If the first article mapped the terrain of vulnerability, the second this part turns to the work of building protection.

What would it look like to respond proportionately to what the evidence actually shows? If certain patterns repeatedly increase vulnerability, then their opposites ought to must become deliberate priorities. In this section, I outline practical steps—grounded in the research reviewed previously above—that families, faith communities, and civic institutions can take to reduce risk and expand real protection for women and children.

The protection of healthy, genuine faith

In part one, I outlined ways that limited religious community and faith commitment can increase the risk of sexual violence against women. The opposite is also true, with religious affiliation, identification and participation often protective against sexual violence according to studies in various countries. For instance:

• A family’s “affiliation with Christian religious denominations” is “associated with lower risk of physical and sexual violence” in India (Kimuna, et al., 2013). 
• Being a Muslim was “protective from any type” of intimate partner violence” including “sexual and emotional” in the Ivory Coast (Peltzer & Pengpid, 2014). 
• The latter finding is mirrored in an earlier study finding Muslim religion protective against intimate partner violence in six African countries (Alio, et al., 2010).

Beyond affiliation alone, regular church attendance was specifically protective against victimization as well (Lown & Vega, 2001; O’Connor, et al., 2023). Respondents with higher levels of religious involvement in different studies were less likely to report intimate partner victimization (Zavala & Muniz, 2020) -with the latter U.S. research team noting this finding was “consistent with prior studies looking at the relationship between religious beliefs and intimate partner violence.” For instance: 

• “Frequent church attendance” is among the factors “associated with decreased risk of violence” in Filipino homes according to Fehringer & Hindin, 2009—who report “less male perpetration if mothers attended church more often”—in line with other findings, as they say “other research supports a protective effect of church attendance on partner violence.” 
• The same research team observed in a second article that “regular church attendance by the wife” and “regular church attendance by the husband” were both associated with lower risk of perpetrating violence in a marriage (Ansara & Hindin, 2009).
• Fergusson, et al., 1986 highlighted “church attendance” as a significant factor in the frequency of “wife assault” in New Zealand—with the religious attendance of both fathers and mothers making the perpetration of victimization within their relationship less likely. They specifically found that men and women least likely to commit domestic violence were those who participate in services once a month or more are least -followed by those who attend less than monthly.
• In an analysis of U.S. couples two decades ago, Ellison, et al., 1999 likewise reported that “regular attendance at religious services” made domestic violence perpetration less likely. “Both men and women who attend religious services regularly are less likely to commit acts of domestic violence than persons who attend rarely or not at all,” they observed—noting that for men, it was only when they participated weekly that this effect showed up, while women also had a protective effect with monthly attendance. 

Overall, “religiosity does decrease (intimate partner) victimization” report Ellison, et al., 2007 based on a U.S. survey—adding that “religious involvement, specifically church attendance, protects against domestic violence”—a “protective effect,” which they note, is “stronger for African American men and women and for Hispanic men, groups that, for a variety of reasons, experience elevated risk for this type of violence.”

As reflected above, studies show repeatedly that faith participation can prevent both perpetration and victimization. This seems, in part, due to pro-social teachings, avoidance of risky behavior and a sense of higher purpose and meaning.

Victims often described in studies how leaders and fellow congregants helped them get away from earlier abuse and begin to find healing. This is not always true, of course—with certain attitudes held by people of faith sometimes functioning as a barrier to healing and safety. Indeed, another set of studies point towards less healthy religious attitudes that leave women at greater risk for different kinds of abuse.

Conflicting evidence

Even so, the influence of religion is not as simple as described above—with more nuance to consider. Psychological, physical and sexual violence had a “significant association” with evangelical faith in a Brazilian study—with the authors reporting a “33% increase in intimate partner sexual abuse in life in evangelical women, compared to those who do not belong to this group” (Santos, et al., 2020). 

A set of other studies in Africa have also found families who were Muslim at greater risk of victimization (in Ethiopia Agumasie & Bezatu, 2015; in Kenya Ward & Harlow, et al., 2021; in Nigeria Bolarinwa, et al., 2022; in Malawi Forty, 2022). 

How exactly to interpret these and other seemingly contradictory findings is a critical point, something I explore in-depth in my full report. In simple form, not all religiosity is the same, with religious faith that allows men to dominate women, or which does not place serious emphasis on avoiding alcohol or casual sex, putting women (and children) at risk. 

“Misinterpretation of religious beliefs” was cited in a Pakistani analysis of influences on sexual and other kinds of violence at home, with the authors advocating for “public policy informed by correct interpretation of religion” which they said could prompt “a change in prevailing societal norms.”

In addition, there’s also evidence that sincere, “intrinsic” religious practice and conviction among men and women functions as a more powerful protector against sexual violence and other abuse, while more superficial, “extrinsic” religious conviction simply does not. It seems clear that “weak commitment to religion” could be a factor in victimization within a relationship, Vakili, et al., 2010 notes that a “woman and husband’s weak level of religious commitment” in Iran was “significantly associated with an increase in physical, sexual, and psychological abuse.” 

The authors later said that “strong religious beliefs may be instrumental in reducing the likelihood of intimate partner violence among Iranian families” (Vakili, et al., 2010). In the other direction, deeper and more sincere religious conviction shows promising effects—with “religious intensity” associated in another study with a “lower victimization count” (Sabina, et al., 2013). 

Complex, overlapping patterns of vulnerability

While this broad array of variables involved in increasing (or decreasing) the risk for sexual violence can seem overwhelming, I believe it can be invaluable to know that, broadly speaking, women and men who have experienced significant past abuse, who are under heavy current stress and financial pressures and are experiencing compromised faculties, significant conflict and real isolation, are all at much higher risk of future victimization (and perpetration)—especially if they have little awareness about the extent of the risk. 

By contrast, women and men who have been protected from past abuse, who are not facing current heavy stress or compromised faculties, who don’t have significant conflict or isolation, will all be significantly more protected against future victimization (and perpetration)—especially if they have adequate awareness about the extent of the risk. 

To the degree a woman or man falls on a higher or lower place on any of these spectrums (more past trauma, but lower stress levels today … less conflict, but also greater isolation), their level of risk (and protection) will likewise vary widely. 

In addition, women who are less educated, divorced, addicted (or with partners addicted to alcohol or pornography) are more likely to experience sexual violence—especially if they experience inadequate financial support, limited healthy community commitments, and a dearth of higher meaning and spiritual purpose in life.

Certainly, none of the above factors operates in a vacuum independent of each other—with interlinkages among all ten factors. For instance, people of faith are also more likely to avoid drug/alcohol dependency, experience nurturing social support and be happily married (while also having more children).

But overall, the research makes it clear that perpetrators focus on places where any vulnerability exists. For instance, women of younger age and much older age are both more likely to be victimized, as are those with reduced cognitive or physical capacity due to disability or prior victimization.

Some factors are more changeable than others, obviously. But even those that appear unchangeable (past abuse) have interventions that can prompt healing. On a general level, as reflected above, “a person’s routine and lifestyle influences the level of exposure one has to potential perpetrators and how vulnerable one is as a target,” as Walker, et al., 2020 state. Consequently, “the identification of variables that influence likelihood of (sexual violence) is fundamental for prevention efforts” (Thomas & Kopel, 2023). 

Alignment with other studies

Many of these themes have been identified in other attempts to survey available risk factors, such as a CDC analysis from 2016, which touched on most of the above patterns, but overlooked the potentially protective role of faith and religiosity.

This national and international data also align with demographic data collected locally in Utah, showing higher vulnerability to sexual violence among women who are homeless, with lower socioeconomic status, using drugs or alcohol, in minority groups, younger, or experiencing some kind of physical or mental impairments.

One especially impressive University of Washington literature review from 2017 concluded that the available evidence “reinforces the long-standing notion that sexual aggression is a complex behavior that emerges based on the interplay of multiple risk factors over time.”

“Additionally,” they note “there are likely very different pathways to the development of sexually aggressive behavior. 

As Casey & Masters, 2017 conclude, “This means that preventing sexual aggression before it begins necessitates prioritizing multiple risk factors, and bolstering multiple protective factors across individuals and communities.” 

The only real purpose of such study, of course, is taking better steps to protect women from sexual violence. 

Better data, better prevention

The CDC advocated nearly two decades ago for building a comprehensive ecological model that “offers a framework for understanding the complex interplay of individual, relationship, social, political, cultural, and environmen­tal factors that influence sexual violence” —all of which they note can inform specific intervention and prevention steps.

In an early 2004 exploration of what sexual violence prevention programs should look like, the CDC called for prevention efforts that “work to modify and/or entirely eliminate the events, conditions, situations, or exposure to influences (risk factors) that result in the initiation of sexual violence” and thereby proactively take steps to “prevent sexual violence from initially occurring.” 

Yet a decade later in 2014, CDC researchers admitted (as I cited earlier) “rates of sexual violence remain alarmingly high, and we still know very little about how to prevent it,” going on to describe how most prevention efforts were largely “one dimensional” attempts to change individual attitudes, and little more. 

Kathleen C. Basile, Associate Director for Science in the Division of Violence Prevention, in the Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, told me in an interview with Deseret News, “I would also add that sexual violence, intimate partner violence, all types of violence are preventable, and the way we prevent them, like you alluded to earlier, is to understand the size of the problem and who is impacted, and so the characteristics, like who the perpetrators are, who, what age, it happens, things like that” (italics my own). 

In a 2014 review of strategies to prevent sexual violence perpetration, CDC researchers stated that “the vast majority of preventative interventions evaluated to date have failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of impact on sexual violence perpetration behaviors.”

They went on to call for “an evidence-based, comprehensive, multi-level strategy to combat sexual violence,” suggesting that “addressing a broader range of risk and protective factors for sexual violence may be more likely to be effective.”

Two years later in 2016, the CDC released a prevention resource prevent sexual violence called “STOP SV”—noting that although the evidence for sexual violence prevention is “less developed” than other areas of prevention, “a comprehensive approach with preventive interventions at multiple levels of the social ecological model (i.e., individual, relationship, community, and societal) is critical to having a population level impact on SV.” But they noted that evidence remained “limited and must continuously be built through rigorous evaluation.” 

