Write a 4-page (double spaced, times new roman, 12-point font, 1-inch margins) paper on the topic of how religion relates to the recent protests for racial justice in policing and specifically the Bla
Lesson 2.5: Why is religion at the center of so many domestic and global conflicts?
In this lesson, we'll briefly consider whether religion is inherently divisive and leads to various forms of conflict and violence.
Sociologists tend to look at conflict in three primary ways.
1. A minority adopt a functionalist approach. They consider that all relationships and social systems have some sort of conflict. Therefore, conflict may actually serve an important function that's necessary for the health of the system.
2. A majority adopt the perspective of conflict theory and ultimately see conflict in terms of power-plays and one group trying to maintain domination over another.
Both of these views are right to some degree, and so I want to give attention to both.
Religion and the Functional Approach to Conflict
Consider for a moment that a religious group is just like any other group. By this I mean that religion exhibits patterns of interaction and process that duplicate many, if not all, patterns that all other social groups exhibit.
What are the key characteristics of a group? Whether it's a sports team or a church, every group has...
Common problems and goals to solve them
Common norms or expectations for behavior
Roles and role expectations (who does what tasks?)
Status dimensions (stratification)
Group identification (“in” and “out”)
That last part is important.
A fundamental characteristic of social groups is that they must, in order to stay a coherent group, establish and defend boundaries around who may be in the group and who is excluded. All groups do this, including families, tribes, ethnic groups, sports teams, fraternities and sororities, civic organizations, nations, religious groups (including broader religious traditions and local faith communities), and even social movement groups. These boundaries are “cultural” to the extent that they are based on symbolic markers that signify whatever core qualities are collectively deemed necessary for group membership. In some cases, these symbolic markers can even take on a quality of being morally obligatory—these are moral boundaries. While the practice of boundary work is ubiquitous across all social groups, groups vary considerably regarding:
the specificity with which the boundaries are codified.
the nature and content of the boundaries.
the practices through which boundaries are policed.
the malleability of those boundaries.
For all groups, there are certain unspoken—but often still quite clear and rigid—expectations as to what constitutes group membership. These unspoken requisites for membership often remain unspoken because they are simply taken for granted. As groups grow and evolve, however, the need to establish clear and codified standards for membership becomes more necessary. A small student-led community-service group may have little need for establishing formal expectations for group membership. But as that group grows in numbers, establishes a leadership hierarchy, develops a budget, makes decisions about what projects they take on, and interact with other student groups, they are more likely to codify finely-detailed boundaries around membership for the sake of efficiency and organization. Thus, the specificity with which groups establish their standards for membership and participation in the group is a good indicator of the organizational development of that group. Nascent or emerging groups leave a good deal unspoken, while more developed groups maintain detailed expectations.
There is also considerable variation among groups regarding what attributes qualify a person for group membership, or conversely, disqualify them. For membership in a family, the requirements usually include a biological connection and/or legal recognition. For membership on a competitive sports team, however, the primary requirement is one’s skill at that particular sport. While ideological allegiance and solidarity with one’s family or sports team are most often desirable, they are not prerequisites for belonging to a family or team. Yet, membership in many conservative religious groups, as well as volunteer organizations and social movement organizations, often requires allegiance to group ideologies. This ideological allegiance is demonstrated symbolically through whatever qualifies as faithful practice. Faithful practice may include positive actions (such as signing a doctrinal statement, attending religious services, protesting certain government policies, adopting orphans, or using certain code words like “missional,” “biblical,” or “gospel-centered”) or negative actions (such as abstaining from alcohol, smoking, caffeine, or sexual immorality; or shunning relationships with those outside the group). These expectations for faithful practice are often left unspoken.
Faithful practice that demonstrates ideological allegiance to the group represents a marker of moral boundaries; that is, boundaries that differentiate “right” action from “wrong” action, and thus reveal one’s true membership in the group. Moral boundaries are policed by group members and violations of those boundaries are punished with group sanctions, including formal rebuke, shunning, expulsion from the group, or even death. These practices of policing boundaries differ across particular groups, and are informed by the broader societal culture and the group’s own collective history.
