Amol Kapoor

Republican Fundamentalism and the

effects of a modern generation
Around 400 years ago the Puritans established a community in New England with a government that
was so infused with religious spirit that all major decisions were made in the church and anyone with
dissenting views of religious doctrine was given a sharp kick out of the colony. One of these exiles, Roger
Williams, proposed a profound doctrine of the separation of church and state that later became a cornerstone
of US politics and government. With the ratification of the 1
st
amendment in the Bill of Rights, the separation
between the two was almost insured. Yet, something within the voting population of the United States
changed, especially after the end of the Enlightenment and the start of the influx of diverse cultures and
peoples from around the world. For a while, it was assumed that certain religious doctrine were accepted as
fact within the US government because everyone was virtually the same religion (some form of Christianity);
when the demographics of the country began to shift, a distinct religious voting block arose. Although the
block varied in size and influence over the 200+ years of American government a notable rise during the
height of the Social Gospel reform movement, a notable drop after the Scopes Monkey Trial, for example -
starting in the 1980s sharp religious fundamentalism found a new home in the modern day Republican Party.
As a result, the Republicans found themselves catering to (and pushing legislation for) a demographic of
mostly white Christian voters, a stereotype that has seemingly held up even today, when the word Republican
conjures images of a white religious fundamentalist probably with a southern accent and a gun over his
shoulder. Yet, the population has changed wildly since the first Puritan settlers: though there is arguably still
strong support for religious (specifically Christian) principles, the modern generation is increasingly against
organized religion and increasingly biased against pro-religion laws. Especially on both coasts, minorities have
created their own voting blocks, while diversity and increasing scientific awareness has led to a gradual shift
away from religious principle in the modern youth. Overall, in order to maintain a strong voter hold, the
Republican Party may have to quickly shift away from its pro-Christian stance in politics in order to avoid the
voter backlash from an increasingly religiously unaffiliated youth.
Amol Kapoor
Part 1: The Rise of Religion and Voting Trends among the Unaffiliated
The story of the rise of religious fundamentalism begins with the publication of The Fundamentals, and
eventually cumulates into a full resurgence in influence and power during the 1980s. Religious
fundamentalists had existed as a voting block within the United States for years. They held much influence
throughout the late 1800s and into the early 1900s, and it was the influence of religious power that led to the
passing of much of the social reform before the Roaring Twenties. Yet, amidst this state of influence a
growing crisis was looming within the religious block. According to the theologian and intellectual J.
Gresham Machen, Christianity was in the throes of a civil war, a great battlebetween Christianity and
modernism (Dionne, 212). This split led to the rise of the conservative fundamentalist block, the group that
would later play the defining role within the Republican Party. The birth of the conservative religious group
was strained by the rising prominence of religious liberals; in order to protect their ideal Christianity, the
religious conservatives published the twelve Fundamentals, volumes that sought to define the traditional creed
and defend it from the attacks of the New Christianity (Dionne, 214). The timing could not have been more
ideal; a decade later, fundamentalism as a whole was forced underground during the Roaring Twenties, as
moral thought gave way to alcohol and sex. The Great Depression could only be seen as vindication for the
vast majority of conservative fundamentalists, who organized and consolidated while renewing their public
presence (Dionne, 216), even as their liberal counterpart collapsed. Throughout the coming years, the
fundamentalists remained persistent against a siege of violent students, radical legal shifts, and turbulent
politics. The conservative group bided its time, learning from the protest movements and waiting for a
chance to emerge onto the national stage again.
Throughout the 1970s, the fundamentalist core saw its numbers swell, as more and more citizens began to
follow a group that seemed to have an idea of what it was doing in a time when no one knew what should be
done; it was only a matter of time before a concurrent breakout into politics occurred. With the Falwell
movement, headed by Jerry Falwell, religious conservatives burst out into the political scene. Nixons
dramatic self-destruction almost spelt doom for the right wing Republican Party; the New Right needed a
Amol Kapoor
social issue and a dramatic change in order to inspire voting faith. As it turned out, the religious issues [of
the Falwell movement] offered an opportunity to expand the [Republican] movements social-issue
repertoire (Dionne, 230). In many ways, the combination between the two groups was inevitable. By
appealing to the moral rigidity of the fundamentalists, the New Right was able to recreate a sense of moral
appeal that had all but vanished after Nixon; the controversy over the Roe v Wade abortion decision had left
fundamentalists on the defensive, much as the New Right was; and on the whole it seemed that modernists
and liberal groups had already formed a coalition. What resulted was the Moral Majority. The 1980
presidential elections were marked by a Republican coalition that included, for the first time, a combination
of middle class and upper class businessmen and industrialists and religious fundamentalist groups. Reagan
won over white born-again Christianswith a two to one margin; Falwell was credited by some with having
elected Ronal Reagan (Dionne, 232). The election sealed the bond between the Republican Party and the
fundamentalist movement. Politicians had once again begun to take fundamentalist groups seriously, as
Reagan picked up [William Jennings] Bryans mantle (Dionne, 233). At least, that is what occurred in the
public media and mind.
In reality, religious groups had begun voting for Republicans long before; the election of 1980 was not a
breakthrough but a ratification of earlier trends towards the Republicans (Dionne, 234). The true bond, the
one that came long before the public bond, was over the watch-word of the 60s and 70s: civil rights. Statistics
show that Lyndon Johnson was never able to manage a majority in Baptist counties (Dionne, 234), suggesting
that in reality, religious groups began voting against the pro-Civil Rights reform Democrats as early as JFK.
However, once the bond between the groups came out in full, the fundamentalists groups played a large role
in giving Republicans control of the Senate for the first time since the 1952 elections (Dionne, 235). This
victory set a trend that grew and solidified in the coming years. Religious groups began a gradual shift in their
mindsets, in which they not only voted Republican, but began to think of themselves as Republican. As a
result, religion profoundly changed the purpose and composition of conservatist groups. Instead of
government regulation, the Republican Party was increasingly defined by issues such as abortion,
pornography, prayer in schools, and the content of elementary school teaching (Dionne, 236). In other
Amol Kapoor
words, the Republican Party became a profoundly religious party, and is now thoroughly entwined with
religious legislation and reform.
The Republican Partys religious leanings have created a series of religion-based controversies in
recent years, most recently and publicly over abortion and gay rights. In tune with their bible-based
philosophy, the Party tends to try to curb both (often taking swipes at contraceptive groups as well). For
example, in 2004, close to three times as many Republican National Convention delegates favored the
complete abolition of abortion, a total of 38% of the delegates, in comparison to the 13% that favored
general availability. The 2012 party platform on the abortion issue specifically stated a commitment to a
human life amendment to the Constitution andlegislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's
protections apply to unborn children (Republican Party Platform). Many womens rights groups oppose
such lobbying, for obvious reasons; surprisingly, much of the ammunition that womens rights groups use is
directly supplied by the Republican Party. The statement from Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin
specifically his claims in 2012 on how the female body has ways to try to shut down [legitimate rape] (Jaco
Charles, Full Interview) enraged citizens across the country and ignited fierce controversy within the media.
In response, Mike Huckabee, a 2008 and 2012 election candidate, was quoted as distinguishing between
forcible rapes and not, while Paul Ryan, 2012 Vice Presidential nominee, was quoted as claiming that the
method of conception doesnt change the definition of life when specifically asked about forced
pregnancies. The overall result seems remarkably backwards, with Republicans being portrayed as bumbling
idiots, caught with their feet in their mouths. The key issue is that religion never compromises; it is
(supposedly) an objective moral rule. Thus, Republicans often seem highly contradictory, as they are forced
into blocking abortion legislation in order to be consistent with a moral philosophy that offers no flexibility,
even when intuition argues otherwise. While at the moment polls show that the public has maintained an
even split on the debate Gallup shows that though the majority seem to be pro-choice, the general
perception that the prochoice viewpoint prevails contrasts with the nearly even division of Americans actual
views the voters that proved most heavily pro-choice are those who profess no religious identity, at close
Amol Kapoor
to 80% (Saad, Americans Misjudge). The Pew Research Center confirms the high consistency, dropping the
overall number to 72% amongst the religiously unaffiliated (Funk, Nones on the Rise).
Gay rights have proven to be an even more contentious issue, and far more relevant to the modern
generation. Virtually every anti-LGBT group springs from a religious conservative base; most common
arguments stem from the bible, including potential harms to society, the purpose of sexual intercourse, and
the supposed distinctions set down by the Almighty himself. The enactment of DOMA was mentioned as a
highpoint in the GOP 2012 platform, and the party even criticizes the allowing [of] same sex marriage at a
military base[as a] mockery of the Presidents inaugural oath. It goes on to claim that marriage will
determine the success of the nation as the success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of
individuals (Republican Party Platform). The platform effectively condemns all forms of LGBT marriage as
an attack on the idea of marriage itself, and through marriage, the country as a whole. Yet, the recent supreme
court case over the constitutionality of DOMA has led to some not-so-surprising poll numbers. Separate
polls conducted from CNN, CBS, and Reuters show that 53% (Steinhauser, CNN), 57% (CBS, CBS), and
63%(Tamman, Reuters) of citizens respectively supported civil unions or marriage between same sex couples.
Of those, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, nearly 9-in-10 (89%) atheists and agnostics
favor allowing gay and lesbians to marry legally, compared to 7-in-10 (70%) seculars and nearly 6-in-10 (57%)
unattached believers (Jones, Catholics and the Religiously Unaffiliated). The public is clearly leaning away
from the Republican view point. Once again, the most consistent group of voters in polls proved to be those
without a professed religion. The Pew Research Center again confirms, averaging in at around 73% approval
amongst the Religiously Unaffiliated (Funk, Nones on the Rise).
The recent clash over Republican controversy clarifies something that was relatively obvious to begin
with: those who are not involved with religion specifically, fundamentalist Christianity do not have any
reason to support Republican values in religion-fueled debates. Because the Republican defense relies heavily
on Biblical and religious text, those without religious conviction would have no inherent reason to support
the Republican Party on that issue. The other option, the Democrats, tends to be more attractive to the
Amol Kapoor
religiously unaffiliated, as the Democratic platform generally expands civil rights on the basis of equality to all
when it comes to religious issues. With the heaviest voting consistency against the Republicans on multiple
major issues coming out of the religiously unaffiliated, it is no surprise that the vast majority of this group
fully three quarters (Funk, Nones on the Rise) voted for Barrack Obama in the 2008 presidential election.
Polls consistently show that the religiously unaffiliated are Democrats (39%) or lean toward the Democratic
Party (24%). They are, on the whole, one of the most reliably Democratic constituencies in recent
elections (Funk, Nones on the Rise). Of course, internal consistency is not highly relevant in the grand
scheme of politics; even if one small group votes consistently in one direction, the size of that group is an
important factor in determining the value of the total votes.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party, the fastest growing religious group in the United States happens to
be the very same religiously unaffiliated.
Part 2: The Modern Generation, the Growth of the Unaffiliated, and the Challenges for the
Republican Party
The unaffiliated, agnostic, and atheist voting groups have continually gained strength in numbers -
and therefore political influence over the last decade. In the last five years alone, polls have shown that
unaffiliated increased almost 5% (from 15.3% of the voter population to 19.6%) in the years from 2007 to
2012. The total includes a voting population of almost 46 million people (Funk, Nones on the Rise). In the
past, the Republican Party was able to block out this group of people because there was little to no political
clout. The modern generation has rapidly changed that. Studies suggest that the youth of the country caused
the unprecedented rise of this particular group; among the youngest Millennialsfully one-third (34%) are
religiously unaffiliated, compared with about one-in-ten members of the Silent Generation (9%) and onein-
twenty members of the World War II-era Greatest Generation (5%) (Funk, Nones on the Rise). The
dramatic increase will be devastating to the Republican Party, as more people back away from religious values.
Religiously unaffiliated tend to raise their children in the same way. In the past decade, a full 8% of religiously
Amol Kapoor
unaffiliated voters were raised that way, up from only 3% in 1970. However, the true indication of a potential
backlash against the Republican Party is the number of people who ended up religiously unaffiliated who were
raised with some religion. Surveys show that close to three-quarters of unaffiliated adults were raised with
some affiliation (74%) (Funk, Nones on the Rise). People simply do not stick with their religious convictions
past childhood. If the trend continues, more people will be raised religiously unaffiliated, and more people
will become religiously unaffiliated.
It is difficult to pinpoint the causes of the phenomenon. The demographics of the group show that the only
notable difference between the general public (used as a control) and the religiously unaffiliated is the age -
about seven-in-ten people who describe themselves as unaffiliated are under age 50 (72%)[while] 35% of
the unaffiliated are 18 to 29 years old (Funk, Nones on the Rise). Age seems to be a strange factor in
determining religious affiliation. Some have pointed to the increasing influence of secular thought in the
modern world, suggesting that education and media have driven youth away from religion. Yet, though a
significant minority (42%) of the unaffiliated are neither religious nor spiritual, the majority (56%) sees
itself as both spiritual and religious (Funk, Nones on the Rise). While it is possible that the coming years will
show a spike in individuals who do not consider themselves religious at all possibly as the post-2000
generation ages, for example the current trend suggests that there is some other aspect about organized
religion that turns away close to 26 million people within the United States. More consistent with data,
scholars have argued that it isnt the religion aspect that turns away so many, but rather the political aspect.
The close alignment between religiousness and conservative politics makes abortion and gay
rightsemblematic of the emergent culture wars; the result is that many younger Americans, those without
pre-standing party convictions, see religion as judgmental, homophobic, hypocritical, and too political
(Putnam, American Grace). While pure data doesnt show causation, there is at least some correlation
between a more liberal viewpoint and a non-organized religion-leaning trend.
