Home Social Sciences Religious Group Affect and Support for First Amendment Liberties
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Religious Group Affect and Support for First Amendment Liberties

  • Daniel Bennett EMAIL logo and Logan Strother
Published/Copyright: November 27, 2023
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Author Information Explore this Subject
The Forum
From the journal The Forum Volume 21 Issue 3

Abstract

The First Amendment guarantees protection for religious exercise in the United States. But for some, the question of who should benefit from these protections seems to hinge on the identity of the religious group seeking these protections. In this article, we explore the extent to which people’s attitudes toward different religious groups affects their support for First Amendment protections as applied to these groups. We also examine whether it is possible to mitigate these effects, asking whether respondents can be primed to consider tolerance when evaluating rights claims, and if so, whether this increases support for rights in general. Our results have important implications for tolerance and rights in a diverse, pluralistic society, and shed light on what the future might hold for public opinion on constitutional rights and liberties.

Keywords: constitutional rights; group affect; religious freedom; tolerance
Corresponding author: Daniel Bennett, Associate Professor of Political Science, John Brown University, Siloam Springs, USA, E-mail:

Appendix

Study 1: Group Affect and Religious Liberty Attitudes, Qualtrics Sample

Question Wording for Key Variables

Last month a city government denied a group of [religious/Evangelical Christian/Muslim/Jewish] residents the permits needed to build a new worship facility. The city argued that the facility could bring crowding and traffic to the neighborhood. Do you think this violated the group’s rights?

  1. Definitely a rights violation

  2. Probably a rights violation

  3. Probably not a rights violation

  4. Definitely not a rights violation

During the pandemic a [religious group/Evangelical Christian church/Muslim mosque/Jewish synagogue] challenged a city policy prohibiting in-person meetings of worship services. The city said the policy was needed to minimize the threat of COVID-19. Do you think this violated the group’s rights?

  1. Definitely a rights violation

  2. Probably a rights violation

  3. Probably not a rights violation

  4. Definitely not a rights violation

Last spring [a religious/an Evangelical Christian/a Muslim/a Jewish] student was told she could not offer a prayer as part of her valedictorian speech during graduation. The school said the student could mention God in the speech, but a prayer was too much. Do you think this violated the student’s rights?

  1. Definitely a rights violation

  2. Probably a rights violation

  3. Probably not a rights violation

  4. Definitely not a rights violation

This year a court ruled against a [religious/Evangelical Christian/Muslim/Jewish] college after it fired an employee who had revealed she was in a same-sex marriage. The state government overturned the college’s decision, arguing that the firing was discriminatory. Do you think the state violated the college’s rights?

  1. Definitely a rights violation

  2. Probably a rights violation

  3. Probably not a rights violation

  4. Definitely not a rights violation

We’d like to get your feelings toward some of our political leaders and other people who are in the news these days. We’ll list the name of a person or group and we’d like you to rate that person using something we call the feeling thermometer.

Ratings between 50° and 100° mean that you feel favorable and warm toward the person. Ratings between 0° and 50° mean that you don’t feel favorable toward the person and that you don’t care too much for that person.

[These were presented in random order, among many other groups.].

  1. Evangelical Christians

  2. Jewish people

  3. Muslims

Sample Demographics

Table A.1. Sample Demographics for Study 1

Variables Proportion or Cent. Tend.
Female 54.5 %
White 77.2 %
Black 10.3 %
Hispanic 17.8 %
Education Mode: College grad
Age Mean: 50.8
Republican 32.9 %
Democrat 45.6 %
Liberal 35.4 %
Conservative 26.3 %

Full Models

Table A2 Models Supporting Figure 2

Variables Subfigure at left Subfigure at center Subfigure at right
Evangelical treatment −0.070 0.015 0.023
(0.037) (0.043) (0.052)
Muslim treatment 0.128b −0.079 0.029
(0.039) (0.040) (0.046)
Jewish treatment 0.096b 0.033 0.002
(0.036) (0.037) (0.047)
Warmth toward Evangelicals 0.002a
(0.000)
Baseline treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals 0.000
(0.000)
Evangelical treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals 0.001
(0.001)
Muslim treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals −0.002a
(0.001)
Jewish treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals −0.001c
(0.001)
Warmth toward Muslims 0.000
(0.000)
Baseline treatment × warmth toward Muslims 0.000
(0.000)
Evangelical treatment × warmth toward Muslims −0.001
(0.001)
Muslim treatment × warmth toward Muslims 0.002b
(0.001)
Jewish treatment × warmth toward Muslims −0.000
(0.001)
Warmth toward Jewish people 0.001
(0.001)
Baseline treatment × warmth toward Jewish people 0.000
(0.000)
Evangelical treatment × warmth toward Jewish people −0.001
(0.001)
Muslim treatment × warmth toward Jewish people −0.000
(0.001)
Jewish treatment × warmth toward Jewish people 0.000
(0.001)
Constant 0.462a 0.575a 0.542a
(0.027) (0.029) (0.033)
Observations 2020 2020 2020
R-squared 0.059 0.016 0.009

