Interesting stats on Religiosity from Pew, published in October, 2019.
In my view, there are also many other forms of groupishness that I see as religious or quasi religious that are not considered by these surveys. I also suspect that as traditional religions melt away, other groups that don't look like traditional religions at first glance, but which have similar functions, take their place.
Today on FB, I displayed this photo of Joe Biden and made this comment:
I'm all for wearing a mask when you need to be near other people, but really? A Twitter comment (see the comments here): "Virtue Signalling knows no distance."
The post drew considerable criticism that caused me to better explain my concern. I did that as an addendum to the original post, as follows:
Biden's job is to either have Trump voters switch over to him or to convince them that they don't care enough that they simply won't vote for Trump (I know 
several Republicans of this latter type). I don't want this election to be a repeat of Michael Dukakis riding in the tank. I fear that this type of image is going to be repeatedly and effectively exploited by Republicans to make the argument that Biden is not a strong and courageous leader.
The CDC has repeated and strongly warned that we maintain a distance of six feet from other people. CDC further "advises" that people wear homemade masks. I fear that this type of image of Biden sitting 15 feet apart AND wearing a mask is going to be repeatedly and effectively exploited by Republicans to make the argument that Biden is not a strong and courageous leader. There are many other images that will be used by Trump, including images where Biden and his wife are wearing masks where no other people are nearby.
Those of us who have the strength and courage to unplug from the political matrix instantly realize that this exploit that will certainly be used by Trump will be effective when compared to "fearless" images of Trump NOT wearing a mask. Who do you want as the leader of the United States? The man who worries about invisible germs that kill only 1% of people? Or a courageous man like Trump? That will be the argument and (based on the rhetoric of the clamor-to-reopen-crowd) this argument will siphon votes away from Biden.
Biden will get the votes from his base, more or less, no matter what he does between now and November, despite his many flaws. Further, his base will forgive him the "sin" of not wearing a mask while sitting 15 feet from one other person outdoors. And, as one of the commenters on my FB page indicated, Biden took off his mask for the actual interview. Good. But this image will live on in isolation from the fact that he took off the mask to conduct the interview, as will thousands of similar images of Biden. Unfortunately, there are real consequences in the balance. Should Biden be 99% safe or 99.99999% safe? It's not a decision for me to make, but while prudent mask-wearing is absolutely a good thing, mask-wearing that looks weak and paranoid will hurt Biden's chances in November. It is my concern that the cheap version of virtue signaling suggested by this image will be quickly sniffed and identified as such by all voters who aren't already for Biden. Many of the people who are already strongly for Biden might will be oblivious to this serious problem.
I'll add one more thing. We need to be sensitive to the difference between cheap virtue signaling and expensive virtue signaling. What looks impressive when done by people we believe to be on our team can look terrible when done by members of the other team. There a lot going on under the hood and it includes confirmation bias and displaying of "badges" of in-group membership. This difference is explained by Geoffrey Miller in this definitional section from his new book, Virtue Signaling: Essays on Darwinian Politics and Free Speech (2020):
We all virtue signal. I virtue signal; you virtue signal; we virtue signal. And those guys over there, in that political tribe we don’t like – they especially virtue signal. (Just as they believe that we do.) Let’s not pretend otherwise. We are humans, and humans love to show off our moral virtues, ethical principles, religious convictions, political attitudes, and lifestyle choices to other humans. We have virtue signaled ever since prehistoric big-game hunters shared meat with the hungry folks in their clan, or cared for kids who weren’t their own.
There’s virtue signaling, and then there’s virtue signaling. This book is about both kinds. On the one hand, there’s what economists call ‘cheap talk:’ signals that are cheap, quick, and easy to fake, and that aren’t accurate cues of underlying traits or values. When partisans on social media talk about political virtue signaling by the other side, they’re usually referring to this sort of cheap talk. Virtue signaling as cheap talk includes bumper stickers, yard signs, social media posts, and dating app profiles. The main pressure that keeps cheap talk honest is social: the costs of stigma and ostracism by people who don’t agree with your signal. Wearing a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat doesn’t cost much money, but it can cost you friendships. On the other hand, there’s virtue signaling that’s costly, long-term, and hard to fake, and that can serve as a very reliable indicator of underlying traits and values. This can include volunteering for months on political campaigns, making large, verifiable donations to causes, or giving up a lucrative medical practice to work for Doctors Without Borders in Haiti or New Guinea. The key to reliable virtue signals is that you simply couldn’t stand to produce them, over the long term, if you didn’t genuinely care about the cause.
