NASHVILLE (BP) – La entidad ética de la Convención Bautista del Sur está exhortando al Congreso a actuar con rapidez para proteger de la deportación a los inmigrantes indocumentados traídos a Estados Unidos cuando eran niños, según se informó a los participantes en la Convención Evangélica 2022 sobre Inmigración el 28 de marzo.

El acto, de 90 minutos de duración, se celebró en forma de seminario web y en él se abordaron diversas cuestiones relacionadas con la inmigración y los refugiados. Contó con las intervenciones de los líderes de la Mesa Evangélica de la Inmigración (EIT), la organización patrocinadora del webinar, así como de especialistas en política pública y personas de otros países que ahora viven en Estados Unidos.

Chelsea Sobolik, directora de política pública de la Comisión de Libertad Religiosa y Ética (ERLC), dijo a la audiencia en línea que la necesidad de una solución legislativa para los Dreamers, el nombre dado a los niños traídos a través de la frontera ilegalmente, es aguda porque un juez federal anuló el programa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA) el año pasado. El gobierno de Biden ha apelado el fallo.

La ERLC y la EIT “han pedido durante mucho tiempo al Congreso que proporcione una solución permanente para los Dreamers (Soñadores) porque creemos que este es un asunto de justicia, que la Biblia es clara en cuanto a que no hacemos responsables a los niños de las acciones de sus padres”, dijo Sobolik; “Nuestros prójimos vulnerables no están adecuadamente protegidos”.

“…debido a la extrema incertidumbre de los tribunales, ciertamente sentimos un fuerte sentido de urgencia, y esperamos ayudar al Congreso a sentir ese mismo fuerte sentido de urgencia para aprobar una legislación permanente y bipartidista que proteja inmediatamente a nuestros vecinos de DACA”, dijo.

También dijo: “Es importante que recordemos que los Dreamers no son una abstracción. Son personas creadas a imagen y semejanza de Dios. …toda su vida y sus medios de vida están en juego ahora mismo”.

En 2012, el presidente Obama emitió una orden ejecutiva que establecía el programa DACA, que protege a los inmigrantes indocumentados que llegaron a este país antes de cumplir los 16 años. El DACA proporciona una ventana de dos años de protección contra la deportación y hace que los participantes sean elegibles para beneficios que incluyen el permiso para trabajar.

Andrew Hanen, un juez federal de Houston, dictaminó en julio de 2021 que DACA viola la ley estadounidense al suplantar la autoridad del Congreso en materia de inmigración. La orden de Hanen no afecta a los actuales beneficiarios de DACA ni prohíbe las solicitudes, pero prohíbe la aprobación de cualquier petición para entrar en el programa.

José Ocampo, que forma parte del personal de una iglesia bautista del sur en Charlotte, Carolina del Norte, habló durante el seminario web como beneficiario del programa DACA. Fue traído a este país desde México por su madre cuando tenía dos meses de edad.

Ocampo creció en Charlotte, confió en Jesús mientras estaba en la escuela secundaria y participó en el ministerio juvenil de la Baptist Church Hickory Grove, dijo. Ahora sirve como asociado de jóvenes y música en el campus latinoamericano de Hickory Grove. Ocampo es estudiante en el Seminario Teológico Bautista Southeastern en Wake Forest, Carolina del Norte.

DACA “fue una bendición porque sí me abrió la puerta para tener Seguro Social, para poder estudiar, y sin él no hubiera podido hacer todas esas cosas,” dijo Ocampo, graduado de la Universidad de Wingate, en Wingate, Carolina del Norte. “Así que ha abierto puertas, pero al mismo tiempo definitivamente ha empañado muchas oportunidades”, dijo.

Cuando se le preguntó cómo deberían responder los cristianos a los Dreamers, Ocampo dijo a la audiencia en línea: “Creo que la empatía ha estado por largo tiempo con muchos de los receptores de DACA, porque muchos de ellos sólo quieren ser escuchados y entendidos. Sólo les pido que caminen con empatía, caminen con gracia, porque en realidad muchas de estas personas necesitan consuelo”.

“Para nosotros, ser capaces de compartir el evangelio y luego ser capaces de vivirlo ejemplifica este increíble amor que hemos recibido a través de Cristo”, dijo; “Creo que eso es importante, es un primer paso, …podemos mostrar empatía y apoyo a través de simplemente amar a los refugiados, amar a los inmigrantes, a estos receptores de DACA. Eso podría contribuir en gran manera, lo crean o no”.

El esfuerzo por dar una solución a los Dreamers es solo uno de los muchos temas que implica la reforma del sistema de inmigración de Estados Unidos. Se calcula que hay 11 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados en Estados Unidos, pero los esfuerzos del Congreso por promulgar una medida integral han fracasado.

En 2011 y 2018, los mensajeros a la reunión anual de la Convención Bautista del Sur adoptaron resoluciones sobre la reforma migratoria que pedían asegurar la frontera y establecer “un camino justo y compasivo hacia el estatus legal,” con medidas restitutivas, para los inmigrantes indocumentados que ya están en Estados Unidos.

Galen Carey, vicepresidente de relaciones gubernamentales de la Asociación Nacional de Evangélicos (NAE), dijo que cree que es posible que la reforma migratoria se dé, “y nuestra convicción es que nos gustaría que ocurriera este año”.

Alrededor del 80 por ciento de los estadounidenses apoyan una reforma migratoria que consista en asegurar la frontera, ayudar a los trabajadores agrícolas y conceder un estatus legal permanente o la ciudadanía para los Dreamers, dijo.

“Y por eso pensamos que un paquete que combine esas tres cosas tendría bastantes posibilidades de obtener un apoyo mayoritario en el Congreso”, dijo Carey a los participantes en el seminario. Él cree que la clave será “la intensidad de la defensa”. Cuatro de cada cinco estadounidenses apoyan estas propuestas, “pero a muchos de ellos no les importa tanto”, dijo Carey.

Para ayudar a los evangélicos a abogar por la reforma de la inmigración ante sus senadores y representantes, la EIT está patrocinando los Días Virtuales del Capitolio los días 3 y 4 de mayo. La inscripción para el evento ya está abierta.

La ERLC y la NAE están entre los líderes de la EIT, una coalición de organizaciones y denominaciones evangélicas que se fundó en 2012.

