The Culture War Theory
What is it? Where does it come from? Is it real?
Buchannan: declared “war for the nation’s soul,” people look at bombed clinics, arrested art gallery owners, free expression issues playing out on college campuses - we are told a war is afoot.
Even though religion and politics can be “uncivil,” is it a war? Among all the divisions in our society, the bottom line is a cultural conflict about ways of life and values. Often the conflict and the issues involved are tied to our themes from civil religion. The culture war question is important because we are so religious and oriented to voluntary associations/service as a nation, we expect our society to be designed according to moral views.

According to Fowler, defined as the battles related to lifestyle and values in America.
The war is described as having 2 sides. Proponents say that the debates over the relevant issues are highly polarized and less likely to result in compromise. They discuss how these “fault lines” cross denominational and socioeconomic boundaries. Example: conservative Catholics lining up to March for Life with evangelicals and Jews working with mainline Protestants to promote same-sex marriage rights. Some call it “an ecumenism of orthodoxy” (Fowler, 307) lining up over traditional values and a similar scenario in the progressive/liberal side of the aisle (liberal protestants, most Jews and unaffiliated).
Insightful case: liberal protestants have more in common in terms of values and political views with liberal Jews, Catholics, and secular individuals than they do evangelical protestants.
In analyzing this issue, look for “war rhetoric:” names an issue that is morally serious, identifies the good/bad guys, calls people to involvement to prevent loss of the battle.
How can elites make politics and religion meaningful again?

Scholars who studied CW: James Gurth, Robert Wuthnow, and James David Hunter.
In your small groups, look up one of these scholars and see what they had to say about culture wars.
For example: Wuthnow explained that denominations in the past were distinctive and unified in terms of values/identity unlike today with polarization filtering into denominations or religious families. Today, “politically speaking, it matters more whether one is a liberal Catholic or a conservative Catholic, or a liberal Methodist or an evangelical Methodist than whether one is a Methodist or a Catholic” (Fowler, 307).

Sensitive moral issues fill political debates, religious gatherings, the news, and dinner tables. For decades, scholars have debated whether these and similar forums are dominated by what is called the “culture war” between liberals and conservatives, or orthodox and progressive.

Agenda/Objectives:
1) Students will brainstorm lists of future issues that will dominate public debate through an opening activity.
2) Students will collaboratively review the assigned readings by compiling a quotation reflection in pairs.
3) Students will investigate and decide whether or not our country is immersed in a culture war through an illustrated lecture with discussion.
4) Students will create "God strategy" videos in pairs and submit them via Sakai.

Homework Review:
With a partner, pick 2 of the 6 readings we had for today. Find one quotation that stands out to you from each of the 2 readings you pick. Write them down, then write down why they are meaningful to you. You have (4:00).

Scholars who studied CW: James Gurth, Robert Wuthnow, and James David Hunter.
In your small groups, look up one of these scholars and see what they had to say about culture wars.
For example: Wuthnow explained that denominations in the past were distinctive and unified in terms of values/identity unlike today with polarization filtering into denominations or religious families. Today, “politically speaking, it matters more whether one is a liberal Catholic or a conservative Catholic, or a liberal Methodist or an evangelical Methodist than whether one is a Methodist or a Catholic” (Fowler, 307).

Scholars who studied CW: James Gurth, Robert Wuthnow, and James David Hunter.
In your small groups, look up one of these scholars and see what they had to say about culture wars.
For example: Wuthnow explained that denominations in the past were distinctive and unified in terms of values/identity unlike today with polarization filtering into denominations or religious families. Today, “politically speaking, it matters more whether one is a liberal Catholic or a conservative Catholic, or a liberal Methodist or an evangelical Methodist than whether one is a Methodist or a Catholic” (Fowler, 307).

The sides in terms of moral/political issues:
Progressive: moral truths must shift to meet the needs of the present society, diversity and tolerance in moral questions like sexuality, family, and faith.
Orthodox: moral truths must be upheld despite the situation in society - traditional religion and gender roles, pro life agenda.

History of this theory is rooted in the 80s political storm surrounding the Religious Right - brought faith related issues to the center of political spotlight, young adults coming of age then got a bad taste in their mouths for the mix of religion and politics (equation: religion=homophobia=not worth my time…), this led to big jumps in what % of people thought religious leaders ought to try and influence government decisions ‘91-08 (22-38%), and how people vote (30-45%). The rising numbers of unaffiliated young people support the previous trends. Estrangement from religion by college freshmen: 7% in 1967 to 24% in 2010. Interesting that most of the unaffiliated were raised in a home with a religious tradition. Most “nones” come from the center and left side of the political fence.

