The Nature and Consequences of Christianophobia

Okay. I know I am being lazy in not writing a full blog entry. But I just put up a video with some of the themes I have blogged about before and so I will just share it here. I do not respond to comments on YouTube but as you may know I sometimes respond to comments at my blog. So if you want to dialog about my claims in the video then you need to put your comments here.

What Vanderbilt Says, What Vanderbilt Does

Most Christians know about what has been called the “5 love languages.” If you have not heard of it, I suggest you look it up, whether you are Christian or not, as it is a good way to help us understand our relationships. My love language is acts of service. You can tell me how much you care about me all you want but if you are treating me badly then I will never believe you. Love languages do not only apply to romance but to our everyday relationships. Thus my read of how people treat me is relevant in my friendships in that I believe that my friends care about me by how they treat me. I really do not care about what people say. I deeply care about what people do. That is how I process my interactions with others.

That perspective helps me to understand the recent controversy concerning a professor at Vanderbilt – Dr. Carol Swain. She is a professor of law and political science who is an incredible rarity in academia, an outspoken black conservative. She recently penned an op-ed in the Tennessean entitled “Charlie Hebdo attacks prove critics were right about Islam.” Her controversial article caught the attention of many of the Muslim students at Vanderbilt. Those students soon organized protests against her. Farishtay Yamin, an undergraduate student, commented that she wanted the protest to reach the administration so that they could “…ensure that this campus will always be a safe place for Muslims to learn.” They did get the attention of the administration. The Dean of Students, Dr. Mark Bandas, sent a letter to the entire student body to make sure that the administration acknowledges the offensive nature of the article and that they do not support Swain’s arguments.

Before I go on, allow me to clarify what this blog entry is not about. I am not defending the contents of Swain’s letter. Her sentiments are most definitely not my own. Since I offer no expertise in dealing with terrorism, I choose to remain publically silent on this topic but needless to say, the argument she makes is way out of balance for my taste and even she herself later wrote that it was too strong. I am also not arguing about people’s right to protest her. That is part of the greatness of free speech. As long as the university does not fire her for her comments, then let the dialog continue.

But what has caught my attention about this situation is where it is taking place – Vanderbilt. This is the same university that adopted an all-comers policy that resulted in the removal of many Christian student organizations. I railed against such polices at Bowdoin, and feel no better about the Vanderbilt policy. For those who do not know about this policy, it states that student organizations cannot have religious requirements for membership or for leadership. Even religious organizations cannot require that the president of the organization is an adherent of that particular faith. If that sounds outrageous, then you know why I blogged against the policy. If you do not think this is outrageous, then this update of my objection to this unfair policy will offer further evidence that this policy was never about treating all students fairly but rather was a policy that placated the religious bigotry of college administrators.

Notice that the care the administration decided to show their Muslim students was conspicuously missing in their treatment of Christian students. With the Muslim students there was a concern that they would feel comfortable with their religious identity on campus. With Christian students there was a rush to get them off campus. Let us compare the two situations. At its worst the Muslim students have to put up with a terrible op-ed from a single professor. The op-ed was not in their campus paper but in a local paper, and they can most likely avoid the professor if they fear that the professor will mistreat them. Thus the worst case scenario for Muslim students is that there is a single Islamophobic professor on their campus who occasionally writes insulting columns in local papers.

We should compare this to the situation for Christians. At best they have had the right to have standards for their leaders taken away and they have been kicked off campus for not complying with the administrators’ intrusion. The administration not only provided no assurance that they wanted the university to be a safe place for them to learn with their religious identity, but it prosecuted a policy that overly limited their participation on campus. Thus for Christian students their best case scenario is that their organizations have been kicked off campus. In reality I suspect that they also endure slights and snark from professors in their classes and those professors’ writings. Does anyone seriously think that if a college professor wrote an op-ed decrying conservative Christians as backward, nonthinking sheep who are trying to set up a theocracy that the Vanderbilt administration would send out a statement supporting the college atmosphere for Christian students? A more realistic expectation is that we would see a statement on the free speech of the professor.

I hate to play the victim Olympics but if we are going to consider creating a welcoming environment for college students of different faiths, then we have to compare the two situations of Muslim and Christian students at Vanderbilt. Which is worse as far as having a welcoming attitude for students – a single horrible editorial or being kicked off campus? Needless to say, I think any reasonable person would state that having a single professor, no matter how bad or crazy we may think that professor to be, is not worse than not being able to have your group participate at the university. The very fact that Muslim groups were able to organize against Swain is due to the fact that the university allows them on campus – something that they have denied to several Christian groups. This distinct treatment of the two groups fits right in my recent argument from the University of Colorado data that among religious groups, it is Christians who are most likely to be in an unwelcoming atmosphere.

My recent research on Christianophobia also provides more context for comprehending this situation. In my recent book – So Many Christians, So Few Lions – we documented that those with disaffinity towards Christians are more likely to be highly educated (there was not a significant educational effect when comparing those with disaffinity towards Muslims). Since I would expect the Vanderbilt administrators to be highly educated (as well as have other qualities of individuals with disaffinity with Christians such as political progressiveness and irreligious) it is not surprising that their attitudes towards their Christian students would be less accommodating than their attitudes towards their Muslim students. Indeed it has been noted by Tish Harrison Warren that the all-comers policy has not been implemented at campuses where Muslim groups have protested the policy, and I do not think that Vanderbilt would have implemented the policy had Muslim groups argued against it. The next time I hear of this policy being implemented despite the concerns of Muslim groups will be the first time it has been so implemented.

The article by Warren sheds light on a couple of objections some brought up about my critique of this bigoted policy. Some argue that Christian groups should not receive money if they have an exclusionary policy. I disagree since student groups should be able to exclude from leadership those who do not accept the ideals of the group and still be treated like other groups, but that is beside the point. Warren points out that the Christian groups did not receive funding from the university anyway. They wanted recognition so that they could be on campus and participate with other student organizations in new student orientations. They merely wanted to be able to compete with other groups for students’ attention on a fair playing field. There is no church/state separation issue here.

There was also an argument that it was unrealistic to fear the takeover of Christian groups by non-Christians. I disagree as all it would take is for a small Christian group to do something controversial, such as bring in a pro-life speaker, for progressive students to “organize” a takeover. Given the activism of students who are willing to silence someone like Bill Maher it is not unrealistic to think that they would also work to silence religious groups. But even if I am wrong, Warren points to a simpler problem with the all-comers rule. What happens if a Christian student leader deconverts during his/her term in office and then decides to try to transform the group into this new ideology? The silly all-comers rule makes it impossible to remove the person from leading a group he or she no longer believes in. Even my most ardent detractors cannot deny the possibility that college students alter their perspectives and that this can be troublesome for that student leading a group he or she should no longer be leading. I found her report of the response from the administration quite telling. When she brought up this possibility the administrator reportedly said that the group could merely disband if that happened. So according to this administrator, an entire Christian group should be removed simply because one student decides to no longer be a Christian. Sounds like a great way to create a welcoming atmosphere for Christians right? I mean according to Vanderbilt’s administration’s response to the Swain controversy, this is what is desired for Muslim students.

So that I am not accused of dismissing Islamophobia, let me assure the reader that I know such hatred to be real. One only has to look at the comment section of many articles on Muslims and terrorism to see some of the most despicable statements about Muslims and Islam. The painting of all Muslims with the terrorist label is an issue that we have to control even as we deal with the real problem of terrorism. Stereotypes and dehumanizing Muslims is a problem in our society and we must address it. But Christianophobia is real as well. The way it manifests itself differs from how Islamophobia has developed and different individuals tend to be afflicted with it. While Islamphobia is a problem in our society, I do not fear that the Vanderbilt administrators have it. I have great concern that they have Christianophobia, and their decisions about how to run their university reflects their own personal prejudices.

At the end of the day, college administrators are like everyone else. They desire to reward those that they like and punish those that they do not like. My research, given the likely demographics of who is a college administrator, suggests that they do not like conservative Christians but may have some affinity towards Muslims. This does not make those college administrators evil. It merely makes them human. What I do hold the Vanderbilt administrators responsible for is the assertion that policies such as the all-comers are religiously neutral. Religious groups that are less willing to defend their doctrines are going to be disproportionally mistreated by this policy. The welcoming attitude administrators have towards Muslims, and rejecting attitude they have towards Christians, informs me about their true perspective of these distinct religious groups. Their actions, not their statements on desiring equality, speak more loudly to me about their true intent. And thus we come full circle about how my love language has helped me to understand the Vanderbilt controversy.

