Later this year, Americans will recognize September 11, 2026 as the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center back in 2001.

The attack was enacted by Al-Qaeda, a radical Islamic organization. And while countless Muslims decried the violence as both a tragedy and as an anti-Islamic act, the following years saw many Muslims (and people suspected to be Muslims) severely mistreated.

Right after 9/11, there were nearly 20 times the amount of assaults on muslims every year as there had been in the 90’s. And, while that figure has risen and fallen in the decades since, in certain circles, a suspicion of Muslims in the U.S. and even an all out hatred of the Islamic faith has lingered.

One of the circles in which Islam has often been called into question has been the far right. Speaking of Muslims back in 2015, Trump said “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension.” He said this in connection with his plans to prevent Muslim Immigration into the United States. A plan which, when elected, he partially saw through, by banning refugees from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the country.

And it wasn’t just Trump calling out Islam. In 2019, Muslim Advocates called on FOX News to fire Tucker Carlson for what he said about Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar and her Muslim faith.

In a much more grave instance, also in 2019, a man killed nearly 50 people in a Christchurch, New Zealand Mosque. In his manifesto, he named conservative commentator Candace Owens as the person who had most radicalized him. Candace, of course, did not endorse these killings. But her stance on Islam at the time was certainly more negative.


But in 2026, a quick look through the talk shows and podcasts of Carlson, Owens and other right-wing commentators, will paint a very different picture of how these groups feel about Muslims. The same pundits who once criticized Islam, are now defending it.

To better understand the right’s evolving relationship with Islam, I spoke with Matthew Schmitz. Schmitz is the editor of Compact Magazine and the Religion Editor for the Washington Post Opinion Section. He is also Cohost of the Against The Grain podcast. Schmitz wrote an article back in May about the phenomenon of conservative influencers who have radically changed the way they talk about Islam online. We talked about this trend, how Trump measures up and what it might mean for the future of the Republican Party.

Earlier this year, Pew Research published the results of a study on religious diversity around the world. While the U.S. didn’t even break the top 10 for most religiously diverse when all nations studied were taken into account, it ranked #1 in religious diversity out of the most populous countries.

The United States certainly has a Christian tilt and a sizable population of nones. But, go to any major U.S. city and you’ll spot kippahs, hijabs, turbans, and houses of worship for every major belief system on the planet.

Despite the American ability to live alongside people who believe vastly different things than us, the U.S. has a horrid past with religious oppression—think of the KKK’s treatment of Jewish people or the wipeout of indigenous people and their forced conversion to Christianity or the attacks on Muslims and Sikhs directly following 9/11.

And while many prejudices take decades to extract the mainstream, a quick study of our history reveals that there is a clear pattern of America’s ability to eventually accept religious differences.

Over a century ago, the Catholics pouring in from, first, Ireland and, later, Italy, were near the bottom of the social hierarchy—pushed down by the majority protestant community who had been there much longer. Today, 6 of our 9 Supreme Court Justices are Catholic—only 2 are protestants, and one is Jewish. Pathways to success at the highest level are available to all in the U.S., even to those who, not very long ago, were seen as inferior.

The U.S. has a long way to go in terms of equality and in the acceptance of all religions. But, if history repeats itself, it seems possible that even the faiths that are most discriminated against today, could also find great success here.

The United States had its 250th birthday last week. And, in the last few episodes we have tried to understand the role of Christianity in America’s founding. But what kinds of Christians were the first Americans? And what role did Catholics, Jews and Atheists play in the Revolution? Were there Muslims or Hindus on U.S. soil in 1776?

To answer all of these questions and better understand the nature of religion at the time of America’s founding I spoke with Katherine Carté. Carté is a History Professor at Southern Methodist University and wrote the book “Religion in The American Revolution: An Imperial History.”

George Washington is a man of a mythological stature. A stalwart man of war, 6’2” with animal teeth and a seemingly endless supply of stories where he cheated death, Washington’s role is so much more than just a founding father or first president. From the $1 bill to the capital to the busiest motor vehicle bridge in the world, Washington’s name and image are everywhere in the USA.

