First, there's a huge #ChristianNationalism propaganda machine that puts out misinformation about religion (Christianity) in American political history. Folks higher on Christian nationalism are more likely to consume this material. See @anelsona@kathsstewart@AndrewLSeidel 2/
Second, in another study we found folks higher on #ChristianNationalism got lower science scores, not because they're ignorant per se, but b/c when asked about contentious issues (e.g., evolution) they chose answers favoring subculture. @ParadoxOfBelief 3/ journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…
Likely some of both going on. Americans higher on #ChristianNationalism are 1) consuming material that shapes their view of history AND 2) they're more likely to pick answers that support the view that Christianity is central to American history, but is now persecuted. 4/
Our findings support those of Peterson & Iyengar showing highly partisan adults often hold to inaccurate info b/c "partisans seek out information with congenial slant & sincerely adopt inaccurate beliefs that cast their party in a favorable light." 5/ onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…
If you provoke engagement, but changing your mind or admitting error are fundamentally alien to your job description and reputation, you may be a good lawyer, apologist, or grifter, but you are NOT an academic, nor, perhaps most importantly, worth an academic's time engaging.
Academics don't perfectly embody this. We all have biases along w/professional & social pressures. But ideally, at the end of the day, scholars proceed under the bedrock assumption that we could be wrong & want to learn. Not so w/folks whose job/status demands they NEVER lose.
Good way to see if this applies to you: ask yourself "If I publicly reversed my argument tomorrow, would I lose my job or reputation?" As an academic, I'm ideally free to follow data. But a lawyer or apologist? Toast.
(So why engage w/folks who must NEVER change no matter what?)
🧵 Thinking about the SCOTUS abortion case. There are many reasons folks oppose abortion. BUT the "sanctity of life" rhetoric always bothers me cuz folks who want to restrict abortion are also *more likely to be* folks who disregard life (or nonviolence, mercy) the most. Data: 1/
The 2018 GSS asked if adults thought state abortion laws should be easier or harder. Note that those who want to make abortion harder are more likely to favor death penalty, want courts to be harsher, oppose gun permits, & would approve of police hitting mouthy citizens. 2/
Conservs. can argue first 2 (death penalty, harsher courts) are "pro-life" in that being harsh w/criminals may preserve innocent life.
Harder to make that argument w/the other 2 questions, suggesting folks who wanna make abortion harder are just more pro-guns & authoritarian. 3/
Visiting the Civil Rights Museum with my kiddos on the way through Memphis. Struck by how little has changed in terms of how many white Americans view the law when they feel threatened.
We propose #ChristianNationalism operates (1) as an "epistemology of ignorance" for whites that allows them to rewrite history as "Christian" & "good" & ignore past & present injustices. But (2) it also builds on the fact that "Christian nation" language is racially-coded. 2/
Examining various outcomes, we show the more whites affirm our "race neutral" #ChristianNationalism measures, the more they deny anti-Black injustice & the more they think whites are unfairly targeted. But Blacks' views on racial injustice don't change as CN increases. Why? 3/
You see other explicit examples like this one from the Christian post. Here the author uses “white America” to refer to all biblical Christians. Why? Cuz in her mind, and those of her readers, they’re the same. google.com/amp/s/www.chri…
Or here’s one from Eric Metaxas a few years back. Does this guy really think Jesus was “white” like him? Maybe. But more likely he means “Jesus was one of us. He’s on our side.”
Again, “Christian” just becomes code for “white people like us.”
I DO NOT speak for Pew in ANY capacity. But I’m happy to offer thoughts on findings for media. Here are some highlights: 1/8 pewforum.org/2021/10/28/in-…
First, what’s with different numbers? These are not the questions we’ve used. Pew used different wording & MOST importantly, different response options (they discuss this in the report). They’re gonna get somewhat different results. So not strictly comparable to our findings. 2/8
Do percentages seem low? Again, different measures. Further, we already found declining CN between 2007-2017, so lower was expected. AND CN has been on blast for a year+. I’d be SHOCKED if social desirability wasn’t curbing affirmative CN responses by March 2021 (post Jan 6). 3/8