Gaslit by Godliness: Unpacking the Harmful Rhetoric of Religious Disaffiliation (To: Deseret News)
- Aubrey Earle
- Dec 3, 2024
- 5 min read
Other titles I was thinking on using:
The Myth Of Moral Decline: Flourishing Without Faith
When Religion Hurts: The Empowering Act Of Walking Away
On with my blog post:
In a recent article by Jacob Hess for the Deseret News, the author compares two contrasting reports on religious disaffiliation: one emphasizing the benefits of religious involvement and the other suggesting that many individuals thrive after leaving faith. While the article presents an seemingly balanced overview of these narratives, its framing and conclusions serve to subtly invalidate and gaslight those who leave religion. The rhetorical strategy employed minimizes the lived experiences of former believers, oversimplifies complex social trends, and perpetuates a narrow view of human flourishing tied to religious participation. This rebuttal seeks to address these issues while highlighting the broader, nuanced realities of religious disaffiliation.
The writer of the article is widely misrepresenting the reality of religious disaffiliation:
The article begins by acknowledging the growing trend of religious disaffiliation but frames this phenomenon as a deviation from the "ideal" of religious participation. Hess cites the Wheatley report's assertion that “religion matters for human flourishing,” … implying that leaving religion inherently diminishes one’s quality of life?!
This perspective dismisses the diversity of reasons why individuals leave faith communities and the positive transformations that OFTEN accompany this decision.
Religious disaffiliation is not a singular or monolithic experience. For many, leaving religion is an act of empowerment, a step toward self-discovery, and a rejection of systems they find oppressive, harmful, or misaligned with their values. Contrary to the Wheatley report's assertion that disaffiliation leads to "negative outcomes," observed and verifiable evidence suggests that many individuals report improved mental health, a stronger sense of autonomy, and greater authenticity after leaving faith.
And a 2017 study published in Psychology of Religion and Spirituality found that while disaffiliation can be stressful due to social stigma, it often leads to personal growth and increased life satisfaction over time.
2. In his article he overgeneralizes the benefits of religion… specifically? overcompensating if you ask me…
Hess asserts that religion reliably correlates with positive outcomes such as psychological well-being, lower engagement in risky behaviors, and stronger familial relationships. While there is data supporting these correlations, sure… the article neglects to explore the mechanisms behind them, which are not inherently tied to religious belief. Community, purpose, and social support… often present in religious contexts… are the true drivers of these benefits, and they can be found outside religion as well!
Nonreligious individuals frequently build robust communities, pursue meaningful goals, and foster deep relationships without reliance on faith. The cold, bitter and anti-individualistique framing that nonreligious individuals lack "purpose and meaning" certainly perpetuates a false dichotomy between religious and secular lives. Studies, including those by sociologist Phil Zuckerman, have demonstrated that secular societies often rank higher on measures of happiness, equality, and well-being, challenging the notion that religion is a prerequisite for flourishing. (I mean look at Sweden, Wikipedia says, “A 2023 Gallup International survey found that Sweden was the country with the highest percentage of citizens that stated they do not believe in a god”... and it is flourishing with a very low… and almost nonexistent… crime rate, compared to America!)
Moreover, the article by Hess conflates correlation with causation (lol say that 3 times fast) …Just because religious individuals report higher well-being does not mean religion is the sole or even primary cause. Cultural expectations and societal support for religious participation likely skew these results, particularly in countries where religiosity is normalized or rewarded!
3. In Hess’ article, he is ignoring harmful aspects of religion.
The article fails to account for the substantial harm that religious institutions and practices have inflicted on individuals and communities. While religion can be a source of comfort and guidance, it can also perpetuate trauma, discrimination, and abuse. Many individuals leave religion precisely because their experiences within it were damaging. For instance, patriarchal structures within many faith traditions marginalize women and LGBTQ+ individuals, leading to feelings of alienation and unworthiness. High-demand religions, which exert control over members’ thoughts, behaviors, and relationships, often leave ex-members grappling with identity crises and mental health challenges upon leaving. Research by Dr. Marlene Winell on “religious trauma syndrome” highlights the profound psychological impact of leaving authoritarian or dogmatic religious groups, including anxiety, guilt, and difficulty rebuilding one’s worldview.
The article’s omission of these realities is not merely an oversight… it actively gaslights those who leave religion by portraying their departure as inherently negative or misguided. This framing invalidates their pain, resilience, AND agency.
4. Questioning the "One-Way Street" narrative…
Hess critiques the narrative that secularization represents an irreversible societal trend, citing birthrate disparities and anecdotal evidence of religious revivals. While it is true that religion persists in various forms, this does not negate the broader trend of disaffiliation in many parts of the world, particularly in highly developed countries.
The rise of the “nones” (those unaffiliated with any religion) reflects a cultural shift toward individual autonomy and skepticism of institutional authority. This movement is not merely a “social trend” but a response to deep-seated dissatisfaction with religion’s role in politics, education, and personal life. Rather than abrubtly dismissing this shift, scholars and religious leaders alike should seek to understand it and address the legitimate grievances of those who leave!
5. Politicizing religious disaffiliation
The article claims that politics plays a minimal role in motivating religious engagement, yet it downplays the extent to which political ideologies influence religious institutions and their members. Many individuals leave religion precisely because of its entanglement with political agendas that conflict with their personal values. The alignment of certain religious groups with divisive political movements has alienated believers who feel their faith should transcend partisan divides.
So… the claim that liberalizing religion does not resonate with people oversimplifies a complex issue. Progressive faith communities, such as the United Church of Christ or Reform Judaism, demonstrate that inclusive, egalitarian approaches to spirituality can and do attract adherents. The idea that only conservative or traditionalist expressions of religion will endure ignores the adaptive and dynamic nature of faith.
6. There is hundreds of millions of humans flourishing beyond religion!
Perhaps the most problematic aspect of the article is its underlying assumption that religion is essential for human flourishing. This perspective marginalizes those who find fulfillment outside faith and dismisses the validity of secular worldviews. Flourishing is not a one-size-fits-all concept! … it is deeply personal and context-dependent.
Secular philosophies such as humanism emphasize ethics, compassion, and the pursuit of knowledge without reliance on the supernatural. For many, these principles provide a robust framework for meaning and purpose. Additionally, nonreligious individuals contribute to society in myriad ways, from advancing scientific innovation to advocating for social justice.
The narrative that disaffiliation leads to moral or social decline is both unfounded and insulting. It perpetuates a stigma against nonbelievers and reinforces the false notion that religion holds a monopoly on virtue and community.
7. So here is my conclusion… religious people need to foster more respect towards the complexity of religious disaffiliation…
In its attempt to champion the merits of religion, Hess’ article inadvertently gaslights those who leave by framing their experiences as less valid or meaningful. It ignores the diversity of reasons behind disaffiliation, minimizes the harm caused by religious institutions, and perpetuates stereotypes about nonreligious individuals.
Religious disaffiliation is not a failure or a deviation… it is a legitimate and often empowering choice. By listening to the stories of those who leave… without judgment or condescension… we can foster a more inclusive and respectful dialogue about faith, doubt, and human flourishing.
Religion has played a significant role in human history and continues to shape many lives. And I'm certain it always will… and that's not necessarily a bad thing! However, it is neither universal nor universally beneficial. Acknowledging this truth is not an attack on faith but an affirmation of the diversity of human experience. We must move beyond simplistic narratives that pit religion against secularism and embrace the complexity of what it means to seek meaning, purpose, and connection in an ever-changing world.
With much much love,
AubsThePoet
<3
Commentaires