Washington is famously remembered as “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen,” and, this sentiment still largely rings true. And 250 years after the nation’s founding, Washington is still remembered as a great leader and a great man.

But was he a good man? Did he understand morality? Did he have a relationship with divine goodness or submit to a higher power?

Washington’s embrace of slavery as a means to growing his wealth, his collaboration with deists and just the general historical distance we have from when he lived, have all caused historians to call into question Washington’s relationship with Christianity.

As American Independence Day approaches, on this week’s episode, culture critic Joseph Holmes investigates the faith of our foremost founding father in two separate conversations. In the first part of the episode, he interviews Peter Lillback about his national bestselling book, “George Washington’s Sacred Fire,” in which Lillback makes a strong argument for the case that Washington was in fact a committed Christian. In the second part of the episode, Joseph speaks with Diederik Hoogstraten, screenwriter of “Young Washington,” which comes out this Friday.

Religion Unplugged's reporting and analysis is brought to you by real people — like me! Not AI. If you appreciate the work we do here at Religion Unplugged, and want to keep this show ad-free, please consider making a donation. Now is a particularly good time to give, since from now through August 17 your gift will be doubled. 

You can donate here: https://religionunplugged.com/donate

In recent years, “Christian Nationalism” has become a ubiquitous term in American political discussion.

It is said by many with fear and loathing, and by others with great excitement and conviction.

Among the enthusiasts include Doug Wilson, who is the pastor of Pete Hegseth, the United States’ Secretary of War. And it’s not just Hegseth who has ties to the ideology, Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House of Representatives, has also been described as a Christian Nationalist. And many members of Trump’s administration and the pro-Trump media have flirted with the idea that Christians and, maybe more accurately, the Bible, ought to be the guiding force behind the government’s actions.

Last month, Trump hosted Rededicate 250, an event which sought to, in the administration’s own words, “rededicate America as One Nation under God.”

But as much as Christian Nationalism has become an emotional buzz word, the belief system it describes has varied over time—and the current MAGA-adjacent evangelical iteration is only a small piece of the story of how Christianity and American society have pushed and pulled on each other for centuries.

As we recognize the U.S.’s 250th birthday, the question of whether or not America is a Christian nation or whether or not it was intended to be one, continues to show its face in social media feeds, newspapers, podcasts, pulpits and schoolrooms. So, to sort through the complicated relationship between Jesus and Uncle Sam, Joseph Holmes sat down with three American Christian professors: Matthew Parks, Joseph Loconte and David Corbin. The group discusses whether or not the U.S. is a Christian country, whether that’s even possible and to what extent Christian beliefs ought to influence political decisions.

If you’d like to hear more from our guests today, you can listen to the Democracy in America Today podcast, which is hosted by David Corbin and Matt Parks. Joseph Loconte has written several books, but he is most well known for his writings on C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, the most recent of which was 2025’s “The War For Middle Earth.”

Religion and death, for many of us, go hand in hand.

It is our faith that often shapes what we believe happens when we die and, perhaps just as importantly, what we ought to do while we still live.

In fact, if a belief system does not ask us to consider our death and what it means for us—if it avoids the subject and keeps mortality at arm’s length, it is almost certainly not a religion at all.

The Bible is many things, and among them, it is a ledger of death and dying. And, while the Bible has far less to say about the afterlife than our cultural imagination likes to impose upon it, the reality of death rings loudly through every book in the collection.

Death is the curse brought on in Genesis. It fills the following books through wars, plagues, and punishments. It operates as the enemy defeated by Jesus through resurrection. And it awaits many of his followers as they seek to spread his teachings.

Today, Christians continue to grapple with their mortality—with where exactly they are going and how exactly they might get there. And, while all of us know life will end, for those Christians who know that the end is imminent, faith can take on a whole new meaning.

