You are going to hell!

A meditation on the insurrection at the Capitol

As I’ve been reading the accounts of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, I’ve been struck by the number of times sacredness has been referenced. I hear the news reports saying the Capitol building is sacred, our processes are sacred, and democracy is sacred. 

But the insurrectionists referenced sacredness in a different way: One of the flags they flew said, “Jesus 2020,” plus their chants included “Say yes to Jesus!” and “Shout if you love Jesus!” (followed by “Shout if you love Trump.”) They demonstrated that they didn’t feel the Capitol was sacred by smearing blood and feces around — a clear violation of the Sacredness moral foundation.

Trump supporters have been noted for their merging of religion and politics.  Another sign at the insurrection read, "God, Guns and Guts Made America: Let’s Keep all Three.” In her book, “Red State Christians,” Angela Denker reported that Christian worship services she attended for her research among Trump supporting congregations started with the national anthem and the pledge of allegiance. Often those sermons mentioned politics much more often than the Bible or Jesus — in one sermon she counted only one mention of Jesus. Elsewhere, it’s common to hear some people call the United States called a “Christian Nation,” not a nation where all religions can practice their faith freely. Members of a Facebook group called “Christians Against Trump” recount multiple instances of friends and relatives telling them that they’re going to hell because they don’t support Donald Trump.

So, we have a conflict over what is sacred. Is it our country, our democratic processes, our faith, or our leaders? If we believe that democracy is sacred, what are we willing to do for it?

A recent article in the Economist about terrorist organizations noted that they inculcate members with the sacred beliefs of their group. And a high-ranking U.S. military member mused that basic training for the military attempts to do something similar for democracy as a sacred value.

But making democracy sacred is at odds with the personality of core Trump supporters. They don’t actually believe that democracy is a good idea! They don’t think the will of the people is sacred; they think their leader is to be revered. They have merged two of the moral foundations: Authority and Sacredness. Bob Altemeyer, an expert on those who have the highest tendency of authoritarianism, reports that they represent up to 25% of the population. Here’s a link to his work.

Those who land high on the Authority foundation don’t think for themselves. That’s because they tend to have a high need for cognitive closure. They need a fast answer, and the answer is to trust their leaders. They think leaders know better than they do. Unfortunately, that opens them up to being manipulated by con men. Fear is a major motivator for them. They’re more likely to be religious, but their religious beliefs aren’t what they’ve come to believe for themselves; they just parrot back what they’ve been told.

These are not deep thinkers; they compartmentalize the multiple ideas they hold that conflict with each other. Confronting them with the conflicts in their thinking just paralyzes them — it doesn’t convince them.

So, what can we do? Do we just give up? Especially if they’re our friends or family — that’s what this newsletter focuses on.

These people aren’t bad or evil in general. In fact, most of them make a positive contribution to society. We certainly aren’t going to change their personalities with arguments. But there are two factors that can influence them.

They can be swayed by shifts in overall attitudes and by laws. Research uncovered by Bob Altemeyer shows that people who are high in Authority have become less anti-homosexual and less anti-premarital sex over time. Similarly, I write about how the shift in attitudes toward homosexual marriage among conservatives was related to a grassroots campaign that used moral reframing in my book, “Persuade, Don’t Preach.”

So, those who don’t agree with these people need to stay involved with them to make them part of their group. Yes, engaging with people who disagree with us is difficult. We all hate conflict. But not connecting means that the bubbles that form and filter out people who disagree with them only make them (and us) more and more extreme.

I believe we have an obligation to stay involved with people we disagree with. Otherwise, we participate in perpetuating the divides, which will result in continuing the strengthening of extreme beliefs.

So, if engaging with people is going to have an effect, how can we do that? What we’re doing now isn’t working. After all, the belief that they weren’t being listened to lead to their violence. The answer is to have people who disagree with them listen to them and then disagree, but in respectful ways — not in an argument. That’s the only way things will change.

The techniques I write about in “Persuade, Don’t Preach” and in the other newsletters will work, at least some of the time. Subscribe to my newsletter so you don’t miss any of my latest ideas for how to mend these fractured relationships.