As CDC researchers summarized in 2016, “Risk for sexual violence perpetration is influenced by a range of factors, including characteristics of the individual and their social and physical environments. These factors interact with one another to increase or decrease risk for SV over time and within specific contexts.” 

CDC researchers also wrote in 2016 that “prevention strategies that address risk and protective factors for sexual violence at the community level are important components of a comprehensive approach,” before lamenting that “few such strategies have been identified or evaluated.” 

Ten life patterns that increase protection 

Our review of these root contributors paints a picture of what deeper strategies of protection would look like. For instance, men who are less educated, financially struggling, addicted, isolated, emotionally unhealthy, promiscuous and spiritually disengaged, are also more likely to perpetrate sexually on vulnerable women.

There’s also protective power in more fully appreciating that women and men who are better off economically, have good educational experiences, and are embedded within both healthy marriages and supportive communities are less vulnerable to sexual violence. This is doubly true if they also avoid substance abuse and habits of risky, casual sexual relations with multiple people, while nourishing a healthy spiritual foundation.

Here are the ten steps that follow from this research broken down: 

• Helping lift families and communities out of poverty
• Expanding educational opportunities for both women and men

• Helping nurture marriages and families that are healthy and happy

• Providing additional support for younger and larger families

• Helping to prevent compulsivity and support addicts in finding freedom

• Encouraging the value of sexually-exclusive marriages and healthy, non-aggressive masculinity

• Fostering deeper healing for mental health challenges

• Helping those who have experienced earlier abuse to work through post-traumatic symptoms

• Expanding robust community connections and durable social support

• Fostering healthy spirituality and religious connection

To see a broader summary of concrete steps, go here for the Deseret News article.  Some of these ten themes are reflected in a 2016 prevention resource released by the CDC called “STOP SV.” This resource highlighted research-based recommendations that include efforts to “provide opportunities to empower and support girls and women, support victims/survivors to lessen harms, create protective environments, teach skills to prevent sexual violence and promote social norms that protect against violence.”

As reflected above, some of the best ways to ensure women remain safe may be to proactively encourage life and community patterns proven to protect against both victimization and perpetration, including:

• Healthy marriages that are cooperative and satisfying, surrounded by layers of trustworthy community support.
• An atmosphere where education is prioritized and there are adequate resources to provide for the financial needs of the family, while helping both men and women avoid drugs and alcohol, delay sexual behavior until marriage, and learn how to control anger and impulses.
• A hopeful environment that nurtures healing from past trauma and current mental health challenges, while ideally also providing a grounding sense of higher purpose and spiritual meaning.

According to the evidence, women embedded in this kind of a context will be significantly less likely to be sexually victimized (or abused in other ways)—compared with those living within chaotic settings with poor education, financial deficits, fraying marriages, spiritual detachment, few healing resources, rampant substance abuse, sexual promiscuity and out of control anger.

Just as any vulnerability can be exploited by perpetrators, any time a vulnerability is shored up and turned into a strength, there is more protection against multiple kinds of abuse. Therefore, if we want to get at the roots of sexual victimization, more focus needs to go towards these kinds of protective life patterns, and additional ways to encourage and promote them.

Special thanks to Laura Whitney, Odessa Taylor, Jacob Orse, and Brigham Powelson for helping to gather and sift through published studies, and to Diana Gourley for helping edit the review. In addition to recent support from Deseret News, the author expresses thanks to Public Square Magazine for initial funding for the project.

The post What Life Patterns Protect Against Sexual Violence? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

What conditions make violence against women more likely?

I first began asking this after an experience as a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Northeastern Brazil, when we passed by a home where a woman had just, the night prior, been killed by her husband.

I’ll never forget that day. Neighbors were speaking on the street in hushed tones about how they had heard the screams. Rather than a surprise, this woman’s violent death seemed to have followed years of torment at the hands of her husband—so much so that some who lived close-by admitted they had become used to it.

How was this even possible? How could anything like this take place, I wondered, especially at the hands not of strangers, but of men most responsible to nurture, love and protect?

Women around the world continue to face disheartening levels of violence from husbands, boyfriends, dates, colleagues and sometimes strangers. Perhaps if we understood—truly understood, at a deeper level—why such abuse was taking place, we could do something more about it.

Several years ago, Public Square Magazine generously provided initial funding for me to gather a research team to gather published studies around the world that get at the roots of this question. Our small team reviewed thousands of studies to identify those focused specifically on risk factors for sexual violence. 

Our team paid careful attention to risk factors for both sexual perpetration and victimization. The studies explored span the globe, uniting insights from dedicated research teams doing incredible work in many countries and across a wide variety of settings (campuses, workplaces and homes). We also paid careful attention to general studies of “domestic violence” or “intimate partner violence,” which tend to include some degree of sexual coercion and abuse as well.

Earlier this year, I completed this review of 500 abuse studies (285 adult, 215 youth), publishing a summary version of these results in the Deseret News, and the full-length, 73 page version also posted on my Substack last month. 

In this project, we have hoped to add to the ongoing, international project to “further unravel the complicated … interactions related to victimization,” as European analysts wrote recently—ultimately considering how “specific combinations of characteristics may contribute to an increased likelihood of victimization.”

In 2014, however, other CDC researchers admitted, “Rates of sexual violence remain alarmingly high, and we still know very little about how to prevent it.”

The good news is that if we can capture a clearer picture of what’s really making this kind of tragic violence against women more likely, we can then take more effective steps to eradicate this evil which terrorizes so many women (of all ages and backgrounds) around the world today.

Here, I provide a summary analysis of patterns that make sexual violence against women more likely—with a deeper focus on patterns in relation to faith and religiosity. After reviewing these results, I will touch on practical steps that families and communities can take—each of which follow from these findings. 

10 patterns associated with increased vulnerability

1. Fragile family economic well-being

Women growing up in difficult economic circumstances (insufficient family income, lack of employment, food insecurity) are more vulnerable to being victimized sexually—while men growing up in these same circumstances are more vulnerable to becoming sexually aggressive.

The opposite is also true in homes where economic needs are met (sufficient income, employment and food), consistently showing men and women in these families being protected from being drawn into sexual violence and other kinds of abuse too.

While having paid work outside the home acts as a preventive measure against sexual violence for some women, many studies in developing countries find the opposite—with formal employment sometimes heightening a risk of victimization for women, especially those with isolated jobs or which involve night shifts.

2. Limited educational opportunities

Studies around the world show women to be more vulnerable to sexual violence when they have little to no education. Men are also more likely to be sexually aggressive when they are illiterate, or have a lower level of formal education.

The opposite is again true, with women who have more years of education frequently less likely to be victimized and men with more education are also less likely to perpetrate sexual violence.

There are exceptions to this protective effect from education since some campus environments appear to raise the risk of sexual violence. And there are some parts of the world where a woman with more education than her husband somehow raises her risk of being victimized.

3. Living in an unhealthy, conflicted intimate relationship

Women who are divorced, cohabiting or living alone are all at greater risk for sexual violence, according to different studies. None of this means married women are automatically safer, however, with so much depending on how cooperative and happy a marriage is, along with how much serious conflict is involved.

4. Raising young children without adequate support

According to multiple studies, the presence of children in a home increases a mother’s risk level for abuse victimization generally—likely due to the added stress this places upon marriages and families.

Whether due to marital conflict, economic struggles, mental health challenges or additional children, families enduring heightened levels of stress clearly appear more vulnerable to different kinds of abuse.

Even the addition of a single child raises victimization risk, with studies also showing heightened vulnerability to abuse at the hands of an intimate partner during pregnancy. Sadly, women unable to have children face additional victimization risk. And in some parts of the world, having a daughter instead of a son likewise increases the risk of victimization.

The quality of parenting clearly makes a difference for what a child’s future safety will be as adults. A home life that is chaotic, disrupted, impoverished, with parents who are uneducated, addicted or divorced, raises the risk of eventual victimization for that child as they become an adult.

5. Drug and alcohol abuse

Few factors have received more consistent empirical verification than the impact of alcohol and drugs—not only on men who are significantly more likely to perpetrate sexually under the influence of substances, but also on women who are more likely to be sexually victimized under the influence.

As Italian researchers summarize, “alcohol can impair cognition, distort reality, increase aggression, and ease drug-facilitated sexual assault.”

Drug use can also “render a victim incapable of defending themselves or unable to avoid dangerous situations where victimization may occur” according to U.S. researchers.

This is especially true with heavy, regular substance use, which U.S. researchers in one campus study called “one factor that has been found in most studies to be associated with higher risk for sexual aggression.”

There appears to be even higher vulnerability when both a man and woman are under the influence, with one U.S. research team concluding, “the amount of alcohol consumed by both perpetrators and victims also predicted the amount of aggression and type of sexual assault.”

If you grew up in a home with alcohol or were exposed to alcohol and other substances at an early age, there’s also evidence of increased risk for sexual violence as an adult. Alcohol is also one major reason sexual violence is often higher in college, especially campuses with a cultural acceptance of heavy drinking as a social norm.

6. Early, risky, casual sexual behavior

When women have sexual experiences earlier in life, they are at greater risk of sexual violence—especially when that involves casual “hook-ups” with multiple people. One research team called this “simple probability,” in that “multiplying partners would increase the chances of being involved with a violent partner.”

Repeatedly, studies also confirm that higher numbers of sexual partners increase the likelihood of men perpetrating sexual violence.

Cohabitation and extramarital affairs likewise raise the risk of sexual violence, as does overall impulsivity. For example, gambling is associated with increased risk of both perpetration and victimization.

In the other direction, stronger impulse control and overall self-control unsurprisingly protect against sexual violence.

Relatedly, over 100 studies have linked compulsive pornography use to sexual aggression, coercion and violence against women and children. For instance, one 2015 analysis examining 22 studies from 7 different countries concluded that pornography consumption was “associated with sexual aggression in the United States and internationally, among males and females, and in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.”

7. Ongoing, significant mental health challenges

It’s expected that victims would experience depression and anxiety in the difficult aftermath of abuse. There’s also evidence that women who experience mental health problems are at greater, additional risk of being victimized sexually—as are those who endure traumatic effects from any previous abuse.

