Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This research examines white evangelical Christian women's social/religious identity and how this distinctiveness influences their political standpoints, voting behaviors, and opinions of perceived out-groups, including news outlets. While appreciating that numerous theoretical aspects are at play in this multifarious subject matter, an analysis of social/religious identity can provide focal insight and understanding when deliberating Christianity, politics, gender, and the media in reference to the nature of evangelical Christian women's support of Donald J. Trump as the United States President as well as their cynicism of most news outlets. This qualitative study employed focus groups and semi-structured in-depth interviews with evangelical Christian women and examined their responses through the lens of critical discourse analysis and social identity. The participants in this study consider their religious identity a vital aspect of their character; it motivates their viewpoints in numerous aspects of their lives, including individual motivations, group stimuli and political impulses. Consequently, how they construct their religious identity, and how and why they react uncompromisingly to out-group threats is a focal element for this exploration.

Keywords

women evangelical media politics Donald J. Trump

Introduction

Cultural shocks in the United States during the mid-twentieth century (e.g., civil rights movement, sexual revolution, abortion rights, and end of prayer in public schools) weakened domestic and public spheres, producing “moral cultural anxieties” for evangelical Christians (Fitzgerald, 2017; Hoover, 2017: Winston, 2007). As a result, there was a fervent coordinated push by conservatives to reestablish evangelicalism as the principal influencer in American politics (Posner, 2021; Steensland & Wright, 2014). The correlations between Christianity, politics and the media are multifaceted and frequently perplexing for those who do not share evangelical Christians’ social or religious identity. In this examination, it is imperative to keep in mind that when most people accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and are dedicated to the Christian faith, their religious identity often becomes one of the (or most) important aspects of their lives (Witte & Alexander, 2006). While religiosity indicates one's affiliation to formal religious institutions and the significance of religion in one's life, “religious identity helps define the boundaries of belonging and, in turn, opportunities to pursue or deny full democratic inclusion” (Brown-Dean, 2019, p. 60).

Most evangelical Christians’ meaning in life comes from their religious beliefs and eternal community membership (Stark & Finke, 2000). The objective of high religious identifiers in mortal life is to live a purposeful life in relationship with God, so they may spend eternity in heaven communing with their Savior and loved ones (Storr, 1918). Transcendence in Christianity portends that, “God is separate from and independent of nature and humanity. God is not simply attached to, or involved in, his creation. He is also superior to it in several significant ways” (Erickson, 1985, p. 312). Christians are also biblically instructed to wage war on sin, even if it means being mistreated and cast out of favor (Noble, 2014). Righteous anger against sin is justified and warranted. In fact, “God's wrath is reserved for those who are in rebellion against him” (Jarrett, 2020). Furthermore, there is a generally accepted notion in evangelical churches, that God is on the side of the Christians of white European decent (Jones, 2020).

Throughout the Bible, there are parables and narratives of God utilizing imperfect men: Abraham doubted God, Samson was arrogant and hard-headed, King David was an adulterer, Moses was a murderer, and Jesus's disciple Peter disowned him three times (Mabilog, 2016). In the Hebrew Bible is the story of Cyrus the Great, King of Persia. King Cyrus was not a Jew or a man after God's own heart like David but was still considered a “patron and deliverer of the Jews” (Briant, 2002, p. 46). Therefore, it is written in Christian texts that even irreligious men have served God's purpose. When studying biblical representations of women, most model patriarchal authority (Barr, 2021; Reid, 2013). However, postcolonial feminist work has focused on flawed females portrayed in the Bible, who were utilized by God despite their faults. One of these is Rahab, a Canaanite prostitute who became a biblical heroine after protecting Israelite spies, allowing Israel to take the city of Jericho (Scholz, 2017). Biblical directives call on Christians to forgive the sins of others (Kekes, 2009).

Yet, the tension between genders and the long-established gender roles increased during the mid-nineteenth century as the suffrage movement developed into a powerful crusade (Schreiber, 2008). The suffragists were not only opposed by men but were also in conflict with some groups of women. Conservative women were similarly forming organizations to counteract the “radical” feminists who “threatened their preferred general order and social relations” (Schrieber, p. 18). The tension between “progressive” and “conservative” women endured and flared up again a century later. Biblically directed gender roles and the patriarchal character of evangelical Christianity, are important features of the participants’ in-group identity and their out-group disdain for “liberals”.

Hyper-partisan, or insult politics, leads to an “us versus them”, or in-group and out-group mentality, resulting in irrational group favoritism (Oc et al., 2018). Negative emotions associated with an out-group can be just as, or more important than positive in-group emotions for social identification constructed on moral principles, which tend to evoke deeper convictions (Parker & Janoff-Bulman, 2013). “Research suggests that out-group ‘hate’ plays a central role in moral social identities” (Parker & Janoff-Bulman 2013, p. 93).

This research project examines white evangelical Christian women's religious identity and how this distinctiveness influences their political standpoints, voting behaviors, and opinions of perceived out-groups, including news outlets. While appreciating that numerous theoretical aspects are at play in this complex subject matter, an analysis of social/religious identity can provide focal insight and understanding when deliberating Christianity, politics, gender, and the media in reference to the nature of evangelical Christian women's support of Donald J. Trump as the United States President. Evangelical Christian women's support of Donald Trump has been particularly scrutinized, because of his history of misogyny, philandering, and chauvinism (Gerson, 2018; Hinkley, 2016). By employing Social/Religious Identity Theory, through the lens of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this inquiry ponders how in-group and out-group mentality factors into motivations behind the participants’ behaviors and opinions in relation to politics and mainstream media news outlets.

Literature Review

Evangelicalism originated in the early sixteenth century within European churches during the Protestant Reformation, extending into colonial America (Kidd, 2008). Many colonies were settled by men and women who faced religious persecution in Europe and desired religious freedom (Fitzgerald, 2017). Yet, even back in colonial America, “religious freedom” was often synonymous with “Christian freedom” (Brown-Dean, 2019). “Religious identity, even in the context of variation across the colonies and later states, was often used as an indicator for determining which groups were worthy of the full-benefits and protection of citizenship” (Brown-Dean, p. 163). Evangelical Christianity played an ever more societal role in American life, shaping culture and religion, during the Great Awakenings of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, thus retaining “great significance in American history as one of the most powerful religious movements the country had known” (Kidd, 2008, pp. 24–25).