To understand what it’s like to be a Christian while approaching death, Culture Critic Joseph Holmes spoke with actor and writer Victoria Jackson. Jackson was an SNL cast member back in the 80’s and has had a long career in film and television—including work in many faith-based films. Jackson suffers from terminal breast cancer, and, with the knowledge that her life is going to end, she recently wrote “Not Dead Yet,” which tells the story of her life, her faith, and how she is dealing with dying.

As with all of our podcasts, Religion Unplugged believes in a diversity of opinions. The viewpoints presented in this episode do not necessarily represent those of Religion Unplugged, its staff and contributors. 

According to Pew Research Center, nearly 75% of Black Americans identify as Christian.

It’s well known that many of the first African American Christians were first exposed to Christianity in the midst of enslavement. This exposure could have been used as a tactic for control by enslavers or as a genuine attempt to lead individuals to salvation by missionaries. But, whether conversion happened out of fear or joy, the African religious practices that the enslaved people would have practiced back home, all but disappeared during American enslavement.

But, when emancipation occurred in the 1860’s, the newfound freedoms of the formerly enslaved included not only an autonomy of body and identity, but an autonomy, at least in theory, of what they believed, and how they worshipped. For many, this materialized in a continued commitment to Christianity. But for many others, there was now the freedom to begin engaging with their traditional African beliefs, which often looked very different than Christianity. And even formerly enslaved Christians may have begun practicing a form of Christianity that, while still committed to the gospel, had visible distinctions and different emphases from the white men who first evangelized to them. 

But, while African Americans technically had the right to religious freedom, practitioners of African religion still faced persecution, especially during the era of Jim Crow, where legally free black Americans were still oppressed by their white governments for nearly a century. Even today stigma around Voodoo and similar practices has made African religion a taboo in many communities.

Harvard Professor Ahmad Greene-Hayes recently wrote a book called “Underworld Work,” which explores the nuances of African American religious practice in the era between emancipation and the Civil Rights Movement. I spoke with Greene-Hayes about the complexities of Black religion during Jim Crow and the ways many Americans misunderstand African Spiritualism.

Last week, Pope Leo cautioned developers and political leaders about the potential for exploitation in Artificial Intelligence development by comparing the AI race to the depravity of slavery. His wording was so strong, that he even called for AI to be “disarmed.”

In the wake of Leo’s words, Christians around the world have taken a closer look at what it might mean to engage with artificial intelligence wisely—and to consider if that is even possible.

A Barna study from this spring shows that 66% of Christians believe AI will improve their lives. Yet, 57% of Christians also believe that AI is a threat. And when you look at the statistics on pastors alone, there is even more caution, with 72% believing AI could be a threat.

But not all Christians have been slow adopters of the technology. Last year, I spoke with a representative from Bible Chat, an AI chatbot meant to help Christians deepen their faith. And, in a year’s time, Christian AI use has not appeared to slow down.

In Nigeria, where over 40% of people identify as Christians, a developer has invented an AI tool called Pewbeam, which automatically finds biblical references that a pastor mentions while preaching and projects them onto a church’s screen.

Pewbeam is just one of many AI innovations across the continent of Africa. So, to find out more about how African Christians are using AI, and how they are being cautious about it, I spoke with Joseph Maina. Maina is a reporter based in Kenya who has been a regular contributor to Religion Unplugged for almost 3 years. I spoke with Maina this week about his recent article: God In The Algorithm: Coders Are Building AI For The Church.

“If the learned and worldly-wise men of this age were to allow mankind to inhale the fragrance of fellowship and love, every understanding heart would apprehend the meaning of true liberty, and discover the secret of undisturbed peace and absolute composure.”

Those words were penned 200 years ago by Bahá’u’lláh, the founder of the Bahá’í faith.

It was for words like these and other beliefs deemed heretical that Bahá’u’lláh spent much of his life being tortured and imprisoned.

The Bahá’í faith is known for being a religion of peace—teaching the oneness of all humanity, the truths found in all religions and equality of men and women. Today, the Bahá’í faith has over five million members worldwide, many of whom are persecuted, particularly in Islamic-ruled nations. 