Studies also find that men with different mental health challenges, including depression and bipolar disorder, can sometimes be at greater risk of perpetration. And there are cases in which medical treatments appear to have prompted sexual aggression among male patients that was “wholly alien to their character and antithetical to their prior behavior,” in the words of one psychiatrist.

In terms of victimization, Canadian researchers also note several studies confirming that “psychotropic drug abuse” can sometimes alter women’s judgment and “keep them from recognizing and avoiding dangerous situations and defending themselves against an attack.”

8. Adverse childhood experiences and young adult aggression

The atmosphere of one’s family upbringing can influence risk for sexual victimization and perpetration as an adult. Studies highlight lower levels of earlier “family cohesion” and “emotional expressiveness in the family” as predicting later abuse.

Witnessing significant fighting between a mother and father as a child also raises later victimization risk—especially if that conflict is unresolved and leads to separation and divorce. Any type of family disruption and residential displacement increases the risk of sexual victimization and exploitation. This risk rises to an entirely new level, however, for children who have witnessed parents hurting each other physically, emotionally or sexually.

When those children get hurt emotionally or physically, they experience even more risk for victimization or perpetration when they grow up. This is especially true when children are sexually victimized, with German researchers observing that “sexual abuse in childhood increases the odds of experiencing and engaging in sexual aggression in adolescence and young adulthood.”

This has been known for decades now, with U.S. researchers stating back in 1998, “childhood sexual abuse consistently predicted sexual re-victimization in adulthood.”

That risk rises even more when multiple kinds of early abuse are involved, with Swedish researchers reporting that exposure to different kinds of abuse in childhood was “found to be the most potent risk factor for sexual violence in adulthood among adult women.”

When women experience sexual violence as a young adult—be that from a boyfriend or stranger—they are also more likely to be victimized again (even repeatedly).

9. Limited social support and expanding isolation

One pattern that seems especially clear empirically is that anytime a woman is isolated she is more at risk. This includes women who: (1) communicate less with their own family of origin, (2) live at a residence with no other adults, (3) have only a transient place of residence, (4) live in a rented house (especially by themselves), (5) work a night shift, and (6) experience barriers to healthcare access.

This may also explain why women (and children) living in a “post-conflict” zone or areas that have recently endured natural disasters experience heightened risk for sexual victimization.

In the other direction, those women who report experiencing the support of friends, family and surrounding community are less likely to be victimized sexually. 

But a lot depends on the attitudes of surrounding relationships. It’s clearly no great protection to be surrounded by in-laws or other neighbors who see violence in a marriage as “sometimes justified.” And being around friends who also experience sexual violence or normalize any kind of abuse also measurably raises the risk of victimization for women.

Clearly, not all communities have equal levels of awareness of this problem. That is even more apparent when we look back through different time periods in history when global awareness of this danger was far less.

10. Limited religious community and faith commitment

Religious faith plays an important role in the risk for sexual violence. For instance, one set of studies finds a lack of religious affiliation to be associated with more likelihood of sexual perpetration among men and sexual victimization among women. For instance: 

• “Low religious involvement” in the family raises risk for abuse among immigrant women in Spain (Vives-Cases, et al., 2014). 
• Women “lacking religious commitment” are at greater risk of victimization in Mozambique (Maguele, et al., 2020).  
• “Lack of faith and lower attendance at religious services correlated with higher levels of abuse” according to U.S. researchers—sharing their findings that women abused during pregnancy “professed less religious faith and religious service attendance” (Dunn & Oths, 2004). 
• “Being less involved in religious activities” is among the “risk factors for dating victimization” (Vézina & Hébert, 2007). 
• “Non-Christians were at increased risk for clinically significant intimate partner violence victimization” in a study of U.S. Air Force personnel (Foran, et al., 2011).
• There is higher risk of intimate partner violence among women who “practiced no religion” in a Kenyan study (Memiah, et al., 2021). 
• “Being without religion” is “associated with increased chances of rape” in a Brazilian study (Diehl, et al., 2022). 
• Citing “lack of church attendance” as one of the characteristics that are “common risk factors for abuse,” Lown & Vega, 2001 found additional evidence that “no or infrequent church attendance” among women was among a set of factors associated with more intimate partner violence. “No church attendance or infrequent church attendance significantly increased the odds of intimate partner violence” among women, they stated—adding that “religious involvement has been shown to be protective in previous studies as it was in our sample.”
• After summarizing Fergusson, et al., 1986’s finding that couples attending church most often in New Zealand were also least likely to report violence in their relationship, Ellison & Anderson, 2001 continued to describe the “graded pattern” this earlier research team found: “On the other hand, men and women who never attend religious services are much more likely than their more religious counterparts to engage in domestic violence.” This research team goes on to report their own research that “shows that religious communities can provide a haven and resource for the victims of abuse, particularly through the informal support networks of church women.”

These effects of low faith show up with male partners as well: 

• “Men with no religious affiliation” are among the “significant predictors” of intimate partner violence in another Brazilian study (Zaleski, et al., 2010). 
• Intimate partner violence is is more common among women whose husbands “attend church less frequently” according to Hindin & Adair, 2002. These researchers report in the Philippines that intimate partner violence (IPV) is “less likely with more household assets, and more frequent church attendance by the husband.” They go on to emphasize the value of “finding additional activities, like attending church, where men might be receptive to messages that discourage IPV or that promote the value of communication.” 

The patterns reviewed above make one thing unmistakably clear: sexual violence does not emerge from nowhere. It grows in environments of accumulated strain—economic fragility, relational conflict, addiction, isolation, untreated trauma, and, often, spiritual disengagement. No single factor guarantees harm. But when vulnerabilities stack, risk rises.

Understanding these patterns is not about assigning blame; it is about identifying leverage points for more effective protection. If certain life conditions consistently increase danger, then strengthening their opposites—education, stability, supportive community, emotional health, and genuine, healthy faith—becomes a meaningful path toward prevention.

In Part II, I will move from patterns of vulnerability to practical application—examining what families, congregations, and communities can proactively and specifically do to interrupt these cycles and build stronger layers of safety around women and children.

Special thanks to Laura Whitney, Odessa Taylor, Jacob Orse, and Brigham Powelson for helping to gather and sift through published studies, and to Diana Gourley for helping edit the review. In addition to recent support from Deseret News, the author expresses thanks to Public Square Magazine for initial funding for the project.

The post Getting at the Roots of Sexual Violence Against Women appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Across parts one and two, one theme becomes unavoidable: risk factors tend to cluster. When instability, isolation, weak supervision, emotional distress, substance use, and risky sexual behavior overlap, a child’s vulnerability rises—while the protective “friction” that would normally stop a perpetrator often falls away.

That matters because prevention can’t stay limited to awareness campaigns alone. Many communities have improved at recognizing warning signs and responding faster, but major gaps remain in proactively reducing the deeper, underlying conditions that make abuse more likely in the first place.

What follows is a prevention framework drawn directly from the patterns in the research: 10 life patterns that increase protection, with concrete steps families and communities can take to reduce opportunity for offenders and increase safety for children.

Multiple, overlapping risk factors

When less-educated parents who are no longer married and use alcohol are raising children in a home that struggles to find sufficient material resources, lacks healthy community connections and doesn’t have  any higher purpose or meaning, those children are, statistically speaking, more likely to be sexually abused, according to studies across the world.

It’s helpful to also acknowledge some overall limitations in research—for instance, research in countries outside the United States is more limited. There is also less examination in the research of both protective factors and abused boys, compared with risk factors and abused girls. 

Yet what we learn from such analyses can be hugely beneficial. Even one risk factor can have consequences, with cumulative risk emerging as these factors add up.  In one 2020 study looking at three separate “key risk indicators”—exposure to parental domestic violence, parental addiction, parental mental illness—the authors observed that “levels of child sexual abuse for women in 2010 were 28.7 percent for those experiencing all three, and 2.1 percent for women with no risk indicators. Those with two or more risk factors had between five- and eightfold higher odds of child sexual abuse.”

For instance, a younger child who has experienced significant prior trauma, is largely isolated, in a setting of high stress (poverty) and high conflict (divorce), enduring emotional disorder or substance abuse, and with limited educational background, is much more likely to experience abuse, including sexual victimization—compared with a child facing none of those environmental conditions. 

Likewise, an adult or older teen who has experienced significant prior trauma, is largely detached from other relationships, enduring immense current stress (financially or otherwise) and high surrounding conflict, enduring emotional disorder or substance abuse, and with limited educational background is more likely to perpetrate abuse on others—including sexual violence, compared with an adult or older teen with none of those conditions. 

Overall, we can see that various lifestyle patterns constitute a substantial risk burden for victimization. “Health-related risk-taking behaviors are associated with the likelihood of being a victim of violence” research on adolescent lifestyle risk and violent victimization shows, from data on students in South Carolina who reported engaging in risky lifestyles like drug and alcohol abuse, and sexual promiscuity and faced increased risks of being victims of dating violence. They call this a “lifestyles theory explanation of violent victimization in adolescent dating relationships.”

In summary, children will have very different levels of vulnerability to sexual violence depending on the atmospheres and family/community lifestyles they are being raised in. These clear patterns in the risk-factor literature can thus act as powerful signals to guide more effective prevention strategies. Based on our review, we outline below what that might look like.

10 life patterns that increase protection 

A tremendous amount of effort over recent decades has gone to the prevention of abuse in all its forms, including the most tragic of all: child sexual abuse. Much of that has centered around awareness raising efforts—such as teaching children the difference between good and bad touch and helping adults become more vigilant to watch for signs of abuse.

Despite significant benefits from these and other encouraging efforts, the CDC highlights “critical gaps” in the U.S. response, with “few effective evidence-based strategies available to proactively protect children from child sexual abuse.”

This U.S. agency then emphasizes our need to “increase our understanding of risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse perpetration and victimization”—which can guide, in the words of Norwegian researchers, more “targeted prevention strategies for children and adolescents.”