Contemporary evangelicalism ascended in the mid-20^th century when a group of fundamentalists leaders, directed by a perception of being embattled by an immoral culture, “worked to bring a new respectability to their ‘old-time religion’” (Du Mez, 2021, p. 21). By the late 1970s, the core of the new Christian Right, a conservative political movement, was established. In 1979, Baptist pastor Jerry Falwell mobilized evangelical Christians for a battle against secular humanism and the moral decay of the country, launching the Moral Majority. Falwell's militancy assured his followers protection against “malevolent forces,” continually fabricating new enemies in order to “maintain a sense of vulnerability among his followers” (Du Mez, 2021, p. 100). One year earlier, Republican Newt Gingrich was elected to Congress, casting himself as a savior in a fight of good versus evil (Zelizer, 2020). Gingrich commenced an era of “brutal partisan warfare” (Zelizer, p. 2) against Democrats and liberals, constructing a new normal of destructive, combative politics in Washington (Zelizer, 2020). Evangelicals have long located themselves in a battle against “the secular”, and the response to fearful times required militant patriarchal masculinity to protect their shared religious identity (Du Mez, 2021). The 2008 election of Barrack Obama only intensified the panic of most evangelicals, as they feared the culture war was being lost (Du Mez). As soon as Donald Trump announced his presidential candidacy in 2015, he “repeatedly cast himself as the last chance for Republicans and conservative white Christians to step back from the cliff, to preserve their power and way of life” (Jones, 2017, p. 1).

Religion and the Media

Conservative media critics have long objected to a “liberal bias” by a majority of mainstream media (Underwood, 2002). Research conducted by Lichter et al. (1987) “surveyed 238 journalists in top media positions and found that 86 percent of them seldom or never attended religious services and half said they had no religious affiliations” (Lichter, Lichter and Rothman, p. 131). The study was later assessed as giving a “false impression about the media” for its narrow scope (Dart & Allen, 1993). Yet, the perception of a largely biased, liberal media remained for many of the evangelical Christians in this study. Recent studies and articles continue to document a profound skepticism of most news outlets by evangelicals (Jackson, 2021; Neely, 2018; Tripodi, 2017). Tripodi's research found that several conservative pundits’ websites, with large followings, such as Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager, consistently discredit mainstream media, referring to all mainstream media as “fake because coverage is based on feelings instead of fact-based evidence” (p. 40). Public Religion Research Institute's (PRRI) major reports throughout 2021 showed a “substantial shift” to far-right news outlets, when survey participants were asked which media outlet they trust most (Jackson, 2021).

Religionists aren’t the only ones suspicious of the media. Gallup's (2021) most recent poll showed that Americans’ trust in mass media is second lowest on record. Gallup has measured the public's trust in the media on a yearly basis since 1972. Their last poll found only 36 percent of Americans saying they have “a great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in mass media, four percent higher than the lowest level of 32 percent back in 2016. However, there is a 57-points gap between Republicans’ and Democrats’ trust in the media; Republicans’ trust is at just 11 percent, while Democrats’ is at 68 percent (Gallup, 2021). Research has also shown in the recent past that evangelical Protestants vote more Republican than mainline Protestants (Campbell, 2007; Green, 2007; Layman, 2001) and “those who attend an evangelical church are more likely to vote Republican” (Lockerbie, 2013, p. 1156). Yet, election exit polls in 2020 revealed that 76 percent of white evangelicals voted for Republican candidate, Donald Trump, down from 81 percent in 2016 (Gallup, 2020).

Social & Religious Identity Theory

Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) has been significant in presenting understanding into the “relation between the self-concept and the social groups to which one belongs” (p. 40). Identity can be examined at three levels: personal [how we perceive ourselves], social [individual perception within a group], and collective [group identity] (Owens, 2000). A person's identity, from race to religion to socioeconomic level, shapes the way they respond to a range of situations (Ysseldyk et al., 2010). Furthermore, identity-making is an ongoing and adaptive “process of identification” (Susin, 2000, p. 79). Identities are not merely self-imposed or hereditary, but also evolve because of socialization. “Identities are derived not only from a person's self-conceptions but are also derived from the perceptions and declarations of others that have been imposed on that individual” (McGill, 2016, pp. 16–17). Identity encompasses sameness with others [who I am] and disparity [who I am not] (McGill). This identification is central to the forming of an “us versus them” mindset.

Religiosity submits “a system of guiding beliefs through which to interpret one's experiences and give them meaning” (Park, 2007, p. 321). Religious identity is unique in its “eternal membership” and “sacred” worldview (Ysseldyk et al., p. 60). The depth of this form of identity speaks to the core of the believer's soul and stretches beyond their lives on earth into immortality. If Christians’ identity comes from belonging to God and all humans are created in God's image, it would appear that Christians should no longer see the “other” as the enemy, but rather “feel a responsibility to protect the other as a fellow creature of God” (McGill, 2016, p. 116). Yet, scholars of political tolerance repeatedly reveal that religiosity is associated with political intolerance (Gibson, 2010; McClosky & Brill, 1983; Nunn et al., 1978; Sullivan et al., 1982). Kinnvall (2004) argues that “nationalism and religion supply particularly powerful stories and beliefs (discourses) through their ability to convey a picture of security, of a ‘home’ safe from intruders” (p. 763). Subsequently, when right-wing pundits and conservative news outlets exploit the fears of evangelical Christians by relentlessly warning of the precipitous decline of moral values and absolute demise of Christian America, it may well be the catalyst that undermines the “love thy neighbor” biblical adage, exalting self-preservation, and nationalistic exclusivity.

The research questions this qualitative study aspires to answer are:

RQ1: How does their own social/religious identity affect how white evangelical Christian women characterize Democrats and liberals?

RQ2: How does white evangelical Christian women's social/religious identity affect their voting behaviors and support of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States?

RQ3: How does white evangelical Christian women's perception of news outlets play a role in how they assess and support Trump?

Methodology

Qualitative methods were utilized for this study by way of focus groups and semi-structured in-depth interviews with women who identified as both white evangelical Christian women and Donald Trump supporters. IRB protocol # 17-0388/18-0651 was obtained through the University of Colorado. A total of 27 (N = 27) women participated in three different focus groups, which were conducted in private homes in Arizona, Colorado and Idaho. Their ages ranged between late 20s and late 70s. Each group had between five and 12 women. Twenty (N = 20) women took part in semi-structured interviews. The interview participants lived in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Texas, and Utah. The interviewees’ ages were between early 30s and early 80s. Each participant was given a pseudonym in the data to protect their identities (See Tables 1–4 for age and location details for each participant).