Iran, currently in the midst of its own international conflict, holds 300,000 of these Bahá’ís. Much like their leader, Bahá’ís living in Iran face imprisonment for practicing their faith.

A new film entitled “Cast Aside The Clouds” tells the story of a Bahá’í woman falling in love with a Muslim man—right in the middle of turbulent Iran. 

Religion Unplugged’s Culture Critic Joseph Holmes spoke with the director of “Cast Aside The Clouds,” Mary Darling about why she wanted to make the film, her own journey with the bahá’í faith and the unity and conversations she hopes will come about as a result of its release.

The film is not yet available on streaming, but is being screened in New York City at the end of this week, after which it will be screened in many large cities across the U.S. For more information on how to see the film, visit castasidetheclouds.com.

There are currently 15,000 open cases of unidentified persons in the United States.

Bodies are unable to be identified for a variety of reasons including severe mutilation, significant decomposition, no history of medical care or a lack of resources. 

In the vast majority of situations, DNA testing can do a great deal of heavy lifting, but sometimes even this can be unsuccessful

On November 24, 1989 in Mohave County, Arizona, a woman was found dead on the side of the interstate. Over 30 years later and the woman is yet to be identified. She is known only as the Mohave Jane Doe.

Her DNA test results revealed that she was 96% Ashkenazi Jew. But, they told investigators little else.

Mohave is not the only instance of Ashkenazi Jews struggling to understand their ancestry through genetic testing—nor is it the only time this unique genetic makeup has interfered with what appears to be a murder case.


But why? Why does someone’s heritage make them harder to understand biologically? To find out, I spoke with Hannah Feuer, a reporter at Forward. Feuer recently covered the Mohave Jane Doe case and new efforts to find her identity once and for all in an article entitled: Her body has been unidentified for decades. Her Ashkenazi DNA may explain why.

As our conversation continued, Feuer and I also discussed another recent piece of hers which explored the strange and solemn innovation of using Artificial Intelligence to keep the stories of Holocaust Survivors alive in the wake of their inevitable dying out.

In C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity he says: “the Church exists for nothing else but to draw men into Christ, to make them little Christs. If they are not doing that, all the cathedrals, clergy, missions, sermons, even the Bible itself, are simply a waste of time”

This idea—that the point of the church is to make disciples is, at its core, not a highly contested one. But ideas about the way disciples are made and the context in which discipleship happens are much more varied.

And, in these conversations, the question of a church’s size looms large.

On the one hand you have the small church. It could be anywhere from just a handful of members to a few hundred, but, in any case, there is a much greater likelihood for congregants to build personal relationships with those leading the church, a greater sense of a tight-knit community where everybody knows one another and oftentimes a wide variety of ages in attendance, with some congregants having attended for the bulk of their lives.

On the other hand you have the large church. Maybe its attendance is in the upper hundreds, the thousands or even the ten-thousands. This substantial attendance often means the ability to acquire a large chunk of land and employ a staff of seasoned professionals for everything from worship leaders who sound like pop-stars to trained baristas for their in-house cafes. And, with these resources and this influence, there is a greater ability to quickly raise money for disaster relief or needs in the congregation. There may be more comfort for new believers to not feel like they are standing out in the crowd. And the culture might be one which more naturally attracts non-christians.

Criticism from one size of church to the other is not uncommon—the small churches will say congregants don’t know their pastors at large churches. The large churches will say the small churches aren’t going to reach unbelievers.

But, what size is right for a church? Is there one at all? To find out, I spoke with Karl Vaters. Vaters was a pastor for decades, and now he creates resources dedicated to helping small churches thrive. Back in 2024, he wrote a book called “De-Sizing The Church” which investigates the way many churches pursued growth in attendance above all else, often to their detriment. Vaters’ book doesn’t demonize church growth, but instead asks pastors and congregants to consider what it means to be a healthy christian community, without anchoring that health to merely the number of people in the pews.