The issues: abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, health care funding, public religious displays, free speech, prayer in schools, and the pledge - all touch into people blending religious and political questions
Other issues include: war, immigration, health care policy, environment, the economy, rights of workers, foreign policy, crime, gun control - every issue presents the opportunity to blend moral questions with those of government.
The debate and evolution of the discussion about these issues leads scholars to ask if there is a culture war at work….
Pat Buchanan: “There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a culture war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as the Cold War” (Wald, 183).
Bill O’Reilly - FOX News, traditionalists are at war with “secular progressive movement” - seems to be a question of vision and motivation, not just words
Others talk about how it is between “red and blue states” - like kids in a car drawing a line down the middle of the seat - experts say it is an oversimplification. “Most American states and the political attitudes of the people who live in them are some shade of purple - the combination of blue and red” (Wald, 184).
In a 2 party system, progress comes normally from compromise rather that stark polarization. People want results and leaders want to leave a positive legacy - these things motivate them towards compromise.
Looking deeper at “red and blue states,” they have many things in common: really involved in churches/religious groups, say religion matters in their lives, try to avoid politics directly, religious residents supported both Romney and Obama.
In the last 2 presidential elections, “guns and butter” issues dominated the debate (foreign policy and economy) rather than moral issues (abortion, marriage, health care).
Washington Post reporter: “The culture wars went into recession along with the economy” (Wald, 184).
Question emerges: how much does religion divide voters on political issues? Groups are different, but a spectrum exists within groups (mainline-evangelical protestants, liberal and traditional Catholics).

Taking a closer look - economic liberalism
The proper role and reach of the government has been an issue since the 30s - should it be extended or retracted? Where should the money go? How far is too far?
2 guiding questions
1) Should the government make sure everyone has an acceptable standard of living with a job or should take a back seat and let people find their own way?
2) Should the government offer fewer services to cut spending, even in important areas, or are the services important enough for the government to lose money while offering them?

Question 1: results - racial and ethnic minorities line up behind liberalism, ex) majority of African American Protestants said needs to do more to provide a reasonable standard of living and employment. 58% Black Protestants, 45% Hispanic Catholics, 42% Hispanic Catholics - vs. 22% Catholics and mainline Protestants.

Question 2: results - minorities welcome expansive government involvement more than most non-minorities - they want government help. Consistent with party affiliations, minorities tend to affiliate with the Dems more than GOP. (Hispanics, Jews, seculars, blacks etc. - more Dem, while evangelical Protestants and LDS are more GOP). Catholics and mainline Protestants have become swing voters.
American religious families/affiliations are divided by socioeconomic levels (reflected in theology, race, and ethnicities). Who they vote for appears to be deeply rooted in the proper role of government rather than purely moral issues.

Where are we as a nation?
Religion and public opinion: 2 cases - women’s rights and gay rights
“Clear majorities of nearly all the religious traditions agree that newer lifestyles are breaking down society” except Jews and seculars (Wald, 188).
New lifestyles as destructive to society: 74% evangelicals agree, 65% of both mainline and African American protestants, vs. 40% of Jews
Society is better with traditional family ties: 86% evangelicals, 77% protestants vs. 50% seculars
Tolerate morals of others: 85% Jews, 73% seculars vs. 52% evangelicals
Adjust morals: 73% seculars, 68% Hispanic Catholics vs. 35% evangelicals, 39 % mainline protestants
Thus - religious groups have the sharpest divide over the adjustment of morality
In the end - most Americans operate as religious/political participants motivated by economic interest rather than moral conviction. People do not generally love the impact of new lifestyles, but do want to live in peaceful tolerance.
Women’s Rights
Big questions - what happens to families and our overall social structure if women have equal rights? What will result if gender roles are not different for men and women? Can women select their own paths in life?
In the 70s, feminists called for equality while evangelicals called for traditional gender roles. Conservatives reacted strongly to Roe in 1976 onward, successfully defeated universal passage of the Equal Rights Amendment and fought adamantly for pro-life issues. The leaders of the political factions used these divisive issues to fan the flames of moral outrage, lending credence to the culture war theory.
Despite efforts by conservative vocal opponents to this, majorities of all the main religious families approve of gender equality for women, even among the “highly religious” - 53% LDS, 73% evangelicals, 82% Catholics, 83% Jews, 80% Black protestants (Wald, 191).
The picture is complicated by the abortion issue, called “the definitive issue for the women’s rights movement” (Wald, 191).
The data on abortion rights is drastically different than the data on gender equality. Most groups support equal gender roles, but the unity breaks down over abortion/ reproductive issues. Again, here the spectrum of views we see among religious traditions speaks to the complexity of our cultural mosaic.
- see charts

