The "nones" are increasing almost everywhere
Plus, visiting with lawyer and author Matt Martens on criminal justice and Christianity
One constant in recent political and social science research is the increase in regional sorting and political polarization. One consequence is states and congressional districts are becoming less competitive in elections as people are becoming more homogenous, not just in their political identification but in all kinds of other identity markers. And yes, this includes religion.
But as political scientist Ryan Burge highlighted over the weekend, despite some parts of the country maintaining a healthier-than-average share of religiosity, the sheer number of the “nones”—those identifying as atheist, agnostic, and (crucially) “nothing in particular”—has risen almost everywhere.
Burge compares the percentage of “nones” in different states in 2008 and 2022. Take a look:
Nowhere does the percentage of “nones” decline during this 14 year period; in fact, only in North and South Dakota is the percentage even remotely close to static. In every other state the share of “nones” increased, from the Pacific Northwest to Florida and everywhere in between.
So while some regions enjoy higher levels of religious affiliation than other parts of the country, the “nones” are up almost everywhere. In 2008 Louisiana and Mississippi reported just 18 and 23 percent without religious affiliation; today, it’s 32 and 34 percent. Even LDS-heavy Utah saw a sharp increase in the “nones,” going from 18 to 38 percent in 14 years.
While religion in the U.S. remains vibrant relative to other advanced nations (especially our cousins in Western Europe), the “nones” are clearly becoming a force to be reckoned with. What this means—for political parties, elections, legal regimes, and more—will be perhaps the most important question of the next few decades in the study of American politics.
Last week I was honored to help host lawyer and author Matt Martens for a day at John Brown University. And what a day it was. After arriving on campus in the late morning, Matt:
Had lunch with pre-law students, sharing his experiences as a clerk on the U.S. Supreme Court and providing advice and guidance to students interested in a career in the legal profession;
Visited a criminal procedure class, discussing his work as a federal prosecutor and defense attorney as well as the intersection of faith and the pursuit of justice in the context of criminal law;
Met with students from our Honors Scholars Program to talk about vocation and calling;
And spoke at an evening event on his book Reforming Criminal Justice: A Christian Proposal, engaging in dialogue with Prof. Miguel Rivera before taking several questions from the audience.
I’ve enjoyed reading Matt’s perspective on criminal justice issues for a while now, so it was wonderful to get him in front of students throughout the day and to give him a platform to share his expertise with our community. It really is one of my favorite parts of this job, bringing speakers to campus to enrich our understanding of the most important issues of the day.
I’m traveling to Oregon and Washington this week for a wedding of a dear friend. In the meantime, here are some articles that recently caught my attention…
“Christian higher education in the negative world” (WORLD)
Nathan Finn argues that Christian colleges and universities will face increasing pressures in the years ahead as culture continues to operate in a “negative world” framework regarding traditional, orthodox Christianity. As such, he encourages these institutions to take steps to shore up their defenses, like making a “full-throated commitment to Christian orthodoxy” from top to bottom and embracing a more creative and scholarship-centric model of fundraising.
“American Democracy Is in Trouble. No, Not Like That” (Christianity Today)
Three evangelical political scientists argue that while Christian nationalism is anathema to the American political and constitutional order, the greater threat to American democracy is the decline of a “vibrant and culturally influential Christianity.” Moreover, the authors lament a future in which “churches and Christian leaders undermine (or neglect) their civic role.”
This article reminds me of the latest book from my friend and former professor Mark D. Hall, who argues that Christianity—not the politically-aligned sort of today’s environment, but rather the historical faith at the center of the country’s history—laid the groundwork for the freedoms and liberties Americans enjoy today. It’s a reminder that religion plays a more important role in American society than providing individuals with various conceptions of the good life.
“Evangelical Trump Supporters and Critics on Repeat for 2024” (Christianity Today)
Harvest Prude reports on the results from last week’s “Super Tuesday” elections, in which Donald Trump essentially wrapped up his third consecutive nomination as the Republican Party’s candidate for president. She quotes various figures in the evangelical world—including David French, Daniel Darling, Napp Nazworth, and myself—on what Trump’s nomination means for evangelicals this time around. Here’s what I told her:
“A lot of evangelicals see Donald Trump as fighting for their issues, and are able to disentangle Donald Trump the person from Donald Trump the president,” said Daniel Bennett, a political science professor at John Brown University. But another segment of those in the church, he said, “might find they aren’t as welcome in evangelical circles anymore because of their dissatisfaction with Donald Trump.”
This will probably be Trump’s last year on the ballot. Where we go from here—as a country, yes, but also as evangelical Christians discerning a faithful political engagement—is actually more interesting to me than what happens to November.
“Disinformation Is Tearing America Apart” (Time) and “Why are Americans obsessed with conspiracy theories?” (The Garden of Forking Paths)
Law professor Barbara McQuade and political scientist Brian Klaas each diagnose an important malady central to our collective political and cultural moment. McQuade says disinformation threatens to tear our political system asunder:
In a democracy, the people need a shared set of facts as a basis to debate and make decisions that advance and secure their collective interests. Differences of opinion, and even propaganda, have always existed in the United States, but now, enemies of democracy are using disinformation to attack our sovereign right to truthful information, intellectual integrity, and the exercise of the will of the people. Online disinformation is particularly insidious because of its immediacy, its capacity to deceive, and its ability to reach its target.'
At the same time, Klaas describes how affinity for conspiracism has been part of the American story for decades, even centuries:
For much of America’s history, conspiracism has been concerned with ethnic and religious groups — the “other” — who were usually accused of secretly plotting to undermine the dominant group in society. But such fears have, over time, morphed into paranoid suspicions focused on the government, such as the deep state conspiracies that worry that a shadowy, unknown hand is the real power behind the throne in Washington.
So while disinformation and conspiracism do pose threats to our collective experiment in self-governance, these threats and challenges are not exactly new. What is new, perhaps, is how we encounter these things, blurring the lines between truth and fiction in a moment when distrust for our experts and institutions is dangerously high.