La declaración de principios de la IET reclama una solución bipartidista en materia de inmigración que:

• “Respete la dignidad dada por Dios a cada persona;
• Proteja la unidad del núcleo familiar;
• Respete el estado de derecho;
• Garantice la seguridad de las fronteras nacionales;
• Asegure equidad para los contribuyentes, y
• Establezca un camino hacia el estatus legal y/o la ciudadanía para aquellos que cumplan los requisitos y deseen convertirse en residentes permanentes”.

Por Tom Strode, publicado el 1ro de abril 2022 en https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/espanol/erlc-insta-a-tomar-medidas-rapidas-para-proteger-a-los-dreamers/

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the religious liberty rights of a Texas Death Row inmate who wants his pastor to lay hands on him and audibly pray for him at the moment of his execution.

In an 8-1 decision in Ramirez v. Collier, the court ruled the state should accommodate the request of John Ramirez, who was convicted and sentenced to die for the 2004 murder and robbery of a convenience store clerk. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

Ramirez asked prison officials to allow his spiritual adviser, Pastor Dana Moore of Second Baptist Church in Corpus Christi, to be present in the death chamber to touch him and pray when he is executed by lethal injection. Moore has ministered to Ramirez in prison about five years. After Ramirez made a profession of faith in Christ on Texas Death Row, Second Baptist Church allowed him to join its membership.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice denied the request by Ramirez, citing security concerns. Lower courts sided with the TDCJ, saying the agency has a “compelling interest in maintaining an orderly, safe and effective process” when carrying out executions.

‘Protected religious free exercise’

The Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction, concluding Ramirez had exhausted administrative remedies and he likely would succeed in proving his request was based on “sincerely held religious belief.”

While the court agreed the state has a clear interest in carrying out executions in a safe and orderly manner, safety issues do not justify denying an inmate the right to spiritual comfort.

“Ramirez is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief because he will be unable to engage in protected religious exercise in the final moments of his life. Compensation paid to his estate would not remedy this harm, which is spiritual rather than pecuniary,” Chief Justice John Roberts stated in the court’s majority opinion.

Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, the court determined Ramirez likely would succeed in demonstrating the state’s “categorical ban on audible prayer” and the prohibition on having a religious adviser in the death chamber substantially burden his exercise of religion.

The court determined it was unlikely the state could demonstrate “a compelling government interest” in refusing the prisoner’s request for a religious accommodation or that its refusal was the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.”

‘Rich history of clerical prayer’ at executions

The court cited “a rich history of clerical prayer at the time of a prisoner’s execution,” and it pointed out the Federal Bureau of Prisons allows religious advisers to speak or pray audibly with inmates during executions.

The state’s concerns about safety and decorum could be handled in a less restrictive manner, the court concluded. For example, Texas could place limits on the volume of any audible prayer so that medical officials could monitor an inmate’s condition, and it could stipulate that the spiritual adviser’s touch of the prisoner be far removed from the site of any IV line.

Moore said he was glad the court “upheld John’s religious liberty rights” by allowing his pastor to be present to pray with him and lay hands on him in the moments leading to his death.

“Touch is a very meaningful and supportive way of showing compassion and love,” Moore said. “That’s why Jesus touched.”

Moore added he would be willing to abide by any reasonable restrictions if it meant being able to offer spiritual comfort to a member of his church.

“I am not there to be a disruptive influence,” he said. “I just want to be there to minister to John as his pastor.”

Affirmation of court’s decision

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission joined the National Association of Evangelicals and others in a friend-of-the-court brief filled last September.

The brief specifically appealed to rights guaranteed by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

On Twitter, BJC Executive Director Amanda Tyler noted the court has “wrestled with issues involving religious exercise in the death chamber” for three years.

“I’m pleased that a strong majority (8-1) held today that Mr. Ramirez is likely to succeed in his RLUIPA claim to exercise his religion in his last moments of life,” she tweeted.

Brent Leatherwood, acting president of the ERLC, called the court’s decision in Ramirez v. Collier “a significant affirmation of religious liberty.”

“The Supreme Court affirmed that religious freedom does not end at the execution chamber door,” Leatherwood stated.

In the majority opinion, Roberts specifically quoted an amicus brief filed by Becket, a nonprofit law firm focused on protecting the free exercise of religion. Eric Rassbach, senior counsel at Becket, applauded the court decision. 

“Even the condemned have a right to get right with God,” Rassbach said. “The Supreme Court recognized that allowing clergy to minister to the condemned in their last moments stands squarely within a history stretching back to George Washington and before. That tradition matters.”  

WASHINGTON (RNS)—South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham grilled Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson about her faith on March 22, an uncomfortable exchange that confirmed Jackson’s status as a Protestant Christian and highlighted questions about the separation of church and state.

The line of questioning emerged during the second day of Senate hearings to determine whether to confirm Jackson to the Supreme Court, with Graham leveraging the moment to air grievances about how Democrats treated past Supreme Court nominees.

After noting Jackson had mentioned her faith during her opening remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee the day before, Graham asked: “What faith are you, by the way?”

Jackson, who currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, replied cautiously: “Senator, I am Protestant,” she said, before adding, “nondenominational.”

Jackson has spoken publicly about her faith recently—both during her announcement as President Joe Biden’s nominee to replace Justice Stephen Breyer and before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday—but did not specify her faith tradition in either instance.

However, her response to Graham revealed that, if confirmed, she would be one of possibly two Protestants on the court and the only justice to identify as a nondenominational Christian. Justice Neil Gorsuch was raised Catholic but attended an Episcopal church.

Graham blew past Jackson’s answer, quickly asking whether she could “fairly judge a Catholic.”

‘How important is faith to you?’

When Jackson attempted to reply, he interrupted to say he assumed she could before pressing her again: “How important is your faith to you?”

“Personally, faith is very important. But as you know, there’s no religious test in the Constitution under Article Six, ” Jackson began, referencing the section of the U.S. Constitution that bars forcing public officials to submit to religious tests.

Graham interjected: “And there will be none with me.”

Jackson continued: “It’s very important to set aside one’s personal views about things in the role of a judge.”

Graham said he agreed, but continued to pepper Jackson with religion-related questions, such as asking her to rank “how faithful” she is on a scale of 1 to 10 and inquiring how often she goes to church.

“I go to church probably three times a year, so that speaks poorly of me,” Graham said.