Table 1.

Idaho Focus Group (6).

Date	Pseudonym	Age
7/27/17	Roxanne	30
7/27/17	Jenny	56
7/27/17	Renee	80
7/27/17	Stella	27
7/27/17	Barb	57
7/27/17	Lorraine	58
Total	6

Table 2.

CO Focus Group (9).

Date	Pseudonym	Age
10/23/17	Beth	64
10/23/17	Nina	54
10/23/17	Lucy	66
10/23/17	Tiffany	58
10/23/17	Samantha	55
10/23/17	Ariel	48
10/23/17	Katrina	73
10/23/17	Marsha	72
10/23/17	Kristi	44
Total	9

Table 3.

AZ Focus Group (12).

Date	Pseudonym	Age
2/28/18	Erin	64
2/28/18	Patty	67
2/28/18	Hillary	58
2/28/18	Zoe	29
2/28/18	Ruby	58
2/28/18	Rosemary	31
2/28/18	Sabrina	66
2/28/18	Karen	67
2/28/18	Pearl	78
2/28/18	Donna	65
2/28/18	Helen	70
2/28/18	Darlene	62
Total	12

Table 4.

Interview Participants (20).

Date	Pseudonym	Age	State	Type
11/9/18	Janna	54	CO	In-person
11/9/18	Sandy	74	UT	Skype
11/16/18	Jennifer	50	CO	In-person
11/20/18	Sherry	53	ID	Zoom
11/28/18	Kerry	78	CA	Phone
11/29/18	Jessica	52	CA	Phone
12/7/18	Suzanna	56	CA	Phone
12/8/18	Margaret	52	CA	Phone
12/12/18	Kelsey	51	ID	In-person
12/15/18	Renee	80	ID	In-person
12/15/18	Deanna	62	ID	In-person
12/15/18	Mauve	75	ID	In-person
12/15/18	Beatrice	44	ID	In-person
12/19/18	Molly	68	ID	Phone
12/20/18	Amber	28	TX	Phone
12/27/18	Carol	66	ID	Phone
12/31/18	Fiona	57	MO	Phone
1/2/19	Roxanne	28	ID	Phone
1/5/19	Barb	55	ID	Phone
1/7/19	Nancy	52	CO	Phone
Total	20

The data was collected between July 2017 and January 2019. Whenever possible, the interviews were done in person, but at least half of them needed to be done by videoconferencing, like Skype, or over the phone. There were several attempts to recruit participants from the east coast and more from the Midwest, but those efforts were unsuccessful because of lack of contacts in those regions. Due to the contentious nature of political discussions, it was difficult to recruit participants without a network. The participants not only had a distrust of media, but also of higher education academia. Most of the participants only agreed to participate because of snowball sampling. Initially, the researcher contacted female acquaintances recognized as evangelical Christians through email or social media. Those who agreed to participate were then asked to recommend others who might be willing to take part in the research. Both the focus group participants and interview participants were first asked the importance of their religious faith. Huber and Huber's (2012) Centrality of Religiosity Scale is widely utilized in research to measure the importance of salience of religious meaning by using a self-reporting single item scale. The participants were also questioned about the political issues that were most important to them and in what ways Trump represented their Christian values and supported their morals and religious beliefs. They were also asked their opinions of Democrats, liberals, and news outlets (see Appendix A & B for questions).

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) was applied to each discussion and interview to take a rhetorical approach and focus on examining how social power relations are formed and strengthened through language application (Fairclough, 2010). CDA can generate discernments in the way discourse replicates political and social inequality, domination, or power abuse (Fairclough). Social and historical contexts were considered to uncover the motivation behind the text. By analyzing what participants say, how they say it as well as what is not said, it allowed the researcher to take a cultural approach, looking at how the “larger cultural contexts are reflected in the discourse and focusing on social structures that influence meaning” (Davis, 2016, p. 85). Davis’ (2016) five-step approach was followed to visualize themes and match analogous opinions, eventually performing big-picture ideas and conclusions associated with social identity theory (SIT) or religious identity. After the research questions were developed, the hard copy transcripts were marked for important features, then the words and sentences were coded by assigning attributes. Individual statements were examined to identify linguistic and rhetorical mechanisms and the data was interpreted.

Validity and Reliability Assessments

The methods, tools and processes were appropriate for the research questions being asked. The research design was valid for this qualitative research. Focus group method is considered especially appropriate for feminist and critical measures by providing a voice to marginalized people and sharing power with those who are researched (Wilkinson, 1998). While the focus groups allowed for a free-flowing discussion of opinions and interactive idea exchange, conversely, the individual interviews allowed for a deeper conversation into the distinct views of the participant and follow-up questions regarding specific issues that arose during the dialog. In qualitative research, the purpose of interviewing is to “allow us to enter another person's perspective” (Patton, 2002, p. 341). Methodological triangulation was achieved by using the two different methods: focus groups and in-depth interviews. Additionally, inter-rater reliability was achieved since two researchers were involved in collecting data from the focus groups. Diachronic reliability was attained due to the stability of the data over an extended length of time for both the focus groups and the interviews from July 2017 through January 2019. Furthermore, synchronic reliability was observed, within the data collection time-period, as being consistent in both methods. Whereas the quantity of participants was relatively low, and they were from the western states only, the data collection reached a point of saturation with unswerving data. And lastly, the primary researcher identified with the participants’ religious identity, hence, sharing with the participants many of their Christian beliefs and personal religious experiences, having grown up in an evangelical Christian household. Therefore, the researcher had deep saturation in understanding their religious identity. Yet, the researcher also persisted as an outsider situated as a researcher and former journalist, who was alarmed by the phenomenon. Bearing this in mind, the researcher thoroughly contemplated and recorded how their presence, as the researcher and evaluator, interacting with the research throughout the process. Their personal opinions were repeatedly acknowledged and evaluated, to prevent those views from influencing the interpretation during the data analysis.

Findings

Since the evangelical Christian women in this study consider their religious identity as a vital aspect of their character, it motivates their viewpoints in numerous aspects of their lives, including individual motivations, group stimuli and political impulses. Consequently, how they construct their religious identity, as well as how and why they react to in-group threats is a focal element for this exploration. Below are the themes that emerged in the data.

