I think both Hewitt and the Post article may be misreading Trump's statement and its resonance. Note that all the historical examples of weaponization you gave, while substantial, were levied against a non-white and/or non-Protestant minority group. I think what alarms Mr. Trump's largely white, Protestant audience in Waterloo, Iowa is that the weaponization of government is happening, for the first time in American history, against them and people like them - and that while they perceive themselves to be in the majority.
I'm not typically one to defend the truthfulness of the dubious claims of politicians, and certainly not one to defend politicians who themselves are not concerned with being truthful. However, the weaponization of government against religion *is* occurring "like never before" - not in extent, but in target. So, in that sense, Trump's statement is both technically true and on point for his audience.
That's not to say that Trump's statement isn't easily misinterpreted, or even deliberately constructed as to be easily accepted as true in one sense and then repeated and re-understood in a sense more broad and sweeping (but not true).
Thanks, Dan. I think you're right about what Trump intends for his audience and what that audience is perceiving. But the object of his claim "Christians and Americans of faith" (which then informs his reference to "religion") is clearly broader than white Protestants and I think makes the statement demonstrably false.
The historical record is also filled with far more than I was able to include in my short paragraph. But there are plenty of examples of Anglicans curtailing the free exercise of Baptists, Congregationalists enforcing theocratic laws against other Protestants, and many other cases of white Protestants being on the losing end of government weaponization of religion.
Again, this is not to deny the existence of current challenges to religious freedom, but it is to name the inaccurate and hyperbolic nature of Trump's claim and critique Hugh Hewitt's defense of it.
Another historical example is the treatment Confessional Lutherans by the US Government and DOJ during World War I. The Lutherans (who were German in heritage, but had left Germany due to religious opposition to the Prussian/German government) were spied on, forced to adopt English in their liturgy, and mistrusted as they would not adopt pro-war/internationalist and (what was then considered) "progressive" beliefs. It is probably one of the most outlandishly unconstitutional parts of that era and I am surprised it isn't discussed more, as when I first learned about it I was honestly stunned by parts of it (for example, the DOJ tried to mandate that sermons discussed political subjects unrelated to religion, such as food rationing for the War effort, and complaints against this were labelled as "sedition").
On a slightly related note, (& an interesting book probably has yet to be written on the following subject), but I find it to be very ironic that the "evangelical," broadly-Protestant, and highly political religious movements (and the religious and political establishment) were generally on the "theological left" of there time for most of American history. As shown by the famous Time "American Malvern" article of 1942, the US establishment was largely composed of liberal mainline Protestants. Much of the current discourse surrounding religion and politics misses that the central conflict is not the "Christians vs. Secularists" but instead the disappearance of the mainline and of liberal Protestantism. From this lens, the "Culture War" is more a squabble over the ruins of the mainline than an existential battle, and those ruins just happen to be at the center of the public square.
This also explains why both sides view themselves as on the defensive, as both secularists and conservative Protestants can look at the other party as the encroaching/advancing party, when in fact both are merely advancing over ground vacated by an earlier Christian liberalism, which was both deeply flawed and also crucial for the maintaining of a democratic center in American politics.
I don't think that's quite the right framing of contemporary culture wars. The sizable "secular right" and "secular left" are affecting religion and politics far more today than in earlier eras. They also complicate earlier versions of pluralism to the extent there is no longer an interfaith transcendent common ground to which to appeal. You're right, though, that the collapse of the Protestant mainline is an important part of the story. See Joseph Bottum's book, An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America.
Thanks John. This highlights the importance of historical context. It’s also a great lesson in how we ought to approach the consumption of news today. Whenever we hear a reporter, columnist, or pundit making conclusory statements instead of factual statements, that is a time to perk up and investigate further whether the claims being made (usually opinion) are in fact true.
I’m any event, congrats on being cited by Hewitt. That’s never happened to me.
I wrote a response to your article, that I think shows that there is some merit to what Hewitt is saying, even if Hewitt is hyperbolic in his language. Not to sound Hegelian, but I think that there is a possible synthesis between your position and Hewitt's position and there is a lot of value in both.