Lastly, group boundaries vary in the degree to which they are relatively rigid or malleable. These differences often depend on the extent to which such boundaries protect the core identity of the group and which boundaries protect more peripheral, situational interests. Certain boundaries, for example, may be relaxed given changes in the broader social context of the group. For example, prior to the 1970s, my own alma mater Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) formally excluded Christians of color from admission. Thus, while a central boundary marker for DTS has always been ideological allegiance (students and faculty must affirm a statement of faith), from DTS’s founding until the 1970s, another important boundary marker was the broader social meaning attributed to race. White Christians were in the group; non-white Christians were left out of the group (no matter what they believed). However, as the expectations of the broader society changed following the Civil Rights Movement, DTS removed the racial boundary for admission and admitted students of color. Other boundaries, however, such as the expectation that admitted students subscribe to a particular set of religious doctrines have not been relaxed. Religious institutions like DTS will likely be far more reluctant to relax their doctrinal boundary markers because they represent part of the group’s core identity.
So what does this all mean? It means that every group must make judgements about who is in the group or out of the group. And these judgement, especially in the case of religion where we're talking about how people should live, can be moral. Those in our group are living correctly. Those outside our group, however nice they appear to be, are just not. Everyone does this, but religious groups do this especially.
How is any of this "functional?"
As Emile Durkheim pointed out so long ago, forming group boundaries leads to greater group cohesion. We start to unite together over what we believe in and what we oppose.
Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in his 2012 book, The Righteous Mind, argues that religion has a role in helping humans evolve over time. He theorizes that religion united tribes in their competition with other groups over resources. The tribes who could cooperate better as a unit most often ended up winning. So religion has served to unite a group, with the purpose that we will be more successful at out-competing other groups. So religion has a role in conflict, but it's a very functional role, for the group in question.
Religion and a Conflict Perspective on Social Conflict
You'll recall that Marx boils religion's role down to this idea of religion being the "opium of the people." By this, he mean that religion is used by oppressed people to make themselves feel better about their own bad situation.
Like Marx, conflict theorists tend to view religion as a way people power can justify their privileged position and keep the "subalterns" (that is, people outside the established power structure) in their place.
There isn't too much else to this idea. Religion is basically BS that keeps people in line. If you've ever seen the Ricky Gervais movie The Invention of Lying, it's about a world where no one lies. Everyone tells the truth all the time. But one guy (Ricky Gervais) figures out how to lie and he starts using that ability to his advantage. He gets lots of money, has lots of sex, get's a hot girlfriend, and he starts his own religion. Here's a brief clip from when he delivers his 10 commandments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0c_-I2cLbo (Links to an external site.)
Notice what's included: warnings against doing bad things and promised rewards for doing good things. But remember, he's making all this up and using it to make the world as he wants it.
So from a conflict perspective, religion doesn't so much cause the conflict as it does support those who are winning the power struggle that is already taking place.
SUMMARY:
Functionalists see religious conflict as functional because it unites social groups (or entire societies) together as a cohesive unit in order to out compete other teams. Conflict theorists see religious conflict as a struggle for power in which the powerful are trying to co-opt religious meanings and messages in order to keep themselves in power.
Lesson 4.4: Why is 11am on Sunday morning the most racially segregated hour in the United States?
In this lesson, we'll talk about the important connection between race and religion in the United States. Those of you who are more interested in that topic may enjoy the course I teaching by that title (Race and Religion) in the sociology department.
First, let's clarify some key terms.
Racial Group: a group that is socially set apart because of obvious physical characteristics.
Ethnic Group: a group that is set apart because of its national origin or distinctive cultural patterns.
It's important not to mix those two groups up. In the United States, Asian Americans are a "racial group" because they're set apart because of obvious physical characteristics. But within the Asian American community, Koreans are a different "ethnic group" from Cambodians or Chinese or Japanese people because of different national origins and distinctive cultural patterns (e.g., language).
Interestingly, according to the United States census, Hispanics or Latinos are not a "racial group" but an "ethnic group." That is why persons can be White Hispanics or Black Hispanics.