[V]irtue signaling can … be the worst of human instincts. It drives most of partisan politics, especially on social media. It drives the demands to censor, fire, cancel, and ostracize people who express the wrong opinions. It drives moral panics about satanic ritual abuse, ‘rape culture,’ and ‘porn addiction.’ It drives white nationalists to run over protesters. It drives antifa to beat up journalists. … Some of this is cheap talk, but some of it is reliable signaling. What distinguishes good virtue signaling from bad virtue signaling isn’t just the reliability of the signal. It’s the actual real-world effects on sentient beings, societies, and civilizations.
[I attempted to find the source of the photo, which I spotted on Twitter, but was unsuccessful]
I've closely followed the writings of Jonathan Haidt. His conclusions are closely tied to scientific findings. He crosscuts the current American political divide. He is hopeful that we will find our way as a country.
In this recent article at The Atlantic, "Jonathan Haidt Is Trying to Heal America’s Divisions: The psychologist shares his thoughts on the pandemic, polarization, and politics," Haidt explains what has gone wrong with many of those who consider themselves to be liberals and conservatives. What they have in common is authoritarianism populism:
Haidt laments the state of contemporary American politics, believing that on both the right and the left we’re seeing populism that responds to real problems but in illiberal ways. “On the right,” he said, “the populism there is really explicitly xenophobic and often explicitly racist … I think we see strands of populism on the right that are authoritarian, that I would say are incompatible with a tolerant, pluralistic, open democracy.”
Looking in the other direction, Haidt says, “we’ve messed up the word liberal and we’ve used it to just mean ‘left.’ I’ve always thought of myself as a liberal, in the John Stuart Mill sense. I believe in a society that is structured to give individuals the maximum freedom to construct lives that they want to live. We use a minimum of constraint, we value openness, creativity, individual rights. We try hard to maximize religious liberty, economic liberty, liberty of conscience, freedom of speech. That’s my ideal of a society, and that’s why I call myself a liberal.”
But on the left, Haidt said, “there’s been a movement that has made something else sacred, that has not focused on liberty, but that is focused instead on oppression and victimhood and victimization. And once you get into a framework of seeing your fellow citizens as good versus evil based on their group, it’s kind of a mirror image of the authoritarian populism on the right. Any movement that is assigning moral value to people just by looking at them is a movement I want no part of.”
Haidt went on: “I think this is a very important point for us to all keep in mind, that left and right in this country are not necessarily liberal and conservative anymore. On the left, it’s really clear that there are elements that many of us consider to be very illiberal; and on the right, it’s hard to see how Trump and many of his supporters are conservatives who have any link whatsoever to Edmund Burke. It’s very hard for me to see that. You know, I would love to live in a country with true liberals and true conservatives that engage with each other. That, I think, is a very productive disagreement. But it’s the illiberalism on each side that is making our politics so ugly, I believe.”
The key quote from the passage above: "Any movement that is assigning moral value to people just by looking at them is a movement I want no part of.” This is a modern version of MLK's classic advice that is scorned by many modern day "liberals": "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Why has this beautiful sentiment become so difficult today?
This talk by George Lakoff has got to be one of the most ambitious 40-minute talks I’ve ever watched. Lakoff is a linguist who has spent his life studying language, but not merely language. He has also drilled down into the brain using neuroscience, connecting our use of language to such things as neural binding and mirror neurons. He has also looked upward from conceptual metaphors to point out their personal and cultural ramifications.
Metaphors begin taking root in three-year old children based on physical activities. As adults, we employ these metaphors ever-so-easily in order to understand complex social phenomena such as romantic relationships, art, teaching and politics. Whenever we employ these metaphors (and we are always doing this) we are thinking with our bodies. Further, without these metaphors we would have an impoverished understanding of essentially everything that is important to us. If you don’t want to invest in the entire 40-minute talk, I would urge you to go to the 24-minute mark to hear Lakoff’s story how the explosion of research on conceptual metaphors began with a tearful 
graduate student’s comment, “I’ve got a metaphor problem with my boyfriend.” After hearing this story and watching the short audience participation segment where Lakoff connects up romantic love with the physical act of traveling, the field of conceptual metaphor will likely become vivid and compelling for you. Conceptual metaphors are invisible to most of us, but once you see how they work, you will see them everywhere. You might even feel that you have new superpowers for seeing how people talk, think and attempt to persuade each other.
Lakoff is probably best known for his work on metaphors (with philosopher Mark Johnson), beginning (but by no means ending) with the book, “Metaphors We Live By.” I’ve written on the importance of metaphors in many other places, including here, here and here. Conceptual metaphors are critical to my own profession, the legal profession. I’ve published my own analysis on the critical connection between metaphors and the legal doctrine of stare decisis here: "The Exaggerated Importance of Stare Decisis."
Check out this cool infographic at the Visual Capitalist. Here is what is at stake, according to the website: "[T]hird parties can also take advantage of these biases to influence our thinking." These should be memorized and sent as reminders to all of your half-crazed friends on social media.