Jackson eventually curtailed Graham’s line of questioning by saying: “Senator, I am reluctant to talk about my faith in this way just because I want to be mindful of the need for the public to have confidence in my ability to separate out my personal views.”

Graham then launched into a short speech in which he decried questions Democrats asked of Amy Coney Barrett during her 2017 confirmation hearing to become a federal appellate judge. He singled out a question posed to Barrett, a conservative Catholic, at the time by California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who pointed to Barrett’s previous speeches and quipped “the dogma lives loudly within you.”

“The reason I ask these questions is I have no doubt that your faith is important to you, and I have zero doubt that you can adjudicate people’s cases fairly if they’re an atheist,” Graham said.

“You should be proud of your faith. I am convinced that whatever faith you have—and how often you go to church—will not affect your ability to be fair.”

Democrats largely avoided questions about Barrett’s religious beliefs during her 2020 Supreme Court confirmation hearing, although Republicans referenced it often.

In fact, the most direct question about Barrett’s faith came from Graham himself, who asked whether she can set aside her Catholic beliefs when acting as a justice. Barrett said, “Yes.”

The U.S. Secretary of State has determined atrocities committed by the Burmese military against the Rohingya people of Myanmar constitute “crimes against humanity and genocide.”

And many of the same military leaders also committed abuses against other ethnic and religious minority groups, he added.

Reports by multiple human rights organizations and the U.S. State Department’s “own rigorous fact-finding” revealed the Burmese military—known as the Tatmadaw—targeted the Rohingya for acts including “the razing of villages, killing, rape, torture and other horrific abuses,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said during a March 21 speech at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Blinken cited a report produced in part by the museum’s Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide after the Burmese military forced about 840,000 Rohingya to seek refuge in Bangladesh in 2016 and 2017.

‘Not isolated cases’

The report, based on interviews with 1,000 Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, revealed three-fourths of those interviewed personally witnessed members of the Burmese military kill someone, and more than half witnessed acts of sexual violence.

One in five witnessed a mass-casualty event in which more than 100 people were killed or seriously injured in a single incident.

“These percentages matter. They demonstrate that these abuses were not isolated cases,” Blinken said. “The attack against Rohingya was widespread and systematic, which is crucial for reaching a determination of crimes against humanity.”

Furthermore, the “clear intent” of the attacks was “to destroy Rohingya, in whole or in part,” he added.

“Many of the military leaders who oversaw the genocidal campaign against Rohingya, including the general who led it, were also involved in abuses committed against other ethnic and religious minority groups. They’re the same military leaders who overthrew Burma’s democratically elected government on Feb. 1, 2021, and seized power,” Blinken said.

Since seizing power, the military has killed more than 1,670 men, women and children, and “unjustly detained at least 12,800 more in abysmal conditions,” he added.

No one in Myanmar is safe

“For those who did not realize it before the coup, the brutal violence that has followed has made clear that there is no one the Burmese military won’t come for. No one is safe from atrocities under its rule,” Blinken said.

Last September, the Tatmadaw shot and killed Cung Biak Hum, a Baptist minister in Thantlang who was helping a member of his church extinguish a fire after the man’s home was set ablaze during military attacks.

In early December, Salai Ngwe Kyar, a pastor in the village of Thet Kei Taung and a student at the Asho Chin Baptist Seminary in Pyay Township, died from injuries sustained during a military interrogation in Magway Region.

Much of the killing and burning by military is directed toward the Chin people, a predominantly Christian ethnic group in Myanmar.

Several church buildings in the southern part of Chin State—including the property of Kanpetiet Baptist Church, Emmanuel Baptist Church and Gospel Baptist Church—were severely damaged by bombs on Dec. 13 and then looted by military. Tatmadaw troops also reportedly planted landmines to deter people who fled from returning.

Religious freedom advocates applaud declaration

Advocates for international religious freedom applauded the Secretary of State for his statement and for the declaration of genocide.

The U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom “has been advocating for this determination” for five years, Commission Chair Nadine Maenza said.

“The Rohingya have been targeted for decades by Burmese authorities—the Tatmadaw in particular. This determination provides recognition to the Rohingya and acknowledges the severity of the atrocities that occurred, which is an important step towards achieving justice,” Maenza said.

Commissioner Anurima Bhargava noted Blinken pointed to similarities in the atrocities the Tatmadaw committed against the Rohingya and those the Nazis committed against the Jews.

“Now that the U.S. government has acknowledged the gravity of these crimes, it must actively support efforts to hold Burmese officials accountable, including through the international legal system,” Bhargava said.

Benedict Rogers, Christian Solidarity Worldwide senior analyst for East Asia, commended the Secretary of State for naming the Burmese military’s actions as genocide.

“We hope that this public announcement by the U.S. government will send a message to Myanmar’s military that those who committed these grave crimes against the Rohingya will ultimately be held accountable, and that their actions since the coup are being closely scrutinized,” Rogers said.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Dissemination of white supremacist propaganda in the United States fell by 5 percent in 2021, while specific antisemitic propaganda rose by 27 percent, a new report by the Anti-Defamation League finds.

The report—which collected instances of hate groups distributing or posting fliers, stickers, banners, pamphlets and graffiti—concluded they have dropped overall in the past year. However, such campaigns remain historically high in the wake of the killing of George Floyd by a white Minneapolis police officer in 2020. There were 4,851 cases reported to the ADL in 2021, compared with 5,125 in 2020.

Antisemitic propaganda grew to 352 incidents in 2021, a rise from 277, the year before. These included slogans such as “Every single aspect of the COVID agenda is Jewish” or “Every single aspect of the Biden administration is Jewish” by the Goyim Defense League. (“Goyim” is a disparaging Yiddish and Hebrew word for non-Jews.)

Hate group propaganda distribution was reported to the ADL in every state except Hawaii, with the highest levels of activity in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland and New York.

Among the events that triggered propaganda dissemination were the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, particularly the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, who was killed while attempting to climb through the broken window of a door leading to the Speaker’s Lobby; the November trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old who fatally shot two men and wounded another in the Black Lives Matter protests in Kenosha, Wisc., in 2020; and the November Christmas parade attack in Waukesha, Wisc., in which a man plowed his SUV into a crowd, leaving six dead and more than 60 injured.

The report found the Texas-based Patriot Front was responsible for 82 percent of all the white supremacist propaganda distributions.

