoting God,
ed. Claire
A. Kellstedt,
Lyman
Politics Quarterly 22:382-400.
policy.
Kilde,
U.S.
Corwin
Trends
Exploring
Boyer,
A.
the front,
ed. John C.
from
E. Smidt,
and Lyman
A.
Dispatches
Guth,
John C. Green,
L.,
Alfred
Hero,
Jelen,
and foreign
Lyman
E. Smidt. 2005. Faith and foreign policy: A view from the
pews. Review of Faith and International Affairs 3 (Fall): 3-9.
Holsti,
people
C. Green,
John
Fraser,
Kellstedt Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Guth,
of 2008.
The American
L.
James
Green,
References
1960.
wars:
the culture
Routledge.
James
Hunter,
Gabriel.
R.
Cleveland
L.,
Kellstedt, and Corwin E. Smidt. 1996. Religion and foreign
policy attitudes: The case of Christian Zionism. In Religion
in Iraq, it is all but certain that for
and national security will be salient issues
election
James
Guth,
in greater detail. It also
how Evangelical
opinion
the continued
24.
green-full.pdf.
inquiries
affects actual U.S.
by religion,
we have
guided
While
eign policy
in the presidential
Almond,
Palgrave.
Guth, James L. 2006. Religion and foreign policy attitudes: The
case of the Bush doctrine. Paper presented at the 2006 annual
meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association,
Chicago, April 20-22.
into how
on foreign policy may influence the 2008 presidential
ongoing
series,
and
decision
certainly
explore
will be important
Given
are the Left Behind
and
books,
the end of times: Exploring
ed. Bruce D. Forbes
and Jeanne H.
popular
revelation,
"Lefi Behind"
New York:
/60minutes/main
dispensational/index.html.
on foreign policy
is distinctive,
Evangelical
opinion
we can only speculate as to whether
elite cues, bibli
or other religious
are the dri
cal beliefs,
influences
for
these
force
beliefs.
Future
studies
could
ving
election.
How
2004.
News.com.
CBS
Green, John C. 2004. The American religious landscape and
political attitudes: A baseline for 2004. Pew Forum on
Religion & Public Life, pewforum.org/publications/surveys/
factor will
opinion,
all. Foreign
Goldberg, Michelle. 2002. Antichrist politics. Salon, May
http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/05/24/
in pressuring
Israel to desist in their attacks.
In closing, we hope that rediscovering
the faith or
religion
and
2002.
Muhammad.
bashing
In Rapture,
Kilde.
stance
public
Bruce.
why?
24 percent of seculars (Pew
Research Center 2006a). One can only speculate as to
the extent of the influence
that Evangelical
support
in the U.S.
Israel?Warts
Loving
and only
line Protestants
had
for
sorry
Forbes,
of white
(59 percent) were sympathetic
Evangelicals
as compared
to 33 percent
in that conflict,
1990.
http ://www.cbsnews. com/stories/2002/10/11
525316.html.
that Evangelicals
these conflicts
perceive
than do other Americans.
with
Consistent
in this article,
E.
Stuart
Policy 81:87-105.
Evangelical views of Islam. 2003. Ethics & Public Policy Center
Beliefnet. http:/fteliefnet.com/story/124/story _12447.html.
in the summer of 2006 highlighted
and Hezbollah
to be
MN:
Bethany Fellowship.
Eizenstat,
does play a significant
role in influencing public opinion on foreign policy.
between
Israel
Indeed, the outbreak of hostilities
dence
1975. Escape
the coming
How
tribulation:
from
for the last great crisis of history. Minneapolis,
Guy.
-.
1925.
The phantom
public.
New
York:
great
planet
Macmillan.
Harcourt,
Brace.
Martin, William. 1999. The Christian Right and American for
eign policy. Foreign Policy 114 (Spring): 66-80.
Baumgartner et al. /A Clash of Civilizations?
Mayer, Jeremy. 2004. Christian fundamentalists and public
opinion toward the Middle East. Social Science Quarterly
85:694-712.
Mead, Walter Russell. 2006. God's country? Foreign Affairs.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901 faessay 85504/walter
russell-mead/god-s-country.html.
and Michael
James,
Meernick,
for
support
Politics
U.S.
presidents'
29:352-73.
Research
Dana.
Milbank,
2003.
action.
affirmative
Ault.
2001.
opinion
American
over
Bush
criticizes
Post,
Washington
and
policies.
foreign
Denomination
Public
January
Iraq,
26.