Having studied issues of race and ethnicity I am well acquainted with the notion of institutional racism. This is racism that occurs due to the institutions and laws in our society. The institutional norms and rules often work to the disadvantage of people of color regardless of the intent of those who created those rules and norms. The all-comers policy is a great example of institutionalized Christianophobia. It clearly has a disproportionate effect on Christian student groups as they are the ones who are de-recognized on campuses. However, given this new information, I questioned whether this effect is unintentional. We have seen that the Vanderbilt administration can be sensitive to the concerns of religious groups as long as they do not serve conservative Christians. If we truly want a campus that welcomes people of all faiths then when implementing a policy that disproportionally punishes certain groups, it is the responsibility of the policy’s supporters to show it to be absolutely necessary. I am not convinced that the right of an atheist to run a Christian group is more important than the rights of Christians to set whatever theological standards they want for their leadership.

Of course we will never have absolute proof of the intentions of the administrators at Vanderbilt or Bowdoin or the California state system, which also implemented these biased rules. But the differing ways Muslim students are treated in contrast to Christian students at Vanderbilt clearly indicates that it is not religion in general that college administrators opposed but certain brands of Christianity. The administrators do not want to welcome all students to the college campuses but those who have the right religious “beliefs.” You do not have to take my word for it. Just look at the actions of the Vanderbilt administrators.

Charlie Hebdo’s Cartoons, Piss Christ and the Associated Press

The tragedy of Charlie Hebdo produced a generous amount of commentary. If I were to write directly about that particular event then I would probably just regurgitate some of what has already been said. In my blogs my preference is for arguments that have not been previously enunciated. So instead of directly discussing that horrible event, I want to focus on another occurrence that happened soon after the shooting – the removal of Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” photo by Associate Press (AP).

Until January 7, the AP had a photo on its website of a piece of artwork that is commonly called “Piss Christ.” This was a controversial, to say the least, photo by Andres Serrano of a crucifix placed in a jar filled with his own urine. One can find distasteful, insulting artwork rather easily, so the content of the photo alone did not create the controversy. But some of the financial support he received from governmental sources generated most of the debate. Some Christians believed that such support was reflective of a failure to keep the church and state separated. I am not interested in rehashing those old arguments but needed to make clear that the argument was not on whether Serrano had the right to do such artwork but whether such artwork should enjoy federal financing.

This photo had been on the AP website since 1989. So why, twenty-five years later, has it been taken down from the website? Soon after the assassinations, an AP spokesperson was asked why the Charlie Hebdo cartoons would not be published. He stated, “It’s been our policy for years that we refrain from moving deliberately provocative images.” However the problem with that assertion is that Serrano’s photo could still be found on the AP’s webpage. Timothy Carney (Washington Post reporter) pointed out that the AP had a double standard in its willingness to have provocative images that offend Christians. It was then that the AP decided that twenty-five years was long enough for Serrano’s “masterpiece.”

So why did the AP show such willingness to publish a photo for such a long time that offended Christians but were not willing to publish a photo that would offend Muslims. I can only think of two good reasons for why we have such different treatment of these photos. Since I have not yet perfected my mind-reading machine, I doubt that we will ever completely know if one, or both, of these reasons for the discrepant treatment is completely accurate. However, both reasons provide us important potential insight into religious attitudes in our society, particularly the attitudes of important media leaders.

The first reason for the differential treatment of the photos is that the leaders of the AP are fearful of possible violence. Publishing the cartoons is clearly a potential hazard and one that was driven home by the tragedy in France. Such an attack seems less likely in the United States, since the Muslims in our country are smaller in number and less likely to be radicalized. However, it only takes one unbalanced individual to result in the killing of AP employees. Given that potential, who can blame the AP from refusing to post the Hebdo cartoons? Of course once they decided for safety sake to not publish those cartoons, they also lost any rationale for keeping up the Serrano photo. Are they going to say, “We do not mind insulting Christians because they will not shoot at us”? Clearly the Serrano photo had to come down as well.

If fear is the driving force behind the AP decision then there are important implications to be considered. I am a big believer that what people do tells us much more about their beliefs than what people say. One theme I have heard since the shootings was how all religions are fairly equally violent. In a somewhat funny presentation of this idea, one commentator equates the Paris violence to Jerry Falwell’s defamation suit against Larry Flynt. I am not a big fan of Falwell but really? If a lawsuit is the equivalent of violence then the word violence does not mean what I think it means. But the leaders at AP do not think that all religious groups are equally violent. I do not care if any of them state that they have such a belief; their actions betray a different belief. If fear is what motivated them to refuse to print the Hebdo cartoons then why did not such fear prompt them to avoid the Serrano photo? Clearly they are relatively unconcerned about Christian gunmen seeking them out.

When we think about it, it is rather incredible that the AP leaders are not afraid of Christian violence. Most individuals in the United States adhere to some form of Christian beliefs. In the United States there are many large Christian organizations that are theoretically capable of organizing a physical attack on AP personnel. It seems impossible for the FBI to keep tabs on all such organizations if many of them decide to become violent. Finally Christians, unlike Muslims, have some degree of political clout and may be able to protect those who engage in violence. If there is a fear of Christians acting out violently then the AP should be extremely worried given these conditions. Yet they posted the photo with seemingly no real concern for their own safety. I am not arguing that Christians do not engage in violence because we have some isolated cases where this has happened. And I am not arguing that Muslims are extremely violent. However, the evidence is that Christians are less likely, on a per-capita basis, to engage in violence than Muslims. Do not go on what I am saying; just look at the actions of the AP reporters. As such, arguments that all religions are equally violent are classical cases of false equivalency arguments.

However, there is another possible reason for the differential treatment of materials that seem intended to offend individuals of certain religions. It may be that the AP leaders are not driven by fear of Muslims but rather by anger and hatred towards Christians. This is part of the Christianophobia, an unreasonable anger and hatred towards Christians, which some of my previous work has documented. This explanation begins with a relative eagerness of the AP editors to post a photo that places Christians in a bad light. Even if they do not have a high degree of animosity towards Christians, they are at least very insensitive to the desires of Christians relative to other social or religious groups. When the cartoons became such a vital news story, these editors had an opportunity to place insulting religious images online, but this time images insulted Muslims instead of Christians. However, unlike Christians, these editors care about offending Muslims and thus chose not to run the cartoons. Once there as a clear double standard pointed out in their failure to use those cartoons, they experienced strong social pressure to also take down the Serrano photo.

There is evidence that Christianophobia may be the driving factor behind the discrepant treatment of the cartoon and the photos. First, the likely characteristics of those who have Christianophobia – well educated, irreligious, politically progressive, relatively high SES, white – are also likely to be the characteristics of the AP decision makers. It is plausible that at least some of them have some degree of Christianophobia. Second, it is interesting that while the photo has been taken down from the website that the AP is still willing to sell images of the photo. We still have differential treatment of the two images indicating that the AP editors ultimately are not concerned with respecting Christians to the same degree they respect Muslims.

If this second reason is accurate, then we have a classic case study of how Christianophobia can manifest. I have argued that often this type of anti-religious bigotry operates in ways that allow individuals to make symbolic expressions of it. When policies have a non-bigoted justification then those with Christianophobia will use those justifications to express their hatred or fear of Christians. When the Serrano photo first came out, those with Christianophobia could justify placing it on their website since it was clearly an important part of a national story. They could argue that offending Christians was less of a concern than accurately covering that story. If challenged, they could deny any particular animosity towards Christians by stating that Christians were not being treated worse than any other group. They could even accuse Christians of “crying wolf” about being persecuted.

However the refusal of the AP reporters to print the Hebdo cartoons indicated that the AP reporters do not treat all religious groups equally. Those with Christianophobia tend to be well educated and have a strong desire to not appear to be prejudiced. Once the double standard was exposed then the fiction that Christians were being treated the same as other social groups could not be maintained. So the photo had to come down. This case study indicates that Christianophobia can be reduced when those who act according to that prejudice are placed in a situation when they no longer have non-bigoted justifications for their actions. However, given our human propensity to find justifications for the actions we want to do, this is not likely to be a powerful limit on Christianophobia.

The only possible third reason I can think for the actions of the AP editors is that perhaps they have grown in religious tolerance between the use of the Serrano photo and the Hebdo cartoons. Perhaps I am being cynical, but I question whether such a revelation of respect for religion would have emerged if only Christians were the group to be respected. I have seen no evidence for this “personal growth” such as statements about the universality of dignity or respect. So I am sticking with only the other two reasons provided above for their actions. I do accept that there may be a combination of these two reasons that help to explain their actions. Indeed I suspect that it is partially fear of violence and partially hatred of Christians that both have led them to their differential treatment of the Serrano photo and the Hebdo cartoons. If the decision to take down the photo was made by several individuals, then it is quite likely that some of those individuals were driven by fear and others by hatred. However, we are likely to never completely know which legitimization force is most powerful and have to juggle the implications of both reasons as we understand the actions of the AP.

I have tried to approach this topic with some degree of objectivity, but I must admit that I am glad that the photo has come down. I want to live in a society where we work towards respecting each other and such a photo clearly does not support such a society. In the same manner, I have little use for the cartoons. I do not dispute the right of artist to construct such photos or cartoons; however, I like to live in a place where such expressions of “art” are marginalized by the disgust of the rest of society. To have this, we need to work, as a society, at treating all social groups in a similar manner regardless of whether we, as individuals, fear those groups or hate them. In such a society I, as an individual, can reject whatever religion or philosophy I want but informal sanctions and a sense of common decency prevents me from needlessly humiliating those who have other faiths or ideas. I am not sure if such a society is possible, but if the AP editors can begin to ask hard questions about why they treated the Serrano photos distinctly from the Hebdo cartoons, and make corrections to not repeat their mistakes, then we can move one step closer to achieving it.

Jonathan Gruber knows what is best for us.

Usually people do not pay attention when academics talk. Well, students in our classes may pay attention, but I wonder if even that is true. We go to conferences to discuss the latest theories, innovative methodologies and/or new data sources. I enjoy that interaction and the new information but know that most working in the social sciences do not care. I cannot blame them. I once went to a dissertation recital for a graduate music student. When she talked about the social history of the composer, I found it interesting. After all, I am a sociologist. But then she talked technically about the measures used in his approach. I am not an academic in a music field. At that point, I wanted to fall asleep. Academic jargon is usually only useful for other academics in that particular field. That is a major reason why the general public usually ignores our discussions with each other.

But then comes Jonathan Gruber who reminds us that perhaps at times it is good for us that the general public usually ignores scholarly talks. The first comment I heard was at a panel discussion at the University of Pennsylvania when he talked about how the stupidity of the American voter helped ensure passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). He went on to say that while it was regrettable that the law was written in a “tortured” way that he preferred a confused type of writing versus not having the law. Of course such statements have fed into a nationwide criticism of Gruber. Some of his other statements have come out to feed into this criticism, but these few statements are enough to allow me to speculate about the dynamics behind Gruber’s attitude.

I am not interested in arguing about the ACA. Like most educated individuals, I have an opinion about it but do not think that my research provides me with any special insight into that particular political issue. But my research does provide insight into the type of perspective exhibited by Gruber. It is similar to some of the attitudes I found in my research of cultural progressive activists. I do not know if Gruber is a cultural progressive, although there is at least some writings of his that seem supportive of abortion. But his support of ACA definitely puts him on the side of progressives on certain political issues.

His statement about the stupidity of voters and affirmation that he wanted the ACA even if he had to fool those voters reminded me of a certain set of comments I read from my cultural progressive respondents as they described individuals in the Christian right. Here are a few of those comments.

Bafflement that they can mobilize millions of adults to vote against their economic interests.

The most negative thing, out of many negative things I could say is that they get people to vote against their own self-interests. An example of this is getting poor evangelicals to vote republican when the party does nothing to help the poor. Or opposing universal health care which would be in their interest.

… the Republican Party uses religion (esp. Christianity) to control people and fool them into voting against their best interests.

As can be seen in the comments, my respondents do not believe that conservative Christians, or perhaps conservatives in general, know what is best for them. This was not a rare sentiment among the respondents. It is a sentiment that comports with their belief that conservative Christians are irrational and ignorant. Such stereotypes help explain to my respondents why people would vote for policies they see as unacceptable.

This indicates an attitude among cultural progressive activists that they know better what is good for others than those people know themselves. I am not sure if this sentiment is relatively unique to progressives or if it is an attitude that activists in general tend to have. I tend to believe the latter as such attitudes can be quite useful in justifying activism. One can legitimate activism as not only good for oneself but as beneficial for others. But since I only studied cultural progressive activists, I cannot rule out the possibility that conservative activists somehow escape having this type of paternalistic attitude.