That’s why I believe these patterns above can be so helpful—informing more proactive steps to further protect children. Notice how many researchers have been calling for the same thing: 

• “Efforts to decrease child sexual abuse need to be based on research ,” Zych & Marín-López emphasize, calling for “more accessible evidence regarding the breadth of risk and protective factors and effectiveness of interventions to reduce child sexual abuse needs to be provided to policymakers.” 
• “ Novel data on perpetrators of the violence and the risk factors for experiencing violence ,” Pankowiak et al. state, “provides further context to inform safeguarding strategies.” 
• “By identifying and understanding the systemic factors which enable child sexual abuse ,” Dodd et al. write, in the context of sports, “more effective prevention and policy interventions can be developed to make sport safer for children.” 
• “Knowledge of the risk and protective factors ,” Owusu-Addo et al. agree, “can guide and inform the development” of better prevention programs. 
• This aligns with other efforts to develop “a prediction model to identify those at greatest risk ”—specifically aiming to “identify youths at greatest risk before they are harmed.” 

These patterns point to straightforward implications that are often overlooked in public discourse.. Based on our review, children raised by educated, happily married in homes with adequate financial support, nourishing community connections and a sincere and healthy religious commitment, those children are far less likely to get caught up in drugs and alcohol and are less likely to be victimized sexually. 

More specifically, here are 10 steps that could protect children based on these findings:

1. Helping lift families and communities out of poverty
2. Expanding educational opportunities for mothers, fathers and children
3. Helping ensure more children are raised within a healthy marriage and continue into adulthood with happy family ties
4. Strengthening exhausted parents’ ability to nurture their children and create strong bonds
5. Surrounding children and families with layers of trustworthy social support
6. Proactively encouraging more lasting emotional healing
7. Encouraging teens to delay sexual behavior until marriage
8. Teaching empathy, compassion and self-control to those struggling with aggression and anger
9. Helping prevent youth drinking and support adults in finding freedom
10. Embedding children in a healthy spiritual/religious atmosphere

(A broader summary of these concrete steps is available in the Deseret News — with my full analysis of all 215 sexual abuse studies available at my Substack.) As reflected here, some of the best ways to ensure children experience reduced risk for sexual exploitation may be to find ways to encourage an upbringing embedded within:

• Healthy marriages with parents willing to nurture lasting attachments to their children—with back-up support from multiple protective layers of trustworthy community connections.
• An atmosphere where education is prioritized and there are adequate resources to provide for the financial needs of the family.
• An environment where teens are encouraged to avoid drugs and alcohol, delay sexual behavior until marriage and learn how to control their anger and impulses.
• An atmosphere where youth and adults are provided with support for deeper healing when current emotional struggles exist or previous abuse has taken place.
• An environment where faith, spirituality and religious community provide children and parents with higher purpose and deeper meaning to life.

According to the available research literature, a child raised in this context will be significantly less likely to be victimized sexually (and by other forms of abuse). By contrast, a child raised within an atmosphere of conflicted or broken families, neglectful parents, poor education, financial deficits, spiritual detachment, limited healing resources, substance abuse, sexual promiscuity, community acceptance of aggression and out of control anger, faces a higher risk.

Special thanks to Laura Whitney, Odessa Taylor, Jacob Orse, and Brigham Powelson for helping to gather and sift through published studies, and to Diana Gourley for helping edit the review. In addition to recent support from Deseret News, the author expresses thanks to Public Square Magazine for initial funding for the project. 

The post Life Patterns That Increase Protection Against Child Sexual Abuse appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Part one in my series on the risks of sexual assault focused on five broad conditions that repeatedly appear in the research about heightened vulnerability to child sexual abuse: fragile economic stability, limited education, the absence of a stable two-parent relationship, low-quality parent-child bonds, and weak community accountability.

In part two, the evidence turns toward a different cluster of factors—patterns that often show up in the lives of victims and perpetrators: significant mental-health struggles, early and risky sexual behavior (including exposure to sexually explicit content), aggression and impulsivity, and drug and alcohol influence.

This article also examines the research on faith and religiosity. The findings are more complex than many people assume. Healthy religious practice functions as a protective layer in a number of studies—often indirectly, by shaping peer networks, substance use, and sexual risk-taking. But religious identity alone is never a guarantee of safety, and faith settings can also be exploited when adults are unaccountable or when communities fear the consequences of transparency.

What follows are five patterns of individual behavioral risks associated with childhood sexual assault—not as moral judgments about families or youth, but as population-level signals that help clarify where prevention and safeguarding can be strongest.

Ongoing, Significant Mental Health Struggles

While you would expect poor mental health in the aftermath of abuse, there’s repeated evidence that young people who struggle with various mental health challenges are also more likely to be victimized sexually, as well as to become perpetrators themselves.

This appears to be largely due to the emotional vulnerabilities associated with high levels of despair, hopelessness, fear, and anger. But it’s also clear that some psychiatric treatments can involve emotional blunting and heightened indifference—making affected youth more likely to be sexually victimized.

There’s also evidence for “drug-induced activation” and manic symptoms in treated youth that can sometimes manifest as excessive hypersexuality and uncharacteristic sexual aggression against other youth.

Where abuse has taken place, it’s especially critical to help young victims receive as much compassionate support as possible to heal from earlier trauma. That’s confirmed by abundant evidence showing that previous abuse of any kind sets up a child for future sexual victimization and perpetration.

Early, Risky, Casual Sexual Behavior

A significant number of studies find that youth who are sexually active at a younger age or who have multiple, casual sexual partners are at heightened risk of being sexually victimized or becoming perpetrators.

Adults who are hyper-sexual are also at greater risk of perpetrating sexual violence against children. This is especially true in the presence of cognitive distortions that justify exploiting children as a legitimate “need” that doesn’t “really harm” the child.

More than 100 studies have likewise linked compulsive pornography use to sexual aggression, coercion and violence against women and children, contrary to industry-friendly messaging that mass consumption of explicit material somehow “reduces” sexual violence.

One 2023 review of 27 studies involving 16,200 young participants in North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa concluded that “significant associations were found between exposure to both violent and nonviolent sexual content” and the likelihood of engaging in “problematic sexual behaviors” (frequently involving force, coercion and aggression).

Aggression, Lack Of Empathy And Impulsivity

Young people who display a marked lack of empathy, along with significant anger and hostility, are more likely to be involved in sexual violence. This is especially true if boys show a behavioral pattern of fighting, conduct disorders, and disciplinary problems at school. Penn State researchers found that “delinquent youth” were “more likely to have favorable attitudes toward the abuse, to initiate the sexual encounter and to experience repeat victimizations.”

Young people who spend time with “delinquent” friends are also more likely to perpetrate sexual abuse against others and be victimized themselves—especially if they demonstrate consistent patterns of aggression, impulsivity and rule-breaking. These are the patterns U.S. researchers find lead to a “heightened risk for most types of victimization.”

Dutch researchers reported in 2023 that “impulsivity increases the odds of future sexual victimization as a child.” And German researchers found earlier that the lack of self-control likewise predicts “sexually aggressive behaviors” among adolescent boys.

Adults who display low empathy and callous, aggressive, criminal patterns—as well as an overall lack of impulse control—are also more likely to sexually offend against children.

Drug And Alcohol Influences On Both Youth And Adults

Substance abuse has multifaceted impacts on abuse, starting at home—since the children of parents who use alcohol are more likely to be sexually victimized and to sexually offend against other children. 

Teenage boys who use substances, both drugs and alcohol, are more likely to sexually abuse others. And teenage girls who use alcohol are also more vulnerable to being sexually victimized by other adolescents and adults.

This is true in a dating context as well, with University of Maryland researchers summarizing: “substance abuse during a date is linked to experiences of sexual and physical violence.” Even “being in places where one’s friends are drinking alcohol” is “associated with an increased risk of victimization” according to the same scholars.

Adults who sexually abuse children often struggle with drugs and alcohol as well—this frequently being one of many factors bringing a man (or woman) to the point of being willing to exploit someone so vulnerable.

Limited Faith Commitments And Religious Practice 

Young people who report infrequent attendance at church show heightened risk for both sexual victimization and perpetration. For instance, “low frequency of attendance to religious services” was identified in a survey of 250 high school teens as one of the “socio-cultural factors that affect the kind and intensification” of family abuse that includes sexual violence. 

Other studies report “not having religious affiliations” as a risk factor for sexual violence—with young girls who report their religious affiliation as Protestants compared to those with no religious affiliation. Among other things, these researchers hypothesized that “girls who do not have religious affiliations could be marginalized and socially isolated.” 

The protection of a healthy faith

By contrast, youth who report frequent attendance at church have repeatedly been found in studies within different countries to have less risk for abuse of various kinds, including sexual violence—especially when they demonstrate “intrinsic religiosity” (sincere faith).

For instance, adolescent girls who rated themselves as very religious in a 2021 South African study were 80 percent less likely to describe any previous experience of sexual violence in their lives compared to girls who were not religious. In addition: 

• Church attendance was identified as protective in a survey of Puerto Rico students from 117 schools, making violent behavior between adolescents less likely.
• “Religious service attendance” was a central variable associated with a lower prevalence of recent dating violence.
• Church attendance and religiosity protected against perpetration of sexual violence among high school students. 

The Sexual Satisfaction and Function Survey asked nearly 1,400 women in 2019-2020 whether they had experienced sexual abuse as a teen, and how often they attended religious services during high school. In a new analysis of the data, Stephen Cranney found that women who reported attending religious services weekly during their high school years were significantly less likely to talk about experiencing sexual abuse as a teen, compared with those who were less religious in high school.

These same trends show up in research on sexual minority youth as well: 

• In a survey of 117 adolescents in same-sex relationships, those who reported that religion was important to them were at lower risk of “any violence.”
• A study of sexual and gender minority youth found spirituality was among protective factors associated with lower likelihood of adverse outcomes, including sexual violence victimization and perpetration.
• Spirituality also emerged as a significant protective factor associated with lower risk of sexual violence victimization among high school students, as replicated in a follow-up paper.

This goes against common biases in the research community. One researcher set out with a hunch that “authoritarian ideology, including religious conservativism (which) endorses obedience to authority” might also correlate with the “mistreatment of children.” But on closer examination, political and religious conservativism both predicted lower child abuse rates.

How faith shapes other variables playing a role

Studies also identified a number of other variables that play an indirect role in increasing or reducing sexual violence—each of which are tied to the level of religious commitment in a teenager: 

• More risky sex—Adolescent females “for whom religion was not or only somewhat personally important” had higher odds of participating in “riskier sex” in one multi-factor analysis. 