Group Distinctiveness

The evangelical Christian women's religious identity allows them to be part of a community of believers. The participants had affirmative feelings being associated with Christianity and shared a sense of similarity and belongingness with other group members. An interview participant said, “It feels like a community, you share a common faith. One of those things those without a faith don’t realize. It's a big family” (Sherry, ID, 53). These evangelical Christian women construct their social identity as perceiving an eternal life that is more important than their mortal life.

I have gone to so many different funerals for my friends who are not believers. And they are just, they are so distraught. Their life is over, they don’t feel like they have anything else. And I know, this isn’t my life. I am just a visitor here. My home is in eternity. (Margaret, CA, 52)

There is meaning and purpose for how they are living their lives right now. This motivational influencer supports their self-identity and influences how they interact with those around them. Because evangelical Christians believe their religion is the true religion, this distinguishing trait, in their eyes, sets them apart from non-Christians in a location of distinction. Therefore, “believers” have a hard time relating to “non-believers” or those who do not have a faith in God, or the assurance of immorality in heaven after they die. There is a need to preserve their group distinctiveness. And while the participants have colleagues or even friends who are not Christians, they assess them as having a different perspective on life and how it should be lived. The interviewees largely perceive non-believers as having “no hope” and “no peace,” or have trouble finding “purpose in their lives,” and as a result are “self-absorbed” and “self-motivated” because they don’t have a higher power shaping and influencing their lives. When asked how their life differs from someone who does not have a Christian faith, one participant commented:

I sort of feel sorry for them [non-believers]. Um, because I can count on, you know, God, God always being there. Um, so I think your perspective is much different… But, um, uh, I think mine is perhaps more peaceful or more content perhaps. Um, more secure. (Nancy, CO, 52)

Brewer and Gardner (1996) give three types of self-representation: self-evaluation, different frames of reference and different motivational goals. These categories are seen in the following ways in the data: 1) participants’ self-evaluation is that of themselves having “hope,” “joy,” and “purpose”; 2) they distinguish themselves as seeing the world differently, or with a different frame of reference, such as “God is always there” in times of need allowing for more contentment, and 3) their motivational goals are to serve a higher, eternal purpose. A younger participant in her 20s connected her pro-life stance to giving her a deeper significance of life. For her every life, including her own, has meaning and to eliminate a life is to deny God's design, an emotional intention that her religious identity provided her.

Um, I know that I have purpose in life. I guess that comes from the sanctity of life, um, my life is purposeful, it's not just random, and I’m here on a mission to do something. I think a lot of people, um, feel really lost and are constantly wondering why they are here. (Roxanne, ID, 28)

By setting themselves apart, the participants maximize the differentiation between members of their in-group and those in out-groups. Quite a few other interview participants had comparable reflections on not being able to relate to those who do not believe in an afterlife or a creator. There is a sense of disparity or “otherness” when referencing non-Christians.

I can’t imagine how people without faith survive. God helps in tough times. Non-believers don’t know what they’re missing. I have peace. People who don’t know Jesus never have that inner peace. They’re always looking for something, other ways to fill it. (Jennifer, CO, 50)

A component of the groups’ distinctiveness is the concept of restoration and salvation. When a Christian, or an in-group member, sins, there is forgiveness from fellow Christians and the expectation of redemption. However, when a non-Christian, or an out-group member, commits a similar sin, there is little hope for redemption because the “depraved” lacks faith and the moral values or the desire to repent and “sin no more”. For those who do not have Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, it is comprehended that there is no eternal redemption for them, because they have rejected it. Therefore, if emancipation is unachievable then immoral actions are less justifiable or forgivable. Redemption is a duplicitous premise in the Bible.

RQ1: How does their own social/religious identity affect how white evangelical Christian women characterize Democrats and liberals?

Identity Maintenance

Most of the participants perceive their religious freedom to be threatened by liberals and Democrats. “We just want to have, you know, the freedom to live the way we want” (Barb, ID, late 50s). Another focus group participant brought up the Supreme Court case of the Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay marriage. “There's just a lot of moral situations where as Christians we’re, we are called hatemongers because we stand up for those rights that we have as Christians” (Renee, ID, 80). An Arizona focus group participant who is also a teacher was warned in the 1970s, at a Christian school retreat, that liberals would infiltrate the education system and threaten the country's religious identity.

I don’t remember who the speaker was, but I was amazed by what she said. She said, she said that the liberals are infiltrating our country… first was colleges. They would change what was going on in colleges. Then would work in the high schools and eventually they would get into the elementary schools and start them there and they would own this country. (Pearl, AZ, 78)

Therefore, the necessity of maintaining their religious identity creates anxiety and demands a collective response to the threat. In voting for Trump, they are reacting to that threat by supporting someone who could confront their out-group enemies. “Initially I supported Ben Carson. But I don’t think he was up for the task. Trump had an abrupt personality that would be strong enough to battle the liberals” (Renee, ID, 80). In other words, defeating the out-group “liberals” was imperative.

Political out-Groups

The participants label liberals as a community of out-group members who are counterparts to evangelical Christians when it comes to morals and values or as a homogeneous out-group. Only two interview participants volunteered that the term “liberal” did not have a bad connotation for them. The remaining interviewees labeled them in negative terms such as “angry,” “intolerant,” “post-logical,” “free-wheeling,” “less patriotic,” “too extreme,” “unstable,” wanting “too many social programs,” or “wanting to spend my money.” One interviewee accentuated her antipathy for liberals.

Ugh! It's like a sound I make, UGH!… I think they would call themselves, would say, “I’m open-minded.” Well, I find that they are not open minded. Liberals are, they, in my opinion, believe based on their value system that they are right and nobody else is right. And if you disagree with them you are racist. And it's so simplistic that it is disgusting. (Jessica, CA, 52)

For one of the older interviewees, the word “liberal” had adverse racial, gender, and sexual connotations.

Affirmative action, that was important for a certain stage, but it, it shouldn’t continue. It just seems like women, and people of color, and uh, and, have, have, we’ve come a long way in recognizing abilities and not holding them back… And, you know, the gay parades, the flaunting around, you know, showing eh, awful, sexually implicit, you know, things that homosexuals do. It just, it just turns my stomach. (Renee, ID, 80)

Another believed that when a liberal person makes an argument, they are strictly emotional, antagonistic and illogical.

