{PSOCIAL}

Religiosity is conceptualized as a belief system in a divine or superhuman power, accompanied by a set of practices and rituals directed towards a transcendental entity, which are practiced within a social context. (Fuentes, 2019). It also implies an expression of emotions, thoughts and behaviours directed towards “the sacred”, understood as a divine being or object, the ultimate reality, or the absolute truth of which is perceived by the individual. Religiosity also entails a presence of beliefs, ritualized experiences and an adherence to group norms that are connected by a shared perception of the entity of worship (Fuentes, 2019; Van Cappellen et al., 2016).

Alignment with a religious faith or set of spiritual beliefs can provide individuals with a sense of coherence and associated well-being, as the accompanying belief system creates a lens through which the world and the actors within can be understood (Van Cappellen et al., 2016). This sense of well-being can be mediated by other variables such as a greater network of social support when compared with non-believers, feelings of respect and the holding of a sense of purpose or meaning in one's life.

Adherence to established religious rituals and personal prayer can enhance well-being by providing symbolic meaning, facilitating cognitive clarity, and serving to communicate with a higher power (Oishi & Diener, 2014). Similar mechanisms underlying social relationships can explain how a relationship with a caring and loving God can improve well-being. Engaging in religious activities fosters greater levels of well-being, as it satisfies needs for community and belonging (Newman & Graham, 2018), as well as reinforce positive emotions such as gratitude, surprise, tranquillity and love (Van Cappellen et al., 2016).

Studies looking at further moderating variables on the relationship between subjective well-being and religiosity have found that standard of living is strongly associated with levels of religious belief. For instance, it has been found that, in countries with a lower socioeconomic status such as lower life expectancy, higher levels of poverty and overall greater insecurity, the population tended to be highly religious (Inglehart, 2020). On the other hand, it was found that religion is less prevalent in countries in which there is greater overall prosperity, with both religious and non-religious individuals reporting similar levels of well-being. In this sense, religion can be seen to provide support for individuals facing adverse conditions, but, when these conditions are controlled for, well-being can be attained without the need to observe religious practices or affiliate with religious institutions (Diener et al., 2011; Tay et al., 2014).

Within the Christian tradition, representations of God can be broadly categorised as conforming to one of two characterisations. The first corresponds to a figure of positive attachment, where God is conceived as a loving and protective father-figure, always reliable and available in times of need (Kirkpatrick, 2005; Lecaros, 2017). God is represented as a caretaker who loves deeply, observes and protects from danger and, when sought, gives what is necessary for people to be happy (Cavanagh, 1992). Attachment to God will depend, in this case, mostly on psychological rather than physical proximity, and through his ubiquitous presence, will allow believers to feel constantly close to him.

The second representation involves a fearsome, implacable judge and punisher of evil (Lecaros, 2017). This conception is related to the general characteristics of all gods in the world: their omniscience means they are the perfect monitors. In this regard, their moral infallibility and omnipotence allows them to effectively punish those who deserve it. (Laurin, et al., 2012). According to Christian traditions, everyone will experience someday a judgment at which their fate will be decided, frequently based on what they believed or did during their time alive. This looks associated with the motto "you reap what you sow": while negative actions and deeds will receive punishment, good actions and deeds will be rewarded (Newman & Graham, 2018). It´s suggested that those who prioritise this representation of God, moral behaviour is motivated not by a sense of moral duty, but rather by a consequentialist avoidance of divine punishment (Greenway et al., 2003).

Regarding the second conception of God, Lecaros (2017) finds in Pentecostal believers that, more than solely a punishing entity, God is conceived as a just judge who rewards each individual according to what they deserve. Thus, the benevolent God and the punishing God are seen as complementary faces of the same being. For the believers, if God does not punish, he does not restore nor guarantee an order for the world and, if there is no order, then individuals are left abandoned and without resources in a chaotic, evil or meaningless world (Lecaros, 2017).

On the assumptions described, fundamentalism can be seen as a set of irreducible religious beliefs and teachings that supposedly contain the basic, intrinsic and inherent truth about God and humanity. These essential truths are manifest in opposition to the forces of evil, and generate a set of practices which should be followed accordingly, with those who are successful in this sense able to enjoy a special relationship with their deity (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2009). In this regard, a direct relationship can be observed between religious fundamentalism and political conservatism, often manifest through the expression of a right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) (Altemeyer, 2003). Through this lens, the expression of various social and political attitudes often associated with religiosity, such as religious ethnocentrism, prejudice towards minority ethnic groups and a rejection of homosexuality, among others, can be understood (e.g., Altemeyer, 2003; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2009; Jonathan, 2008).