  1. Standard errors in parentheses, ap<0.001, bp<0.01, cp<0.05.

Table A3 Models Supporting Figure 3

Variables Subfigure at left Subfigure at center Subfigure at right
Evangelical treatment 0.010 −0.003 0.024
(0.042) (0.046) (0.054)
Muslim treatment 0.051 −0.065 0.036
(0.037) (0.049) (0.062)
Jewish treatment 0.012 0.020 0.037
(0.039) (0.047) (0.064)
Warmth toward Evangelicals 0.004a
(0.001)
Baseline treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals 0.000
(0.000)
Evangelical treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals 0.000
(0.001)
Muslim treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals −0.000
(0.001)
Jewish treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals 0.000
(0.001)
Warmth toward Muslims −0.002a
(0.001)
Baseline treatment × warmth toward Muslims 0.000
(0.000)
Evangelical treatment × warmth toward Muslims 0.000
(0.001)
Muslim treatment × warmth toward Muslims 0.002c
(0.001)
Jewish treatment × warmth toward Muslims 0.001
(0.001)
Warmth toward Jewish people −0.000
(0.001)
Baseline treatment × warmth toward Jewish people 0.000
(0.000)
Evangelical treatment × warmth toward Jewish people −0.000
(0.001)
Muslim treatment × warmth toward Jewish people −0.000
(0.001)
Jewish treatment × warmth toward Jewish people 0.000
(0.001)
Constant 0.262a 0.553a 0.480a
(0.032) (0.034) (0.044)
Observations 2020 2020 2020
R-squared 0.127 0.018 0.004

  1. Standard errors in parentheses, ap<0.001, bp<0.01, cp<0.05.

Table A4 Models Supporting Figure 4

Variables Subfigure at left Subfigure at center Subfigure at right
Evangelical treatment −0.042 −0.000 −0.050
(0.041) (0.042) (0.055)
Muslim treatment 0.082c −0.133b −0.025
(0.039) (0.044) (0.048)
Jewish treatment 0.016 0.031 0.051
(0.040) (0.045) (0.053)
Warmth toward Evangelicals 0.004a
(0.000)
Baseline treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals 0.000
(0.000)
Evangelical treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals 0.001
(0.001)
Muslim treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals −0.002a
(0.001)
Jewish treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals 0.000
(0.001)
Warmth toward Muslims −0.000
(0.001)
Baseline treatment × warmth toward Muslims 0.000
(0.000)
Evangelical treatment × warmth toward Muslims 0.000
(0.001)
Muslim treatment × warmth toward Muslims 0.002b
(0.001)
Jewish treatment × warmth toward Muslims −0.000
(0.001)
Warmth toward Jewish people 0.001
(0.000)
Baseline treatment × warmth toward Jewish people 0.000
(0.000)
Evangelical treatment × warmth toward Jewish people 0.001
(0.001)
Muslim treatment × warmth toward Jewish people −0.000
(0.001)
Jewish treatment × warmth toward Jewish people −0.000
(0.001)
Constant 0.424a 0.638a 0.569a
(0.027) (0.032) (0.034)
Observations 2020 2020 2020
R-squared 0.140 0.010 0.010

  1. Standard errors in parentheses, ap<0.001, bp<0.01, cp<0.05.

Table A5 Models Supporting Figure 5

Variables Subfigure at left Subfigure at center Subfigure at right
Evangelical treatment −0.041 −0.006 −0.018
(0.042) (0.044) (0.051)
Muslim treatment −0.035 −0.006 −0.043
(0.040) (0.042) (0.051)
Jewish treatment 0.020 0.019 0.032
(0.042) (0.046) (0.056)
Warmth toward Evangelicals 0.002a
(0.000)
Baseline treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals 0.000
(0.000)
Evangelical treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals 0.001
(0.001)
Muslim treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals 0.000
(0.001)
Jewish treatment × warmth toward Evangelicals −0.000
(0.001)
Warmth toward Muslims −0.000
(0.001)
Baseline treatment × warmth toward Muslims 0.000
(0.000)
Evangelical treatment × warmth toward Muslims −0.000
(0.001)
Muslim treatment × warmth toward Muslims −0.000
(0.001)
Jewish treatment × warmth toward Muslims −0.000
(0.001)
Warmth toward Jewish people −0.000
(0.001)
Baseline treatment × warmth toward Jewish people 0.000
(0.000)
Evangelical treatment × warmth toward Jewish people −0.000
(0.001)
Muslim treatment × warmth toward Jewish people 0.000
(0.001)
Jewish treatment × warmth toward Jewish people −0.001
(0.001)
Constant 0.466a 0.597a 0.597a
(0.030) (0.033) (0.038)
Observations 2020 2020 2020
R-squared 0.041 0.005 0.002