When you press them to make their points, they just throw hurls and nasty things back at people. There's nothing logical about what they are having to say, they are just shouting anger and hatred and vitriol. I have very little respect for people who define themselves as liberal. (Barb, ID, 55)

While both of the terms “liberal” and “Democrat” are perceived as out-groups to the conservative political agenda of evangelical Christianity, overall, the term “liberal” brought up more visceral reactions than the word “Democrat”. A liberal stance is, in fact, thought of as a direct opposition to evangelical Christians’ conservative perspective. Therefore, the threat from liberals, or an extreme out-group, provokes a defensive response. Liberals are perceived as having not just an agnostic outlook, but an anti-Christian directive, in which the participants are required to fight an adversarial battle in the spiritual realm of “good versus evil”. This coping response is heightened for chronically salient members of the group.

RQ2: How does white evangelical Christian women's social/religious identity affect their voting behaviors and support of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States?

Political Identity

Donald Trump is thought to support evangelicals’ religious identity by his adherence to conservative political policies. Predictably, almost all of the evangelical Christian women who participated in the study (focus groups and interviewees) acknowledged being registered Republicans. Only two of the interview participants were registered Independent voters. None were currently Democrats; however, three had previously been registered Democrats. Half of the interview participants mentioned that they vote based on their Christian biblical values. The appointment of conservative Supreme Court justices was talked about widely in the focus groups. Though, only a handful of interview participants brought up Trump's campaign promise that he would appoint conservative Supreme Court justices. An explanation for the divergence is that the focus groups were conducted before Trump appointed conservative justice Neil Gorsuch, while the interviews happened after both Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh's appointment as Supreme Court justices. However, there were underlying references in the interviews for the need to restore conservative family values back into the political realm, such as his alignment with their values (e.g., pro-life stance, policies against gay agenda, etc.). The upcoming vacancies on the Supreme Court were highly important issues for all of the focus group participants. The two most important political issues for the focus group in Idaho were gaining a conservative Supreme Court and getting back their religious freedoms; they felt they have lost these because of secular humanistic legislation that allowed widespread abortion and supported the transgender and gay agenda. “That [a conservative Supreme Court] would probably be my number one, because they will set policy for the next 20 years,” said a participant. For these women, they perceive a generation of tolerating a “liberal” Supreme Court, which greatly influenced the nation's turn toward secular humanism. The participants’ moral values include the biblical principles of sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage, and sexual purity. By achieving a conservative Supreme Court, the participants felt some of society's profane movements could be undone and the United States could once again be indoctrinated towards God or in other words, Make America Great Again, through a resurgent impulse of a “Christian America”.

For most of the participants, they supported Trump because, “One, he's a Christian and two, he has committed to putting in conservative judges,” as one Colorado focus group participant put it. Another Colorado participant reinforced that sentiment, but added a patriotic note, “I love the fact that he stands for biblical points, but he really cares about our country. He really wants it to be great.” Likewise, the Arizona focus group's most important political issue was to have a conservative Supreme Court. The second most important political issue was equally split between supporting the military and being tough on immigration and/or building a border wall. The increased importance on a rigid immigration stance could be mainly because Arizona is a border state and the participants feel more threatened by illegal immigrants in their community. When immigrants were mentioned in the data, it was almost always in terms of an out-group. Only one participant (interview) mentioned foreigners in a sympathetic light and those she classified as Christians, as the persecution of Christians in other countries and the need for the U.S. to help them. “Why aren’t we coming together, going, not only are there families fleeing violent areas, there's people being gunned down because of their faith,” said a participant.

It appeared that the focus group discussions strongly reinforced the participants’ support of Trump and created a deeper sense of community as a result of political unity. They explained they have been hesitant to talk politics with anyone other than individuals who are known to be members of their in-group. They avoided having political conversations altogether with perceived out-group members. The in-group cohesiveness was heartening for them because of the conflict they experience when they are physically outside of a consortium of like-minded Christians. This identity incorporates sameness with other in-group members, an “us versus them” mentality.

But I mean you guys, we are very outspoken about Trump and are willing to vocalize it, but don’t you know a lot of people that are still, won’t say it, won’t even admit it? [voting for Trump]. (Erin, AZ, 64)

This inquiry was followed by a unanimous “yes” from the group of eleven women. In addition, two participants in this focus group told narratives of how they’d been shunned by people after vocalizing their support for Trump. One was actually asked to leave a church she and her husband had attended for seven years, after they complained to the pastor about the sermons delivered after the 2016 presidential election.

They do nothing political, not even pro-life anything and they are a big church. And they gave an election sermon, like ‘go vote your conscience, blah, blah, blah,’ but then when Hillary lost, they started teaching all this liberal social political thought through the text of scriptures and we went and met with them, with the head pastor, and he asked us to leave the church. (Rosemary, AZ, 31)

The church narrative is particularly intriguing in how the participant referred to her head pastor as teaching “liberal, social political thought,” perhaps placing him in a social identity out-group. The essence of her shock at being asked to leave her church was that her head pastor was on the wrong side of the argument, potentially a traitor to the faith. This is a likely phenomenon, of perceiving liberals, Democrats, and even fellow Christians as adversaries if they did not abide by preconceived notions of conservativism.

RQ3: How does white evangelical Christian women's perception of news outlets play a role in how they assess and support Trump?

Perception of Liberal Media Bias

Every participant held negative views of the media and news outlets in varying degrees. Only two participants offered that a free press was necessary for a democratic nation. The remaining participants did not mention any positive merits for any news outlet other than those who gave a conservative perspective, such as Fox News Channel. Furthermore, the participants’ religious identity clashed with a majority of news outlets, because they have long deemed the organizations to be deeply biased and slanted towards a liberal agenda, even “anti-Christian” and “evil”. All the interview participants felt that either: 1) every news outlet can’t be completely trusted, or 2) they are all biased or have an agenda. One interviewee felt the media were unwittingly Satan's instruments.

I, I feel they are being deceptive… I say it like this because it's true. There is an enemy in this world, he is Satan. And I believe he is doing everything he can to take this, take everybody down. And I feel that those that are in the media, I feel that they are being led by the enemy. (Mauve, ID, 75)

Almost half of the interviewees concurred with Donald Trump's perspective, that the press was “the enemy of the American people”. A majority of the remaining participants felt some journalists were enemies of the American people, but also clarified that you can’t “lump them all together,” “can’t generalize,” or Trump “overstates” when he declares that all of the press is the enemy of the people. Just a few interview participants disagreed that the press is the enemy of the people, yet they also added that news outlets still hold some blame for performing a “disservice” to the country by propagating too much opinion-based reporting and not just reporting the “facts”. “It seems to me it's become more of an antagonist contest. One-up-man-ship in everything. They’re not really after, seeking after what's true. I feel like I’m being told a bunch of crap,” said a participant. One Idaho focus group participant admitted that while Fox News Channel gives a conservative slant to the news, they declare their bias while all of the other news outlets pretend to be objective but aren’t.

