An email came to me this week from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). The Institute describes itself in this way: “As a nonpartisan, independent research organization, PRRI does not take positions on, nor do we advocate for, particular policies.”
But the very first line of the email suggests otherwise.
The email was sent in anticipation of President Trump’s executive order on religious freedom, which speaks generally about “formulating and implementing policies with implications for the religious liberty of persons and organizations in America.” The order is, in fact, a circumspect document, the impact of which remains unclear. You can tell that from its assertion that people have the right to exercise their religious freedoms “without undue interference by the Federal government.” The word “undue” is vague enough to go either way when the next conflict arises.
But that is not how PRRI characterizes the order. The researchers at PRRI know exactly what the order is about and what it will do. The email opens: “President Trump is set to sign an executive action Thursday that would allow religious individuals and organizations to legally discriminate against members of the LGBT community and individuals having sex outside of marriage.”
In that line, PRRI narrows the consequences of the order to its effects on two victims, LGBT individuals and unmarried sexual partners. The impact, too, has been reduced to one thing: discrimination. Instead of acknowledging a complicated situation wherein two parties with clashing interests and values must be managed, PRRI presents a simple scenario of one group victimizing another.
This is a tendentious, partisan understanding. Behind the order are recent cases of religiously conservative bakers, florists, and photographers refusing to participate in same-sex weddings. They haven’t discriminated against LGBT individuals; I don’t know of any of them denying their wares and services for non-wedding purposes. They simply can’t cross the line and join in what is to them a sinful ceremony.
But their position doesn’t count, not in PRRI’s opinion. The researchers don’t credit the convictions of religious believers as obedience to their God and their church leaders. In PRRI’s opinion, these believers just want to hurt others.
We have another instance of the irony noted in my previous post. A research center whose subject is religion doesn’t take seriously the actual religion of its subjects.
Mark Bauerlein is senior editor of First Things.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…