Many statements from the summary directly contradict my personal experience. The summary states:
"Survey data indicates engineering faculty at universities are far more likely to be conservative than people with other degrees, and far more likely to be religious."
Well, I'm an engineer and I work with engineers all day. I find the majority to be fairly liberal and not very religious. I always thought that it was a result of people being intelligent and familiar with the scientific method that made them less likely to swallow propaganda and dogma. Also, it is a largely foreign population and that is a factor since I meet the people who were educated enough to get jobs in different country from their own. I find that it is we Americans who are conservative and religious.
Liberal minded people are more likely to pursue the sciences or arts, conservatives to pursue engineering or business. It's certainly not deterministic but there's a bias. I know a lot of people who came to software development from engineering and some from computing science, in general I find the CS people to be more liberal and less religious.
As for the foreign origins of your co-workers note that you're working with a sub-population who explicitly emigrated to the US. You'd expect them to be a lot more liberal and irreligious regardless of profession.
Also, the summary states:
"Gambetta and Hertog speculate that engineers combine these political predilections with a marked preference towards finding clearcut answers."
I speculate that Gamgetta and Hertog are fearful and jealous of engineers. I work in chip design and there are very few clearcut answers. Furthermore, your opinion on whether or not something is a good idea has no bearing on whether or not it actually is. I find that to be a major difference between engineering and the the more "normal" fields; you have to build things that work in the real world, your ability to persuade someone will not improve the quality of whatever it is you are building. If my chips don't work, I can't argue in front of a judge that they really do work. Nor can I publish a book speculating how good they really are. No, I fscked up and I have to deal with it.
I speculate that you're just being defensive
I think it's more the case that different failure modes exist for different disciplines.
With engineering it seems to be an idea that you can nicely solve things and create a robust solution, this works well with chip design, but when applied to societies there's a tendency to want to enforce a conformity that helps everyone work. I think this appeals to terrorists who want to bring their solution. There's also a tendency to reject slightly fuzzier sciences, for instance skeptics of AGW and even evolution tend to come from the engineering ranks. Some comes from pre-existing religious beliefs but some is just their experience in not trusting systems that rely a lot on random or statistical components.
For Liberals the failure tends to be towards excessive non-conformity. If someone is exhibiting self-destructive behaviour they tend to be overly accommodating or even idolize it. If someone becomes critical of non-conformity they'll attempt to punish that person so people feel free to be non-conformists (ie SJWs). They also tend to be sceptical of Western medicine due to the power structure and conformity it implies. I consider myself a Liberal and I'll readily admit that Jenny McCarthy has killed more people through her ignorance than most terrorists could dream of.