Gay Rights
This topic has permeated public debate and attention in recent years. Activists have worked without respite to obtain what they call “civil rights” for homosexuals and those who live alternative lifestyles. They built on concrete victories like taking “don’t ask, don’t tell” out of the armed forces and the increasingly widespread legalization of “gay marriage” or same sex unions. They celebrated the defeat of DOMA in 2013 and increasingly positive media representations such as on popular shows like Grey’s Anatomy and Chicago Fire.
Would you allow your children to watch shows that portrayed a same sex couple (with either positive or negative coverage)? How would you explain your decision to your children, and why?
Polling about gay rights:
In each of the 9 major affiliations, 50% or more of the respondents said that same sex couples should have the right to get married or obtain civil unions. The highest was 87% of Jews while the lowest was 50% of LDS.
This topic does bring forth strongly divided opinions in the general public. Experts say there are three camps:
Nearly 50% of evangelicals, LDS, black protestants oppose legalized same sex unions
More than 60% of seculars and +75% of Jews favor legal marriage, 90% of both favor legal civil unions
The other main affiliations are split over the issue (Wald, 194).
The other highly divisive related issue is that of adoption rights for same sex couples. Opposition stats: 59% of evangelicals, 44% Catholics, 58% black protestants, 13% Jews, 29% seculars
Homosexuality has become “normalized” by media and public opinion. Young people have turned a liberal/progressive direction with it, but not with abortion (moving more conservative in 90s and 2000s). Religion scholar Robert Putnam (American Grace) says the shifts are more generational (we can infer that it is less about a culture war than the changing of generations). They are more liberal on homosexuality and marijuana, and less drawn to organized religion while wanting spiritual connections elsewhere.
Putnam describes 2 aftershocks of the 60s: 1st: in 70s and 80s US views of sexual issues shifted conservative, evangelical churches grew. Then the 2nd: 90s and 2000s, views on sexual morality shifted in a liberal direction, evangelical numbers dropped (131).
Besides these two issues, polarization is not the dominant trend - such as seeing discrimination as wrong and allowing equal opportunities for military service. Scholars point out that minority groups who have experienced discrimination may identify with the lived experiences of same sex couples and homosexual individuals who are in “the wilderness” and enduring persecution. Pres. Obama could easily eliminate the restrictions of “don’t ask don’t tell” without fearing protests from religious groups since most support equal military opportunities.

Social Justice
Much of this centers on economics - how resources are distributed, who gets help and why, where foreign policy is focusing (inclusive of democratic principles like equality with practical needs like medical care for the poor). Churches and religious groups care about both aspects - policy and practicality. How faith impacts attitudes about equality and other non-tangibles is hard to track with hard data.
When pollsters asked Christians how to interpret the command to help the poor, most white Catholics and white mainline protestants, also 2/3rds of white evangelicals interpret that to mean individual charitable giving and actions. Meanwhile, most black protestants and hispanic Catholics said it means to create a just society. Figuring out what social justice actually means differs by race/ethnicity within religious traditions.
Talk with a partner about how you would interpret the command to care for the poor - individual acts of charity, creating a just society, both, why?
Across the board, members of all faith traditions (90%) think that every person should have a chance to succeed in life, but the results are different if the question shifts to: “Believe the country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are” - then the faiths dominated by minorities showed radically less agreement than those who are predominantly white (35% hispanic protestants, 15% Jews, 33% black protestants - 71% LDS, 54% evangelicals, 50% Catholics), (Wald, 197). This supports a bigger trend in the US - most people support equality but don’t support government initiatives to make it happen (like affirmative action). 80% of most groups oppose it, including LDS and Jews. Interestingly, many African Americans and other minorities oppose it because they say it perpetuates prejudice or injustice rather than create equality.

