Research On Religion » Employment Division v Smith

Quin Monson on Norms, Religion, and Politics

tonygill — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 09:00:11 +0000

How do people view other religions? Are there norms of tolerance (or intolerance) that Americans hold in common? If there are differences in these norms, do they cut across political affiliation? These are some of the questions that Prof. Quin Monson, associate professor of political science at Brigham Young University, sets out to answer in a paper that he co-authored with his BYU colleagues Christopher Karpowitz and Kelly Patterson. We discuss their recent findings published in the journal Politics & Religion entitled “Who’s In and Who’s Out: The Politics of Religious Norms.” Before that, though, we include a bit of banter about what it is like being a political science professor and having to answer questions about why we can’t seem to predict the outcome of recent elections. Prof. Monson shares some insights here and notes that scholars are trying to rectify some recent errors and are rediscovering some important research from the past.

We then jump into the world of norms and norm enforcement. Quin defines what norms are — the collective consciousness of a community — and provides a few examples of norms and how they operate. We talk about the norm of standing in line and “first come, first served” and how violations of this commonly known rule are enforced. Prof. Monson notes that the more that is at stake with respect to a norm, the more individuals will seek to sanction a norm violator. He also mentions Tony’s recent work on tipping (gratuities), allowing him to post a link to that conversation below! Quin further illustrates the role of norms in politics through an earlier study he conducted on how voters perceive privacy at the ballot box. A field experiment conducted at polling sites, wherein tape was placed around voting booths to signify a private space had an effect on how poll workers interacted with citizens. We then review the difficulty in measuring norms within a quantitative framework.

This conversation on measuring norms leads us into Quin’s recent survey experiment on the religious attitudes people hold and whether they are willing to sanction people with respect to “inappropriate” statements against certain denominations. We briefly cover the history of religious discrimination in American that includes anti-Catholicism, anti-Mormonism, and anti-Semitism. Prof. Monson leads us then through an interesting survey experiment he conducted with the help of the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, a research project involving some 50,000 subjects that can be broken down into 1,000 person modules for specific projects. Quin reviews the pre- and post-test design of the study and explains how he and his colleagues sought to measure religious intolerance and the willingness to chastise other individuals for holding such views. He reads a vignette that was given randomly to respondents which was based off of some comments that comedian and social commentator Bill Maher had made towards religion. They modified this statement to include the religious categories of Catholics, Mormons, Jews, evangelical Christians, Muslims, and Mitt Romney. The latter was added as an interesting control given the 2012 test surrounded the presidential election involving Mitt Romney, the first Mormon presidential candidate. The findings from this study indicated that the level of anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism was relatively low, and that individual respondents were often upset at people holding such views. The largest effect, though, related towards whether or not individuals would sanction comments calling Muslims “weird.” Democrats were more likely to disapprove or sanction negative statements against Muslims, whereas Republicans were not. Quin mentioned that this may be have been a precursor of what happened in the political rhetoric of the 2016 election. We finish off the podcast with Quin’s thoughts on how norms may be changing in society and what things he has most learned throughout his career. Recorded: December 15, 2017.

John Inazu on the Four Freedoms, Religious Liberty, and Assembly

tonygill — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:00:01 +0000

How do the “four freedoms” of the US Constitution’s First Amendment relate to one another? And what has happened historically to this relationship. Prof. John Inazu, associate professor of law and political science at Washington University (St. Louis), explores these questions with a particular focus on the relationship between the free exercise of religion and the right to assembly. We talk about historical conceptions of the “four freedoms” and how the interrelatedness of these essential liberties have changed since the middle of the 20th century. (Technically, we do note that there are “five freedoms” in the First Amendment, but we ignore the right of petition in this interview.)

The conversation begins with our usual banter to get to know the guest. We discover that even though he has multiple degrees from Duke University and UNC-Chapel Hill, John remains a solid fan of the Blue Devils. He also explains his work as a lawyer for the US Air Force and why his position wasn’t categorized as a JAG and how this allowed him to avoid wearing a uniform.

We then jump into a discussion as to what the “four freedoms” are — free exercise of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the right to assembly — and how these freedoms were conceived of early in US history. (It is here where John notes that there is actually a fifth freedom — petition — that not many scholars pay attention to.) John sets this discussion into a pluralist framework as conceived of by Madison and other Founding Fathers. The idea here as that division and conflict are likely to be part of the political landscape and knowing how to manage it with a balanced set of freedoms is critical. Tony notes from his own work that the freedoms listed in the First Amendment are separated not by periods, but by semi-colons, which seems to indicate some degree of contingency. John agrees and we talk a bit about the connection between these rights, particularly with reference to religious free expression and the right to assemble peaceably.

It is mentioned that US history, despite the lofty goals of the US Constitution, has not always lived up to the ideal of preserving and protecting these freedoms for all. John noted that the Founding Fathers did have their blind spots, particularly over race, and there have been many instances of minorities being denied freedoms or outright persecuted. One of the important groups for our discussion is the Jehovah’s Witnesses who were quick to assert their rights of association along with the labor movement in the early decades of the 20th century. We talk about how the height of “four freedom” rhetoric occurred in the 1930s and ’40s when the US was faced with a totalitarian threat overseas and was also put in a position of promoting freedom abroad. This leads to a particularly fascinating discussion of the limits of freedom and how living up to high standards was difficult during the 1950s when there was concern over communist interests using the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution to undermine American democracy. This problem, John notes, is endemic to a free nation that must balance an absolute right to freedom (which is hard to ever achieve) with the threat of imminent violence.

…

Matthew Franck on Hobby Lobby & Religious Freedom Jurisprudence

tonygill — Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:00:34 +0000

Join us on our Facebook Fan Page for weekly updates and other tidbits.

Can the federal government require a private employer to provide a service or product to employees that violates the private owner’s freedom of conscience? This is the subject that is up for debate in an upcoming US Supreme Court case pitting Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties against the Health and Human Services contraception mandate that is part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Prof. Matthew Franck, director of the William E. and Carld G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute, provides us with the background to this case, the historical precedents that may influence how it is decided, and his review of what each side will be arguing in late March.

We begin with a review of how this court case percolated up to the Supreme Court, as well as a brief discussion who the primary plaintiffs — Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties — are and what issues are at stake. This discussion covers a bit of the history of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the HHS mandate that came out in the fall of 2011. The primary issue being contested concerns whether or not a business owner can be required to provide certain types of contraception, most notably abortifascients, that those owners consider to be in direct violation of their religious conscience. Tony asks a variety of questions regarding the nature of the litigants including why they were chosen amongst a number of other potential companies that were also suing, and whether or not the fact that both of these companies are privately held has any impact on their legal standing. Matt fills in all the details and notes how the case might have been different had this been the CEO of a publicly-held and traded corporation bringing suit. He also points out that under consideration is whether or not a corporation — in this case one that is privately held — can have the same rights of conscience that an individual possesses under the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

We next consider the historical case law that may (or may not) inform the thinking of the Supreme Court justices. We take a quick tour of religious liberty cases over the past half century beginning with Sherbert v Verner and ending, most recently, with Hossana-Tabor, a case that Matt has discussed in greater detail on this show before (see link below). It is during this discussion that Prof. Franck brings up a judicial concept that Tony was unaware of — exemption-based jurisprudence. This style of jurisprudence allows for laws to be made and then exemptions appealed for based upon some special characteristic of an individual or group. Matt feels that this is not the best legal structure for a country to have, something that he has written about and will be available in a few weeks (see link below).

Following our historical discussion, Matt then lays out what he believes will be the arguments made on both sides of this case. A coin flip determined that he would start with the plaintiff’s side of things and he then brings up the defendant’s rebuttal to each of those points. Many of these arguments were hinted at throughout our earlier discussion, but the last 15 minutes of the interview provide a nice summary of what will probably be heard in oral arguments in late March of 2014 (assuming the snow in DC will melt by then). At the end of the conversation, Prof. Franck lays out what he thinks will be the implications for religious liberty should the government win the case and should Hobby Lobby and Conestoga win. Recorded: February 14, 2014.