• More negative friends—Elevated levels of “religious coping” were indirectly protective against violence by reinforcing “less antisocial bonding” among high-risk youth in a longitudinal study.
• More substance abuse—A “personal belief in God” and “parent religiosity” were connected with less adolescent substance use in one survey-based study. It’s long been known that illicit drug use decreases among young people as belief in God increases in broader population research, or they are involved in a spiritual system that provides grounding (including Buddhism, as shown in cross-cultural work).

Consistently, one study found high-risk behaviors fully mediated the link between religious activity and dating violence. Another paper likewise cites research suggesting that “values upheld by the clergy and their peers who attend church could also reinforce youths’ personal values against violence and/or high-risk behavior.”

In the other direction, one analysis highlights research linking religiosity with stronger bonds to family members and school. Another paper adds that stronger bonds to family members and school mean that a youth will spend greater time with parents and other adults in schools that will act as the child’s ‘handler.’ These handlers will protect the child from engaging in criminal behavior, which will decrease the odds of victimization.

Religious children are still abused far too much

None of this is to minimize heartbreaking instances where a child is assaulted in a religious home, or by a perpetrator acting in a religious position. And, indeed, there is no such protective religious influence in a home or community where children are harshly controlled and manipulated by domineering adults. When such devastating abuse is perpetrated by a person of such immense trust, it can prompt in a young person what one scholar described as “rage and spiritual distress that pervades their entire life being.”

As two researchers argued in 2010, “the particular nature of religiosity needs to be considered when interpreting a connection between religiosity and abuse risk”—going on to highlight differences in the “underlying motivation for an individual’s religion.” The authors suggest that “Religiosity per se may not be as critical to predicting physical abuse risk as selected approaches to religion or particular attitudes the religious individual assumes in their daily life.” 

In response to the same article, another researcher in 2011 pointed out that “it is very common for social distortions and individual pathology to be hidden by groups and individuals behind a religious construction, misconception or misinterpretation.” The same researcher also underscored that “the fundamental concept of the major religions in the world deal with loving one’s fellow man, caring for the family and one’s children, and being a positive element in the community (with kindness and charity).”

Like other communities, faith communities are actively taking more steps around the world to prevent such tragedies. Meanwhile, it seems clear that healthy and cooperative religious communities generally reduce victimization, in part, because children with such a faith commitment shaping their lives and homes typically engage in less risky sex, less substance abuse and have fewer negative friends.

In part three, I look at what happens when these risk factors stack and their effects are combined—and the specific protective patterns the research suggests can reduce harm before it occurs.

The post Behavior Patterns Associated with Sexual Abuse of Children appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Several years ago, Public Square Magazine provided initial funding for a research team to gather published studies that get at the roots of this question. Our small team reviewed thousands of studies to identify those focused specifically on risk factors making children more vulnerable to sexual abuse by parents, other relatives, or older teenagers.

These studies from around the world also examine the assault of children ages six to twelve and teenagers in various contexts, including competitive sports clubs, youth-serving nonprofits, churches, and schools, with dating violence also receiving much more attention in recent decades.

For many years, scholarship emphasized individual offenders and individual victims—perpetrator motives, disorders, and victim-level correlates. In more recent decades, researchers have increasingly examined the broader context around abuse: family stability, supervision, peer dynamics, institutional oversight, and community accountability—what some studies call “enabling factors” that make abuse easier to commit and harder to detect.

Last summer, I completed this in-depth review of approximately 500 abuse studies (285 involving adults, 215 involving youth), publishing summary versions of results focused on children and adult victims in the Deseret News, with the full-length, 60-page version released later that fall.  

This three-part series synthesizes findings from that deep dive into the risk factor research focused on the sexual abuse of young people. Part one outlines five recurring patterns that show up across countries and contexts—patterns that tend to increase vulnerability to child sexual abuse by weakening stability, supervision, and community safeguards.

Fragile Economic Well-Being 

Consistently, studies demonstrate that children growing up in families and neighborhoods with limited economic resources are more likely to experience sexual victimization—a risk that appears to grow as poverty deepens (parents unemployed, families going without food, living in substandard housing, adolescents forced to work).

The opposite is also true. For instance, youth whose fathers were employed were “about four times less likely to experience sexual abuse than respondents whose fathers were unemployed,” according to one Nigerian study from 2017.

Limited Educational Opportunities

Children with lower levels of education are more vulnerable to victimization—especially those who drop out completely. As Canadian researchers summarized in a 2007 review, “adolescents who have no intention of pursuing postsecondary schooling or who have not obtained their high school diploma are at greater risk of being victims of sexual and physical violence.”

By comparison, when children grow up where education is encouraged and valued, they are less likely to be sexually victimized. This shows up first in analyses of parental education level—with studies from Africa to Brazil to the U.S. showing that boys and girls whose parents have more education are also more likely to be protected against victimization (with risk consistently increasing as parental education declines).

Children’s own higher education level also decreases this risk, starting with just being in school at all. This is especially true if the schools are smaller, if the child feels comfortable at the school, and if they are doing well academically.

Growing Up Without Both Parents in a Loving Relationship

Following parental separation, divorce, or death, a child naturally experiences more residential instability and often significantly less parental supervision. That frequently includes a greater likelihood of being in close, regular contact with other older men who are “not the biological father.”

Consistently, children with incarcerated fathers also were 5.5 times more likely to experience child sexual abuse in one New Zealand analysis. Even higher risk comes when children live with neither of their parents, such as living with friends or another relative; living in foster care or other institutions; or especially if they are homeless and on the streets.

By contrast, multiple studies found that children living with both parents are less likely to be victimized—with the same Nigerian analysis finding children living in these homes “two times less likely to experience sexual abuse.”

Although most sexual abuse happens within homes, studies repeatedly show that children growing up with married parents are less likely to be abused in any way, including sexually. This is especially true when that marital relationship is cooperative and healthy—with “parental togetherness” and “harmony” identified in the Nigerian study as “protective factors that buffer children from sexual abuse.”

No such marital protections exist, however, in the presence of significant amounts of conflict and other kinds of emotional and physical aggression in the marriage and home generally. Another African study found a 2.5-fold increased risk of children being sexually abused when they experienced conflict between parents—a result that aligns with some U.S. data.

Low Quality of the Parent-Child Relationship

While you would expect negative parent-child relationships within any abusive context, there is repeated evidence that poor relationships with a mother and father also precede and predict abuse of various kinds, including sexual violence.

Available studies look specifically at vulnerability to victimization connected to a “lack of closeness” with a parent and “low warmth” relationships within a “rigid” family climate. Children whose parents display harsh, authoritarian parenting behavior are also at greater risk of being sexually victimized.

One Canadian study of abusive coaches observed how they often admitted to persuading mothers and fathers to “relinquish some or all parental control” to themselves—with the researchers acknowledging that “for the abused athlete, the bond of trust established between him or herself and the perpetrator is often a substitute for a weak relationship with a parent.”

By contrast, studies in Africa and the U.S. found, unsurprisingly, that “high” and “frequent parental monitoring” is connected with less sexual violence against children and teens. This is also true for positive, warm, healing relationships between parents and children overall.

Spotty Community Accountability

To the extent any community has allowed isolated access to children historically, this has sadly been shown to raise the risk of victimization. That includes abuse connected with ‘unguarded access to children’ by religious leaders, ‘unsupervised coaches,’ rogue law enforcement officers, predatory physicians, leaders of boys’ and girls’ clubs, and other organizations where perpetrators can seek out ‘volunteer work with organizations through which they can meet children.’

One study of 41 serial perpetrators found that 57 percent reported having picked their profession either partly or specifically in order to access children. Such privileged, close contact with youth is often taken for granted within special trusted roles—clergy, coach, teacher, mentor, counselor, camp staff, and scout leader.

This is also why healthy peer groups make such a difference, and why negative friend and sibling relationships increase the risk of children being sexually abused. That includes settings where older adolescents have “unsupervised opportunity with younger victims.”

In the absence of this kind of proactive, robust community supervision, what’s clear is that isolation of any kind appears to be quickly exploited by adult and older teenage perpetrators. Australian researchers report that sibling sexual abuse is “the most common form of intra-familial child sexual abuse”—an outcome that is more likely among “step-siblings and half-siblings,” when compared with full siblings.

Five groups of young people, in particular, experience higher levels of sexual violence: (1) girls; (2) younger children; (3) youth who identify as sexual/gender minorities; (4) children who have experienced abuse previously; and (5) children with disabilities—all of whom consistently show higher risk for sexual victimization.

In part two, we turn to patterns tied more directly to mental health, risk behaviors, substances, and the evidence on faith and religiosity—factors that can either amplify vulnerability or strengthen protection depending on how they play out in real communities.

If you or someone you love has experienced sexual assault of any kind and needs additional support in the U.S., contact the National Sexual Assault Hotline (1-800-656-HOPE)—with virtual and text-based options available. This is a confidential networking service in the U.S. that helps connect victims with local agencies that can offer therapeutic support across the country. Similar kinds of hotlines exist in many countries around the world.

The post The Hidden Conditions that Leave Children Vulnerable to Abuse appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

On Sunday morning, January 18, 2026, roughly three dozen anti–immigration-enforcement protesters walked into a worship service at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Some moved all the way up toward the pulpit while others chanted “ICE out” and “Renée Good,” invoking the woman fatally shot by an ICE officer in Minneapolis.

The protesters’ stated reason for choosing that congregation was personal: multiple outlets reported that one of Cities Church’s pastors, David Easterwood, leads the local ICE field office.

Whatever one thinks about ICE, about the pastor’s role, or about the protesters’ cause, the method matters. There is a moral difference between showing up outside a building to make a public argument and walking into a sanctuary to stop people from worshipping.

But even those groups whose protests we find offensive have always maintained the line: protest outside, worship inside. 

The inside–outside line is more than mere preference. It’s a recognition that religious spaces matter, and a social agreement that keeps people safe and allows worship to be possible.

This is a bright line that Latter-day Saints understand intuitively and should be willing to stand up for. 