  1. Standard errors in parentheses, ap<0.001, bp<0.01, cp<0.05.

Study 2: Tolerance Priming Experiment, Qualtrics Sample

Experimental Manipulation

Tolerance Prime (Randomized):

We’d like to ask you about tolerance. Please list 3 or more things that you think of when you hear the word “tolerance.”

{open ended responses}

Question Wording for Key Variables

During the pandemic a religious group challenged a city policy prohibiting in-person meetings of worship services. The city said the policy was needed to minimize the threat of COVID-19. Do you think this violated the group’s rights?

  1. Definitely a rights violation

  2. Probably a rights violation

  3. Probably not a rights violation

  4. Definitely not a rights violation

Recently a city barred employees at City Hall from wearing religious garb. This came after a religious employee wore a religious symbol to work, which led to a conflict with her coworkers. Do you think this violated the employee’s religious freedom rights?

  1. Definitely a rights violation

  2. Probably a rights violation

  3. Probably not a rights violation

  4. Definitely not a rights violation

Last year, a religious inmate was barred from having his spiritual advisor present at his execution. The prison said that there were unresolvable security concerns. Do you think this violated the prisoner’s religious freedom rights?

  1. Definitely a rights violation

  2. Probably a rights violation

  3. Probably not a rights violation

  4. Definitely not a rights violation

Sample Demographics

Table A6 Sample Demographics for Study 2

Variables Proportion or Cent. Tend.
Female 50.1 %
White 76.6 %
Black 11.7 %
Latino 8.7 %
Education Mode: College grad
Income Mode: $25-$50 k
Age Mean: 46.3
Republican 27.8 %
Democrat 37.8 %
Liberal 32.1 %
Conservative 31.8 %

Randomization Check

Table A7 Randomization Check for Study 2

Variables Tolerance treatment
Female 0.24
(0.13)
White 0.05
(0.22)
Black −0.14
(0.26)
Latino −0.34
(0.27)
Education −0.08
(0.30)
Income −0.00
(0.05)
Age −0.01c
(0.004)
Republican 0.21
(0.11)
Conservative −0.10c
(0.05)
Constant 0.49
(0.35)
Observations 978

  1. Standard errors in parentheses. ap<0.001, bp<0.01, cp<0.05.

Full Models

Table A8 Models Supporting Figure 6

Variables Covid restriction Religious garb Death chamber
Tolerance treatment 0.17c −0.07 0.04
(0.07) (0.06) (0.06)
Constant 1.31a 2.31a 2.16a
(0.05) (0.04) (0.04)
Observations 1039 1039 1039
R-squared 0.01 0.00 0.00

  1. Standard errors in parentheses. ap<0.001, bp<0.01, cp<0.05.

Adjusted Models (Correcting for Imbalanced Randomization)

Table A9 Adjusted Models Demonstrating Robustness of Analysis in Figure 6

Variables Covid restriction Religious garb Death chamber
Tolerance treatment 0.17b −0.08 0.03
(0.06) (0.06) (0.06)
Age −0.01a −0.01a −0.001
(0.001) (0.001) (0.001)
Conservative 0.27a 0.05a −0.001
(0.02) (0.02) (0.02)
Constant 0.74a 2.48a 2.24a
(0.11) (0.10) (0.10)
Observations 1016 1016 1016
R-squared 0.19 0.03 0.00

  1. Standard errors in parentheses. ap<0.001, bp<0.01, cp<0.05.

References

Albertson, Bethany, and Shana Kushner Gadarian. 2015. Anxious Politics: Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139963107Search in Google Scholar

American Center for Law and Justice. January 20, 2011. “ACLJ Critical of NY Port Authority Blocking Church Destroyed on 9-11 from Rebuilding.” American Center for Law and Justice. http://aclj.org/american-heritage/aclj-critical-of-ny-port-authority-blocking-church-destroyed-on-9-11-from-rebuilding.Search in Google Scholar

American Center for Law and Justice. August 4, 2010. “ACLJ Files Lawsuit Urging NY Court to Nullify Landmarks Commission Vote Clearing Way for Ground Zero Mosque.” American Center for Law and Justice. http://aclj.org/ground-zero-mosque/aclj-files-lawsuit-urging-ny-court-to-nullify-landmarks-commission-vote-clearing-way-for-ground-zero-mosque.Search in Google Scholar