“In 2021, Patriot Front demonstrated its true colors via hate-driven campaigns and activities, including the destruction of Black Lives Matter statues and murals, stealing and burning pro-diversity and pro-LGBTQ yard signs and flags and distributing propaganda at Jewish institutions,” the report said.

The use of banners dropped over highway overpasses grew by 40 percent in 2021. Flash demonstrations, which allow for quick photo and video ops to be used in online content, also became widely used.

The report found a drop in incidents of white supremacist propaganda distribution on college campuses in 2021. Those accounted for 232, the lowest number since ADL began tracking in 2017.

WASHINGTON (BP)—The Southern Baptist Convention’s ethics entity joined other evangelical groups in expressing hope a new congressional proposal is an indication of the start of a focused attempt to reform the immigration system.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and other evangelical organizations voiced encouragement at the Feb. 8 introduction of the Dignity Act by first-term Rep. Maria Salazar, R-Fla.

The bill is designed to put an end to illegal immigration, to offer a dignified solution to undocumented immigrants living in the United States and to build up the American workforce, Salazar said.

In a Feb. 10 news release from the Evangelical Immigration Table, Brent Leatherwood, the ERLC’s acting president, and other Christian leaders conveyed their hope for the legislation.

Immigration reform “is too important to be sidelined by partisan politics,” Leatherwood said. He hopes Salazar’s bill “signals the beginning of a concentrated effort to reform our broken immigration system.”

“For too long, immigration reform and border security have been pitted against one another,” Leatherwood said. “That shouldn’t be the case. [Salazar’s] proposal provides a framework that encompasses both of those perspectives and, more importantly, starts from the position of affirming the inherent dignity and worth of each and every individual.”

Shirley Hoogstra, president of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, said she prays the introduction of the Dignity Act “will serve as a catalyst for the bipartisan negotiations necessary to finally resolve these challenges.”

Walter Kim, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said Salazar’s proposal provides “hope to millions of our immigrant neighbors who wish to earn legal immigration status and continue living and working in the United States. We encourage other members of Congress in both parties to engage in serious negotiations toward a legislative package that can win bipartisan support.”

Provisions in the Dignity Act include:

• The completion of border barrier construction, the use of high-quality technology and addition of at least 3,000 border agents.
• A mandatory, national e-verify system to prevent the hiring of illegal workers.
• Immediate legal status and a streamlined path to citizenship for Dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought across the border as children.
• A 10-year Dignity Program for undocumented immigrants to earn legal status that requires they pay $10,000 in restitution during the 10 years and pass a criminal background check.
• An American Worker Fund supported by restitution fees paid by undocumented immigrants in the 10-year program and used to retrain workers.

“Our broken immigration system is fracturing America—economically, morally, socially and politically. It’s threatening the American Dream and our very way of life,” Salazar said in introducing the bill. “While we are a nation of laws, we are also a nation of second chances.”

Affirmed by Evangelical Immigration Table

The Evangelical Immigration Table coalition said it was encouraged by Salazar’s bill, though it acknowledged concern about some provisions it declined to name.

Salazar’s legislation includes provisions, consistent with the coalition’s “Evangelical Statement of Principles for Immigration Reform.” That document, EIT said, urges a bipartisan solution that:

“Respects the God-given dignity of every person;

“Protects the unity of the immediate family;

“Respects the rule of law;

“Guarantees secure national borders;

“Ensures fairness to taxpayers;

“Establishes a path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents.”

The Evangelical Immigration Table also noted an immigration reform bill proposed last year by President Biden shares some common elements with Salazar’s legislation.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—A team of scholars, faith leaders and advocates unveiled an exhaustive new report Feb. 9 that documents in painstaking detail the role Christian nationalism played in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and calls it an unsettling preview of things to come.

Christian nationalism was used to “bolster, justify and intensify the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol,” said Amanda Tyler, head of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, which sponsored the report along with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Tyler’s group is behind an initiative called the Christians Against Christian Nationalism.

The organizations touted the report as “the most comprehensive account to date of Christian nationalism and its role in the Jan. 6 insurrection,” compiled using “videos, statements and images from the attack and its precursor events.”

The report, written chiefly by Andrew L. Seidel, an author and director of strategic response at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, details Christian nationalist rhetoric and symbols that cropped up at events that preceded the insurrection, such as the Million MAGA March and Jericho Marches that took place in Washington, D.C., in December 2020 and January 2021.

Christian nationalist symbols and references, Seidel writes, were ubiquitous at those gatherings, as well as the insurrection itself: flags with superimposed American flags over Christian symbols; “An Appeal to Heaven” banners; prayers recited by members of the extremist group Proud Boys shortly before the attack or by others as they stormed the Capitol.

‘Openly militant’ rhetoric conflated religion and violence

Speaking to reporters, Seidel highlighted what he called the preponderance of “openly militant” rhetoric that conflated religion and violence. He pointed to William McCall Calhoun Jr., a Georgia lawyer who reportedly claimed on social media that he was among those who “kicked in Nancy Pelosi’s office door” on Jan. 6. Calhoun later claimed in an interview with the Atlanta Journal Constitution he did not personally enter any office.

“God is on Trump’s side. God is not on the Democrats’ side,” Calhoun allegedly wrote in a social media post. “And if patriots have to kill 60 million of these communists, it is God’s will. Think ethnic cleansing but it’s anti-communist cleansing.”

In the report, Seidel recounts a conversation with New Yorker journalist Luke Mogelson, who recorded widely shared footage of insurrectionists attacking the U.S. Capitol and praying in the Senate chamber.

“That Christian nationalism you talk about is the driving force and also the unifying force of these disparate players,” Mogelson told Seidel. “It’s really Christianity that ties it all together.”

‘Mutually reinforcing’ elements spurred violence

The more than 60-page study also features a series of reflections from scholars such as Andrew Whitehead, an associate sociology professor at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis and co-author, with Samuel L. Perry, of Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States.

Whitehead described Christian nationalism as a “cultural framework” bolstered by “mutually reinforcing” elements that spurred the violence at the Capitol, such as the QAnon movement and the erroneous belief that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump.

He was echoed by Perry, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Oklahoma. Citing data drawn from their book and additional surveys conducted over the past year, Perry argued Christian nationalism not only fueled the Capitol attack but also is being used by some to radically reinterpret the Jan. 6 attack in ways that obscure fact or even valorize participants.

Christian nationalism is a “powerful motivator for future violence,” Perry said.