Hi Mason, thanks for your engagement and thoughtful reflections. Unfortunately, I won't be able to respond in full, but a few quick points.
First, I don't think it's quite right to characterize my newsletter above as suggesting that I believe or am asserting that "much of the discussion of threats to religious liberty is overblown." My analysis is limited to Trump's statement and Hewitt's interpretation of it. I have elsewhere written fairly extensively about religious liberty, including current threats and challenges to it.
Finally, I don't think it's correct to assert that recent free exercise cases have "oftentimes been decided along partisan lines at the Supreme Court." For example, Masterpiece was 7-2, Fulton 9-0, Morrissey-Berru 7-2 (and Hosanna Tabor, on which it builds, 9-0).
Again, apologies that I won't have time to dig further into your commentary, and thanks again for your engagement!
Thank you for replying. First of all, the first clarification makes a lot of sense. The third appears to have been a factual error on my part. I remember being in class in High School around the time and the teacher (who supported the side of dissent), and she said that it would have been different if Garland had been appointed instead of Gorsuch, and thus I had misremembered the case as being 5-4. As for the O'Rourke comments, similarly I had remembered them as going undiscussed, but that might just be because I was a senior in High School, and thus had a very different vantage point (that point was the one at which the discussions about Medicare for All and a potential Wealth Tax were at their climax, so those are the main discussions I remember from that point in time).
Also, I finished the "Uncommon Ground" book, and found it to be very enjoyable, as it provides perspectives that I had not heard before, and it seems that the political realm of Midwestern and Southern Evangelicalism is very different from that of Catholicism in Southern California. I might want to write a review of it that focuses on the salience of geography in these discussions.
Good word, John! Keep calling for reasonable discourse! I'll be right there with you.
John,
I think both Hewitt and the Post article may be misreading Trump's statement and its resonance. Note that all the historical examples of weaponization you gave, while substantial, were levied against a non-white and/or non-Protestant minority group. I think what alarms Mr. Trump's largely white, Protestant audience in Waterloo, Iowa is that the weaponization of government is happening, for the first time in American history, against them and people like them - and that while they perceive themselves to be in the majority.
I'm not typically one to defend the truthfulness of the dubious claims of politicians, and certainly not one to defend politicians who themselves are not concerned with being truthful. However, the weaponization of government against religion *is* occurring "like never before" - not in extent, but in target. So, in that sense, Trump's statement is both technically true and on point for his audience.
That's not to say that Trump's statement isn't easily misinterpreted, or even deliberately constructed as to be easily accepted as true in one sense and then repeated and re-understood in a sense more broad and sweeping (but not true).
Thanks, Dan. I think you're right about what Trump intends for his audience and what that audience is perceiving. But the object of his claim "Christians and Americans of faith" (which then informs his reference to "religion") is clearly broader than white Protestants and I think makes the statement demonstrably false.
The historical record is also filled with far more than I was able to include in my short paragraph. But there are plenty of examples of Anglicans curtailing the free exercise of Baptists, Congregationalists enforcing theocratic laws against other Protestants, and many other cases of white Protestants being on the losing end of government weaponization of religion.
Again, this is not to deny the existence of current challenges to religious freedom, but it is to name the inaccurate and hyperbolic nature of Trump's claim and critique Hugh Hewitt's defense of it.
Another historical example is the treatment Confessional Lutherans by the US Government and DOJ during World War I. The Lutherans (who were German in heritage, but had left Germany due to religious opposition to the Prussian/German government) were spied on, forced to adopt English in their liturgy, and mistrusted as they would not adopt pro-war/internationalist and (what was then considered) "progressive" beliefs. It is probably one of the most outlandishly unconstitutional parts of that era and I am surprised it isn't discussed more, as when I first learned about it I was honestly stunned by parts of it (for example, the DOJ tried to mandate that sermons discussed political subjects unrelated to religion, such as food rationing for the War effort, and complaints against this were labelled as "sedition").