I think most of the rest of the news outlets are completely disingenuine and um, and, are, have their already deeply biased narrative that they want to put forth without acknowledging that they have a deeply bias narrative that they are putting forth. (Barb, ID, 55)

Analogous to Democrats and liberals, the participants recognize the media to be a danger to their social/religious identity. An interviewee criticized the media for societal frictions because of what she deemed to be confrontational, biased political reporting.

It's so “us versus them,” and “them versus us”. It's just constant negativity and opinions. It's frustrating, I don’t like it. I don’t, you know, I just think it's awful… Just do your job, whether you hate him or like him. (Jessica, CA, 52)

The focus groups had comparable opinions. Every participant in the Arizona focus group agreed that all news media are biased. And there was also undisputed conformity in the Idaho focus group that news outlets either leave out important facts or report false facts when reporting on liberal candidates or issues. “Sometimes it's not only fake news, it's, it's discriminating news. Something that's really important news is being left out… It's not only fake news it's disregarded news that's important,” said Renee (80). Other focus groups participants accused most news outlets of being anti-Christian and contemptuous.

Hostile, especially towards Christians, the fact that when Trump was meeting with evangelical leaders, that was being reported very little and very mockingly that he was even meeting with Christians. And smearing him, saying, “Here's a man who's, that's said this and done that,” you know. (Ariel, CO, 48)

In one focus group participant's point of view, if it weren’t for conservative news organizations, every other news outlet is akin to being state television.

The media is a threat to our democracy because you need a free press that you can trust for your information and it's not good that you feel you can only go to Fox News or a conservative website. You need a press that you can trust. Truth is key… And you see then, in all these countries that have trouble and democracies fail, it's because the message does not get out. It's a slanted state message. (Zoe, AZ, 29)

There was a consensus from all of the participants in the research in that they couldn’t identify any news organizations where they could get neutral, unbiased and factual reporting.

So much of it is yellow journalism and it is so biased that it is hard to know, what is the truth, and what is not the truth. And I think that, yeah, where do you find the objective opinion? (Ariel, CO, 48)

Anti-Christian Persecution of Trump by Liberal News Outlets

The “liberal” media is perceived as a dangerous aggressor in their coverage of Trump's administration. As previously mentioned, being persecuted for your Christian faith maintains a pious aspect. For this reason, Trump's persecution by irreverent powers, particularly liberal news outlets, appears to further endear him to his political base. He conceivably bears a role akin to King Cyrus the Great, as a protector of Christian interests with the media playing the role of antagonist, thus locating Trump as champion of the in-group. Several participants commented that the media is “always ragging on Trump”.

Yeah, the media is driving me crazy, because they are constantly on the attack… They’re ignoring a lot of the good parts of what he is doing, and they just want, you know, they’re, I feel the media is terribly anti-Trump and so they are just doing all they can to make all of America anti-Trump. (Lisa, CO, 44)

Another participant believed that the more the media tries to destroy Trump's presidency, the more convinced she is that God has him in office for a reason, while also admitting that his presidency is, in part, a calamity.

The more they come after him as vicious as they can, the more I think he's there for a purpose. They say, ‘We’ve gotta get rid of him.’ I don’t know why he's there. I don’t know if it's to wake America up to something or it's just part of the disaster we have to cave in, I don’t know. But I believe he's there for a reason and the world doesn’t like it. (Lucy, CO, 66)

In a similar sentiment, a Colorado focus group participant equated Trump's sacrifice to “serve” America and persecution by the media for Christianity's sake with the suffering and torment Jesus Christ endured before being nailed to the cross.

He is trying to serve… and he didn’t have to, he chose to do this to help us… he sacrificed his life and his, his, you know, I mean he is beaten down every single day and you know, that reminds me of Jesus. (Tiffany, CO, 58)

Another interviewee recounted a story she had heard where Trump put himself in the role of martyr for evangelical Christians’ political gains, when he allegedly pleaded with Christian leaders to pray for him because of the assaults he was enduring on their behalf.

He asked them [Christian leaders] to stay and expressed, uh, concern about the, the atmosphere he was having to live under with hate, uh, being thrown at him all the time. He [Trump] said, ‘I, I need your help. I need your prayers because, uh, I just feel there's a wave of, you’d call, evil, that is, that is, um, rolling freely in our country.’ And, uh, he had real concern that, um, how he could manage his presidency under those kinds of, uh, stresses he was experiencing, both he and his wife. (Renee, ID, 80)

Trump utilized the perceived maltreatment from liberals, Democrats and the media, to further solidify his political base by emphasizing his role as a martyr for the evangelical Christian or conservative causes without taking any responsibility for the adversarial relationship he has with his critics and detractors. There were several news articles written about evangelical leaders laying hands on Trump on two occasions in 2017 and in 2019 during the impeachment hearings (Badash, 2019; Bailey, 2017: Mbakwe, 2017).

Hence, Trump was constructing his conflict against those who question his utmost authority as a “good versus evil” campaign, jargon that fit seamlessly into the doctrine of Christianity. In other words, in the eyes of evangelical Christians, morality must win this spiritual battle, regardless of the costs to moral convictions. Godly intentions are perceived by evangelical Christians to clash with modern secular humanism. Since evangelical Christians assert their religious identity is the only truth, there is justification that Christian authority is the preeminent mode of how society should function. News outlets, who are powerful disseminators of information, have the ability to imperil their identity. After perceived relentless attacks on their identity by news outlets, they cogently rely only on conservative news outlets who affirm their identity.

Discussions and Conclusions

The evangelical Christian women in this study predominantly perceived both liberals and Democrats as members of a social identity out-group, relating to RQ1: How does their own social/religious identity affect how white evangelical Christian women characterize Democrats and liberals? The label “liberal” provoked stronger, more threatening out-group reactions than the term “Democrat”. Hence, it could be suggested that they assess “liberal” as being opposite ideologically and morally, while Democrats are deemed as being politically dissimilar. The salience of their identity and the steadfast belief that Christianity is the truth, gives evangelicals a powerful directive to overcome the evils of the world and reclaim their nation for godly purposes.