Protecting this boundary is more than theater. Worship spaces have been under attack—including others in Minnesota. Just last summer in Minneapolis, neighboring St. Paul, worshippers were attacked in a mass shooting at the Annunciation Catholic Church during an all-school Mass. And Latter-day Saints, too, have recently experienced violence at places of worship.

When outsiders burst into a place of worship without the intention to worship, the outcome can turn violent. Protesting in places of worship poses all kinds of risks to congregants, who want to protect themselves and their families. Such trespass is simply not safe for any involved, no matter how peacefully the interruption is managed.

To be clear, sanctuaries have never been perfectly safe. Scripture and history are full of sacred spaces violated by violence or contempt.

But the point of a sanctuary is not that nothing bad can happen there. It’s that we collectively agree it shouldn’t—and that agreement restrains the worst impulses in all of us.

Interrupting a worship service is a bad idea regardless of the intent. It inflicts collateral damage on the wrong people. It swaps moral clarity for spectacle. It invites escalation and copycat behavior. It risks legal consequences while muddying constitutional principles. 

It may be tempting for Latter-day Saints to not concern themselves with this violation. After all, the Church has long supported the immigrant community, and its support for constitutional principles likely means it will not be the focus of ire for these protesters. And more largely, Latter-day Saints are not the most natural target for the kind of inside-the-service disruption we saw at Cities Church. Our congregations are politically diverse, our official posture is not partisan, and our public messaging on immigration is neither “open borders” nor “enforcement-only.”

But here’s the sober second thought: we should not assume we’re safe from becoming a target anyway.

The U.S. Department of Justice has said it opened an investigation, with officials publicly referencing potential violations of the federal FACE Act, a 1994 law that (among other things) prohibits using force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate, or interfere with someone “exercising or seeking to exercise” religious freedom at a place of worship—while also clarifying it does not prohibit First Amendment–protected peaceful picketing and demonstration. We believe this is a wise and justifiable instance for utilizing this law, and we encourage law enforcement to take a stand in reinforcing the norms of places of worship as sanctuaries. 

Regardless of where Latter-day Saints as individuals or as a group reside on the political spectrum, weakening norms around chapels as sanctuaries should concern each of us. We should defend the norm of sanctuary for everyone—because once it’s gone, it will be our youth, our converts, and our visitors who suffer alongside those of our neighbors. 

The post Protest Outside, Worship Inside: A Truce Worth Keeping appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

National Religious Freedom Day stings a little this year.

The past few months have brought some painful experiences to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In September, a shooter and arsonist took the lives of four members of the Church and wounded several more in Michigan. Just hours before, the Church’s senior leader, President Russell M. Nelson, had passed away. In our mourning, many online expressed great sympathy and kindness. But sadly, some saw fit to focus on hurtful arguments that Latter-day Saints aren’t Christian—and in some cases, argued that we’re simply demonic.

Around the country this fall, explicit chants about “Mormons” echoed through several college football stadiums where BYU played, including at a game where survivors of the Michigan attack were in attendance. Although apologies followed, they claimed that the actions did not represent the university, and no actions were taken to help remedy the students’ animus. (I do note that some schools took intentional steps to prevent these hateful chants, which I gratefully applaud.)

All this in a time where Pew Research Center has reported a great irony: while Latter-day Saints are unique for feeling positive—and in most cases, very positive—toward all faith groups (and even atheists), they are, in return, disliked by nearly all those groups. (A shout-out to our Catholic friends, the only surveyed group to feel positively.)

The way that Latter-day Saints face religious hostility in America is unique. Commentator Jonah Goldberg of The Dispatch said it well after the Michigan shooting: “I think extreme anti-Mormonism may be the most reactionary form of hatred in America” because it is “hating people solely for what they believe.” The hatred “is overwhelmingly theological and abstract” and does not appear to be inspired by “anything that Mormons”—or as we’d kindly suggest, Latter-day Saints—“actually, or even allegedly, do.” 

This peculiar theological hate often leads to a strange cultural tolerance for degrading Latter-day Saints in the public square in ways that would not be deemed permissible for other faiths. For all the talk in recent years of shedding hate and cultivating tolerance, love, and respect, it hasn’t seemed to apply in a widespread way to members of The Church of Jesus Christ. As Simran Jeet Singh of Religion News Service reported, “Hating Mormons remains socially permissible in modern America, just as it was nearly 200 years ago when they were forcibly displaced and almost exterminated.”

Yet despite the peculiar flavor of religious animus prevalent toward Latter-day Saints in America, I don’t think most of these cultural slights weigh too heavily on Latter-day Saints. Most of us have (perhaps sadly) grown accustomed to routine maligning by the media and the entertainment industry. We know we are countercultural—or in scriptural parlance, a “peculiar people.” The scriptures teach us to expect persecution and pay no heed to the world’s judgment. We focus on living our faith and finding joy in Christ, and we don’t spend much time fretting about this mistreatment.

But the violent attack—that was different. That pain pierced our historical consciousness, searing into our remembrance the violent persecution the early Saints in Missouri faced nearly two centuries ago. A much different context, yes. But the common thread? Hate-fueled violence toward Latter-day Saints.

I have followed religious freedom conditions around the world for nearly six years. My interest in advocating for the persecuted drove me to law school and inspires me to volunteer my free time to the cause. I frequently read horrific reports of mass atrocities, including war crimes and genocide. My heart grieves every time. Sometimes I become so consumed that the suffering persecuted are all I can think about.

And yet the Michigan attack shook me differently. Perhaps because Latter-day Saint meetings and chapels are so universal, and because I have spent nearly every Sunday of my life in them, I felt that I could visualize every moment of the attack as if I had been there. I could see the lay bishopric member at the stand when the truck drove into the building, the unassuming carpet on which the members would have run as they scattered, the hallways with gospel art where each member would have frantically searched for a safe way out. 

I wept for days after this attack. And I felt intense guilt that I do not weep every time I read of one. It is my firm conviction that every human life holds equal inherent worth and dignity. This belief is what drives me to advocate for the religious freedom of all people. And yet I suppose we are all most emotionally affected by what we are most intimately connected to. 

But now I no longer view my emotional response to my own faith’s suffering with shame. Instead, I see it as an impetus for me to better bear the burdens and “mourn with those that mourn” outside of my faith community in the wake of religious violence. Having briefly tasted, if only from a distance, the sting of religious violence aimed at my own faith community, I can more empathetically engage with others who have endured it too.

And sadly, many have. Just a month before the Michigan attack, an attacker opened fire on Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, killing two children. In June, a heavily armed man opened fire on CrossPointe Community Church in Michigan and was fatally shot. In May, a Jewish couple who worked for the Israeli embassy was shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Similar attacks have happened to various people of faith and houses of worship across the country in recent years.

And for minority faith groups in America, religious persecution in the form of hate crimes, even if not violent, is too often a real and pervasive part of their experience. Of the 3,096 hate crimes motivated solely by religious bias in 2024, the three most affected groups were minority faith groups: about 69 percent of the religious hate crimes were targeted at Jews, 9.3 percent were targeted at Muslims, and 4.9 percent were targeted at Sikhs.

Antisemitism in the United States is surging. In 2024, the Anti-Defamation League reported the highest total number of antisemitic incidents since it began tracking data in 1979. 77 percent of Jews have reported feeling less safe in the U.S. since Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attacks in Israel, according to a report by the American Jewish Committee. And the same report indicated that more than half of U.S. Jews avoided a behavior in 2024 due to fears of antisemitism. 

Islamophobia is also increasing significantly. 70 percent of Muslims have reported facing increased discrimination in American society since the Hamas–Israel War began. The Council on American-Islamic Relations reported the highest number of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab incidents in 2024 since the group began compiling data in 1996. 

These trends are not limited to the United States. Just days after the Michigan attack on The Church of Jesus Christ, a Manchester synagogue was attacked during Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. The Manchester attack had startling similarities to the one in Michigan: the attacker drove a vehicle toward the sacred space (though this time, not into it), then exited in an attempt to violently attack the worshippers. 

As Latter-day Saints engage in dialogue about religious persecution—which I fully encourage—we must make sure we understand the broader context of religious persecution and hostility in the U.S. and abroad. As we join the conversation, we must neither understate or overstate our own case. Yes, we are often treated in highly unusual ways, particularly culturally, that should be adamantly condemned. But in so many ways, we fare much better than others in our acceptance, freedom, and safety in society. We are not persecuted the way we were in the early days of the Church. We are not victims of atrocities like ethnic cleansing or genocide because of our faith ties. Many of our fellow human beings are not so lucky.

If we plan to advocate for ourselves, we should first become better aware of the other faith groups experiencing religious hostility and persecution. We should realize that we do not carry the same fear that many Sikhs or Muslims or Jews carry when they leave their homes dressed in religious apparel. We do not know what it is like to have an ethnic-religious identity, with both aspects triggering acts of discrimination against us. We should try to better understand the experiences of our brothers and sisters for whom these forms of persecution are daily realities. And we should understand hostility toward or persecution of Latter-day Saints in this broader context. 

If we wish to advocate for ourselves, there is always the question of whether to turn the other cheek or to defend a righteous cause. In my own view, while we must seek to turn the other cheek and achieve personal reconciliation, and we must forgive those who have persecuted us, scripture teaches it can be righteous to advocate for ourselves as a group when we are persecuted as a faith community (so long as we did not provoke the offense). Restoration teaching adds that this advocacy should be peaceful.

In fact, I think it is important for members to peacefully and respectfully advocate for our faith community when we experience persecution: first, because it is just, and second, because it signals the standard of how we believe all human beings and their religious beliefs should be treated. If we don’t speak up about cultural desecration of the Book of Mormon in a musical, are we implying it’s okay to desecrate the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), the Qu’ran, or the Bible? If we imply that hate speech against us is okay, do we think it’s okay against Buddhists, Sikhs, or evangelical Christians? Would we stand for explicit chants against them at sporting events or vile tweets against them on X in the wake of religious violence aimed at their communities? 

Even if you don’t want to deal with the question of whether self-advocacy is righteous, one thing is surely just: advocating for the religious freedom of others. In so doing, we honor the human dignity—the inherent, unchangeable, equal worth—of every person. We recognize that to be human is to have a conscience, and that from this follows the corollary human right to follow it. We emphasize that all human beings deserve to be treated with kindness, respect, and love—no matter what aspects contribute to their identities.