Key Idea: Oftentimes we see "racism" as something that is an individual-level thing. We see the problem of "racism" as a problem that individual racists have. Racists are folks who don't like people of other races because of their own prejudices. BUT we live in a society that is organized along racial lines. Race is structured into our society's system of rewards. In this society, economic, political, social, and even psychological rewards differ according to one's placement in the racial hierarchy.
Race and racism are also inextricably connected with religion. One obvious example of this is that the vast majority of religious congregations in the United States are racially segregated and religious Americans live more segregated lives than irreligious Americans.
Why? There's a lot of history there.
THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY AND RACE RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
In the American context, connection between religion and race goes back to times of slavery when white slave owners were thinking about Christianizing their slaves. Initially, white slave owners didn't want to Christianize their slaves. This was primarily because they worried they might have to set slaves free because Christians weren't supposed to own (or abuse or terrorize) other Christians. So it would just be easier on whites' consciences if the slaves weren't Christians. Slave owners also thought being Christians might make slaves feel like they could get away with laziness or running away or at least get treated better. Lastly, converting slaves to Christianity really contradicted the racist ideologies of slave owners that slaves weren't fully human like white people were. If slaves became Christians, it implied they were human beings that Jesus loved and died for, and slave owners shouldn't treat them like livestock.
Eventually the religious leaders in the South decided that being Christians didn't change anything about slaves' worldly existence and so they could Christianize the slaves without changing the way the masters treated them.
Consider the following quote from a London Bishop in 1727 who wrote to Christian slave owners in the South about why they should be okay with Christianizing their slaves.
“Christianity, and the embracing of the Gospel, does not make the least alteration in civil property, or in any of the duties which belong to civil relations; but in all these respects, it continues persons just in the same state as it found them. The freedom which Christianity gives, is a freedom from the bondage of sin and Satan, and from the dominion of men’s lusts and passions and inordinate desires, but as to their outward condition, whatever that was before, whether bond or free, their being baptized and becoming Christians, makes no manner of change in it.” (Quoted in H. Richard Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, pg. 249)
Religious leaders also figured Christianity could be used as a form of social control, getting slaves to be docile and non-violent. Read the following quote from that same London Bishop cited above.
“The Gospel everyone enjoins not only diligence and fidelity, but also obedience for conscience sake…Christianity takes not out of the hands of superiors any degrees of strictness and severity, that fairly appear to be necessary for preserving subjection and government.” (Quoted in H. Richard Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, pg. 251)
Pretty messed up, right? He's basically saying that the Christian Gospel would make slaves obedient, and that slave masters wouldn't have to necessarily start treating those slaves nicer, but could be as brutal as they thought was necessary to get (Christian) slaves to obey them.
This sort of teaching that slaves were supposed to be docile and obey their was taught directly to the slaves by Christian preachers, teachers, and, of course, the masters themselves. Check out this baptismal vow that slaves some slaves had to affirm when they were being baptized.
“You declare in the presence of God and before this congregation that you do not ask for the holy baptism out of any design to free yourself from the Duty and Obedience you owe your Master while you live, but merely for the good of Your soul, and to partake of the Graces and Blessings promised to the Members of the Church of Jesus Christ.” (Quoted from Divided by Faith, by Michael Emerson and Christian Smith)
Or consider this catechism that Christian slaves were taught (catechisms are teachings that are to be memorized):
Question: What did God make for you?
Answer: To make a crop.
Question: What is the meaning of “Thou shalt not commit adultery?”
Answer: To serve our heavenly Father, and our earthly Master, obey our overseer , and not steal anything.
(Quoted in Gayraud Wilmore, Black Religion and Black Radicalism)
I think you get the point. Slave owners sought to use Christianity to get their slaves to buy into their own oppression and see it as natural and God-ordained. This is basically the exact definition of Gramsci's idea of "cultural hegemony" that we discussed in an earlier lecture.
How did Christian slave owners justify this sort of teaching and treatment. Using the Bible of course! Here are a number of justifications that were given at the time for why slavery was okay for Christians.