In the end, however, whether or not the religious views lead to liberal votes or vice versa, the growth and
power of the religiously unaffiliated spell trouble for the Republican Party. The most recent election 2012
Amol Kapoor
showed Obama carrying many swing states because of the non-affiliated vote. For example, in Ohio Obama
lost the Protestant vote by 3 points and the Catholic vote by 11, but he won the "nones" 12 percent of the
state's electorate by 47 points. Similar results were seen in Virginia, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire
and Pennsylvania (Halloran, Add this Group). The swing states won by the unaffiliated snagged a total of 100
electoral votes for Obama, enough to have easily changed the tide from Mitt Romney, who ended up losing
by 126 electoral votes. In key swing states, Obama was likely able to pull through only because of the
overwhelming support of the religiously unaffiliated (Boice, Election Results). As the unaffiliated group
grows, the Republican Party may find itself on the short end of a rapidly shrinking stick. It needs a dramatic
change if it wants to beat back the Obama coalition, and part of that change has to include a thorough
examination of the religious-based motives of the party as a whole.
The past decade has shown a remarkable numerical and political growth of the religiously
unaffiliated. More youth are raised without religious convictions, while large numbers of people have grown
wary of organized religion or converted away from religious principle altogether. The result is a group of
people that number almost 50 million; one in five Americans is religiously unaffiliated. The Republican Party
has relied on religious belief and the religious vote for decades, so much so that the party is known by some
as the Religious Right. The religiously unaffiliated are not impressed, and continually vote Democrat. They
have consistently shown liberal leanings, and the rapid growth of the group played a large role in the victory
of President Obama in the 2012 election. As the Republican religious voting block decreases in size, the
Democratic Party Coalition increases. In order to survive, the Republican Party has to radically alter its
fundamental argumentative base. In a world that no longer looks upon religion as an incredibly important
day-to-day necessity, the Republican methods seem outdated. Somehow, the Party has to modernize so it can
attempt to cut away at the Democratic stronghold over the religiously unaffiliated. The most viable way to do
so would involve a break from the fundamentalist roots that have become the core of the Party not only
would doing so increase Republican prestige amongst the growing non-religious circles, but it could
potentially attract many others who were held back by the Republican position on religiously controversial
issues such as abortion and gay rights. Yet, the obvious issue is whether the Party would be able to survive
Amol Kapoor
the amount of political upheaval that would occur; distancing from religious groups would be analogous to
playing Russian Roulette with five out of six bullets loaded. As a result, the Republican Party is caught in a
bind. Either religion will drag it down slowly and painfully, or the Party will internally combust as it loses
whatever waning support it once had. On the off chance that the Republican leaders are able to get together
and think of a logical and efficient way to distance themselves from religion without losing the religious vote,
however, the Party may be able to survive and thrive.
Then again, with people like Sarah Palin in charge, maybe internal combustion would be better for them in
the long run.


Amol Kapoor
Works Cited

Eugene Joseph Dionne. Why Americans Hate Politics. New York, New York: Touchstone, 1991. Paperback.
Republican Party Platforms: "2012 Republican Party Platform," August 27, 2012. Online by Gerhard Peters
and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=101961.
Jaco, Charles. Jaco Report: Full Interview with Todd Akin. August 19, 2012. Fox 2 Now. KTVI.
Lydia Saad. Americans Misjudge US Abortion Views. May 15, 2013. Gallup News.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162548/americans-misjudge-abortion-views.aspx
Cary Funk, Greg Smith. Nones on the Rise: One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation. October 9, 2012.
Washington, D.C. Pew Research Center. Online at
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Unaffiliated/NonesOnTheRise-
full.pdf
Paul Steinhauser. 53% support same-sex marriage. March 18, 2013. CNN, Turner Broadcasting Inc. Online at
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/18/cnn-poll-53-support-same-sex-marriage/
Maurice Tamman, Joan Biskupic. Majority supports benefits for same-sex couples. March 20, 2013. Reuters. Online at
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/20/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-poll-idUSBRE92J0FA20130320
CBS. 60% think federal gov't should recognize same-sex marriages. March 26, 2013. CBS Interactive Inc. Online at
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57576444/poll-60-think-federal-govt-should-recognize-same-sex-
marriages/
Robert P. Jones, Daniel Cox, Juhem Navarro-Rivera. How Catholics and the Religiously Unaffiliated will Shape the
2012 Election and Beyond. October 23, 2012. Washington DC. Public Religion Institute, Inc. Online at
http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/AVS-2012-Pre-election-Report-for-Web.pdf
Robert Putnam, David Campbell. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York, New York:
Simon and Schuster, 2010. Paperback.
Liz Halloran. Add This Group To Obama's Winning Coalition: 'Religiously Unaffiliated'. December 9, 2012. NPR.
Online at http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/12/09/166753248/add-this-group-to-obamas-
winning-coalition-religiously-unaffiliated
Jay Boice, Aaron Bycoffe, Andrei Scheinkman, Adam Carlson, Matt Sledge. Election Results. Huffingtonpost,
TheHuffingtonPost.com Inc. 2013. Online at http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results