The Good Samaritan in Jesus’ parable was the unlikely advocate and rescuer for the injured Jewish man. Jews viewed Samaritans as religiously impure and heretical. Samaritans saw Jews as arrogant and wrong. And yet, the Samaritan man was the one who both noticed the wounded Jewish man and addressed his needs. Laying aside the tension between their communities and perhaps their inabilities to fully understand each other, the Samaritan had compassion for the Jewish man. However different from himself, the Samaritan saw the humanity in the other, “shewed mercy,” and helped the broken Jewish man heal from what he had so cruelly been a victim of. The Jewish man was not the Samaritan man’s enemy, but his neighbor and his brother.

This is our example. We must set aside our differences to advocate for the religious freedom of other faith groups. We may not fully understand them, and they may not understand us. Sometimes, there may even be significant theological rifts or cultural tensions between us, including harsh words uttered. But we can choose to see the humanity in one another and to stand for it.

So, on this National Religious Freedom Day, when persecution strikes my faith group, I commit to peacefully but firmly condemn it. And when it strikes others, I will condemn it too—perhaps even more vigorously. 

The post Latter-day Saints Must Stand With the Religiously Persecuted appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

On a winter night in Montgomery, 1956, a young pastor stood at a pulpit preaching nonviolence while the movement’s enemies slipped a bomb onto his home’s front porch. When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. learned his home had been bombed—with his wife Coretta and their infant daughter inside—he rushed home to find an angry, armed crowd gathering in the street. King raised his hands and pleaded for peace: “We must meet violence with nonviolence … go home and don’t worry. We are not hurt.” Then he sent people back to their families and back to their faith. The church remained the movement’s shelter, and the movement remained the church’s work.

That is one of our nation’s defining images of what sacred space is for. A sanctuary is not a fortress; it’s a promise. It promises that there is at least one place where the human person is not a problem to be solved by force but a soul to be received, heard, and protected. It promises a time‑out from vengeance long enough for justice, mercy, and reason to do their work.

But that promise has been pierced—again and again.

When the sanctuary is torn

The wounds are old. On a Sunday morning in 1963, terrorists placed dynamite under the steps of Birmingham’s 16th Street Baptist Church. The blast killed four little girls and shook a nation awake. Their names—Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley—still invite us to say never again with our whole chests.

Two years later, the deadliest church shooting in American history struck First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas—twenty‑six slain, twenty‑two wounded—on a Sunday that became a long Good Friday for a small town. That same autumn near Nashville, gunfire ripped through Burnette Chapel Church of Christ as worshipers were leaving morning service; one was killed, and several were wounded.

In 2019, at West Freeway Church of Christ, an attacker killed two congregants; the livestream captured the trauma of a sanctuary violated. 

In 2022, a gunman opened fire at St. Stephen’s Episcopal in Vestavia Hills, Alabama, during a potluck, killing three retirees. That same spring in Laguna Woods, California, political hatred targeted a Taiwanese congregation meeting at Geneva Presbyterian; one man died shielding others as five were wounded.

And then came this late summer: a school‑year Mass at Minneapolis’s Annunciation Catholic Church was transformed into a scene of horror. Two children were killed. Twenty‑one people were wounded. A community of parents and grandparents in their Sunday best learned the meaning of intercession under fire.

And it’s not only bullets and bombings that have pierced the promise of sanctuary.

For years afterward, our government tacitly restored a norm. But in January 2025, federal officials rescinded those “sensitive locations” protections and announced that churches would no longer be treated as off‑limits. 

And now, as I write, we are once more confronted by blood on the sanctuary floor. On September 28, 2025, in Grand Blanc Township, Michigan, a man rammed his pickup into a Latter‑day Saint meetinghouse, opened fire on worshipers, and set the building ablaze. Four were killed and eight wounded; the suspect died after an exchange of gunfire with police. Investigators say he harbored a hatred of Latter‑day Saints. Whatever the motive, we can say what it was: an act of targeted violence against a people at prayer.

If sanctuary is the promise, these are its betrayals.

Why sanctuaries matter—still

Sanctuary is older than our nation and broader than our denominations. The Hebrew Scriptures created “cities of refuge”—an early recognition that justice without mercy becomes mere force. 

American churches have tried. Black congregations made their sanctuaries waystations on the Underground Railroad because conscience and Scripture would not let them return the image of God in chains. Civil rights churches kept their doors open to people who had been beaten by deputies and attacked by dogs. In the 1980s and again in our own decade, congregations of every stripe opened basements and parish halls to immigrant neighbors facing sudden separation from their children. 

Even those skeptical of religion should recognize what is at stake. Houses of worship are where communities knit trust, where hungry people find food, and addicts find companions who will not give up on them. When our cycles of violence treat churches like just another address—or when hatred treats them like just another “soft target”—it sends a message: there is no place you can assume a modicum of peace. That message corrodes the very social capital our neighborhoods need to be safe.

What “re‑enshrining” sanctuary should look like

A renewal of sanctuaries in America does not require turning churches into islands above the law. However, it will require the re-entrenching of norms that the state respects. It requires recovering the moral wisdom that our law should serve.

We can re‑establish a bright‑line norm against enforcement actions in sanctuaries. Congress can codify what was once policy into law: absent a true, immediate threat to life or a judicially‑authorized exigency, federal agents do not conduct arrests in churches, synagogues, mosques, or their immediate grounds. This would align enforcement with religious liberty and with long‑standing American instincts about sacred space.

Name and resist hatred for what it is. The Charleston murderer did not just kill; he desecrated hospitality offered across a color line. The Grand Blanc attacker allegedly nursed a bigotry toward Latter‑day Saints. We need moral clarity that the attack on a worshiping community is an attack on America’s promise to itself. Hate‑crime statutes and domestic‑terror tools should be used—fairly, consistently, and without fear or favor—to confront that reality. 

And then we need to turn hatred into love. An Amish community in Pennsylvania put this into practice when they forgave and then helped the family of the man who murdered many of their daughters. Similarly, Latter-day Saints have raised more than $265,000 (at the time of publication) for the care of the family of the man who died while attacking their chapel. 

A plea

Return, for a moment, to the home of Martin Luther King Jr. Glass on the floor. A baby’s cries. A crowd bristling with weapons. And a pastor who refused to let his people become what their enemies hoped they would become. King did not deny the danger or minimize the evil; he simply insisted on a better way. That choice—on a porch, in the dark—saved lives that night, and arguably the movement itself.

We need sanctuaries. We need places where the command ‘do not harm here’ holds.

The promise of sanctuary will never be perfectly kept; the list of violated spaces proves that. But the alternative is a country where nothing is sacred—not our neighbors, not the truth, not even the peace we claim to seek. That is not a future worthy of our children, or of the God so many of us worship.

The post “Sanctuary” Must Mean Something Again appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

President Russell M. Nelson passed away Saturday evening at age 101. News of his death reached Latter-day Saints worldwide even as many of us were preparing for Sunday worship. Hours later, our community woke to shocking reports from Grand Blanc Township, Michigan, where a gunman rammed a meetinghouse of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opened fire, and set the building ablaze. Early counts vary—as is common in breaking news—and investigators are still determining a motive.

These two headlines—one of a prophet’s passing, another of senseless violence—land side by side with painful irony. Only weeks ago, President Nelson offered what now reads like a valedictory charge in TIME: “We All Deserve Dignity and Respect.” He called the world to remember two enduring truths: the divine worth of every person and the duty to love our neighbors with compassion. That was his last public message to the broader world; it is also the right response to the spirit of our age.

We strive for radical civility and moral clarity following Christ. That is our commitment at Public Square, and we try to keep, especially on days like this.

The Prophet’s Consistent Plea

President Nelson’s ministry consistently pressed toward peacemaking. In April 2023 he pled, “I urge you to choose to be a peacemaker, now and always.” That appeal was not sentimental; it was covenantal—an invitation to practice the discipline of charity in a time addicted to outrage.

Peace Without Evasion

Peacemaking is not evasion; it is the discipline of rejecting contention while standing firm in truth. Few voices have framed this more clearly than President Dallin H. Oaks, who served alongside Nelson in the Church’s presiding body, the First Presidency. Oaks has asked forthrightly what followers of Christ “should teach and do in this time of toxic communications,” and answered by calling us to mirror the Savior’s way as peacemakers. His counsel does not retreat from moral conviction; it refuses to let bitterness be our strategy.

For Latter-day Saints, this is more than conflict-avoidance. It is anchored in scripture’s warning that “contention is not of [Christ], but is of the devil” (see 3 Nephi 11:29–30). The covenant path trains our tongues and tempers—not to silence our witness, but to purify it.

By that standard, moral clarity requires us to name the Michigan attack for what it is. Driving a truck into a house of worship, firing on congregants, and torching a sacred space desecrates everything the restored gospel teaches about the sanctity of life, the dignity of worship, and the inviolable worth of souls. Whatever investigators eventually conclude about motive, such violence is the opposite of discipleship and the antithesis of President Nelson’s final public appeal. Reports are still being updated; early accounts indicate multiple victims and a deceased assailant. We mourn with those who mourn and condemn the assault without reservation.

The restored gospel offers a counter-formation. Covenants teach us to see persons first, to confess the limits of our knowledge, and to prefer persuasion over coercion. That is why President Nelson’s repeated focus on dignity, respect, and peacemaking should not be read as soft-pedaling doctrine. It is a strategy for faithful influence in a pluralistic nation—one that refuses false choices between courage and charity.

What Peacemaking Looks Like Right Now

On a day of grief and anger, what can ordinary believers do that is not merely performative?

• Pray by name. Pray for those killed and wounded in Michigan, for families newly navigating trauma, for first responders, and for local Church leaders shepherding devastated congregations. If you are nearby, listen for concrete needs—meals, blood donations, childcare, transportation—and meet them quietly. (Details are still emerging; follow local guidance.)
• Refuse contempt. In your home, group chats, and timelines, retire the demeaning one-liners. President Oaks warned about “toxic communications”; treat them as a spiritual hazard.
• Tell the truth, tenderly. Truth without love can become a cudgel; love without truth becomes sentimentality. The Savior calls us to both. President Nelson modeled that balance in his final essay and throughout his ministry.
• Practice presence. Visit a neighbor who grieves. Check on the Latter-day Saints—and the Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, and Jews—down the street. A community that shows up is a community that heals.
• Break bread across difference. Host a meal with someone whose yard sign irritated you last cycle. Eat, listen, and learn. The table is where enemies become neighbors and neighbors become friends.