On a slightly related note, (& an interesting book probably has yet to be written on the following subject), but I find it to be very ironic that the "evangelical," broadly-Protestant, and highly political religious movements (and the religious and political establishment) were generally on the "theological left" of there time for most of American history. As shown by the famous Time "American Malvern" article of 1942, the US establishment was largely composed of liberal mainline Protestants. Much of the current discourse surrounding religion and politics misses that the central conflict is not the "Christians vs. Secularists" but instead the disappearance of the mainline and of liberal Protestantism. From this lens, the "Culture War" is more a squabble over the ruins of the mainline than an existential battle, and those ruins just happen to be at the center of the public square.
This also explains why both sides view themselves as on the defensive, as both secularists and conservative Protestants can look at the other party as the encroaching/advancing party, when in fact both are merely advancing over ground vacated by an earlier Christian liberalism, which was both deeply flawed and also crucial for the maintaining of a democratic center in American politics.
I don't think that's quite the right framing of contemporary culture wars. The sizable "secular right" and "secular left" are affecting religion and politics far more today than in earlier eras. They also complicate earlier versions of pluralism to the extent there is no longer an interfaith transcendent common ground to which to appeal. You're right, though, that the collapse of the Protestant mainline is an important part of the story. See Joseph Bottum's book, An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America.
Thank you, John, for helping us to navigate these waters with well-informed counsel.
Thanks John. This highlights the importance of historical context. It’s also a great lesson in how we ought to approach the consumption of news today. Whenever we hear a reporter, columnist, or pundit making conclusory statements instead of factual statements, that is a time to perk up and investigate further whether the claims being made (usually opinion) are in fact true.
I’m any event, congrats on being cited by Hewitt. That’s never happened to me.
I wrote a response to your article, that I think shows that there is some merit to what Hewitt is saying, even if Hewitt is hyperbolic in his language. Not to sound Hegelian, but I think that there is a possible synthesis between your position and Hewitt's position and there is a lot of value in both.
Here is the link to what I wrote:
https://collegiatechouannerie.substack.com/p/religious-liberty-under-threat
Hi Mason, thanks for your engagement and thoughtful reflections. Unfortunately, I won't be able to respond in full, but a few quick points.
First, I don't think it's quite right to characterize my newsletter above as suggesting that I believe or am asserting that "much of the discussion of threats to religious liberty is overblown." My analysis is limited to Trump's statement and Hewitt's interpretation of it. I have elsewhere written fairly extensively about religious liberty, including current threats and challenges to it.
Second, I did not experience O'Rourke's comments as being "largely overlooked and not discussed." For example, The Atlantic solicited and then published a piece from me about those remarks: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/beto-orourkes-pluralism-failure/599953/
Finally, I don't think it's correct to assert that recent free exercise cases have "oftentimes been decided along partisan lines at the Supreme Court." For example, Masterpiece was 7-2, Fulton 9-0, Morrissey-Berru 7-2 (and Hosanna Tabor, on which it builds, 9-0).
Again, apologies that I won't have time to dig further into your commentary, and thanks again for your engagement!
Thank you for replying. First of all, the first clarification makes a lot of sense. The third appears to have been a factual error on my part. I remember being in class in High School around the time and the teacher (who supported the side of dissent), and she said that it would have been different if Garland had been appointed instead of Gorsuch, and thus I had misremembered the case as being 5-4. As for the O'Rourke comments, similarly I had remembered them as going undiscussed, but that might just be because I was a senior in High School, and thus had a very different vantage point (that point was the one at which the discussions about Medicare for All and a potential Wealth Tax were at their climax, so those are the main discussions I remember from that point in time).
Also, I finished the "Uncommon Ground" book, and found it to be very enjoyable, as it provides perspectives that I had not heard before, and it seems that the political realm of Midwestern and Southern Evangelicalism is very different from that of Catholicism in Southern California. I might want to write a review of it that focuses on the salience of geography in these discussions.