45% of Americans Say U.S. Should Be a ‘Christian Nation’

 

45% of Americans Say U.S. Should Be a ‘Christian Nation’

But they hold differing opinions about what that phrase means, and two-thirds of U.S. adults say churches should keep out of politics

 

October 27, 2022

By GREGORY A. SMITHMICHAEL ROTOLO AND PATRICIA TEVINGTON

Reprinted from Pew Research Center

 

1. Religion in public life

Most Americans say religion’s influence in society is declining, and for many people, this is a lamentable development. Americans are much more likely to express positive than negative views of religion in this way. Moreover, just under half of U.S. adults say the Bible should have at least some influence on the laws of the United States, including 27% who say the Bible should take precedence over the will of the people if the two conflict.

At the same time, however, majorities of U.S. adults also say churches and other houses of worship should keep out of politics and refrain from endorsing political candidates. These views are especially common among the growing segment of Americans who do not identify with any religious group; these religious “nones” also are more likely to express negative views toward religion in general.

Americans who say the U.S. should be a “Christian nation” are far more inclined than those who do not hold this view to say churches should endorse political candidates and express their views on social and political issues, and that the Bible should influence U.S. laws. Still, even among those who say they want the U.S. to be a “Christian nation,” many do not want churches to be involved in politics and believe the will of the people should take precedence over the Bible in shaping U.S. laws.

There is no clear consensus about whether it has become easier or harder to be a person who does not believe or practice a religious faith in the United States over the past decade as this group has grown. Slightly fewer than half of Americans (47%), meanwhile, say life in the U.S. has become harder over the last 10 years for people of deep religious faith, much larger than the share who say this has become easier (13%).

This chapter explores these and other findings about Americans’ views regarding religion and public life.

Three-quarters of U.S. adults say religion is losing influence in society

Chart shows Americans three times as likely to say religion is losing than gaining influence

A large majority of Americans (74%) say they think religion’s influence in American life is declining, although this share is down slightly from the last time the question was asked in 2019 (78%). About one-quarter (23%) now say religion’s influence is growing (up slightly from 20% in 2019). Majorities across the religious and political spectrums agree that religion’s influence in American society is waning.

The survey also indicates that Americans are more likely to see religion as a positive influence in American life than a negative one. Four-in-ten U.S. adults say religion’s influence is declining and that this is a bad thing, and an additional 9% say religion’s influence is growing and that this is a good thing; together, 49% express a positive view of religion through these responses. White evangelical Protestants and Republicans are especially likely to say religion is declining in influence and that this is a negative development.

On the whole, far fewer Americans express a negative view of religion by saying either that religion’s waning influence is a good thing (16%) or that religion’s growing influence is a bad thing (10%). There are, however, signs of wariness about religion’s influence among some groups in the population. Roughly half of U.S. Jews, for instance, say either that religion’s influence in American life is growing and this is a bad thing (31%) or that religion’s influence is declining and this is a good thing (23%).3 And large majorities of atheists and agnostics also express a negative view of religion in one of these ways.

Among Democrats and independents who lean toward the Democratic Party, there are more people who express a negative view of religion on these questions (42%) than a positive one (32%).

Chart shows on balance, more Americans express a positive than a negative view about religion
Chart shows slim majority of Christians say life has become harder in U.S. for people who have strong religious faith

The prevailing view among Christians is that living in the U.S. has gotten harder over the last decade for people who have strong religious faith. By a 56% to 10% margin, far more Christians say life in the U.S. has gotten harder lately for people of deep religious faith than say it has gotten easier, with a third saying it is about the same. Among White evangelical Protestants, seven-in-ten say life in the U.S. has become harder for religious people over the last decade.

By contrast, religious “nones” are more evenly divided as to whether life has gotten harder or easier for people who do not believe or practice a religious faith. A third of religiously unaffiliated Americans say life has become harder for people who are not religious, while 23% say it has become easier and 42% say it hasn’t changed very much.

Most Americans say churches should stay out of politics, refrain from political endorsements

About three-quarters of U.S. adults (77%) say churches and other houses of worship should not come out in favor of one candidate over another during political elections. This view is expressed by majorities across the religious and political spectrums, and by most people who say the U.S. should be a “Christian nation,” as well as by most people who say it should not be a Christian nation. For instance, 62% of White evangelical Protestants and 63% of Black Protestants say churches should avoid endorsing political candidates, as do 70% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats.

Chart shows roughly four-in-ten U.S. adults say religious organizations have too much political influence

There is a bit more openness to the idea that churches and other houses of worship should “express their views on day-to-day social and political questions” than to the prospect of religious organizations offering explicit endorsements of political candidates. Still, two-thirds of the public (67%) says churches and other houses of worship should “keep out of political matters” and not express their views on social and political subjects.

