Why does the religious make-up of Congress look different from that of America?
Even as the percentage of Americans who claim no religious identification has risen to nearly a quarter of the population, 91 percent of representatives in the current Congress self-identify as 海角大神听鈥� about the same amount as in 1961听鈥� according to an annual analysis from the Pew Research Center.
That doesn鈥檛 mean the religious composition of Congress hasn鈥檛 changed at all: the share of Catholics has climbed substantially, from 19 in 1961 to 31 percent today, while the share of Protestants has fallen, from 75 to 56 percent, over the decades. And while the share of Jews has remained roughly the same since the early 1980s,听more听Buddhist, Mormon, and Muslim politicians have now been elected to Congress, in proportions that more or less reflect those of the general public.
鈥淭he group that is most notably underrepresented is the religiously unaffiliated,鈥� , whose study uses data compiled by CQ Roll Call. 鈥淭his group 鈥� also known as religious 鈥榥ones鈥� 鈥� now accounts for 23% of the general public,鈥� while only one member of Congress 鈥� Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D) of Arizona 鈥� lists no public religious affiliation.
That gap may illuminate the enduring importance of religious institutions in American public life, despite a decrease in the number of people who听actively identify as members.
Part of the reason for the gap, says John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron, has to do with the social characteristics associated with success in politics.
鈥淢embers of Congress tend to be well-educated people, from professional backgrounds 鈥� particularly lawyers 鈥� well into their professional careers, so they鈥檙e middle-aged, and active and engaged in the community. Religious organizations are really important parts of most communities in the United States,鈥� he tells 海角大神 in an interview Tuesday.
The connectedness often听afforded by religious denominations often contrasts with the habits of the 鈥渘ones,鈥� who tend to be less engaged in community life, he adds.
鈥淭hey also tend to be younger and well-educated, though, so it could be that over time, as younger unaffiliated people come into middle age and get well-established into their professions, you could see greater representation in Congress,鈥� he says.
Such networking also happens on the Hill itself, even inspiring the occasional bipartisan effort, as the Monitor鈥檚 Francine Kiefer wrote in September in a profile of congressional prayer meetings:听
The prayer breakfast is one of the few venues on the Hill where members of both parties mix socially. In a typical week, about a quarter of the Senate shows up, including members of leadership from both parties, according to [Sen. Chris Coons (D) of Delaware]. Participants drop politics at the door. They observe strict confidentiality. No staff. No journalists. It鈥檚 just the senators and the chamber鈥檚 chaplain, who leads the singing.
The Senate breakfast and its companion in the House are invisible to the public. Yet that is exactly what makes them so beneficial, say attendees. The confidentiality of the breakfasts allows lawmakers to get to know each other as human beings. They hear about each other鈥檚 personal struggles and joys, about concern for family members, friends, and staff. That builds trust and friendship. It can even lead to bipartisan legislation. One participant says that it鈥檚 the only time when a senator is speaking and others are听really listening.听听
Some politicians' decisions to list an affiliation are likely shaped by an assumption that they'll miss out on votes if they don't.
鈥淚f you think about the distribution of where you find the secular population in the US, this makes sense,鈥� David Campbell, a political scientist at Notre Dame University who has written several books on religion in US politics, tells the Monitor.听Less religiously-inclined voters tend to be spread out across the country, meaning they don鈥檛 really form a geographic bloc.
鈥淲e also know from other data that while religious voters might be wary of a non-religious candidate, it doesn鈥檛 go the other way: non-religious voters are still open to voting for politicians who do have a religious affiliation,鈥� Dr. Campbell adds.
And many voters whom studies label as 鈥渘ones鈥� may still see a candidate鈥檚 faith in a positive light,听since many are 鈥減assively鈥� secular, rather than actively opposed to organized religion, he says. Some might still see the morality of a politician as being tied to his or her religion. Others might be just fine with fewer separations between church and state 鈥� and vote for lawmakers who are, too.
Other surveys periodically turn up fluctuating听enthusiasm for more religion听in politics. In 2014, for instance, 41 percent of respondents 听said that there was 鈥渢oo little鈥� religious expression from political leaders, marking a modest rise during Obama鈥檚 term in office.
鈥淚t may not be their thing, but a lot of 鈥榥ones鈥� see it as a source of moral values, as a way of bringing people together,鈥� says Dr. Green. 鈥淓ven if they may not be religious in a formal sense, they may still have positive views associated with it.鈥�
