This episode is about the difference between humble faith and weaponized faith. The difference matters enormously, and our public conversation regularly collapses the two. So I want to draw the line carefully, before I make the harder argument.

I am not arguing that religious faith is inherently harmful. I am not arguing that people of faith are intellectually deficient or that religious experience is meaningless. I’m an agnostic — which means I do not have a clue whether there is a God or some form of transcendence that the word God gestures toward. I’m simply applying critical thinking and being honest about uncertainty.

Not knowing doesn’t fill me with dread or stop me from living my life to the fullest. There is no fight-or-flight response, because it’s not necessary. Quite the opposite. Acknowledging uncertainty is what triggers curiosity, the desire to seek knowledge and find answers. And that is liberating. It is empowering. None of this happens if we settle for false certainties.

I want to hold that position openly for a moment, because it’s different from the position of the people whose faith I’m addressing in this podcast, and different from the position of those who think all religion is simply false and religion’s public role obviously illegitimate.

I was raised in a household that had a complex relationship with religion. I had experiences — the experience of community held together by shared commitment; the experience of hearing people articulate a vision of human dignity and mutual obligation that was genuine and inspiring. I do not dismiss those experiences as meaningless.

What I can tell you is that the faith that produces those experiences is categorically different from the faith addressed in this podcast. The faith that produces genuine humility, that’s held with the tentativeness appropriate to questions that transcend human knowledge, that produces the commitment to human dignity rather than the defense of hierarchy — that faith is not what I’m arguing against. I’m arguing against the weaponization of faith. The political deployment of religious certainty to override the rights of people who are applying critical thinking and acknowledging uncertainty.

The history of Christianity in America is, in many ways, the history of that tension. Between the prophetic tradition that calls the powerful to account for their treatment of the vulnerable. And the priestly tradition that legitimates existing power arrangements by blessing them. Both are present in Christian scripture. Both have been influential in American religious life. The question is which has been more influential, and which is more influential now.

The history of every theocratic state in the modern world makes this point with painful clarity. Iran’s Islamic Republic, which came to power promising justice and freedom from corrupt secular authority, has governed for four decades through a system in which religious law overrides democratic accountability. The Supreme Leader is not elected. His authority derives from his interpretation of divine law. The consequences for women, dissidents, religious minorities, and LGBTQ people have been catastrophic.

The structural logic of faith-based governance, wherever it has been implemented, produces governments that are accountable to an unelected, self-appointed religious authority rather than to the citizens they govern. The American separation of church and state was designed precisely to prevent that. And it is under sustained, sophisticated, very well-funded attack.

Jemar Tisby, in *The Color of Compromise*, documents how the mainstream of white American Christianity has, again and again, chosen the priestly over the prophetic. Accommodating slavery rather than opposing it. Accommodating segregation rather than opposing it. Accommodating the political subjugation of women rather than opposing it. This is not the whole of the tradition — the prophetic strand has been alive throughout, in the abolitionist clergy, in the civil rights movement, in liberation theology. But the mainstream has tended to accommodate power rather than challenge it.

The current moment is a continuation of that pattern. The mainstream of white American evangelical Christianity has aligned itself with a political movement that is, at its core, about the maintenance of existing hierarchies — of gender, of race, of sexual orientation — against the evidence that those hierarchies are harmful. The theological language is genuinely religious. The politics it produces are not the politics of the prophetic tradition. They are the politics of the priestly tradition. The blessing of power.

Now let me put on the table the historical record of institutional religion as a tool of oppression. Because it is not ambiguous.

By the fifteenth century, the Catholic Church had become the first global organization to formally authorize the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The Doctrine of Discovery, issued by Pope Nicholas V in a series of papal decrees beginning in 1452, declared that European Christian monarchies had the God-ordained right to conquer, claim, and enslave the peoples of any lands not already ruled by Christians. Robert J. Miller and other legal scholars have traced how this doctrine authorized the invasion of the Americas. The destruction of Indigenous civilizations. The seizure of their lands. The forcible conversion or enslavement of their populations. It was cited as legal precedent by the United States Supreme Court as recently as 2005. The Catholic Church did not formally renounce it until 2023.

The Doctrine of Discovery was not presented as a policy decision. It was presented as the will of God. That is not incidental to its power. It is the source of its power. A policy decision can be argued with. A divine mandate cannot. This is the fundamental difference between evidence-based governance and faith-based governance. One is, in principle, subject to debate, revision, and reversal. The other is not. And that difference — between a law that can be challenged and a law that cannot — is the distance between democracy and theocracy.

The same pattern repeats. Southern churches in the antebellum United States did not merely acquiesce to slavery. Many of them provided its most eloquent theological defenses. After the Civil War, white churches in the South provided spiritual validation for the violent reimposition of racial hierarchy through lynching, segregation, and terror. During the civil rights movement, many of those same churches — and many white Northern churches as well — were among the most determined opponents of integration. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, Dr. King reserved some of his sharpest words not for the Klan or the White Citizens’ Councils but for the white moderate church. “I must confess,” King wrote, “that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate, who is more devoted to order than to justice.”

The thread is not malice — though malice was certainly present. The thread is certainty. The certainty that the racial hierarchy was natural and God-ordained. That the suffering of enslaved people was part of a divine plan. That the order of things was not to be questioned by fallible human reason. That certainty served a function. It resolved the cognitive dissonance of otherwise decent people who found themselves participating in or benefiting from systems of extraordinary cruelty. It provided exactly the psychological service that false certainty always provides. Comfort in the face of what would otherwise be unbearable moral complexity.

I want to make this concrete in the present tense. Because the same logic is operating right now — quietly, institutionally — inside the medical system that most Americans turn to in crisis.

Four of the ten largest American hospital chains are now Catholic. As Catholic-affiliated hospitals have expanded, they have systematically restricted access to reproductive health services. Contraception. Sterilization. Miscarriage management. End-of-life care. The directives governing this restriction are issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — an all-male body — and they carry the force of theological certainty.

The American Medical Association’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has documented the medical consequences in terms that are difficult to read without anger. Religious mergers create a direct conflict between professional ethics and institutional compliance. Restricted access to services has a disproportionate impact on poor women and women in rural areas. There are documented cases of women in incomplete miscarriage being told that the only hospital within fifty miles cannot legally help them — until the fetus is confirmed dead. Because a bishop said so.

This is what it looks like when supernatural certainty is allowed to govern evidence-based practice. A woman in labor. A physician trained at one of the great research universities of the world. Bound by the Hippocratic oath. Aware of exactly what needs to happen. A set of directives written by men who will never be in that room, that says it cannot. This is what every freedom-loving American should fear. Not trans kids and wokeness, as conservative politicians endlessly insist. This. The quiet, institutional replacement of evidence-based medicine with theological compliance, in the very rooms where the most vulnerable people in our society go for help.

Now let me name what is happening in American law on the same trajectory. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, originally designed to protect minority religious communities from generally applicable laws, has been transformed through litigation into a mechanism by which religious organizations and individuals can claim exemption from civil rights laws that apply to everyone else.

The Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby established that closely held corporations can claim religious exemptions from generally applicable laws — in that case, the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage to employees. The court’s 2023 decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis held that a web design company offering services to the public could refuse to design wedding websites for same-sex couples on religious grounds.

Kate Andrias, the legal scholar, has called this trajectory the privatization of civil rights. The creation of a legal regime in which religious conviction functions as a get-out-of-civil-rights-free card for any individual or institution willing to invoke it. LGBTQ people can be denied housing, employment, education, and medical care by any entity that can claim a religious basis for the denial. Women can be denied contraceptive coverage. Same-sex couples can be refused adoption assistance. Transgender people can be denied access to bathrooms, shelters, and medical facilities. In each case, the religious freedom claim is made in the name of protecting sincere belief. In each case, the actual effect is to use the law to impose the costs of that belief on people who do not share it.

This is the structural logic of faith-based governance. The beliefs of some are allowed to define the rights available to others.

Then there is Project 2025. The nine-hundred-page Heritage Foundation blueprint for a second Trump administration. It states its theological premises openly. The document’s vision of the good society is explicitly “God’s design for humanity” — with family structure, gender roles, sexual expression, and the relationship between government and religion all ordered according to a specific interpretation of Christian teaching. Kevin Roberts, the Heritage president, wrote in the foreword: “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” That is not the language of democratic governance. That is the language of religious nationalism. And it places the condition for bloodlessness on the people being revolutionized against, not on the people doing the revolutionizing. That is the grammar of a coup.

In engineering, we have a concept called single point of failure — a component whose failure brings down the whole system. Faith-based governance is a single point of failure for democratic accountability. When the basis for a law is supernatural authority, there is no mechanism for accountability. You cannot argue with God. You cannot subject God to peer review. You cannot vote God out. A government that derives its authority from God is not accountable to the people it governs. It is accountable only to the intermediaries who claim to speak for God. And in practice, those intermediaries are remarkably well-aligned with the economic and political interests of those already in power.

The history of every theocratic state in the modern world makes this point with painful clarity. Iran’s Islamic Republic, which came to power promising justice and freedom from corrupt secular authority, has governed for four decades through a system in which religious law overrides democratic accountability. The Supreme Leader is not elected. His authority derives from his interpretation of divine law. The consequences for women, dissidents, religious minorities, and LGBTQ people have been catastrophic.

I am not saying that evangelical Christianity in America will produce an Iranian-style theocracy. I am saying that the structural logic of faith-based governance, wherever it has been implemented, produces governments that are accountable to an unelected, self-appointed religious authority rather than to the citizens they govern. The American separation of church and state was designed precisely to prevent that. And it is under sustained, sophisticated, very well-funded attack.

Let me end where I started. The dissenters within institutional religion have always been there. The Catholic nuns who organized labor unions and were eventually suppressed by the Vatican. The liberation theologians of Latin America, condemned and dismissed for insisting that the Gospel requires the preferential option for the poor. The priests and ministers who marched at Selma. The congregations that affirm transgender dignity today. Francis of Assisi. Hildegard of Bingen. Dorothy Day. Howard Thurman. Pauli Murray.

What unites them is not a liberal political agenda. It is a specific theological claim. That authentic faithfulness requires the extension of moral concern to those who are excluded by the comfortable certainties of the institutional church. That is faith I respect without reservation. That faith is not my enemy. It is my ally. And the inclusive churches that today affirm the dignity of LGBTQ people and stand against racial injustice are not betraying Christianity. They are insisting on a form of it that cannot be turned into a weapon. They have already done the internal work of distinguishing between faith as personal inspiration and faith as political domination. They know the difference from the inside. They know the cost of ignoring it.

That is the kind of faith this series is in alliance with. The other kind, the manufactured kind, is the one I am asking you to recognize and refuse.

Sign up on this site to receive updates on the soon-to-be-published book, “Hello, World, I’m the Dad of a Trans Kid: The Case for Curiosity in a World Addicted to Certainty.” If podcasts are your thing, please check out the podcast series of the same name.