White evangelicals and Black Protestants are divided as to whether churches and other congregations should keep out of politics or express their views on day-to-day political subjects. In every other religious group measured in the survey, however, there is a clear consensus against political involvement by houses of worship.

Chart shows roughly four-in-ten U.S. adults say religious organizations have too much political influence

Overall, roughly four-in-ten U.S. adults say churches and religious organizations have too much influence in politics today, while 35% say they have about the right amount and 22% say they don’t have enough political influence.

Jews and religiously unaffiliated Americans are far more apt than Christians to say religious organizations have too much influence in politics. Among Christians, a plurality say religious organizations have about the right amount of influence (42%), while the remainder are divided between those who think religious organizations have too much influence (27%) and those who think they have too little political sway (29%).

Most Democrats say they think religious organizations have too much influence in politics (60%). Among Republicans, by contrast, just 21% say religious organizations have too much political influence, while 45% say they have the right amount and 33% say they don’t have enough political influence.

Among Americans who say the U.S. should be a “Christian nation,” nearly half (46%) say religious organizations have about the right amount of influence in politics, and approximately a third (35%) say they do not have enough influence; fewer than one-in-five (17%) say they have too much influence. In stark contrast, two-thirds of adults who say the U.S. should not be a Christian nation say religious organizations have too much influence in politics (68%).

Just under half of Americans say the Bible should have at least some influence on U.S. laws

Nearly half of U.S. adults say they think the Bible should have a great deal of influence (23%) or some influence (24%) on the laws of the United States, while another half say it should have not much influence (16%) or none at all (36%). The Center asked this question once previously, in February 2020, and found broadly similar results then, though the share who say they Bible should have no influence at all on U.S. laws has ticked up slightly in the last two years (from 31% to 36%).

Chart shows most White evangelicals, Black Protestants say Bible should have at least some influence on U.S. laws

Upward of eight-in-ten White evangelical Protestants say the Bible should have at least some influence on U.S. laws, including 56% who say it should have a great deal of influence. Nearly three-quarters of Black Protestants also say the Bible should have at least some influence on the nation’s laws, and about half of Catholics and White Protestants who are not evangelical feel this way. By contrast, large majorities of Jews and religiously unaffiliated Americans (including 95% of atheists and 90% of agnostics) say the Bible should have little or no influence over the country’s laws.

About two-thirds of Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party (64%) say the nation’s laws should be influenced at least some by the Bible. By contrast, two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic leaners (67%) say the Bible should have little or no influence on U.S. laws.

Roughly eight-in-ten Americans who say the U.S. should be a “Christian nation” (78%) also say the Bible should have at least some influence on the country’s laws, including 45% who say it should have a great deal of influence. Among those who say the U.S. should not be a Christian nation, eight-in-ten (79%) say the Bible should have little or no influence on America’s laws, including 61% who say it should have no influence at all.

Respondents who said that the Bible should have at least some influence on U.S. laws were asked a follow-up question: When the Bible and the will of the people conflict with each other, which should have more influence on the laws of the United States?

Overall, 27% of U.S. adults say that the Bible should have more influence on U.S. laws than the will of the people – almost identical to the share who said this when the Center last asked the question in 2020 (28%).

Among Christians, more than a third (38%) say the Bible should take precedence over the will of the people in influencing U.S. laws when the two conflict. Nearly two-thirds of White evangelical Protestants (65%) express this view, as do about half of Black Protestants (51%). By comparison, far fewer Catholics (21%) and White non-evangelical Protestants (24%) say the will of the people should be subordinate to the Bible in shaping U.S. laws.

Four-in-ten Republicans say that the Bible should supersede the will of the people in shaping U.S. laws if the two conflict; fewer than half as many Democrats agree (16%).

Just over half of people who say the U.S. should be a “Christian nation” (54%) also say the Bible should take precedence over the will of the people in shaping U.S. laws when the two conflict. By contrast, upward of nine-in-ten people who say the U.S. should not be a Christian nation reject this view, including 79% who say the Bible should have little or no influence on U.S. laws (and thus were not asked what should happen in cases where it conflicts with the will of the people) and 14% who say the will of the people should supersede the Bible in shaping U.S. laws.

Chart shows roughly a quarter of U.S. adults say that the Bible should have more influence over U.S. laws than the will of the people if the two conflict

2. Religion and the Supreme Court

On the heels of several major decisions with religious implications, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the new Pew Research Center survey finds a significant jump in the share of U.S. adults who say the Supreme Court is “friendly” to religion. Americans are more likely to say the court’s recent decisions have helped (rather than harmed) the interests of U.S. Christians, and harmed (rather than helped) the interests of people in the U.S. who are not religious.