Other contributors to the report include journalist Katherine Stewart, author of The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism. At Wednesday’s press conference, she argued the Capitol attack is an expression of a broader, complex Christian nationalist network that trumpets a right-wing agenda.

“Christian nationalism is, first and foremost, a political movement,” said Stewart, arguing that Christian nationalist leaders are primarily concerned with power.

Role of white Christian nationalism

Anthea Butler, chair of the department of religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania and author of White Evangelical Racism: The Politics of Morality in America, was one of several authors to single out white Christian nationalism, a more specific term that highlights, among other things, the role of white supremacy within the modern movement as well as its historical precursors.

“Slavery in America enabled white Christian nationalism by asserting that enslaved Africans were not human—in part by using scriptural justifications to support it,” Butler wrote.

Another author of the report, Jemar Tisby, a historian and head of the Black Christian collective The Witness, differentiated white Christian nationalism from popular forms of patriotism among Black Americans that often stress concepts such as racial equality and voting rights.

Speaking at the press conference, Tisby said Black Christians have “understood their faith as motivating them toward a multiracial democracy,” a viewpoint that has undergirded decades of activism.

Asked about the future of Christian nationalism—particularly its growing popularity among right-wing extremists—the authors struck a somber tone.

“Even as the movement is trying to shake faith in elections whose results they don’t like, their political allies are also doubling down on voter suppression and gerrymandering that seem intent on codifying minority rule,” Stewart said.

‘Manufactured controversy’

Similarly, Tisby said the “manufactured controversy” over critical race theory in schools, local governments and church communities is part of a larger push by Christian nationalists to “use legitimate democratic processes and co-opt them to create their version of a Christian America.”

Perry, for his part, explained there was a “slight backing away” from Christian nationalism in the aftermath of the insurrection. But the smaller group that remained, he said, has become “more radicalized, more militant, more willing to respond to the threat of democracy with anti-democratic threats and deals.”

“Christian nationalism is powerfully associated—with white Americans—with anti-democratic views,” he said. “As it gets marginalized a little bit, I think we need to watch out for a reaction of anti-democratic efforts.”

Seidel said that if the Jan. 6 insurrectionists “decided to get a little more serious, next time we’re in more trouble.” Looking toward the 2022 midterm election and the 2024 presidential race, he said the potential for violence wrought by Christian nationalists haunts him.

“I really hope people wake up and recognize it for the threat that it is,” he said

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Former National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins said he is “heartbroken” that more of his fellow white evangelicals have not received the COVID-19 vaccines.

“I am just basically heartbroken in a circumstance where, as an answer to prayer, vaccines have been developed that turned out to be much better than we dared to hope for,” he said in a Feb. 2 interview with Religion News Service.

“And yet they are still not seen as something that a lot of white evangelicals are interested in taking part in and, as a result, people are dying. I just didn’t see that happening and certainly not at this scale.”

Faith and Science in an Age of Tribalism

Collins is the founder and senior fellow of BioLogos, an organization that seeks to foster the integration of “rigorous science” with Christian faith. He and BioLogos President Deborah Haarsma, an astronomer, spoke to journalists at a Faith Angle Forum/BioLogos webinar titled “Faith and Science in an Age of Tribalism.”

Haarsma said on the webinar the country’s divisions have reshaped views of science.

“The world has become so aggressively polarized that it seems like every issue has to land in a red camp or a blue camp, and when you view the world that way, somehow Christian faith gets assigned to red and science gets assigned to blue,” she said. “And for scientists who are Christians, like myself and Francis Collins, this just doesn’t make any sense to us.”

Collins, who stepped down in December after 12 years as the NIH director and still runs a government research lab, spoke as a private citizen.

He tied “this red-blue situation”—including social media, political messages and words heard in churches—directly to the COVID-19 pandemic. He said it includes white evangelicals who are resistant to or disinterested in pursuing vaccines—some 30 percent to 40 percent, according to PRRI and Pew Research Center.

“The culture war is literally killing people,” added Collins, citing estimates that more than 100,000 people have died unnecessarily due to vaccine resistance and hesitancy even as “hundreds of thousands of lives” were saved.

‘Victimized by misinformation’

Collins said in an interview after the webinar many white evangelicals have been “victimized by the misinformation and lies and conspiracies that are floating around, particularly on social media and some of it in cable news.”

But he also wondered about his success in conveying the lessons from the science he has watched develop over the last two years.

“l Iook at myself and say, ‘Have I failed in my role as a public communicator?’” he said.

Haarsma said she understands that some resistance to vaccines and boosters has nothing to do with evangelicalism.

“There’s some people who were vaccinated once and had a bad reaction, so they didn’t want their second shot or didn’t want the booster,” she said in the joint interview with Collins. “And I’d like to explain to them, ‘Hey, getting another shot could really help you, and you might not have a bad reaction again.’”

Her organization has online resources about the pandemic—including a February 2021 article on Christians and vaccinations that has been viewed half a million times—and has developed a curriculum on faith and science for Christian high schoolers and home-schoolers.

Truth not considered true unless from trusted source

A recent study published by the National Academy of Sciences indicates after some unvaccinated Christians heard from medical experts who shared their religious identity—including Collins and BioLogos—they said they intended to receive the vaccine, that they would encourage others to as well and that they had increased trust in those experts.

Collins explained the researchers compared a group given factual information about the safety of the vaccines and another that received the same information along with a short video clip of Collins identifying himself as a scientist and a Christ follower.

“I was pretty astounded by that,” he said, adding that the findings indicated that “unless that truth comes at you from somebody you trust, you’re not going to call it truth at all.”

In the webinar, Haarsma mused that different public health messaging earlier in the pandemic might have averted some of the current resistance and mistrust.

She said many influencers said “trust the science,” but “what a lot of Christians hear is, ‘You want me to trust the science instead of trusting God?’”

Haarsma said messages about caring for your community or being patriotic might have been more effective. But, like Collins, she said the greater problem was “the incredible misinformation.”

In response to a question from Religion News Service, Collins and Haarsma, both of whom have musical backgrounds, concluded the webinar with a discussion of congregational singing as the country still faces the omicron variant.

Collins said it’s a “bad idea” to take off masks to sing in an enclosed space under conditions where the Centers for Disease Control advises against it—such as communities with high transmission of 100 or more cases per 100,000 people—unless everyone in that location is known to have been vaccinated and boosted, as well as tested that day.

