When Church Teachings and Policy Commitments Collide: Perspectives on Catholics in the U.S. House of Representatives

This article investigates the influence of religious values on domestic social policy-making, with a particular focus on Catholics. We analyze roll call votes in the 109th Congress and find that Catholic identification is associated with support for Catholic Social Teaching, but both younger Catholics and Republican Catholics are found less supportive. In followup interviews with a small sample of Catholic Republicans, we find that they justify voting contrary to Church teaching by seeing its application to domestic social issues as less authoritative than Church moral teachings on issues like abortion

Culture War Skirmishes in Public Schools: The Experiences of Evangelical Christian Administrators

The intent of this exploratory, descriptive narrative inquiry was to understand the experiences of evangelicals serving as public school administrators leading in the midst of culture war skirmishes involving conservative Christians and public schools. The stories of leaders from Texas, Southern California, and the South, the Midwest, and the Pacific Northwest were gathered. Each participant shared a skirmish narrative that included rich descriptions of the cultural and geographic context. In the process, work–faith relationships and the inner worlds of each administrator were also illuminated. Themes were identified within each narrative and across all narratives

Political Compromise in America: Why Are Americans So Politically Divided And What Can Be Done To Prevent A Fractured Nation

Ask anyone who is politically active what they believe to be the biggest problem in politics today. More often than not, Americans tend to blame the failing parts of society on the stubbornness of the opposing political party. This generally opens up the floor to asking questions about whether individuals are willing to listen to members of the opposing party discuss their points of view, and unfortunately, many will choose not to listen at all, having already decided that they are wrong and there is no possibility of coming to a middle ground between the two points of view. People adopt a “my way or the highway” approach to politics. Because society is becoming more obviously political, with politics finding a way to imbue itself into every aspect of society, there is a deepening divide between those who identify as Republicans and those who identify as Democrats. This division, should it continue to grow, could ultimately lead to the complete division of the nation and the possibility of a second American Civil War. So why do people tend to choose not to compromise? This research paper looks to analyze this issue of political compromise in America, and strives to understand what is keeping people from coming to a middle ground on American politics. In its essence, the question is being asked: Why do people choose not to compromise in politics, and how can the nation be brought back to a place where there is a common starting point, even if the end points are different? By analyzing research and literature on the deepening political divide in this nation, as well as looking at different voting demographics and the patterns and traditions that stick to the voting process, this author hopes to ultimately debunk the idea that America is beyond the point of saving, and answer the question of where people need to come together in order to solve the political polarization of all American society

The Importance of Undecideds in the Evolution vs. Creationism Debate

As a scientific theory, evolution has as much empirical support for its core assertions as the heliocentric universe theory or the belief that the Earth is round. Despite a unanimous consensus in the scientific community about evolution’s validity, the General Social Survey (GSS) consistently reports that 85 percent of Americans are either undecided or do not believe in evolution. This divide between evolutionists, led by scientists, and creationists, led by religious leaders, has enormous scientific and political implications, which include funding for basic scientific research, acting to stop global warming, and what schools should be teaching our children. The most important people in this debate are the 49 percent of respondents who are Undecided about their beliefs, answering that evolution is “probably true” or “probably not true.” However, in previous studies, these respondents have been largely overlooked or grouped with other respondents. Therefore, my original research will focus on these Undecideds. I seek to understand how people’s uncertainty about evolution potentially influences attitudes toward other issues involving science. To answer this question, I will use probability sample survey data to compare respondents’ views on evolution (belief, uncertainty, disbelief) with their views on other scientific issues. I further disaggregated “other scientific issues” into two categories, those which are particularly God-loaded, such as using stem cells to grow human organs, and those which are not, such as global warming. Only considering the scientific evidence, the core of the theory of evolution should be accepted with reasonable certainty. Yet a powerful force, U.S. religion, offers an alternative explanation for human existence that is based on faith. In fact, because of this religious connection, views about evolution form much earlier in the life cycle compared to other attitudes toward science. Because it forms before adulthood, evolutionary beliefs, then, could shape individuals general outlook on other types of scientific research. Since religiosity is the strongest predictor of evolutionary beliefs, I hypothesize that Undecideds would be more aligned with creationists on God-loaded scientific questions and they would be more aligned with evolutionists on non-God-loaded scientific questions. My findings partially support my hypothesis. Although there was a strong correlation between high religiosity and support for creationism, there was little evidence of any correlation between Undecideds and support for God-loaded or non-God-loaded scientific questions. However, I found evidence that Undecideds theoretically want to support science and protect the environment, but are not willing to make any sacrifices for it