The similarities of my respondents’ comments to Gruber’s comments caught my attention. Like my respondents, Gruber assumes that he knows what is best for others and is so convinced that he is right that writing the ACA in a misleading, or tortured, way is acceptable. The comment about the stupidity of the American voter supports the notion that he is willing to fool voters because he does not think that they know what is best for them. He does not trust the voters to make the right policy decisions for themselves. He would rather not deceive voters but to him having the policy is so important that he does not have to respect their opinions. This is very similar to the attitude of my respondents who believe that Christians vote against their own personal interest. Some of them argued that the reasons why such individuals vote against their own political interest is their ignorance and stupidity. These are some of the same reasons given by my respondents for why such individuals should not have a voice in the public square. It remains to be seen if they are as willing to act upon their beliefs as Gruber.

It strikes me as wrong, and fairly arrogant, to assume that we know more about what is best for other people than they do themselves. Christians have been accused, sometimes fairly, for presuming that they know what is best for others. To be clear, it is perfectly fair to make a case for one’s social, political and/or religious philosophy. I know that I do. Trying to convince others of the rightness of our position is part of what rational discourse is supposed to be about. Of course we believe we are right when we make assertions because if we do not believe that we are right then we would not argue about our social, political and/or religious beliefs. I am not arguing that others are wrong for aggressively arguing for what they believe. But to assume that we should speak for others because they simply do not know what is best for them disrespects their right to agency. It is fine for me to believe that others are wrong. It is fine for me to attempt to convince them that they are wrong. But it is incorrect for me to assert that I know what they need more than they do. I do not live their lives; they do.

Let me use an illustration to denote the difference between asserting that others are wrong and asserting that they are not mature enough to make their own decisions. Several years ago I knew of a lady who was struggling to hold down a job. Her desire was to find a husband and to be a good wife to him. Knowing her, I came to believe that she would be happier if she could find a guy to marry and to work at being a wife rather than at a job. But, at the time I was making this observation, I was also in graduate school and learning more about feminist theory. While I am critical of some of the excesses of feminism, it has much to offer to our society. This lady was not a feminist. She probably would not agree with me in my support of some of the reforms in this ideology. We probably would have different voting behaviors on those issues. But feminism was not useful for the struggles she faced. The feminist fight for women in the marketplace was not something that helped her. She would be better off not focusing on a career, but building a traditional marriage. If she acted in ways that discouraged feminism she would be acting in her own personal interest. Some individuals would argue such actions would be to the disadvantage of all women and thus to her disadvantage. But I reluctantly disagree. A feminism that encourages, although not requires, women to enter the workplace creates an atmosphere that makes the type of traditional lifestyle she wants more difficult to sustain. To respect her agency, I came to accept that I think some of her ideas about public policies are wrong, but that she is making the best political decisions for herself. It would be fair for me to try to convince her to support certain policies but it is arrogant for me to presume that she does not know which policies are best for her but that I do.

Are there times where people vote against their own self-interest? Of course that occurs. But I suspect that it happens a lot less than Gruber and the social progressive activists think. Their attitudes are similar to a Marxian perspective of class consciousness with the focus on how the lower classes (proletariat) are misled by the upper classes (bourgeois). But often when we try to interpret the self-interest of others, we use our values and our priorities instead of theirs. The Marxian perspective focuses on the economic interest of different groups in our society. But not everybody prioritizes economic aspects above others. I respect the right of someone to vote according to their own priorities. Demanding that others vote according to our own priorities strikes me as ideological imperialism.

Many of my respondents talked about lower class and/or religious voters voting against their own economic interests. For the sake of argument let us say they are correct and the progressive economic polices they endorse are indeed better for lower class religious voters. Are those religious and/or lower class voters wrong in their nonsupport of progressive politicians? They are only wrong if their highest voting priorities are based on economic priorities. But perhaps they prioritize being able to express their religious beliefs in the public square and have concluded that progressive politicians are less likely to support their right to do so. Their lack of support of progressive politicians would fit solidly in how they have prioritized their own group interest. People are free to complain as much as they want that these individuals are voting against their own group interests, but in doing so they are requiring that individuals adopt their own priorities. I trust those lower class and religious individuals to make their own decisions about what their priorities should be.

As I stated above, Christians have been criticized for attempting to impose their own values upon other individuals. But Gruber’s actions and the comments of my respondents suggest that such tendencies are not limited to Christians. Wanting to impose one’s values on others seems to be a general tendency with whom occurs in other social groups as well. Recognizing this tendency within ourselves and/or within others that we agree can help us to be more forgiving when others engage in such tactics. However accomplishing such recognition is extremely difficult in a culture that does not encourage self-introspection.