Mueller, John. 2002. American foreign policy and public opinion
in a new
era: Eleven
2d
opinion,
In Understanding
propositions.
and Clyde
ed. Barbara
Norrander
ed.,
public
Wilcox.
Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Nieves,
December
Post,
Washington
Anti-war
2002.
Evelyn.
effort
momentum.
gains
Center.
2003.
not
Different
faiths,
-.
-.
different
2006a.
-.
report,
March
a strength
and weakness
for both
30. www.people-press.org.
19.
parties.
2006b.
Many
Research
politics.
for Israel unchanged
by recent
26.
report, July
www.people-press.org.
Americans
and
uneasy with mix of religion
Americans'
Research
support
24. www.people-press.org.
report, August
oil and
religion,
York: Viking.
Princeton Research Associates.
Says About
the End
of
borrowed
cen
in the 21st
money
1999. "Prophecy:What the Bible
the World."
Newsweek,
and
&
consensus.
the Press.
November
1.
2003.
Pew
http://pewforum
.org/publications/surveys/religion-politics.pdf.
Ribuffo, Leo. 1998. Religion and American
National Interest 52 (Summer): 36-51.
labeled
Media
Matters
a "bloody,
for America,
Islam
printable/200605010007.
1997. The
and Christopher
G. Ellison.
of a moral
crusade:
Conservative
E.,
cogni
Protestantism
St. George,
and Manny
Fernandez.
Donna,
for
Post,
peace.
plea
Washington
January
D.
Steensland,
Brian,
Jerry Z. Park, Mark
A King
2003.
Day
21.
R?gneras,
D.
Lynn
Robinson, W Bradford Wilcox, and Robert D. Woodberry.
2000. The measure of American religion: Toward improving
the art. Social
Forces
79:291-318.
Software
for
and
interpreting
statistical
presenting
results.
Version 2.0. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University,
http://
Jewish
alliance.
Christian
Wald, Kenneth D.
to Zion: The Evangelical
Century,
June
28.
1992. Religion and politics
DC:
CQ
in the United
Press.
Wald, Kenneth D., and Clyde Wilcox. 2006. Getting religion: Has
political science rediscovered the faith factor? American
Political Science Review 100:523-37.
Weber, Timothy P. 2004. On the road to Armageddon: How
became
Evangelicals
Israel's
Grand
best friend.
MI:
Rapids,
Books.
WTiite, John Kenneth. 2003. The values divide. Chatham, NJ:
Chatham
House.
2004. Waging war against the Barbarians.
Oldspeak http://www.ratoerford.o^
Whitehead, JohnW
and politics:
Contention
Religion
Research
Center
for the People
Robertson
Darren
structure
and opposition to pornography. Social Forces 75:957-82.
Slavin, Barbara. 2002. Don't give up 1967 lands, Delay tells
Israel lobby. USA Today, April 23.
Smidt, Corwin. 2005. Religion and American attitudes towards
Islam and an invasion of Iraq.Sociology of Religion 66:243-61.
Baker
Phillips, Kevin. 2006. American theocracy: The peril and politics
of radical
tury. New
tive
Wagner, Donald E. 2003. Marching
messages:
report, August
hostilities.
sign:
Journal
of Popular Culture 38:82-105.
Sherkat,
States. Washington,
www.people-press.org.
2005. Religion
Research
Research
opinions.
defining
endtime
at the fin-de-millennium.
gking.harvard.edu/.
Americans hearing about Iraq from the pulpit, but religious
faith
Apocalypticism
an
as
Y2K
2004.
in America
Tomz, Michael, JasonWittenberg, andGary King. 2001. CLARIFY:
mediamatters.org/items/printable/200603160009.
Research
A.
Nancy
the state of
2.
Nightline reportattributedFranklinGraham's denunciations of Islam
to a lack of "diplomacy."2006.Media Matters forAmerica, http://
Pew
Schaefer,
179
brutal
foreign policy.
type of religion."
http://mediamatters.org/items/
oldspeak-bauer2.aspirant.
Clyde, and Carin Larson.
Wilcox,
religious
Wittkopf,
ion
2006. Onward
Christian
inAmerican
R.
Eugene
and American
University
2006.
Right
politics, 3d ed. Boulder,
1990. Faces
of internationalism:
foreign
policy.
Durham,
soldiers?
The
CO: Westview.
Public
NC:
opin
Duke
Press.
Yankelovich, Daniel. 2005. Poll positions. Foreign Affairs 84:2-16.
Zaller,
John R.
1992.
The
nature
and
origins
New York: Cambridge University Press.
of mass
opinion.