“That’s more and more what people are trying to do in terms of making these things possible, is to go to the extra lengths of reducing the likelihood that anybody there is currently infectious,” he said. But he added quickly: “Even that’s not a guarantee.”

Collins said he has been in circumstances where he has sung with a mask on: “It’s a lot better than not singing at all.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Appealing to a form of camaraderie increasingly rare on Capitol Hill, President Joe Biden lauded the power of faith in his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 3, calling for unity at an unusually intimate iteration of the annual religious gathering.

Speaking in an auditorium in the visitors center of the U.S. Capitol, Biden singled out those in the room who had recently lost loved ones, recalled with frustration the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack and lamented the waves of death spurred by the ongoing pandemic.

‘Serve rather than be served’

Amid such difficulties and division, Biden told the audience comprising mostly members of Congress that his Christian faith reminded him of the importance of service.

“In a moment of a great division, our democracy is at grave risk. I pray that we follow what Jesus taught us—to serve rather than be served,” he said.

Biden added: “Rather than drive us apart, faith can move us together. Because all the great confessional faiths share the same fundamental basic beliefs: not just faith in a higher power, but faith to see each other as we should. Not as enemies but as neighbors. Not as adversaries but as fellow Americans, as leaders of this nation who work and pray together.”

Faith, the president said, comes in many forms, which include faith in American values. “I pray to keep the faith (in) the very promise of America: believing that there’s nothing we can’t do, where every person is created equal in the image of God, no matter where we come from, who we are, what our color or how we choose to pray—or whether or not we choose to pray—(we) deserve to be treated equally throughout their lives.”

Smaller event, different focus

This year’s prayer breakfast was smaller than before the pandemic, a byproduct of COVID-19 restrictions and an effort by organizers to refocus the gathering. In recent years the now 70-year-old event had become a sprawling series of assemblies with an international roster of more than 3,000 attendees, typically held at the Washington Hilton hotel.

In 2018, a woman was accused of attempting to exploit the event as an agent of Russia. Two years later, President Donald Trump, celebrating his acquittal at the prayer breakfast after his first impeachment, suggested House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a liar for saying she prayed for him.

Organizers suggested this year was meant to shift the focus of the National Prayer Breakfast. Its keynote speaker was Bryan Stevenson, a lawyer and longtime advocate for criminal justice reform and racial equality. Founder of the Equal Justice Initiative and author of the bestselling book Just Mercy, Stevenson was instrumental in creating the National Memorial for Peace and Justice, the Alabama memorial to the 4,400 victims of lynching in the United States.

Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat and Presbyterian who spoke at the prayer breakfast, was one of its chief organizers for several years. Coons told Religion News Service this week the gathering’s small size was partly due to an effort to “reset” the event by framing it as a “narrower engagement between Congress, the president, and some inspirational singers and speakers.”

The prayer breakfast was co-chaired by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, and Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican, who also spoke, along with other leaders from both parties.

‘Justice is what love looks like in public’

Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat and pastor of a historic Black church in Georgia, opened the event with a prayer, noting that “Justice is what love looks like in public.” He was accompanied by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Republican from Washington state, who read from Proverbs. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York read from Deuteronomy and Leviticus, occasionally slipping into Hebrew as he did so. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell read next, reciting a passage from Matthew.

Biden took advantage of the more intimate gathering to reach out to his political adversaries. Referring to the Capitol as, “in government terms, a sacred place,” he bemoaned that Republicans and Democrats spend less time together than in the past, and he said he considers McConnell, a stalwart opponent of his agenda, a friend.

Biden, a Catholic, cited St. Augustine, who “wrote that a people was a multitude defined by a common object of their love,” the president said.

“I believe the common objects of our love that define us as Americans are opportunity, liberty, dignity, respect, honor, service, truth—things everybody recognizes both here and around the world. As I stand in this citadel of democracy that was attacked one year ago, the issue for us is unity. How do we unite us again?”

The president also framed the recent hostage situation at Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville as an example of unity that overcame sectarian division. While Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker and others were held at gunpoint, Biden said, a band of interfaith colleagues worked to help him.

“Whether you’re in a synagogue or a church or a mosque or temple, whether you’re religious or not, we’re all imperfect human beings trying the best we can because we can’t know the future, we can’t know what’s coming,” he said. “That’s America. From darkness we found joy, hope and light.”

‘Faith motivates action’

Biden was followed by Vice President Kamala Harris, who reflected on her own religious upbringing attending Twenty-third Avenue Church of God in Oakland, California.

“Faith is not passive. Faith motivates action. It lifts us up and it gives us purpose,” she said.

Harris closed her brief remarks with a prayer.

“God, grant us faith, not only in you, but in one another,” she said. “Let us be kind, let us be generous, let us be full of grace. Let us see the light in all your people, and be guided by that light for all our days.”

Stevenson based his talk on the words of the biblical prophet Micah: “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”

“Whether it’s gun violence or gang violence or domestic violence or sexual violence or police violence or aggression of any form, we have to understand that these things separate us from doing justice, from loving mercy,” he said.

As the event wound down, Rep. Lucy McBath, a Georgia Democrat, read from Philippians 4:4-9 shortly before Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, a Mississippi Republican, closed the proceedings in prayer.

“Father, I lift up those of us who have been put in positions to lead this country,” Hyde-Smith prayed. “Convict our hearts to right the wrongs and to be brave and steadfast against evil. May your will be done and the decisions made be pleasing unto you.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—A Tennessee school board voted unanimously to remove a Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust from its curriculum over concerns about offensive words and rodent nudity.

The 10-member board of education in McMinn County, about 60 miles south of Knoxville, voted Jan. 10 to remove the book Maus. The graphic novel by Art Spiegelman depicts Nazis as cats and Jews as mice. It received a special Pulitzer Prize in 1992.

School board members raised concerns over a handful of vulgar words deemed inappropriate for the eighth grade, as well as a depiction of the author’s mother naked, rendered as a mouse.

The book was an “anchor text” for McMinn County’s eighth-grade English language arts instruction.

Creator calls the decision ‘Orwellian’

Spiegelman, who wrote and illustrated the book based on his parents’ experience in Nazi-occupied Poland and later at Auschwitz, told CNBC he was baffled by the decision.

“I’ve met so many young people who … have learned things from my book,” he said, calling the decision “Orwellian.”

The most recent school board vote came ahead of International Holocaust Remembrance Day Jan. 27, marking the 77th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

School boards in politically conservative districts across the nation are reexamining their curriculums because of parent objections that children might find the materials anxiety-provoking.

Most of the objections center on race, gender or sexual orientation. In last fall’s Virginia governor’s race, Glenn Youngkin, who won the race, ran an ad in which a parent supported banning Toni Morrison’s Beloved from schools. The book speaks in explicit terms about the effects of slavery in the United States.

Some of those efforts to ban books have focused on critical race theory, an academic theory that some conservatives have said causes children to be taught that America is a wicked, racist country.

In December, the North East School District in San Antonio pulled 400 books from library shelves to review them, after state Rep. Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth, sent a letter inquiring about a list of more than 800 titles.

The president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, who is Jewish, tweeted: “Yes it is uncomfortable to talk about genocide, but it is our history and educating about it helps us not repeat this horror.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Thousands of people gathered on the National Mall on Jan. 21 for the March for Life, an annual anti-abortion rally that took on a cautiously triumphant tone as attendees looked forward to a pending Supreme Court ruling.

Court watchers say Dobbs v. Jackson has the potential to strike down Roe v. Wade and return control over abortion legislation to the states.

The speaker lineup for this year’s event, which was themed “Equality begins in the womb,” included an unusually robust array of elected officials, primarily Republicans.

High-ranking officials such as former President Donald Trump have addressed the rally in the past, but this year organizers opted for a large slate of legislators.

One of the first presentations at the rally was a video featuring more than a dozen senators expressing opposition to abortion, including Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Shelley Capito, Mike Lee, Marsha Blackburn, Chuck Grassley, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

“We believe everyone is equally loved by God, and should be equally protected,” Sen. James Lankford said during the video. “That’s why we don’t give up. That’s why we march for life.”

The Oklahoma senator—a Southern Baptist minister—was also one of around 20 lawmakers who appeared onstage at the event, standing alongside Reps. Dan Crenshaw, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Andy Harris and Mike Kelly, among others.

Rep. Julia Letlow of Louisiana, who worships at a congregation affiliated with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, addressed the crowd directly in a speech. When pregnant with her first child, she said, she used to pray by reciting Jeremiah 1:5—“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I set you apart.”

“I believe that the Lord makes that promise for every one of our lives, and every soul is precious in his sight,” she said.

Optimistic about pending decision

Letlow expressed optimism for the upcoming ruling from the Supreme Court on Dobbs v. Jackson, an abortion case that could overturn or gut Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

She expected a “monumental decision” from the justices this summer, she said, and thanked the crowd for their “faith and perseverance” in advocating against abortion.

Enthusiasm for the pending Supreme Court decision was a running theme among attendees. Gabriel Clyde, who traveled to Washington from New Bethlehem, Penn., with a group affiliated with the Wesleyan Methodist Church, said he has attended the march for years because of his faith.

But 2022, he said, felt different.

“This is an exciting year,” he said. “This case in the summer is huge. We’ve spent a lot of time praying about it and trusting that things are going to change.”

While politics always is a common theme at the March for Life gathering, this year attracted some extreme varieties. Members of Patriot Front marched near the rally, handing out fliers to March for Life participants as police escorted them. The white nationalist group has attended anti-abortion protests in the past, although their arrival has frustrated organizers.

Asked about the presence of hate groups, representatives for the March for Life passed along a statement from Jeanne Mancini, the group’s president.

“March for Life promotes the beauty, dignity, and worth of every human life by working to end the violence of abortion,” the statement read. “We condemn any organization that seeks to exclude a person or group of people based on the color of their skin or any other characteristic. Such exclusion runs counter to our mission which recognizes that all human lives are equal from the moment of conception: equality begins in the womb.”

Footage posted to social media showcased pushback from at least some March for Life attendees. In one clip, a person can be heard yelling, “You ruined our march!” as Patriot Front members marched near the rally, surrounded by police.

Prominent presence of religious leaders

Other aspects of the event were more typical of past years, such as the presence of religious leaders and activists, especially Catholics.

Sister Veronica Marie, of the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist, said she and her Catholic group had traveled from Ann Arbor, Mich., to express their belief that “life is beautiful and it’s a gift from God.” She also said her prayer life in recent weeks has “increased,” explaining that the upcoming Supreme Court case gave her a specific cause to pray for.

Brother Patrick Joseph of Massachusetts similarly was hopeful about the upcoming ruling but said it wouldn’t impact his work to oppose abortion.

“To put it in sports perspective: I think you’ve got to work through the fourth quarter. If this is the fourth quarter, and we’re at the two-minute warning on this one, we’ve got to try our hardest to make sure it comes out successful,” he said.

The Catholic Church long has opposed abortion, but U.S. Catholics remain split on the issue. According to the Pew Research Center, a majority of Catholics (55 percent) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Similarly, a 2019 Pew poll found a solid majority of Catholics (68 percent) do not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The views of such Catholics were made visible when the group Catholics for Choice staged a protest outside the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. The group used a projector to illuminate messages in support of abortion rights onto the side of the Basilica while anti-abortion activists conducted a vigil inside.

A majority of Black Protestants (64 percent) and non-evangelical white Protestants (63 percent) also say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to Pew.

However, there was one outlier among major faith groups in Pew surveys: white evangelical Protestants, more than three-quarters (77 percent) of whom believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases as of 2021.

That includes actor and conservative activist Kirk Cameron, who promoted his upcoming adoption-themed film Lifemark at the March for Life this year while speaking out against abortion.

“Why are we here: The Bible, the book that built America, says that those who hate God love death,” he said. “But we’re the family of faith. We love God, therefore we love life. And our hope is not in the White House, it’s not in Congress. … our hope is in the power of God working in the hearts of his people.”

As for the pending Supreme Court ruling, some attendees on the National Mall were careful to temper their enthusiasm. Asked about the prospect of Roe v. Wade being struck down, Joseph struck a cautious tone.

“We hope this is the last one,” he said, referring to the March for Life. “But if it’s not, we’ll be back next year.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—A religion scholar believes major trends in religion and politics can be traced back to the rise of the religious right in the 1990s.

That sea-change moment set in motion an array of phenomena ranging from an uptick in religious disaffiliation to the radicalization of some Christian conservatives, according to Ruth Braunstein, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Connecticut.