Care for the Environment
In 1967, Lynn White wrote a groundbreaking article linking the environmental crisis in our world to the Judeo-Christian teaching to exercise dominion over nature. She said that the churches of the West dropped the ball in protecting the earth. Even though some differences pop up in the polling data, such as a “dominion mindset” among LDS members, results say that religious affiliation/practice does not noticeably shape people’s attitudes about the environment. In fact, many churches teach that people are “stewards” of the environment, not ruthless rulers. Different parts of the bible can be used to justify the whole range of attitudes to environmentalism. If Christians believe the end of the world is near, they are less likely to become involved in environmentalism. Overall, White’s theory has been disproved, even among evangelicals who ask - would Jesus drive that SUV?
The status of the relationship between faith and politics around this issue leads us to believe that the culture war theory may not be the best worldview.

Foreign Policy
Experts tell us it is hard to pin down religious differences in terms of foreign policy. Since the Cold War ended, things seem less black and white, so people tend to formulate views differently for each situation. This can lead to unlikely partnerships, such as during the Gulf War conflict when evangelical protestants and Jews tended to accept armed intervention while Catholics and mainline protestants favored seeking a diplomatic/peaceful solution.
Overall, Americans support our nation engaging in world crises, though the actual numbers vary by situation.

Conclusions/big picture
We are left with the question - is there a true culture war today?
There may be some truth to the broad interpretation of culture war theory in that polarization does exist and there are divisions in religious/political groups, but the narrow interpretation appears to be false (Williams, 2). There are not just 2 extremes of beliefs and public opinions.

Even Pope Francis pointed out how leaders and media reps can “obsess” about the divisive issues and let important things like helping the poor slip through the cracks. Reporting on both politics and religion can go the same route according to commentators. Example: Louie Giglio - Passion Movement (look up).
The verdict: American political and religious landscape is fueled by compromise, consensus, and tolerance more than warfare. People care about how issues like new technology and new lifestyles will impact our culture, but agree on a range of issues like gender roles, allowing gay people to serve in the military, everyone having a chance to succeed, and in the US helping meet the needs of others during crises.
Those who are polarized on significant issues are divided on a small range of things.
“For the most part, Americans extend grace to one another. A commitment to pluralism keeps insurmountable religious differences from emerging. Americans are so exposed to difference in culture and religion that tolerance is the result. Even if ‘Aunt Susan’ or ‘Pal Al’ don’t believe as they do, most Americans refuse to believe that they are damned and seek to pursue the common good with them” (Wald, 203).

Even though polarization exists and varieties of opinions exist within both religious and political groups, compromise and tolerance seem to be putting out the fires.
Fowler points out in Ch. 12 that “Scholars have found that relatively few people are completely comfortable with either side of the culture war” (308).
In fact, the increased pluralism in the US is creating many miniature culture wars within both religious and political groups, such as we see among Muslims (radicals vs. moderates).

Scholars say cultural battles will continue to happen over “postmaterialist” values like the environment, freedom, and self-expression.

Looking at general trends, religious liberals: focus on social justice while religious conservatives: focus on moral/social issues. Each religious group has a range of views within it - so in any given tradition like Judaism, we will find liberal/progressives to orthodox/conservatives.
“Religion is not the dominant dividing line in American politics, just one of many cleavages around which politicians attempt to gain partisan advantage” (Wald, 205).

Where to now: motivate people to be involved without war rhetoric, demand that media use “constructive” analysis rather than divisive language, maybe give candidates time to talk about issues freely on tv to replace slanderous commercials
“While culture influences our politics, no culture war dominates them.” (Williams, 5).

Why do we think there’s a war?
Media’s simplification of complex issues and stats, create black and white thinking in the minds and hearts of Americans (ex: red and blue states).
Elite politicians use flamboyant rhetoric to get people mobilized or active, they act and speak to differentiate themselves from the “other guy.” Activists use more “uncompromising language” than laity. In all reality, many Americans don’t vote or even care about politics.
Even when we hear the cultural warriors all the time, they don’t get elected to office. With all the hype about the Religious Right, few leaders come from the extremes of American religion/politics.

Closure/Review of objectives...

Class Challenge 7 - Video project, work in pairs, complete a "God strategy" video according to the directions on Sakai.