Specifically, the relationship between religious fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism can be explained by a fear of threats against the social order and the traditions established in relation to the divine entity (Altemeyer, 2003). In this sense, fundamentalists are more likely to be submissive to the authorities and institutions that they consider legitimate (e.g., the Church, the Pope, priests and pastors). Likewise, from an authoritarian perspective, fundamentalists will accept many forms of aggression and punishment towards sinners and non-believers (e.g., those perceived as a threat to their belief system), who will be judged and corrected by God for their deviations. Finally, fundamentalists endorse the protection of traditional values ​​and norms through both talk and action, in an expression of authoritarian conventionalism (Altemeyer, 2003; de Regt, 2011). On this conception, fundamentalism can be understood as a manifestation of authoritarianism underpinned by religious discourse; where the cognitive style would be rigid and dogmatic, assuming a single truth which should be put into practice by all individuals who believe in God and religion in the terms described (Altemeyer, 2003; Perry, et al., 2015).

From the perspective of Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1981), religious fundamentalists give an exaggerated emphasis to an orientation that divides the world into ‘us versus them’, resulting in a greater tendency towards discriminatory behaviour than non-fundamentalist individuals (Altemeyer, 2003; Perry et al., 2015). However, whilst beliefs based on religious fundamentalism have been associated with different forms of prejudice and discrimination, it has also been found that when religiosity does not acquire a fundamentalist character, it can act as a mitigating factor for prejudice and discrimination. In this regard, Allport (1954) argued that the role of religion is paradoxical since it can both make and mitigate prejudice. This latter feature of religiosity is most notably manifest through the rejection of fundamentalism, but adherence to a religious orthodoxy.

Fundamentalists maintain negative attitudes towards perceived threats to the existing social order. For example, prejudice towards homosexuality can be understood in terms of the literal interpretation of verses such as Leviticus 18:22 or Romans 1: 26-27, which dictate that homosexuality is unacceptable, immoral and a threat to good manners – attributes deserving of punishment (cf. Altemeyer, 2003). In contrast, religious orthodoxy can be understood as the acceptance of and internalization of the broader teachings of a particular religion, such as the duty to ‘love thy neighbor’ found in verses such as 1 Peter 4: 8 and 1 John 4: 7. Religious orthodoxy, perhaps due to the less literal interpretation of biblical precepts, has been shown to decrease prejudice towards homosexuals (Jonathan, 2008),

Religious fundamentalists’ preference for the maintenance of the existing social order is suggestive of what is known as cognitive rigidity. Cognitive rigidity is associated with the rejection of uncertainty and ambiguity in favour of a preference for orderliness and predictability - a cognitive style consistent with the notion of authoritarian conservatism (Jost, et al., 2003). Furthermore, cognitive rigidity is associated with the persistence of social stereotypical beliefs and a greater adherence to the dominant ideological and moral framework of the society in which one lives (Jost et al., 2003, Haidt & Graham, 2007). Broadly construed, this morality is defined in relation to social standards that establish prescriptive judgements about justice, rights and well-being in the domain of interpersonal relations and, therefore, what is considered immoral in one context, would not necessarily be so in another (Haidt, et al., 1993).

There are three models of morality with different ontological bases to which people adhere (Shweder et al., 1997). The first corresponds to the ethics of autonomy, aligned with Turiel's definition of morality (1983 in Shweder et al., 1997), where it is hypothesized that the purpose of moral regulation is to protect discrepancies between the decisions of individuals, in addition to facilitating the pursuit of individual goals whilst adhering to principles of respect and no harm. The second is the ethics of community, which starts from a different ontological basis: the world is not comprised of individuals, but is made up of institutions, families, guilds, etc. The objective is to protect the moral integrity of the society or community, as it is an entity with identity, position and reputation. In this case, moral integrity is safeguarded through regulations of the many institutions that constitute the society (Shweder et al., 1997, p.138). Finally, the ethics of divinity assumes that there is a god or gods. The soul of each individual is a little piece of this God and therefore the purpose of moral regulation is the protection of the soul and spirit from moral degradation (Shweder et al., 1997). This code seeks to control and inhibit people from spiritual contamination in matters related mainly to sexuality and religious laws (Haidt & Graham, 2007).

It is known that ideology has a significant influence on what kind of morality an individual is going to ascribe. From an authoritarian conservative perspective, individuals would tend to share the ethics of the community, which is why they would be morally against the extreme individual freedom promoted by the ethics of autonomy (Haidt & Graham, 2007). Likewise, in the religious sphere, from a conservative perspective, secularism would be seen as an organized way of empowering people to live away from God's laws, because they would be choosing goals and values not prescribed by God ​​(Haidt, 2012). In this respect, politically and religiously conservative individuals are more likely than politically and religiously liberal individuals to question behaviours that, although not implying direct or indirect harm to third parties, are far from their personal conceptions of morality (Haidt & Graham, 2007).

