The importance of the "faith community" has been covered from various angles. Amy Sullivan, often from at Washington Monthly along with Kevin Drum, has pushed for more recognition and respect of them by the Democratic Party. [Many have been annoyed at her tone, with reason at times, but she hits a sore point that should not be ignored.]
Atrios recently had an interesting series of posts (more substantive than he tends to be) discussing the matter, including his annoyance that it is not more recognized that a large segment of the public do not express themselves in such a way -- not just atheists and the like -- and assuming somehow that they are particularly troublesome is unfair (yes a few strong atheists -- Richard Dawkins etc. -- are out there pressing their uh beliefs, but Christians do this all the time).
[Some, including myself, had concerns with a speech by Sen. Obama that sort of suggested at points that nonbelievers of the generally accepted monotheistic God sometimes treat members of the faith community -- he was sure to define "religion" but not quite -- unfairly. The evidence was dubious, and he arguably gave the other side pointless fodder for criticism.]
I'd add my general sentiment that it is simply stupid to equivocate "values" with regularly defined religious faith, and if anything, many deemed nonbelievers not only have values, but often have a lot of faith -- just in different things than typical Christian sort of God etc. Many books have honored such traditions along with the value of a secular state, including Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers. Books also have been written about the troublesome nature of the evangelistic and fundamentalist base (e.g., Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg), including by those with strong Christian backgrounds (e.g., Chris Hedges; Middle Church by Bob Edgar takes it from a evangelical position himself, while even Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values notes the threat of the darker side of his faith community).
And, books have been written that try to provide a more neutral (or first person) expression of the nature of the community at large. This can be a useful enterprise, since it provides you with a look at the other side without the baggage of trying to promote a message per se. Thus, I found For a "Christian Nation": A History of the Religious Right of interest.
Another book looked promising since it was written by someone who grew up as an evangelical Christian ("people of faith" tend to be a code word for such individuals, again as if they have a special sort of faith worthy of the name), if finding the path not for her during college. Her book is entitled God and Country: How Evangelicals Have Become America's New Mainstream. Monique El-Faizy (her father grew up as a Coptic Christian in Egypt) provides a window into the community -- which she notes has changed in various ways from her childhood in the 1970s and '80s -- generally without judging its beliefs. Since she notes she strongly disagrees with some of them, this is worthy of note.*
I'm not sure if she proves the argument suggested by the subtitle. The underlining theme of the book is more "how evangelicals have become respectable again." Or, a major power broker. This appears to have historical roots -- evangelicals (e.g., the Great Awakenings, a top speaker during the first one honored even by deistic Ben Franklin) tended to have a common touch, including by offering a hopeful message. This she contrasts with the more negative/shape up or you are going to hell message of some fundamentalists (she notes the two groups have similar beliefs, but different tones), one El-Faizy is familiar with during her own childhood.
Evangelicals have an interesting separate track existence. It has been noted that the religious right basically separated themselves from society during the early and middle twentieth century, but this did not mean their numbers somehow severely was reduced. Out of sight, perhaps out of mind, but still going strong in their own communities. One charm of Goldberg's book is that she notes the strength of such communities, even while underlining the dangerous message some promote. This book also underlines the point, respecting the strength of the church communities (a Catholic told me once that her church really should do more to promote religious themed teen events and the like to attract members), while noting some concern with their separateness.
The community, however, cannot truly be isolated. The faith after all honors the promotion of the idea that Jesus is our personal favor. The "personal" nature of this belief -- though changing in some ways (see Middle Church) -- sometimes allows believers to focus on their individual faith. This also suggests a right wing political flavor, one that distrusts government (in certain ways, of course). Thus, there are separate schools, including a strong home school movement, but one where often the aim is to influence society. One major Christian college not only has many homeschoolers, but provides a sort of clearinghouse for interns and other support staff for movers and shakers in Washington and beyond. The aim is not just saving souls, but providing the troops to save society overall.
Also, not only does Christian rock suggest the crossover appeal, the community favors a sort of self-actualization (who knew Dr. Phil was an evangelical? really) that self-help book readers could appreciate. Since religion often is on a personal level much more than creed, this is quite important to attract members. In fact, there tends to be a push to make religion just another interest group, just another message that should not be treated even by the government differently. This has had some success in the religious free speech field, Justice Kennedy being a strong supporter of the path. But, there are problems, not just with the message being sent. Religion is after all different. The fact that these believers do not just want to practice their faith -- private faithlong deemed an important path to societal happiness** -- but push it on others (vs. gay marriage etc.) underlines the point.
Overall, if you wish to learn about the evangelistical community, and the various ways it not only promotes its own faith but is trying to provide a separate but integrated faith community for themselves, this is a pretty good book to check out. I sometimes was waiting for her to go in some detail about why she herself didn't like the religious path, but it is not that sort of book -- look for that elsewhere. In fact, you leave having a good deal of respect for some of these people (it helps when we don't hear them talk about hating gays etc. ... gays referenced in the index about twice), which is a pretty good sentiment to have, even if you don't like chunks of their faith. It is always good to see things from another's point of view, a go-between, like an outsider/insider* like this one, helps.
They are after all members of our community and majority or not, a quite successful/powerful one at that. A tidbit to end on -- many ridicule those who don't believe in evolution, but some polls suggest over forty percent of society do not completely accept the principle.
----
* I linked to the Amazon copy of the book and a reader/reviewer provides an intelligent analysis that also honors her efforts toward neutrality. The outsider/insider reference is from there.
** It actually was a handful of cases against laws that limited discretion of parents to send their children to non-public schools in the 1920s that might be deemed the true start of the "right to privacy" that was fully expressed in Griswold. One suggests the Spartan way promoted by a new movie is not quite our own. Another summarizies things nicely in a case involving sending children to a Catholic school:
[R]ights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.
As Monique El-Faizy notes, the community here sort of speaks out of both sides of their mouths -- they want to live their own way, but also in a society that in some fashion is forced to not live in ways too foreign to their values. Even with their power, they do have some reason to feel like victims -- not only since their power only came fairly recently, but because in many ways their views are not shared by the majority. But, this push for formalization of their religious values is the major rub.