Silberman2

532 PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION AND APPLIED AREAS

nonreligious collecrive worldviews of interacdng religious groups (Beck, 1999; Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003; Kelman, 1990, 1997, 1999; Staub, 1989). These collective meaning systems compose the “shared reality” of each grotip (Hardin &c Higgins, 1996) and can define the groups very essence (Bar-Tal, 1990, 2000). Morę specifically, these collective meaning Systems allow groups and group members to inrerpret their shared experiences, including their historical and recent relations, with other groups. They can determine much of the goals, decision-making processes, and behaviors of groups on both national and international levels (Durkheim, 1933; Kearney, 1984; Moscovici, 1988; Thompson & Fine, 1999; Triandis, 1996; see Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003 and Silberman et al., 2005 for revie\vs).

In a parallel way to individual meaning systems, collective meaning systems can deveiop in both conscious and subconscious ways from culturally determined common experiences and through a variety of socialization processes (Bar-Tal, 1990, 2000; Ross, 1995, 1997; Volkan, 1997). However, like individual meaning systems, and per-haps even morę than them, once they are constructed collective meaning systems are usuaily held with great conviction, as they tend to be viewed by a given group as basie unquestionable truths (Bar-Tal, 1990, 2000; Lustick, 1993; see Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003, for a rcview).

RELIGION AND NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS;

AGENTS AND YENUES OF INFLUENCE

The above discussion of individual and collective meaning systems implies that religion as a meaning system mny influence national and international relations through several ven-tics and agents. One way in which religion can influence national and international relations involves influencing the worldviews that compose the meaning systems of political or religious leaders and of other policymakers, as well as their actions. For example, religion can encourage leaders to endorse either positive or negative perceptions of outgroups, and ir can affect leaders’ tendencies to approach other groups on both national and Internationa! levels in either peaceful or in violent ways (Silberman et al., 2005). In this contey.t the religious views of Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini could impact their hosrile atritudes toward the West (Bergen, 2002), while the religious views of Mohandas Gandhi have madę him, in the eyes of many, the catalyst if not the initiator of three of the major revolutions of the 20th century: againat colonialism, against racism, and against violencc. Beyond decisions to wagę or end wars, the religious views of leaders mny resonate in their atritudes toward other life-and-death issues such as abortion, Capital punishment, euthanasia, and stem-cel! research, as well as in issues re-garding education, contraception, and same-sex marriages (e.g., Silberman, 2005a; Woodward, 2004).

In an interesting demonstration of this idea, religion seemed to echo in the following words of Presidenr George W. Bush and his rival, Senator John Kerry, as they were dis-' cussing their domesdc 3nd foreign policies during the finał U.S. presidential debate on October 13, 2004:

I believe we ought to iove our neighbors like we love ourself, as manifested in public policy through the faith-based initiative where we’ve unieashed the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt. I believe that God wants everybody to be free.... And that’s been part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom tliere is a gift from the Almtghty. (Part of President George W. Bush’s answer to the ąuestion “Whar part does your fairh play in your policy decisions?”) (Bush, Kerry Debate Domestic Policies, 2004a)

And 1 think that everyrhing yoii do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affecred by your faith, butwithout transferring it in any official way to other people.That's %vhy I fight against poverry. That’s why I fight to clean up rhe envtronment and protect this earth. That’s why I fight for eąualiry and justice. Ali of those things come out of that fundamenta! teach-ingand bclief of faith. (Senator John Kerry) (Bush, Kern- Debate Domestic Policies, 2004b)

A secotid way in which religion as a source of meaning can influence national and international relations is by influencing the political and cultural milieus in which policymakers act (Fox, 2000). For example, States with Islamie populations have been found to be disproportionally autocratic (e.g., Fox, 2000, 2001; Midlarsky, 1998).

A third way involves the support of or the opposition to political leaders by religious institutions. It has been suggested that in modem times political movements tied to con-servatism, tradition, family, nationalism, and militarism tend to be supported by conser-vative religious institutions (Beit-Hallahmi & Argyle, 1997). Another approach to the relations between religion and polirics suggesrs that religions may differ in terms of their interactions with the dominant political parties. According to this approach (Lincoln, 1985), religions can be of the status quo (i.e., religions that support the dominant party and the sociopolirica! status quo), of resistance {i.e., religions that define themselves in opposition to the religion of the status quo, defending themselves against the ideological dominarion of the latter), or of revolution (i.e., religions that define themseives in opposition to the dominant party itself, not irs religious arm alone, promoting direct action against the dominant party’s materiał control of sociery). Social, political, economic, and historical conrext variables that define circumstances under which religious groups tend to support the starus quo or challenge it have been identified (see Silberman et al., 2005, for a review). In their efforts to support or oppose political leaders, religious institutions have often expressed positive or negative criticism ofpolitical leaders. For example, Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic U.S. presidential candidate, was strongly criticized by some Catholic bishops who advocated taking a hard linę with Catholic poliricians-and—even voters—who stray from cliurch teachings on issues such as abortion (Tumuly, 2004). In this context religious institutions havc also provided organizational resources for political mobilization (Marty & Appleby, 1991; see Fox, 1999 and Silberman et al., 2005 for reviews). For example, during the 2004 presidential elections in the United States, religions groups from across the ideological spectrum intensified their lcvel of political activity, getting involved in the disrribution of campaign materials and in register-ing numerous vorers (“Religious Groups Mobilize Yoters,” 2004) to an extent that was criticized at times as vio!ating the U.S. constirurional separation between church and State (Kirkpatrick, 2004).

Fourrh, religious (or nonreligious) meaning systems that individuals endorse can im-pact the generał vievvs of these individuals in terms of the desired role of religion in guid-ing the policy making of political leaders. According to a recent Time magazine poll (re-parted by Gibbs, 2004), 56% of U.S. voters agreed with the statement “We are a religious nation, and religious values should serve as a guide to whar our political leaders do in office.” Beyond that, the religious views of voters may influence the way in which they eva!uate the religiosity of a specific political leader. For exampłe, surveys reported that 85% of Bush voters said that President Bush’s religious faith makes him a strong