White evangelical Christian women's religious identity has wide-ranging impact on their lives. Their ultimate goal is to retain a holy world view and maintain an eternal in-group membership with like-minded Christians. They perceive their life perspective as being distinct from non-Christian in that they have more hope because of an everlasting future and more joy because of a creator who takes care of them. Redemption, salvation, hope and joy are solely for the in-group members who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Thus, they possess out-group homogeneity, the notion that everyone who does not share their religious identity and conservative philosophies are seen in a similar manner. They avoid out-group political conversations because of the potential conflict and, instead, choose to keep political views to themselves or share their viewpoints mainly in an in-group setting where they will be understood and validated. Furthermore, a homogeneous interpretation of religious out-group conflicts with the heterogeneous nature of the central Christian commandments.

Evangelical Christians’ support of Donald Trump is paradoxical and hypocritical to nearly everyone except most white evangelical Christians. They believe that by supporting Trump, they voted in support of, not against, their religious identity and moral values. This pertains to RQ2: How does white evangelical Christian women's social/religious identity affect their voting behaviors and support of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States? Most of the participants perceive Trump as being an imperfect and ill-mannered man; however, in his politically incorrectness, they also see him as a strong leader who is willing to fight for their beliefs and values with the gloves off, an intimidating enforcer who can do their dirty work. They wanted and needed someone who was willing to take a stand against liberal politicians and go to war for their families against the evil schemes of the world. They perceive liberals to be trying to unravel and destroy their collective religious identity.

The evangelical Christian women in this study have a pessimistic view of news outlets. They are exceedingly frustrated about what they perceive to be a lack of factual, unbiased news coverage and, for the most part, consequently, limit their exposure to news outlets. The following conclusions were deduced for RQ3: How does white evangelical Christian women's perception of news outlets play a role in how they assess and support Trump? When the participants did choose to consume news, they generally turned to conservative news outlets, primarily Fox News Channel. Most of the participants recognize FNC as having a conservative slant, but observe the other cable news, network news and legacy newspapers are having a more pronounced bias to the left or liberal side. For the most part, the participants chose to exist in a right-wing media “echo chamber,” where other “liberal” news outlets reside in a perceived out-group. Nearly all the participants named conservative opinion hosts as who they watched or read the most for news, disclosing names such as Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager as their trusted sources. When reporting on conservative political perspectives, particularly on matters related to Christianity, they felt that most news outlets ridiculed their faith or disregarded any positive news about Christianity or Donald Trump. Another of their assessments of news outlets is that they repeatedly attack and try to discredit Donald Trump to the point of persecution (e.g., “that reminds me of Jesus”). The participants believe the news outlets assaults on everything Trump does are meritless; but alternatively, the oppression by “evil,” or secular forces from the media and liberals, emphatically reinforces and strengthens their resolve that God was using Trump to bring our country to a reckoning. Hence, the more destructive and disapproving messages they hear from news outlets, the more encouraged they are that they made the right decision by voting for Trump, taking into account the righteousness of being persecuted for your Christian faith.

Limitations

There was an effort to recruit more participants from the eastern part of the United States. Still, future research should include focus on collecting data from the east coast and Midwest. Additionally, there are certainly several supplementary theories at play with this complex subject matter; consequently, there are many other conjectures to evaluate the data that could be explored in future research. No external funding was utilized for this research. There was no financial interest or benefit for the author in conducting this research.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Gayle Jansen Brisbane

Author Biography

Dr. Gayle Jansen Brisbane's research focuses on how evangelical Christian women,who are Republican and voted for Donald J. Trump,view their political and moral responsibilities,their opinions of news outlets and how it affects their news consumption.

She is a veteran sports and news broadcast anchor/reporter who spent twenty years working in local television news. She spent 16 years at FOX 10 (KSAZ-TV) in Phoenix,Arizona as a sports anchor/reporter and news reporter. She also worked in Eugene,Oregon at ABC9 (KEZI-TV). She left her television career in 2015 to begin her academic journey,earning her doctorate from the University of Colorado Boulder.

References

Badash

(2019). Christian leaders lay hands on and pray for Donald Trump ahead of impeachment. Thenewcivilrightsmovement.com. 10/13/2019. https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2019/10/christian-leaders-lay-hands-on-and-pray-for-donald-trump-ahead-of-impeachment-vote/

Bailey

S. P.

(2017). Photo surfaces of evangelical pastors laying hands on Trump in Oval Office. The Washington Post. 7/12/2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/07/12/photo-surfaces-of-evangelical-pastors-laying-hands-on-trump-in-the-oval-office/

Barr

B. A.

(2021). The making of biblical womanhood: How subjugation of women became Gospel truth. Brazos Press.

Brewer

M. B.

Gardner

(1996). Who is This ‘We’? Levels of Collective Identity and Self Representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.

Briant

(2002). From Cyrus to Alexander: a history of the Persian Empire, Eisenbrauns. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucb/detail.action?docID=3155567

Brown-Dean

(2019). Identity politics in the United States. Polity Press.

Campbell

D. E.

(2007). A matter of faith: Religion and the 2004 presidential election. Brookings Institute.

Dart

Allen

(1993). Bridging the Gap: Religion and the news Media. The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center.

Davis

(2016). Focus groups: Applying communication theory through design facilitation and analysis. Routledge.

10.

Du Mez

K. K.

(2021). Jesus and john wayne: How white evangelicals corrupted a faith and fractured a nation. Liveright Publishing.

11.

Erickson

M. J.

(1985). Christian theology. Moody Press.

12.

Fairclough

(2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.

13.

Fitzgerald

(2017). The evangelicals: The struggle to shape America. Simon & Schuster.

14.

Gallup (2020, November 13). Religious Group Voting and the 2020 Election. Gallup..com. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/324410/religious-group-voting-2020-election.aspx

15.

Gallup (2021, October 7). Americans Trust in Media Dips to Second Lowest on Record. Gallup.com. https://news.gallup.com/poll/355526/americans-trust-media-dips-second-lowest-record.aspx

16.

Gerson

(2018, May 5). Trump Exposes Hypocrisy of Christian Republicans. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-massive-failure-of-christian-political-leadership/2018/05/28/46adaef6-6125-11e8-9ee3-49d6d4814c4c_story.html?utm_term=.beda74090ef3

17.