A large majority of Americans say Supreme Court justices should not rely on their own religious beliefs when making judicial decisions, and many (44%) say the high court’s members have been doing so too much lately. But a similar share (40%) say they have been doing this about the right amount.

The remainder of this chapter explores these and other findings regarding religion and the Supreme Court in additional detail.

Share saying Supreme Court is ‘friendly’ to religion nearly doubles between 2019 and 2022

Chart shows most atheists, agnostics now say Supreme Court is friendly to religion; Christians less convinced

The Center survey finds a big increase in the share of Americans who view the Supreme Court as “friendly” toward religion. Following a historic session in which the court overturned Roe v. Wade and upheld the right of a public school football coach to offer prayers after games, more than one-in-three U.S. adults (35%) now say they think the Supreme Court is friendly toward religion, up from 18% who said this in 2019. Roughly half of adults (51%) say the high court is “neutral” toward religion (down from 69% in 2019), and about one-in-ten (11%) say it is “unfriendly” to religion (unchanged since 2019).

While the view that the high court is friendly toward religion has become more common across the religious and political spectrums, the new survey continues to find that non-Christians and Democrats are more inclined than Christians and Republicans to see the Supreme Court as friendly to religion. Most atheists (74%) and agnostics (62%) now describe the Supreme Court as friendly to religion, as do half of Jewish adults (53%) and half of Democrats (52%). Most Christians, meanwhile, say they think the court is neutral toward religion (57%), as do most Republicans (68%).

Eight-in-ten oppose idea of Supreme Court justices bringing their own faith into official decisions

Chart shows across religious groups, most agree Supreme Court justices should keep their own religious views out of their decisions

Most Americans oppose the idea of Supreme Court justices bringing their own religious beliefs to bear in deciding major cases. More than eight-in-ten U.S. adults, including majorities in both political parties and in every religious group measured in the survey, say Supreme Court justices should not do this.

The survey also finds that Jews and religiously unaffiliated Americans are concerned Supreme Court justices have been going too far in this regard. Seven-in-ten Jews and two-thirds of religious “nones” (including 90% of atheists and 82% of agnostics) say the high court justices have relied too much on their own religious beliefs in their recent decisions.

Among Christians overall, the most common view is that the justices recently have been relying on their own religious beliefs about the right amount, though substantial minorities in several Christian groups (including 42% of White non-evangelical Protestants, 38% of Catholics and 37% of Black Protestants) agree with most Jews and religious “nones” in saying Supreme Court justices have been relying too much on their religious beliefs in making judicial decisions.

More say Supreme Court’s recent decisions have helped than hurt Christians

Chart shows more Americans say recent Supreme Court decisions have hurt rather than helped nonreligious people

By a 42% to 15% margin, far more Americans say recent Supreme Court decisions have helped rather than hurt the interests of Christians, while four-in-ten say recent decisions have not made much difference for the interests of Christians. Non-Christians are far more inclined than Christians to say recent court decisions have aided Christian interests, with 58% of Jewish Americans and 55% of religious “nones” (including roughly three-quarters of atheists and agnostics) expressing this view. The survey also shows that Democrats are more inclined than Republicans to believe recent Supreme Court decisions have been helpful to Christians.

By contrast, roughly three times as many people say recent high court decisions have hurt the interests of people who are not religious (31%) than say recent decisions have helped nonreligious people (11%), with 55% saying recent judicial pronouncements have had little impact on this group. The view that the interests of nonreligious people have been harmed by recent Supreme Court decisions is more common among religious “nones” and Jews than among Christians, and more common among Democrats than Republicans.

The survey also finds that 53% of U.S. adults believe recent Supreme Court decisions have hurt the interests of women. Here again, this view is far more common among Jews and religious “nones” than among Christians, and far more common among Democrats than among Republicans.

More than a third of Americans believe recent judicial decisions have harmed the interests of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Concern on this front is especially high among lesbian, gay and bisexual people themselves, among whom roughly seven-in-ten say the high court’s recent decisions have harmed the interests of people like them.

Most people say recent Supreme Court decisions have had little effect one way or the other on the interests of men.

Chart shows most religious ‘nones’ say recent Supreme Court decisions have hurt women’s interests

3. Views of the U.S. as a ‘Christian nation’ and opinions about ‘Christian nationalism’

Most Americans think the founders of America intended for the U.S. to be a “Christian nation,” more than four-in-ten think the United States should be a Christian nation, and a third say the country is a Christian nation today. However, Americans’ views of what it means to be a Christian nation are wide-ranging and often ambiguous. To some, being a Christian nation implies Christian-based laws and governance. For others it means the subtle guidance of Christian beliefs and values in everyday life, or even simply a population with faith in something bigger.

Many Americans are unfamiliar with the concept of “Christian nationalism,” and among those who have heard of it, more people express an unfavorable view of Christian nationalism than say they have a favorable impression of it. Nevertheless, like the descriptions of Christian nation, Americans’ views of Christian nationalism envision varying levels of Christian influence on the nation, ranging from strict theocratic rule to merely embracing moral values such as helping others.

This chapter explores these and other findings regarding the public’s views of the U.S. as a Christian nation and of its attitudes toward Christian nationalism.

Americans are divided about Christianity’s role in the country, have diverse ideas about what it means to be a ‘Christian nation’

Chart shows more than four-in-ten Americans think the U.S. should be a ‘Christian nation’

The survey asked half of respondents whether they think the founders “originally intended” for the United States to be a Christian nation, whether the country “is now” a Christian nation, and whether it “should be” a Christian nation.4

Most adults (60%) say the founders of the United States originally intended for it to be a Christian nation. A third say the U.S. is currently a Christian nation. And more than four-in-ten Americans (45%) say the country should be a Christian nation.

Compared with non-Christians, Christians are much more likely to say the founders intended for the U.S. to be a Christian nation (69% vs. 44%) and that it should be a Christian nation (62% vs. 16%). However, Christians are less likely than non-Christians to say the U.S. currently is a Christian nation (30% vs. 40%).

Eight-in-ten White evangelical Protestants (81%) say the country’s founders intended it to be a Christian nation, making them the Christian group most heavily inclined toward this view. Black Protestants (57%) and Hispanic Catholics (54%) are the least likely Christians to hold this view, though half or more in both of these groups also say the founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation.

The vast majority of White evangelical Protestants (81%) say the U.S. should be a Christian nation, as do roughly two-thirds of Black Protestants (65%). Only about a third of Hispanic Catholics (36%) share this view.

There also are sizable differences between political parties on the place of Christianity in the United States’ national identity. Two-thirds of Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP (67%) say the U.S. should be a Christian nation – more than double the share of Democrats and Democratic leaners with the same view (29%). Republicans are also far more likely than Democrats to say the founders intended for the country to be a Christian nation (76% vs. 47%), and they are less likely to think the country is presently a Christian nation (29% vs. 39%).

Additionally, perspectives vary substantially on these questions among Americans of different age groups. About three-quarters of Americans ages 65 and older (73%) think the founders intended for the U.S. to be a Christian nation, compared with half of those ages 18 to 29. And roughly six-in-ten Americans ages 65 and older think the U.S. should be a Christian nation, compared with about a quarter of adults under 30. Similar shares across age groups think the country is currently a Christian nation.

Respondents who received these questions were also asked the open-ended question, “In your own words, what does the phrase ‘Christian nation’ mean to you?” Overall, Americans express widely varying ideas of what being a Christian nation means.

A third of Americans (34%) express in some way that being a Christian nation involves the general guidance of Christian beliefs and values in society. Within this category, some say it specifically means people having faith in God (11% of all respondents) or Jesus Christ (7%), while others say a Christian nation is one in which the majority of the population is Christian (7%). These types of descriptions are much more common among those who say the U.S. should be a Christian nation compared with those who think the U.S. should not be a Christian nation (48% vs. 23%).

One respondent with this understanding defines a Christian nation as “people that believe in God and follow his word and beliefs.” Another says, “A nation that loves God and others with no discrimination.” Many respondents also express some version of “in God we trust” or “one nation under God.”

Another 12% of the public describes a Christian nation in terms of being guided by beliefs and values, but without specifically referencing God or Christian concepts. They describe a Christian nation as one where, for example, “Overall, the nation as a whole has a basic faith and believes all people, regardless of race or creed, be treated equally. A solid belief in our humanity and willingness to act upon it.” Others reference “tolerance, morals and ethics,” “caring and loving,” “a nation of faith,” and “love all. No matter of differences.” One-in-five Americans who think the U.S. should be a Christian nation (21%) express this understanding, compared with only 4% of those who do not think the U.S. should be a Christian nation.

About one-in-five Americans (18%) describe a Christian nation as having Christian-based laws and governance. Those who think the U.S. should not be a Christian nation are far more likely than those who think the U.S. should be a Christian nation to express this view (30% vs. 6%).

Often, these descriptions are negative. One respondent describes a Christian nation as “being controlled by only people of the Christian faith.” Others say, “To me it means theocracy,” or that a Christian nation means “imposing incredibly selective and often untrue to their own faith ‘rules’ on everyone else, out of a perverse need to control others and feel better about themselves.” One respondent describes a Christian nation as “one whose laws are in line with the Christian faith at the exclusion of other values or opinions.”

In addition to negative views about theocracy, another 11% use other specific negative terms to describe the concept of a Christian nation, including 5% who mention things like bigotry, persecution or White supremacy, and 3% who mention authoritarianism or similar ideas. Virtually all respondents in this category say the U.S. should not be a Christian nation.

At the same time, however, many Americans express positive views of a Christian nation with Christian-based governance. For example, one respondent said, “A nation that honors God and Jesus Christ, and doesn’t make laws that fly in the face of what God has said, and certainly doesn’t persecute Christians for following what they believe the Bible tells them about issues such as homosexuality and abortion being sinful.”

A notable theme throughout respondents’ descriptions of a Christian nation is their ambiguity. It is often unclear exactly how much institutional influence and control people attribute to Christianity in their responses. For example, respondents describe a Christian nation as “a nation that upholds the teachings of God through Jesus Christ,” “a nation that follows biblical values,” and one that “follows the principles of Christianity upon which it was founded.” Responses like these do not clearly spell out whether Christianity would hold an official and privileged place, or rather serve as a more general source of moral guidance. Only responses that specifically mention laws, policies, governance or other national leadership are coded in the “Christian-based laws/governance” category.

Some respondents convey awareness that “Christian nation” can take on a variety of meanings. According to one, “It should mean they follow the teachings of Christ. However, now it can mean extremist, money-loaded, White nationalists pushing their agenda.” Another claims, “It should mean that the nation is guided by the teachings of Christ, but most Christian politicians wish to exploit religion in a manner Christ would not approve.” Several respondents suggest that its meaning recently changed: “I used to think it was a positive view, but now with the MAGA crowd, I view it as racist, homophobic, anti-woman.”

Similarly, some respondents see the idea of a Christian nation as a political tool. As one respondent says, “To me it means pandering to a subset of our population to get money and votes.” Other descriptions in this category include “ruled by religious propaganda,” “pretending to be Christian, but yet not being Christian, in order to gain politically,” “being used for political purposes,” and “a bunch of hypocrites who use God as a shield to do/say whacky, zany things and everyone’s supposed to brush it off.”

Another 1% of Americans associate the idea of a Christian nation with the notion that America was founded on Christian principles, and that Christian morals and values are a part of its heritage and culture.

Apart from these descriptions, 1% of Americans associate the idea of a Christian nation with conservative groups, such as Republicans, evangelicals and the right wing.

Chart shows Americans with different views on whether the U.S. should be a ‘Christian nation’ generally have different ideas of what the term means

More have negative than positive view of ‘Christian nationalism,’ and many are unfamiliar with the term

Chart shows upward of half of Americans are unfamiliar with ‘Christian nationalism’

The half of survey respondents who were not asked the questions about America as a “Christian nation” were instead asked about their familiarity with the term “Christian nationalism.”

Overall, 45% of Americans say they have heard at least a little about Christian nationalism, including 5% who have heard or read a great deal about it, 9% who have heard quite a bit, 17% who have heard some and 14% who have heard a little.

Non-Christians are more likely than Christians to be familiar with the term (55% vs. 40%), with atheists (78%) and agnostics (63%) being the most familiar.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to have heard or read about Christian nationalism (55% vs. 37%), and younger adults are more likely than older Americans to have familiarity with the term.

U.S. adults who say they have at least a little familiarity with Christian nationalism are more likely to have an unfavorable than favorable view of it. A quarter of U.S. adults (24%) have an unfavorable view of Christian nationalism, while only 5% say they have a favorable view of the concept. An additional 8% say they have neither a favorable nor unfavorable view of Christian nationalism, and a similar share (9%) say they have heard at least a little about it but do not know enough to have an opinion or decline to answer.

Chart shows roughly a quarter of all Americans have an unfavorable view of ‘Christian nationalism’

In every religious group analyzed in the survey, 10% or fewer say they have a favorable view of Christian nationalism. Atheists (74%) and agnostics (56%) are especially likely to have an unfavorable view of it.

Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to have an unfavorable view toward Christian nationalism (39% vs. 9%). And younger Americans are more likely than older Americans to view Christian nationalism unfavorably.

The reasons for Americans’ opinions toward Christian nationalism become clearer in light of their understandings of Christian nationalism. Respondents who said they had heard or read at least a little about Christian nationalism were asked the open-ended question, “In your own words, what does the phrase ‘Christian nationalism’ mean to you?” In general, those with differing feelings toward Christian nationalism express different ideas about what the concept means.

Overall, 13% of U.S. adults offer explanations of Christian nationalism that involve Christianity playing a dominant and institutionalized role in society – for example, basing American governance and laws on Christian beliefs and principles, or establishing a theocracy. Respondents in this category describe Christian nationalism as wanting America to be an “officially Christian nation” made of Christian people, “imposing Christian beliefs on American citizens,” giving Christianity a “privileged” place over other identities, or “excluding” or “persecuting” non-Christians.

These views are most prevalent among Americans with unfavorable opinions toward Christian nationalism, with 42% in this group describing Christian nationalism in this way. One respondent defines Christian nationalism as “elevating one religion above another. It is making this a theocracy and not giving people freedom to practice their religion or giving them freedom from religion. It is dangerously wrapping one religion and love for America together. It is weaponizing the flag.” Another describes the concept as “a group of people who not only want to impose their religious views on you through policies and laws, but also feel if they don’t get their way they are somehow being discriminated against. And they view their religious views as patriotic, which is asinine.” One of the more detailed responses, which captures the sentiments of several respondents with unfavorable views, claims:

“Christian nationalism is the belief that a nation should become a theocracy whose leaders all practice publicly the tenets of a single, lobotomized interpretation of Christianity – a creed wielded by its government as a means of social control and manipulation. Religion and nation fuse in the minds of its leaders, transcend all other concerns, then crush all opposition, foreign and domestic. Faith, fear and rage reign as one.”

As conveyed in the above quote, 2% of all Americans say that Christian nationalism is essentially a tool strategically used by leaders to help appeal to American citizens or to help certain Americans justify their political views. In their telling, it involves using familiar beliefs, concepts and phrases from Christianity as a cover-up for what are really sociopolitical attitudes. One respondent explains that Christian nationalism is “a political movement that uses Christian values as camouflage” and another calls it “totally wrapping up political behavior in religious clothes.” Another 2% of Americans describe Christian nationalism as the blending or mixing up of faith and politics so that they are indistinguishable.

Some U.S. adults – again, particularly those with unfavorable views of Christian nationalism – also describe Christian nationalism using other negative attributes. These include: “radical” or “extremist,” “hypocritical,” “cult”-like or “fanatical,” “fascist” or “authoritarian,” “misogynistic,” “hateful” or “angry,” “ignorant,” “anti-democratic,” and “[falsely] believing they are under attack.” This group makes up 30% of those with unfavorable attitudes toward Christian nationalism.

This also includes 3% of all Americans (13% of those with negative attitudes toward Christian nationalism) who describe Christian nationalism as White supremacist and racist. One respondent says Christian nationalism means “White dudes who are scared to lose power to women and minorities hiding behind a Bible they don’t even believe in to retain power.”

A similar share of U.S. adults (3%) describe Christian nationalism as the positive influence of faith and morals in society, with roots in Christianity. This view is especially common among those with a positive impression of Christian nationalism (27%). People in this category tend to view the Christian faith as a general “guide” for society, and say Christian nationalism connotes values, such as “family,” “unity” and “fellowship and goodwill to all.” One respondent describes Christian nationalism as “patriotic Christians who believe in God, family and country, morality and kindness.” Another respondent describes it as “a national consciousness centered on biblical precepts.”

A small share of the public (2%) – including 9% of those with favorable views of Christian nationalism – describe Christian nationalism with reference to the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation and has always had a distinct Christian heritage. For some, this includes America being favored by God. One of the more detailed responses states:

“It is the belief that the American nation is, and has always been, defined by and identified with Christianity, and the government should take an active role to hold on to that truth. Instead, our elected leaders – at all levels – have bowed to cultural, societal change, removing Christian principles from our daily life. How’s that working out? Gun violence is rampant, total disregard for traditional families, by which the trickle-down effect is gender confusion, rampant mental illness and fatherless homes where babies are taught to have more babies. Kick God out of school and look what you get. The ills of this nation today lie almost entirely at the doorstep of the liberal Democratic Party.”

Finally, a small number of respondents (fewer than 1%) claim that Christian nationalism is a concept made up by liberals and/or the media to insult Christians. One respondent says that Christian nationalism is “some gobbledygook made up by progressives trying to create a boogeyman that they hope most people will fear.” Another calls it a “derogatory term used by the left to push their White supremacy conspiracy theories.” And a respondent who views Christian nationalism favorably says that “Christian nationalism these days is a political term used to vilify anything with a slight Christian lean by those who oppose Christianity in general when America itself was founded on the ‘word of God.’”

One respondent conveys how Christian nationalism is used as a tool by American citizens and leaders on both the political left and right:

“It seems to be an inappropriate mixing of faith and governance in the imagination of those who cannot stand our previous president. The evangelical right has gotten too enamored with political influence, which the political right is happy to exploit. The progressive left uses the term as a pejorative to denigrate the Trump wing implying that only religious leftists are suitable for involvement in national politics. It seems mostly a lie used for political advantage. Which is sort of how politics works.”

Respondents also associate Christian nationalism with particular groups and public figures. Those mentioned include: conservatives and the right wing, evangelicals, fundamentalist Christians, Republicans, former President Donald Trump and the “MAGA cult,” and Southerners. A handful of respondents also suggest that Christian nationalism is a newly emerging party or group of its own.

As with Americans’ views of “Christian nation,” ambiguity is a recurrent theme throughout respondents’ descriptions of Christian nationalism. Their views fall along a spectrum, from strict theocratic rule on one end to a loose embrace of morals, such as helping others, on the other end. It is often unclear exactly how much control and influence Christianity has in their descriptions. For example, respondents describe Christian nationalism as “living under the beliefs of Christian values,” “religion having a major impact on the political process,” and “the promotion of Christian ideals within the political sphere.”

Though Americans with unfavorable views of Christian nationalism often describe it in a dominant way and those with favorable views often describe it as a positive influence, sometimes their views transcend these categories. For example, a considerable portion of those with favorable views of Christian nationalism describe it as a form of Christian dominance in society (11%).

In addition to the 55% of Americans who are unfamiliar with the concept of Christian nationalism (or declined to say whether they have heard of it), 18% say they have heard at least a little about it but also say they do not know how to describe Christian nationalism, and an additional 2% give answers too ambiguous to understand.

Chart shows most common descriptions of ‘Christian nationalism’ involve Christianity playing a dominant and institutionalized role in society

Acknowledgments

This report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals. Find related reports online at pewresearch.org/religion.

Research Team

Gregory A. Smith, Associate Director, Religion Research   
Michael Rotolo, Research Associate
Patricia Tevington, Research Associate       
Alan Cooperman, Director, Religion Research
Becka A. Alper, Senior Researcher               
Besheer Mohamed, Senior Researcher
Justin Nortey, Research Analyst
Joshua Alvarado, Research Assistant

Methods Team

Courtney Kennedy, Vice President, Methods and Innovation
Andrew Mercer, Senior Research Methodologist
Scott Keeter, Senior Survey Advisor
Ashley Amaya, Senior Survey Research Methodologist
Dorene Asare-Marfo, Panel Manager
Dana Mildred Popky, Associate Panel Manager
Arnold Lau, Research Methodologist                       

Editorial and Graphic Design

Michael Lipka, Editorial Manager
David Kent, Senior Copy Editor                               
Rebecca Leppert, Editorial Assistant                      
Bill Webster, Senior Information Graphics Designer

Communications and Web Publishing

Stacy Rosenberg, Associate Director, Digital
Reem Nadeem, Associate Digital Producer
Anna Schiller, Senior Communications Manager
Achsah Callahan, Communications Manager

Methodology

Overview

The American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. Panelists who do not have internet access at home are provided with a tablet and wireless internet connection. Interviews are conducted in both English and Spanish. The panel is being managed by Ipsos.

Data in this report is drawn from the panel wave conducted from Sept. 13 to Sept. 18, 2022. A total of 10,588 panelists responded out of 11,687 who were sampled, for a response rate of 91%. The cumulative response rate accounting for nonresponse to the recruitment surveys and attrition is 3%. The break-off rate among panelists who logged on to the survey and completed at least one item is 1%. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 10,588 respondents is plus or minus 1.5 percentage points.

Panel recruitment

Table shows American Trends Panel recruitment surveys

The ATP was created in 2014, with the first cohort of panelists invited to join the panel at the end of a large, national, landline and cellphone random-digit-dial survey that was conducted in both English and Spanish. Two additional recruitments were conducted using the same method in 2015 and 2017, respectively. Across these three surveys, a total of 19,718 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 9,942 (50%) agreed to participate.

In August 2018, the ATP switched from telephone to address-based recruitment. Invitations were sent to a stratified, random sample of households selected from the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. Sampled households receive mailings asking a randomly selected adult to complete a survey online. A question at the end of the survey asks if the respondent is willing to join the ATP. In 2020 and 2021 another stage was added to the recruitment. Households that did not respond to the online survey were sent a paper version of the questionnaire, $5 and a postage-paid return envelope. A subset of the adults who returned the paper version of the survey were invited to join the ATP. This subset of adults received a follow-up mailing with a $10 pre-incentive and invitation to join the ATP.

