It's silly to pretend that we don't use religiosity as a signal of political ideology and affiliation. We of course do, because it is:
*Which* religion, the *denomination* of the religion, and *level* of religiosity all play a role in bias, because they all correlate with political ideology and affiliation. These are all signals.
I think it's undeniable that there is an anti-religious bias in elite media, but it manifests mostly when it is perceived that religion is being channeled into a conservative politics. When that happens, religiosity becomes incorporated into the assessment of the threat level.
This dynamic pretty clearly played a role in the Covington Catholic story, which turned out to be one of the most embarrassing episodes for media in years. A Times reporter even solicited dirt on Christian schools with the hashtag #exposechristianschools.
nypost.com/2019/01/24/ny-…
Religion is one among many signals we use to assess people's identities and what cultural and political team they play for. It isn't simple or straightforward, but pretending it isn't a factor — as many are doing right now — is not being honest or accurate.
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.