Abraham and all the patriarchs held slaves without God’s disapproval (Gen 21:9-10).
Canaan, Ham’s son (who Africans supposedly descend from) was made a slave to Shem and Japheth (whoJews and Europeans supposedly descend from) (Gen 9:24-27).
The Ten Commandments mention slavery twice, showing God’s implicit acceptance of it (Ex 20:10, 17).
Jesus never spoke against slavery.
Paul and Peter often commanded slaves to obey their masters (Eph 6:5-8; Col 2:23-24; Titus 2:9-10; 1st Peter 2:18-20)
Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master (Philemon v. 12).
Just as women are called to play the subordinate role (Eph 5:22; 1 Tim 2:11-15), so slaves are stationed by God in their place.
But not all slaves bought this. Some, rather, used Christianity as a form of protest. They practiced their Christian faith in secret and encouraged one another with the truth that God wanted them free.
Black slaves and white Christians were initially worshiping together in churches, but not next to each other. Even in the church, the racial hierarchy was enforced. Look at these two pictures of churches that have been around since before the Civil War.
What you see there are balconies where slaves would have worshiped. They are at the top and behind where the whites would sit so that whites wouldn't have to see them or interact with them. This arrangement worked well for whites because they could be sure about what the slaves were being taught and could reinforce the color line.
This situation was obviously horrible for blacks and once the slaves were freed, black Christians started to develop their own denominations and churches where they could practice religion as they wanted. In fact, in a nation where blacks were cut off from much of the institutions whites enjoyed (politics, education, schools, neighborhoods), the black church became a "nation within a nation." It became the social center of the black community where they could find education, political involvement, resources, and community).
Congregations and other religious institutions have been segregated ever since.
But there are other historical connections between race and religion. Because the Southern United states has historically also been (1) the most religious region of the U.S., and (2) the most racist region of the U.S., those two social characteristics have been closely linked. It was religious people in the South who were opposing Civil Rights for non-white Americans. It was because of this religion-race connection that Richard Nixon and the Republican party were able successfully engage in the "Southern Strategy" during the 1960s that essentially claimed all of the South for the Republicans, when it had been historically Democratic. The Republicans were able to sell themselves as the party that fought for religious/family values as well as the concerns of Southern whites.
HOW DOES RELIGION PLAY A ROLE IN PERPETUATING OR CHALLENGING RACIAL INEQUALITY?
In thinking about the contemporary connection between race and religion in the United States, it's important to acknowledge that religion can serve both to (1) perpetuate race/racial inequality and (2) challenge race/racial inequality. Consider the following ways.
Perpetuating Race and Racial Inequality
Religion can provide mythical justification for biological definitions of race. For example, Southern Christian slave-owners justified their enslavement of blacks by referencing the "Curse of Ham," in the book of Genesis where Noah told Ham that his sons would serve Shem and Japheth. Because Christians viewed the Africans as the descendants of Ham and Europeans as the descendants of Japheth, they basically saw this as God foretelling the rightful enslavement of Africans by white Europeans.
Religion can justify the status quo. Religion is fundamentally conservative in some regards because it explains the world as it is currently. Why did my Grandma die? God called her home. Why am I a poor slave? God made you that way and you shouldn't question the ways of providence!
Religion can cloak cultural preferences with ultimate authority. You often see this sort of thing about debates around worship music in churches. Older folks in the church don't like the rock and roll music and younger people don't like the older hymns. So what happens? Usually both sides claim that their musical preferences are the ones that God really likes better. This happens with racial and ethnic differences in worship too. White Christians are likely accustomed to a particular style of preaching and worship and black or Latino or Asian Christians have their own cultural experiences and expectations. But rather than just acknowledge that groups have different cultural preferences, oftentimes these disagreements become theological and everyone claims that God likes their (racially or ethnically specific) way better.
Religion often promote minor adjustments over revolution. Because religion is fundamentally conservative and rarely demands radical changes in society, it can often be satisfied with small, individual-level changes rather than advocating for a complete revolution. The justification is often that God wouldn't want the social order thrown into chaos. Rather God wants to preserve the status quo, but just tweak it a little. This perspective usually works out quite well for those in power.