Across the five address-based recruitments, a total of 22,546 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 19,796 agreed to join the panel and completed an initial profile survey. In each household, one adult was selected and asked to go online to complete a survey, at the end of which they were invited to join the panel. Of the 29,738 individuals who have ever joined the ATP, 12,142 remained active panelists and continued to receive survey invitations at the time this survey was conducted.

The U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File has been estimated to cover as much as 98% of the population, although some studies suggest that the coverage could be in the low 90% range.5 The American Trends Panel never uses breakout routers or chains that direct respondents to additional surveys.

Sample design

The overall target population for this survey was non-institutionalized persons ages 18 and older, living in the U.S., including Alaska and Hawaii. It featured a stratified random sample from the ATP in which panelists were sampled at rates designed to ensure that the share of respondents in each stratum is proportional to its share of the U.S. adult population to the greatest extent possible. Respondent weights are adjusted to account for differential probabilities of selection as described in the Weighting section below.

Questionnaire development and testing

The questionnaire was developed by Pew Research Center in consultation with Ipsos. The web program was rigorously tested on both PC and mobile devices by the Ipsos project management team and Pew Research Center researchers. The Ipsos project management team also populated test data that was analyzed in SPSS to ensure the logic and randomizations were working as intended before launching the survey.

Incentives

All respondents were offered a post-paid incentive for their participation. Respondents could choose to receive the post-paid incentive in the form of a check or a gift code to Amazon.com or could choose to decline the incentive. Incentive amounts ranged from $5 to $20 depending on whether the respondent belongs to a part of the population that is harder or easier to reach. Differential incentive amounts were designed to increase panel survey participation among groups that traditionally have low survey response propensities.

Data collection protocol

The data collection field period for this survey was Sept. 13 to Sept. 18, 2022. Postcard notifications were mailed to all ATP panelists with a known residential address on Sept. 12.

Invitations were sent out in two separate launches: Soft Launch and Full Launch. Sixty panelists were included in the soft launch, which began with an initial invitation sent on Sept. 13. The ATP panelists chosen for the initial soft launch were known responders who had completed previous ATP surveys within one day of receiving their invitation. All remaining English- and Spanish-speaking panelists were included in the full launch and were also sent an invitation on Sept. 13.

All panelists with an email address received an email invitation and up to two email reminders if they did not respond to the survey. All ATP panelists that consented to SMS messages received an SMS invitation and up to two SMS reminders.

Table shows invitation and reminder dates

Data quality checks

To ensure high-quality data, the Center’s researchers performed data quality checks to identify any respondents showing clear patterns of satisficing. This includes checking for very high rates of leaving questions blank, as well as always selecting the first or last answer presented. As a result of this checking, five ATP respondents were removed from the survey dataset prior to weighting and analysis.

Weighting

Table shows weighting dimensions

The ATP data is weighted in a multistep process that accounts for multiple stages of sampling and nonresponse that occur at different points in the survey process. First, each panelist begins with a base weight that reflects their probability of selection for their initial recruitment survey. These weights are then rescaled and adjusted to account for changes in the design of ATP recruitment surveys from year to year.  Finally, the weights are calibrated to align with the population benchmarks in the accompanying table to correct for nonresponse to recruitment surveys and panel attrition. If only a subsample of panelists was invited to participate in the wave, this weight is adjusted to account for any differential probabilities of selection.

Among the panelists who completed the survey, this weight is then calibrated again to align with the population benchmarks identified in the accompanying table and trimmed at the 1st and 99th percentiles to reduce the loss in precision stemming from variance in the weights. Sampling errors and tests of statistical significance take into account the effect of weighting.

The following tables show the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey.

Table shows unweighted sample sizes
Table shows unweighted sample sizes
Table shows unweighted sample sizes
Table shows unweighted sample sizes

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request. In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

Dispositions and response rates

Table shows dispositions
Table shows response rates

© Pew Research Center, 2022

About the Author:

I am a simple God-fearing, Bible-believing man. A sinner who by the free gift of grace from God, and the Sacrifice made by the Lord Jesus Christ for my sin has been transformed, born anew, to serve the Lord my God as best I humbly can with my limited gifts. I've been directed to do this work. Even though at times I've fought and resisted doing it. I don't deserve anything but condemnation were it not for the mercy, forgiveness, grace, and love of God the Father, Jesus Lord of my life, and the work of the Holy Spirit.

Leave a Reply, please --- thank you.

Go to Top