Armaly, Miles T., and Adam M. Enders. Forthcoming. “The Partisan Contours of Attitudes about Rights and Liberties.” Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-023-09860-3.Search in Google Scholar

Burge, Ryan. 2021. The Nones: Where They Came from, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going. Minneapolis: Fortress.10.2307/j.ctv17vf41vSearch in Google Scholar

Cox, Daniel. July 13, 2023. “Turning against Organized Religion.” American Storylines. https://storylines.substack.com/p/turning-against-organized-religion.Search in Google Scholar

Elkins, Emily. October 31, 2017. “The State of Free Speech and Tolerance in America.” Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america.Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, James. 2013. “Measuring Political Tolerance and General Support for Pro-civil Liberties Policies.” Public Opinion Quarterly 77: 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs073.Search in Google Scholar

Jelen, Ted G., Andrew R. Lewis, and Paul A. Djupe. 2018. “Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech: The Effects of Alternative Rights Frames on Mass Support for Public Exemptions.” Journal of Church and State 60 (1): 43–67.10.1093/jcs/csw101Search in Google Scholar

Mason, Lilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Nathaniel Persily, Citrin Jack and Patrick J. Egan, eds. 2008. Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195329414.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Pew Research Center. October 17, 2019. “In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace.” https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/.Search in Google Scholar

Scheingold, Stuart. 2004. The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy, and Political Change, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.6766Search in Google Scholar

Stouffer, Samuel A. 1955. Communism, Conformity and Liberties: A Cross Section of the Nation Speaks Its Mind. New York: Doubleday.Search in Google Scholar

Strother, Logan, and Daniel Bennett. 2021. “Racial Group Affect and Support for Civil Liberties in the United States.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 11 (2): 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2021.1946101.Search in Google Scholar

Sullivan, John, and Henriet Hendriks. 2009. “Public Support for Civil Liberties Pre- and Post-9/11.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 5: 375–91. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131525.Search in Google Scholar

Whitehead, Andrew L., and Samuel L. Perry. 2020. Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190057886.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Published Online: 2023-11-27

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Introduction
  3. The Forum: Fall 2023 Issue Introduction
  4. Articles
  5. When are Identities Politically Consequential? Identifying Conditions of Descriptive, Substantive, and Allied Group Identity
  6. Religious Group Affect and Support for First Amendment Liberties
  7. Exceptional Times for an Exceptional People: How the Prosperity Gospel, Christian Nationalism, and Race Affect Americans’ Economic Attitudes and Behavior
  8. Who Cares About Caregiving?: Identity and Caregiving Policy Perspectives
  9. Legacies of Militarism: Ascriptive Republicanism and the Origins of America’s Contemporary Gun Culture
  10. Dreamers, Queer Kids, and American Culture Wars: Centering Young People in Identity Politics
  11. Politics and Popular Culture: Stretching Imaginaries and Filling in Holes
  12. Book Reviews
  13. Kaitlin N. Sidorsky and Wendy J. Schiller: Inequality Across State Lines: How Policymakers Have Failed Domestic Violence Victims in the United States
  14. Manuel P. Teodoro, Samantha Zuhlke and David Switzer: The Profits of Distrust: Citizen-Consumers, Drinking Water, and the Crisis of Confidence in American Government
https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2023-2027
Keywords for this article
constitutional rights; group affect; religious freedom; tolerance

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Introduction
  3. The Forum: Fall 2023 Issue Introduction
  4. Articles
  5. When are Identities Politically Consequential? Identifying Conditions of Descriptive, Substantive, and Allied Group Identity
  6. Religious Group Affect and Support for First Amendment Liberties
  7. Exceptional Times for an Exceptional People: How the Prosperity Gospel, Christian Nationalism, and Race Affect Americans’ Economic Attitudes and Behavior
  8. Who Cares About Caregiving?: Identity and Caregiving Policy Perspectives
  9. Legacies of Militarism: Ascriptive Republicanism and the Origins of America’s Contemporary Gun Culture
  10. Dreamers, Queer Kids, and American Culture Wars: Centering Young People in Identity Politics
  11. Politics and Popular Culture: Stretching Imaginaries and Filling in Holes
  12. Book Reviews
  13. Kaitlin N. Sidorsky and Wendy J. Schiller: Inequality Across State Lines: How Policymakers Have Failed Domestic Violence Victims in the United States
  14. Manuel P. Teodoro, Samantha Zuhlke and David Switzer: The Profits of Distrust: Citizen-Consumers, Drinking Water, and the Crisis of Confidence in American Government
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2026 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 11.1.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/for-2023-2027/html
Scroll to top button