In the Peruvian context, where this study has been conducted, 76% of the total population identifies as Catholic (Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática, 2017). In addition, the Peruvian State, through article 50 of the Peruvian Constitution, recognizes the Catholic Church as an "important element in the historical, cultural and moral formation of Peru" (Constitución Política del Perú, 1993, p. 13). On this basis, religion has extended its domains to the political and social sphere, actively playing a role in discussions on different social issues such as the civil union between people of the same sex, abortion for rape cases, the introduction of a gender approach in basic educational training, among other matters of societal interest. As an example, there is currently a conflict over the incorporation of a gender approach by the Peruvian State in its various institutions and public policies. The gender approach is proposed as a tool that integrates the needs, responsibilities and concerns of women and men in an equitable and fair way (Ministerio de Desarrollo e Inclusión Social, 2016). However, fundamentalist religious groups have described the gender approach as “gender ideology”, which seeks to “homosexualise” the population. Such groups campaign using slogans such as “con mis hijos no te metas [Do not mess with my children]”, the purpose of which is to prevent the inclusion of the gender approach in the new school curriculum (Perú21, 2017).

On a more current level, this group has also incorporated another type of discourse, where they state that they are in defense of freedom and "real" families. This is exemplified by statements such as: "We, as organizations in defense of life, are against the implantations that they want to put in every country, such as abortion, not choosing, wanting or not wanting to vaccinate. We are against vaccination because this comes from above, the world elites want to reduce the population in the world. This is not new, it has been going on for years" (El Comercio, 2022). Likewise, they also demonstrate against international organizations such as the OAS, considered entities that threaten the integrity and national values: "Peruvian families are marching today to preserve the soul of America, pro-life and pro-family, regarding the OAS sessions in Peru, we are marching for a continent without abortion or gender ideology" (El Comercio, 2022).

In the context of the last presidential elections in 2021, it was observed that different political parties had no concrete proposals regarding gender violence. There was also the case of simply not presenting proposals on specific issues such as education and gender, health, sexual and reproductive rights, as well as civil rights for the LGTBI population (Instituto de Defensa Legal, 2021). In the same way, the maximum representative of one of these parties: Rafael López Aliaga, pointed out that the whole gender doctrine, which violates the rights of children, will be exterminated, since it is an ideology that destroys families, life, and the innocence of children (El Comercio, 2021). From the conservative sphere, it is considered that the State has the responsibility to safeguard the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, therefore, they act, either from the State itself in representative positions such as the Congress, as well as other pressure groups with the purpose of making political leaders comply with what they consider "sacred obligations" regarding the religious dogma. Given this, the State is expected to intervene in the affairs of citizens to preserve a desirable order, which means defending the illegality of abortion and homosexual marriage (Casey-Pariseault, 2022).

Peru stands out, on a par with Paraguay, as one of the countries that is most against LGBTQ+ rights, being an example that, so far in the present 21st century, Congress has rejected or shelved bills to legalize civil unions between same-sex couples on six occasions, covering the period between 2003 and 2016 (Chávez and Ester 2021). In this context, rather than encouraging equal treatment among Peruvians, the fundamentalist expression of religion can justify and create social gaps at the same time of violating access to fundamental rights for important sectors of the population, such as in this specific case an attack against the rights of LGTBIQ+ people.

The purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship between images of God as either a benevolent or punishing entity, endorsement of an authoritarian political ideology and individuals’ attitudes towards the fundamental rights of the homosexual population in a group of Christian believers from the city of Lima, Peru. As a central hypothesis, an inverse relationship is expected between authoritarianism and positive attitudes towards homosexuality. Likewise, this relationship would be mediated by the vision of God as a punishing entity. Specifically, it is expected that a direct and significant relationship will be found between the punishing image of God and RWA, and an inverse and significant relationship will be found between the punishing image of God and positive attitudes towards homosexuality. On the other hand, the benevolent image of God is expected to be directly related to RWA and positive attitudes towards homosexuality.

An additional objective of this research is to analyse the psychometric characteristics of a questionnaire about the images of God as a punishing or benevolent entity and to establish a classification of participants based on these representations.

It was found that there is a direct relationship between RWA and both images of God and, in turn, both images influence salient attitudes to various issues of public relevance. Within the Peruvian context, religion has a very important role in individual’s lives, as it gives meaning and coherence to the self and the world, as well as providing the comfort and support associated with a sense of broader purpose- something which is highly useful in an aggressive context with few opportunities such as that found in Peru.

The obtained results suggest, along with previous research, that one’s representation of God has a direct impact on their interpretation of the world: either encouraging greater benevolence and openess, or encouraging a dogmatic adherence to religious norms with associated punishment for infractions of those norms.These findings can be taken to shed light on Allport's paradox that religion can both make and break prejudice since, within the duality of discourse on the nature of God, one version can be considered as a protective factor, and the other can lead to higher levels of prejudice and discrimination.Studying religion in the Peruvian environment is of great importance given the high number of people who are attached to a religion. In this regard the findings of this study help illuminate how aspects of one’s religiousity play a role in determining how individual’s react to certain social phenomena. At a political level, whilst Peru is constitutionally secular, findings suggesting that one’s persepctive on God’s image can influence responses to issues of social importance. This can have a bearing on aspects of political decision and accountability in a context, such as Peru, where the majority of elected politicians are openly religious.