Religion reinforces exclusive, tight-knit cultural groups that tend to be ethno-racially homogenous. Think about what persons come to mind when I you see the following words:
Muslim.
Buddhist.
Hindu.
Southern Baptist.
Most likely when you saw "Muslim," you thought of someone from the Middle East, probably an Arab. When you saw "Buddhist," you most likely thought of someone Chinese. When you saw "Hindu," you thought of someone from India, and when you saw, "Southern Baptist," you thought of a white Southerner.
Because religions have historically been geographically separated, they often get associated with one particular race or ethnicity. When these religions stay segregated, they also tend to be racially segregated. As we'll see below, that can be a problem when one of those religious/racial groups has all the resources.
Challenging Race and Racial Inequality
Religion provides theological justification treating others kindly. Though we could definitely find some unique passages in the Torah, Koran, or Christian Bible that could be taken as xenophobic or hostile to outside groups, most religions teach that their followers should be loving, caring, and serving of others. In this teaching, we find the theological justification and motivation for sharing resources, defending the innocent, overthrowing oppression. Muslim are taught to give alms and show hospitality. Jews are given commands to welcome sojourners and help the oppressed. Christians are taught to be "Good Samaritans," to share all things in Christ, and to "visit widows and orphans." Thus, religion could serve to help different racial/ethnic groups treat each other more equitably.
Religion provides religious identities that may transcend ethnic/racial identities. When members of the same religion get together, it is possible that their religious identity starts to become so important to them, that their racial or ethnic identities start to fade into the background. One scholar calls this "ethnic transcendence," and it often takes place within multi-ethnic congregations.
Provides ready-made organizational structure for collective action. Think about the genius of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement leaders. In the black churches, these leaders already had a ready-made structure for mobilizing and organizing large numbers of people to fight for racial justice. Religious groups, because they tend to be tight-knit and see each other fairly regularly, are already in a strategic situation to engage in activism.
ARE RACIALLY SEGREGATED RELIGIOUS GROUPS A BAD THING OR GOOD THING?
Today, between 80-85% of religious congregations in the United States are racially segregated. Usually that's defined as any congregation where one racial group makes up 80% or more of the congregation. That's changing somewhat as congregations gradually become more diverse. For example, data from the National Congregations Study, which has surveyed churches in 1998, 2006-2007, and 2012 shows that the number of congregations where no single ethnic group makes up 80% or more of the congregation has gone up slowly every survey from around 15% in 1998 to 20% in 2012.
But is having segregated congregations a bad thing? In this last section, I want to consider the extent to which our current racially segregated congregations and religious groups are a good thing or a bad thing. First, let's consider the potential benefits of having segregated congregations.
Racially segregated religious groups can be a GOOD thing because...
1. Segregated congregations allow ethnic groups to worship according to their own cultural preferences. Think about how annoying it would be for Korean or Mexican immigrants who are Christians to have to attend worship services where all the preaching and singing is done in English. Wouldn't it be better for the worship experience of those ethnic groups if they could worship in their own language? I suppose the white Americans they're worshiping with could adjust and include other language besides English, but then those white Americans would be inconvenienced. And a historical legacy of white privilege usually makes whites unlikely to compromise in that way anyway. So segregated congregations would seem like the best option for the sake of everyone worship according to their own cultural preferences.
2. Segregated congregations provides marginalized groups with autonomy and refuge from whites. Historically, whites didn't kick blacks out of their congregations. Blacks very intentionally left. Why? Because they were being oppressed by whites and they wanted a worship experience where they could exercise authority over their own lives and communities and not have to put up with whites trying to run their lives. Asking blacks and other racial/ethnic minority groups to worship with whites is essentially asking them to give up one of the few social situations where they can escape being around whites constantly and they can call their own shots. And for those racial/ethnic minorities for whom English is not their first language, it obviously provides a cultural refuge where they can be themselves and speak their native language to others.
