A dominant discourse in the social sciences theorizes that religious diversity puts individuals’ health at risk via interreligious hostility. However, this discourse overlooks the different subtypes of religious diversity and the moderation of political institutions. To better understand the issue of diversity and health, in this study, we distinguish between two subtypes of religious diversity—polarization and fractionalization—and argue that their impacts on health are heterogeneous. Using a sample of 67,399 individuals from 51 societies drawn from the 2010–2014 wave of the World Values Survey, our multilevel analyses show that religious polarization is negatively associated with individual health, whereas the health effects of religious fractionalization are positive. Moreover, the associations between religious polarization/fractionalization and individual health are found to depend on the democratic level of the state. In more democratic countries, the negative effects of polarization on health are mitigated, and the positive effects of fractionalization are stronger.

Our study examined the respective relationships between two components of higher education in mainland China—science education and political indoctrination—and the religiosity of university students. Using a cross-sectional, representative sample of about 1700 college students in Beijing, we found first that students studying natural/applied sciences were less likely to perceive Protestantism, Catholicism, and Islam as plausible and less likely to have supernatural belief, relative to students in humanities/social sciences. In addition, the more students positively evaluated the political education courses—which indicates students’ acceptance of political indoctrination—the less likely they reported Protestantism and Catholicism as being plausible. Nevertheless, neither science education nor political indoctrination was associated with the perceived plausibility of Buddhism and Daoism or the worshipping behavior of students. We discuss the implications of these findings in light of the secularization debate and the research on education, religion, and state atheism.

Background: Scholars have found that as a multi-facet phenomenon, religion has a complicated relationship with people's health well-being. However, current research on health and religion has left a vacuum in understanding why we observe widespread health disparities between the majority and minority religious groups. Purpose: The present study is aimed at two purposes. First, we conduct a cross-national comprehensive examination of the relationship between religious minority/majority status and self-rated health. Second, we investigate the moderating potential of political contexts on the relationship in question. Methods: Drawing from the 2010–2014 wave of World Values Survey, we construct an analytic sample containing about 70,000 individual cases nested within 51 countries, and apply multilevel modeling to account for the hierarchical data structure. Results: We first find that religious minorities are less likely to report good/very good health status relative to members of majority group. However, we note that the religious minority health disadvantage is driven by a few country outliers. After exclusion of any of these country outliers from the analysis, there is no significant health difference between majority and minority groups. Moreover, we find that political contexts moderate the health effect of being a religious minority. In countries with low levels of democracy or heavy religious restriction on minority groups, people of minority groups are less likely to report good/very good health compared with those belonging to majority group. By contrast, in societies with high levels of democracy or low levels of religious restriction, the health dispartities between religious majority and minority groups become non-significant. A series of sensitivity analysis, including using multiple-imputation sample and different ways of coding key variables, provides credibility to the results. Conclusions and Implications: This study's findings suggest that religious minorities experience health disadvantage, only when minority groups are denied of political and religious freedom. Compared with past works that mostly focused on a single or a few societies, this study provides large-scale, cross-national evidence for the issue of religious minority health. This study also adds to our understanding of how political context shapes the health impacts of religion.

The relationship between religion and protest participation has long been of interest to sociologists, however few cross-national, quantitative studies have examined this relationship in a robust methodological way. In addition, how state repression influences the protest participation of religious people is still not clear. Using a dataset integrating the sixth wave of the World Values Surveys, the freedom index created by the Freedom House, and the Religion and State project, we first examine the relationship between individual-level religious participation and protest participation on a worldwide scale, and then assess how country-level repression moderates this relationship. The results of our multilevel logistic regression models show that (1) religious participation has a positive effect on protest participation, and (2) this positive effect is stronger in more repressive countries.

In early 2020, when COVID-19 began to spread in the United States, many Twitter users called it the “Chinese virus,” blaming racial outgroups for the pandemic. I collected tweets containing the “Chinese virus” derivatives posted from March to August 2020 by users within the United States and created a data set with 141,290 tweets published by 50,695 users. I calculated the ratio of users who supported the racist naming of COVID-19 per county and merged Twitter data with the county-level census. Multilevel regression models show that counties with higher COVID-19 mortality or infection rates have more support for the racist naming. Second, the mortality and infection rates effects are stronger in counties with faster minority growth. Moreover, it is mainly in poor counties that minority growth enlarges the effects of infection and mortality rates. These findings relate to the theories on disease-induced xenophobia and the debate between conflict and contact theories.