Gibson

J. L.

(2010). The political consequences of religiosity: Does religion always cause political intolerance? In Wolfe

Katznelson

(Eds.), Religion and democracy in the United States: Danger or opportunity? (pp. 147–175). Princeton University Press.

18.

Green

J. C.

(2007). The faith factor: How religion influences American elections. Praeger.

19.

Hinkley

(2016, April 6). Why are Women Backing Donald Trump? Christian Science Monitor. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0405/Who-are-the-women-backing-Donald-Trump

20.

Hoover

(2017). Residual and resurgent protestantism in the American Media (and political) imaginary. International Journal of Communication, 11(2017), 2982–2999. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/7328/2095

21.

Huber

O. W.

(2012). The centrality of religiosity scale (CRS). Religions, 3(3), 710–724. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel3030710

22.

Jackson

(2021, November 21). Why we divide Republicans by Media Trust: The OAN/Newsmax Effect. PRRI.org. https://www.prri.org/spotlight/why-we-divide-republicans-by-media-trust-the-oan-newsmax-effect/

23.

Jarrett

(2020). What is the Biblical Understanding of the Wrath of God? Christianity.com, Jan. 22, 2022. https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Evangelical+belief+that+sin+will+summon+wrath+from+God&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

24.

Jones

R. P.

(2017, July 4). Trump Can’t Reverse the Decline of White Christian America. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/robert-jones-white-christian-america/532587/

25.

Jones

R. P.

(2020). White too long: The legacy of white supremacy in American christianity. Simon & Schuster.

26.

Kekes

(2009). Blame versus forgiveness. The Monist, 92(4), 488–506. Retrieved from https://colorado.idm.ocic.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.colorado.idm.ocic.org/docview/199379278?accountid=14503 https://doi.org/10.5840/monist200992428

27.

Kidd

T. S.

(2008). The great awakening: A brief history with documents. Bedford/St. Martin’s.

28.

Kinnvall

(2004). Globalization and religious nationalism: Self, identity, and the search for ontological security. Political Psychology, 25(5), 741–767. (Oct. 2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00396.x

29.

Layman

(2001). The great divide: religious and cultural conflict in American party politics. Columbia University Press.

30.

Lichter

S. R.

Rothman

Lichter

L. S.

(1987). The Media elite: America’s new powerbrokers. Adler & Adler.

31.

Lockerbie

(2013, December). Race and religion: voting behavior and political attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 94(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12062

32.

Mabilog

(2016, May 28). Four People in the Bible God used despite their imperfections. Christian Today. https://www.christiantoday.com/article/4-bible-characters-god-used-despite-their-imperfections/86987.htm.

33.

Mbakwe

(2017, July 13). Faith leaders pictured laying hands on President Trump. Premiere Christian News. https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/faith-leaders-pictured-laying-hands-on-president-trump2

34.

McClosky

Brill

(1983). The dimensions of tolerance: what Americans believe about civil liberties. Russell Sage Foundation.

35.

McGill

(2016). Religious identity and cultural negotiation: Toward a theology of christian identity in migration. Pickwick Publications.

36.

Neely

(2018, October 25). Rethinking our Relationship with the News: Both religion and politics have complicated it. How do we start from fresh? Christianity Today.

37.

Noble

(2014, August 4, 2014). The Evangelical Persecution Complex. The Atlantic.

38.

Nunn

C. Z.

Crockett

H. J.

Jr. Williams

(1978). Tolerance for nonconformity. Jossey-Bass.

39.

Moore

Bashshur

M. R.

(2018). When the tables are turned: The effects of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election on in-group favoritism and out-group hostility. PloS One, 13(5). E0197848. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197848.

40.

Owens

T. J.

(2000). Self and identity through the life course in cross-cultural perspective. JAI Press.

41.

Park

C. L.

(2007). Religiousness/spirituality and health: A meaning systems perspective. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30(4), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-007-9111-x

42.

Parker

M. T.

Janoff-Bulman

(2013). Lessons from morality-based social identity: the power of outgroup “hate,” not just ingroup “love”. Social Justice Research, 26(1), 81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0175-6

43.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

44.

Posner

(2021). Unholy: How white christian nationalists powered the Trump presidency, and the devastating legacy they left behind. Random House.

45.

Reid

(2013). Unjust signifying practices: Submission and subordination among christian fundamentals. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 29(2), 154–161. Indiana University Press Retrieved September 22, 2018, from Project MUSE database. https://doi.org/10.2979/jfemistudreli.29.2.154

46.

Scholz

(2017). Introducing the women’s hebrew Bible feminism, gender justice, and the study of the Old Testament. Bloomsbury.

47.

Schreiber

(2008). Righting feminism: Conservative women and American politics. Oxford University Press.

48.

Stark

Finke

(2000). Acts of faith: Explaining the human Side of religion. University of California Press.

49.

Steensland

Wright

E. L.

(2014). American Evangelicals and conservative politics: past, present and future. Sociology Compass, 8(6), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12175

50.

Storr

V. F.

(1918). Christianity and immortality. Green and Co.

51.

Sullivan

J. L.

Pierson

J. E.

Marcus

G. E.

(1982). Political tolerance and American democracy. University of Chicago Press.

52.

Susin

L. C.

(2000). A critique of the identity paradigm. In Haring

(Ed.), Creating identity (pp. 78–90). SCM.

53.

Tajfel

Turner

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

54.

Tripodi

(2017). Searching for Alternative Facts: Analyzing Scriptural Inference in Conservative News Practices. Data and Society Research Institute. Retrieved from: https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Data_Society_Searching-for-Alternative-Facts.pdf

55.

Underwood

(2002). From yahweh to yahoo: The religious roots of the secular press. University of Illinois Press.

56.

Wilkinson

(1998). Focus group methodology: A review. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1(3), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.1998.10846874

57.

Winston

(2007, September). Back to the future: Religions, politics, and the Media. American Quarterly, 59(3), 969–989. https://doi.org/10.1353/aq.2007.0072

58.

Witte

Jr. Alexander

F. S.

(2006). The teachings of modern christianity: On law, politics, and human nature. Columbia University Press.

59.

Ysseldyk

Matheson

Anisman

(2010). Religiosity as identity: toward an understanding of religion from a social identity perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309349693

60.

Zelizer