3. Segregated congregations may be more stable and grow faster than multiracial congregations. Some church growth experts have appealed to something called the "homogenous unit principle," which states that congregations may grow faster when one ethno-racial group is targeted. This happens for at least 2 reasons.
Niche-Edge Effect: This refers to the principle that group members who are most unlike the core group of leaders in an organization tend to stay at the edges or periphery of the organization. For example, when blacks or Latinos are a minority group within a congregation, and aren't serving at the level of pastor or elder, they tend to stay on the edges of that group socially.
Niche-Overlap Effect: This works in tandem with the Niche-Edge Effect because it states that persons who are at the edge of the group or organization are most likely to be lured away by other groups.
This basically means when you have a congregation where lots of the members have different social characteristics, the congregation is inherently unstable because all of the other social institutions are largely segregated and people are just more likely to leave and go where they're with all the folks they're use to be around.
All this suggests that segregated congregations might be the way to go because religious leaders would naturally want to best chance at building growth and stability in their congregation. That might mean targeting only one ethnic group.
Racially segregated religious groups can be a BAD thing because...
1. Segregation is inconsistent with religious teaching. Regardless of whether segregated congregations are a practical thing (which it would seem they are), they pretty clearly contradict teachings in the major world religions to love, serve, and commune with brothers and sisters in your religious teaching. Racial segregation contradicts this. We see teachings in Christianity that...
“In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free…”
“Christ broke down the dividing wall of hostility, making the two one.”
“people from every tribe, tongue, and nation around the throne.”
There are other examples in Judaism, Islam, and obviously Eastern religions. So segregation can be a bad thing because it blatantly violates much religious teaching.
2. Segregation perpetuates racial ignorance and prejudice. A famous psychologist named Gordon Allport developed a theory he called the "contact hypothesis" to explain racial prejudice and tolerance. He basically thought that prejudice was largely due to ignorance that stemmed from a lack of opportunities to really get to know people of other racial groups on a personal level when folks aren't competing with one another.
The contact hypothesis argued that if folks of different racial or ethnic groups could get together in a context where they're cooperating and working toward a common goal, and they're talking about intimate and personal things, then prejudice would be reduced. Churches are a great context in which this sort of interracial interaction can occur. But segregated congregations deny that possibility. Thus, segregated congregations can serve to perpetuate racial ignorance, and therefore, racial prejudice.
3. Segregation perpetuates racial inequality. When I stop to think about the various resources my family has received from our congregations of the years, it's truly remarkable. From people in our churches, we have received:
Money to adopt my sisters in the early 1980s.
A job for my dad (Proctor & Gamble) that he wasn't qualified for and where he recently retired a millionaire.
A free car when my wife and I first got married.
Free baby-sitting.
Free baby clothes.
Insider knowledge on homes to purchase in the best school systems.
Insider knowledge on which car mechanics and appliance repair people to use.
And these are just some of the "hook-ups" my family has received directly from the churches we've been involved with over the years. They churches also happened to be large and almost completely white and upper-middleclass folks. Would I have had the same experiences if I were a part of a predominantly black or Latino congregation?
Consider there are two groups. Group 1 is filled with lots of people who all have lots of resources. Group 2 is filled with fewer people with far fewer resources. Now, both groups are of the SAME RELIGION. But if you're a person without resources in Group 1, you're in good shape because you happen to be connected with lots of people with lots of potential resources to pass along. Whereas if you're in Group 2, you may be out of luck because there are fewer folks with not many resources and those who have resources are already stretched thin.
This is what happens when congregations are racially segregated. You've got a group of folks (white Protestants, for example) who are well-resourced hooking up their friends with good things. Meanwhile, another group of people (black Protestants, for example) who are the same religion are denied the opportunity to share those resources simply because they're isolated in their own group. In this regard, segregated congregations become just one more institution in American society that keeps Group 1 well-resourced and keeps Group 2 poorly resourced, even while the two groups are the same religion.
Lesson 4.5: Will religious pluralism ever be possible in a "Christian nation"?