Braunstein’s paper, “A Theory of Political Backlash: Assessing the Religious Right’s Effects on the Religious Field,” published in Sociology of Religion, offers an unusually broad-based examination of the interplay between the religious right, the religiously unaffiliated and the power of political backlash.

Braunstein grounds her study in a trend well known to scholars and everyday religious practitioners alike: The number of “nones,” so called because of the answer they give to the question “what is your religious affiliation,” has increased dramatically in recent decades.

In 1972, the General Social Survey reported 5 percent of Americans did not claim a religious affiliation. But that number shot up during the 1990s and again in the 2010s.

According to the Public Religion Research Institute, the religiously unaffiliated represented around 23 percent of the country as of 2020—a larger percentage than white evangelical Protestants, white mainline Protestants or white Catholics.

Politics a root cause of the ‘nones’?

Religious leaders and scholars have pondered the ongoing shift since it began, with some speculating the root cause is political. The rise of the nones, so the theory goes, is largely a backlash to the rise of the religious right in the 1990s. As campaigns by conservative Christians increasingly became associated with all religion in the public square, religious Americans who rejected their messages—particularly liberals with weaker connections to institutional religion—ultimately cut ties with religion altogether, identifying as nones instead.

But in her paper, Braunstein hypothesizes this cause-and-effect relationship is actually more complicated and more wide-ranging.

The uptick in liberal-leaning nones, she asserts, is but one example of “broad backlash”—a backlash against religion in general, even as some nones don’t necessarily give up religious practices or belief in a higher power.

But, she argues, there are also at least three “narrow” backlashes to the religious right that have gone relatively unnoticed, all of which are helping shape the modern religious and political landscape.

“Backlash against the religious right doesn’t actually have to mean leaving religion altogether, even though that is a choice that many people are making,” she said in an interview with Religion News Service.

‘Narrower forms of backlash’

“There are some narrower forms of backlash that involve narrowly rejecting the religious right’s brand of politicized conservative religion by either reclaiming or reformulating a way of doing religion, of being religious and engaging in public religious expression.”

Braunstein pointed to data from Pew Research showing an increase in Americans who identified as “spiritual but not religious,” rising from 19 percent in 2012 to 27 percent in 2017.

In her paper, she acknowledged that while the category likely includes people who agree with the campaigns of the religious right, other scholars have studied people who claim the moniker as a reaction to the “moral lapses of organized religion,” signaling at least some spiritual-but-not-religious Americans are “moderates, neither religious zealots nor dogmatic atheists” seeking to distance themselves from conservative Christians.

“It is plausible that the rising embrace of a spiritual identity can be read partially as a narrow backlash against the religious right, even as it also seems clear that it cannot be read exclusively in these terms,” writes Braunstein, who also heads the Meanings of Democracy Lab at the University of Connecticut.

Second, she notes the growth in positive attention paid to liberal religious activists, who are known for passionately decrying the political efforts of conservative Christians. Braunstein argues “progressive religious mobilization represents a different form of backlash than the one associated with religious disaffiliation,” one that doesn’t reject religion altogether but uses “the presence of the religious right to cast more moderate forms of public religious expression in a positive light.”

While religious liberals may have reduced as a share of the overall population, Braunstein points to a recent report examining data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study that found liberal-leaning religious activists are “the most active group in American politics.”

Giving attention to the religious left

When combined with an uptick in media reports focused on the movement—ranging from The New York Times to Politico—Braunstein couched this phenomenon as yet another “narrow backlash” in response to the religious right.

“There is heightened positive attention to groups like the religious left,” she said. “We saw that during (former President Donald) Trump’s presidency and during campaign seasons — including a recent New York Times column where Nicholas Kristof … said how excited he is that the religious left is more visible and prominent, to provide a kind of religious counter ballast to the religious right. I think we’re seeing it in the form of Democratic presidential candidates, talking openly about their faith and about the important role their religion plays in shaping their commitments to things like justice and equality.”

Braunstein then pointed to a final narrow backlash: a tendency among some liberal mainline traditions to decouple political activism from religion. She explained it as a shift not so much in religious affiliation or ideals as an overall tweak to the words used to describe them.

“This scenario differs from a broad backlash in that people remain committed to the religion field, but nonetheless frame their depoliticized version of religious expression as a positive alternative to politicized conservative religion,” she writes.

While this approach shares the religious left’s desire to reject the association of religion with conservative politics, she added, “it does not do so by publicly embracing the fusion of religion and liberal politics, but rather by delinking religion from all politics.”

But as liberals—particularly religious liberals—responded to the religious right over the decades, Braunstein says, something else was happening to the religious right itself. It experienced the effects of a counter backlash, a “feedback effect” that leads to “doubling down” in the face of criticism.

Religious right ‘purifies’ its ranks

The result was the development of what Braunstein called a “purification process” among politically active conservative Christians in general, and white evangelicals in particular.

When more moderate voices in their fold challenged campaigns against abortion and same-sex marriage—or, more recently, support for Donald Trump and his broader political movement—they often were excised.

She pointed to Russell Moore and Beth Moore (no relation), both prominent Trump critics who received significant backlash from fellow evangelicals. They both left the Southern Baptist Convention last year. Beth Moore, an author and Bible teacher, publicly left the SBC altogether, whereas Russell Moore resigned from his lofty position as president of the denomination’s ethics commission and began quietly attending a church unaffiliated with the SBC.

“Because of the effort to purify their group and be less tolerant of political dissent within their communities, we’re seeing high profile and everyday examples … being pushed out of evangelical communities because they question the political kind of choices of that community,” she said.

What’s left is a religious right with “fewer checks on radical ideas,” she said. It can have dire results: She cited those who have embraced the Christian nationalism on display during the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Braunstein said she isn’t sure what the future holds, but she’s particularly interested in the fate of conservative Christians who flee bastions of the religious right. She expressed particular interest in recent polling from PRRI indicating a sudden rise in white mainline Christians after years of decline. She said the shift needs more study but could indicate religious right exiles finding spiritual homes elsewhere—or at least identifying differently.

“We’re potentially seeing it on the ground in people who had disaffiliated from religion or leaving conservative Christian spaces, and are trying to create new spaces that are both religious and not necessarily in the vision of this politicized conservative religion that has become so prominent,” she said. “That’s taking lots of forms and requiring a lot of trial and error.”