We live in a society where Christianity dominates the popular media and national holidays, and where the vast majority of politicians and judges at every level are self-identified Christians. It has been that way throughout our nation's history. Moreover, we also saw in our discussion of religion and politics that a fairly high percentage of Americans view being a Christian as deeply important to being a true American. Look at the following responses to questions about America's relationship to Christianity in the 2007 Baylor Religion Survey.
Notice that over half of Americans believe the federal government should advocate for Christian values, and over two thirds believe the federal government should allow the display of religious symbols (e.g., ten commandments in court houses) in public spaces. And over 4 out of 5 believe the federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation and that creationism should be taught in public schools. Moreover over 4 out of 5 disagrees that the federal government should enforce a strict separation of church and state. Lastly about 1/3 of Americans believe the success of Americans is part of God's plan.
Within such a context, it is interesting to think about how Americans view other religious groups and whether there really is room for them in the culture.
It may surprise you to know that two religious minorities (Atheists and Muslims) are the most disliked people among the American public.
The charts both show nationally representative survey data collected in 2003 and 2014, asking the same questions. The first chart looks at the percentage of Americans who say that a particular group does not at all agree with their vision of American society. The second chart looks at the percentage of Americans who say they would disapprove if their daughter wanted to marry someone from a particular group.
I want to make two points.
First, more than any other groups (including racial minorities), Americans are more likely to say that Atheists and Muslims do not agree with their vision of American society and would disapprove if their daughter wanted to marry one. And this difference is particularly strong in the most recent 2014 survey.
Second, comparing the two surveys, it seems that anti-Muslim sentiment has actually been growing since 2003 (just after the terrorists attacks on 9/11). It hasn't gone down, but is actually worse. In fact, while Atheists were the least liked group in 2003, Muslims had overtaken them by 2014.
This will be a relatively short lesson, but I just want to list a few barriers that exist to religious pluralism currently in the United States.
BARRIERS TO TRUE RELIGIOUS PLURALISM IN THE UNITED STATES
1. The Historic Linking of National and Religious Identities.
The issue of whether the United States has ever really been distinctively Christian in some sense is highly debated. But the fact that LOTS of Americans believe the United States to be a Christian nation is uncontroversial.
About 55% of Americans in 2014 said they felt that being a Christian was either "very/fairly important" to being truly American. Only 1 in 4 thought it was "not important at all." That means the majority of Americans see an important connection between being an American and being a Christian, and, consequently, those groups who are explicitly not Christians (most prominently Atheists and Muslims in the popular consciousness) are perceived as un-American.
2. The Historic Linking of Religious and Racial/Ethnic Identities.
We should also pay attention to the important connection between race, ethnicity, and religion in the United States and how that influences American acceptance of religious minority groups. Because religion is most often connected with particularly ethnicities (Asian Indians with Hinduism, Chinese with Buddhism, Latinos/Italians with traditional Catholicism, Arabs (inaccurately) with Islam, and Anglo Europeans with Protestantism), ethnic minority groups in the United States are not only suspect on the basis of their ethnicity, but perceptions about their "deviant" culture or religious beliefs and practices that are contrary to the dominant religion in Christianity.
3. Ensuring Group Dominance and Suppressing "Deviance" is A Function of Every Group
When numerically dominant religious groups seek to maximize their influence in a society and suppress the influence of religious minority groups, are they doing something unusual? Not really. Remember the first observation of the conflict perspective in sociology is that societies are constituted by interests groups fighting for power. Those who are on top are fighting to stay in power and those at the bottom are fighting to get to the top themselves. If you removed Christians from the seat of power in the United States and replaced them with Muslims, they would likely do the same (and in fact do in some countries). Moreover, if you replaced Christians from the power structure of the United States and replaced them with secular humanists, we would still have a group of persons who have a vested interested in making sure that secular humanism is the law of the land and that Christians or Muslims didn't get too powerful. That's actually what has happened in several secular European countries like France.
All of these factors mean that true religious pluralism, where no one religious group is able to dominate and disproportionately influence society's institutions, is not only difficult to establish in the United States, but it may in fact only be an "ideal" to shoot for that won't ever actually happen in practice simply because of the dynamics of power in groups.