A Closing Appeal

President Nelson’s final public word to the world was peace rooted in divine worth. Even as we mourn his passing—and the violence visited upon a Latter-day Saint congregation in Michigan—we can honor both moments by the way we live the next one.

And then break bread with your perceived enemies. Pull up an extra chair. Learn a name. Hear a story. In a season when extremism shouts, let our witness be the quiet, stubborn courage of peacemakers. That was the prophet’s parting invitation. May it be ours.

Editorial updated as of September 29, 2025; facts in the Michigan incident remain preliminary and may change as authorities release confirmed totals.

The post As Extremism Roars, the Prophet’s Final Word Was Peace appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

The news of Charlie Kirk’s assassination on Wednesday at Utah Valley University is devastating.  He left behind a young wife and two small children, who were very clearly the center of his world. While much of the online commentary about him has been respectful and positive, it is hard to escape the online celebrations of his death—gleeful posts blaming the victim because of his political beliefs, excusing the lack of compassion for his family because of his views. Many acknowledge that, of course, it was wrong for the gunman to murder Kirk, but still seem relieved that a person they saw as a threat to their worldview is no longer around.

I am, unfortunately, all too familiar with those feelings, having once lived them myself.

From a young age, I believed the political left held the moral high ground. I knew that there were a few good and smart right-leaning people—my parents and neighbors among them—but I also assumed that they were the exceptions. In my eyes, the vast majority of people on the right were evil, dumb, selfish, or worse. Why else would anyone oppose the party of women’s rights, civil rights, and workers’ rights?

But over time, things began to change. I married and had three young children. I wrestled with my faith. I found myself questioning whether issues were as simple as I had once assumed. In 2020, like many people, I spent more time online—and to my surprise, I was exposed to ideas I had once rejected out of hand. Slowly, my moral intuitions shifted. I no longer felt my political home was on the left.

What startled me most was realizing how many people I had dismissed as “bigots” were simply people who thought as I now did. I carried real regret for the way politics had shaped my view of people I knew and loved. At the same time, the world became much lighter, knowing that the country was not divided into good guys and bad guys, but both sides were filled with mostly very good and earnest people, endowed with the light of Christ, trying to make the best for the world we could. 

My shift in beliefs did not lead me to see people on the left as I had seen people on the right. Like a growing number of Americans, I am quite politically homeless, perhaps leaning more conservative, but with serious criticisms of the right. I also reject both-sides-ism, where we throw up our hands and say “well, they’re all terrible,” or “the other guys are doing it too.” Each side has its own problems and vices, and those deserve direct criticism and remedy. I also have personal experience seeing the goodness, justice, and mercy present in people on all sides. 

Having observed the good and bad in both sides of the political spectrum, I have a few words of unsolicited advice at this sensitive time: 

To my liberal friends: The Overton window has shifted very far in the past few years. When almost all normie-conservative opinions are treated as beyond the pale in public discourse, it creates a distorted picture of your neighbors. Your political opponents do not wish you dead, and they are not opposing your very existence. The positions you take may be formed by thoughtfulness, personal experience, compassion, and the very best of intentions, but so are the positions of your political opponents. Half the country are not lunatic rednecks, and reaching that conclusion should invite some serious soul-searching.  Spencer Cox, Governor of Utah, said it well: “If anyone, in the sound of my voice, celebrated even a little bit at the news of the shooting, I would beg you to look in the mirror and see if you can find a better angel in there somewhere.” Look for the good in people on the other side of the aisle; you might be surprised by what you find.

In scripture, we read many times of darkness, and the message from our Lord is always the same: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid” (John 14:27).

We are responsible for bringing that peace into the world. This does not require us to reject our convictions in favor of niceness. But it does require a soft heart, a willingness to listen, and a commitment to President Nelson’s call for peacemaking “especially when we have differences of opinion.”

Moments of violence can either harden our divisions or soften our hearts. The choice is ours. This week has felt so bleak. Resist the temptation of knee-jerk responses. Refuse to celebrate the suffering of your opponents. Remember that the people you disagree with most are still children of God. If we take seriously the call to be peacemakers, we can honor Charlie Kirk’s memory—not by weaponizing his death, but by living the harder path as peacemakers.

The post Did Murder Become a Meme? What Online Reactions to Charlie Kirk Reveal About Us appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are often remarkably peaceful. Latter-day Saints have a reputation for being peaceful, law-abiding, and community-oriented. This isn’t just anecdotal—it’s borne out in crime statistics and sociological research. 

For example, Utah, where a majority of the population identifies as Latter-day Saint, has consistently lower violent crime rates than national averages. More broadly, studies of Latter-day Saint communities outside Utah show similarly low levels of violence among Latter-day Saint youth. Universities run by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with overwhelmingly Latter-day Saint populations, BYU and BYU-Idaho, have extraordinarily low rates of sexual assault. Boy Scout troops run by Latter-day Saints had abuse rates 75% lower than average.

The answer isn’t just one thing—it’s a combination of theological principles, strong community structures, social norms, and historical experiences that together create a culture where violence is rare. The numbers don’t lie, and neither does the lived experience of those in Latter-day Saint communities. Let’s take a look at what makes the Saints so peaceable.

Theological Foundations: Turning the Other Cheek Isn’t Optional

At the heart of the Latter-day Saint commitment to nonviolence is their religious belief system, which directly discourages aggression. The Book of Mormon explicitly condemns contention, stating that it is “of the devil” (3 Nephi 11:29). One of the most striking narratives in Latter-day Saint scripture tells of a group of converts who, after years of being warriors, covenant to never again take up arms—even at the cost of their own lives. Their faith leads them to value peace so deeply that they would rather die than fight (Alma 24).

Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, particularly His command to “love your enemies” and “turn the other cheek,” is heavily emphasized in the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ. Church leaders continually reinforce the idea that contention is not of God. President Russell M. Nelson, current president of the Church, has called on Latter-day Saints to be “peacemakers” in a world increasingly prone to division and hostility. He explicitly warned that “anger and violence can be contagious” and called on members to “choose to be civil and respectful even when others do not.”

Community Structures: A Culture of Watchfulness and Care

One of the most unique aspects of Latter-day Saint life is its community structure. Congregations, known as wards, function almost like extended families, with a level of social engagement that is rare in modern American life. Members don’t just see each other on Sundays; they interact multiple times a week through service projects, youth activities, and social gatherings. Every member is assigned ministering brothers or sisters who check in on them regularly. If someone starts exhibiting dangerous or self-destructive behavior, there’s a built-in support system to intervene before things escalate.

Sociologists often point to social capital and informal social control as key deterrents to crime.  One empirical indicator of this is Utah’s extraordinary volunteerism and charitable engagement, which are byproducts of the LDS communal ethic. Utah consistently leads the nation in volunteer rates—more people volunteer in Utah and for more hours than in any other state.

Economic Stability & Welfare

A significant factor contributing to the lower violence rates among Latter-day Saints is the Church’s comprehensive welfare system. Established in 1936, this private, church-run safety net provides food, housing assistance, job training, and direct financial aid to struggling members through programs like Bishops’ Storehouses, fast offerings, and employment services. Unlike government programs, this welfare model operates at the local level, with bishops personally assessing and responding to individual needs, ensuring that members avoid extreme poverty and economic desperation—key risk factors for criminal behavior.

This system has a measurable impact on crime prevention. Studies have long established a link between economic hardship and criminal behavior, particularly theft and violent crime. By intervening early with financial and employment assistance, the Church of Jesus Christ’s welfare program mitigates conditions that often push individuals toward illegal activity.

Lifestyle Norms: Sobriety, Stability, and Self-Mastery

Another major factor in the low levels of violence among Latter-day Saints is their lifestyle. The Word of Wisdom, the Church’s health code, prohibits alcohol and drug use. This has significant implications for crime rates, as substance abuse is a major driver of violent crime. Statistics show that Utah has some of the lowest rates of alcohol consumption in the country, and studies have consistently found lower levels of substance abuse among Latter-day Saints than among the general population. Fewer people under the influence means fewer instances of alcohol-fueled aggression and crime.

Family structure also plays a crucial role. Latter-day Saints place a strong emphasis on marriage and family stability. Utah has one of the highest marriage rates and one of the lowest rates of single-parent households in the nation. Research shows that children raised in stable, two-parent homes are significantly less likely to engage in violent behavior. Latter-day Saint teachings on family life contribute to an environment where youth are less likely to fall into patterns of delinquency.

Historical Memory: A People Who Know the Cost of Violence

Latter-day Saints have a historical memory shaped by persecution. In the 19th century, they were driven from their homes multiple times, subjected to violent attacks, and even massacred. This traumatic history of persecution left a deep imprint. The pioneers who eventually settled in Utah had learned through bitter experience that violence only begets suffering. There, they developed a strong collective desire to live peacefully and not give enemies any pretext to attack again.

This historical transition was not just top-down; it became part of Latter-day Saint identity. The narrative of a once-persecuted people who survived by clinging to their faith and staying unified in spite of violence is a cultural memory passed down through generations. It engenders sympathy for other oppressed groups and a wariness of rhetoric that could lead to violence. Many Latter-day Saints recount stories of their pioneer ancestors being beaten or chased out by mobs, and these stories serve as stark cautionary tales. The echo of those events in collective memory reinforces the community’s modern rejection of mob mentality, lawlessness, or violent revenge.

Moreover, as Latter-day Saints increasingly became part of the American mainstream in the 20th century, church leaders encouraged members to be exemplary citizens to overcome past stigmas. This meant being modelly nonviolent—no rioting, no extremism, just hardworking, neighborly folk. Even during times of national turmoil (the civil rights era, anti-war protests, etc.), the Latter-day Saint population, by and large, kept to peaceful civic engagement.

For Sure, Other Factors Matter Too

To be sure, not every gap in violence between Latter-day Saints and the general population can be chalked up to theology or church influence alone. Other factors include that Latter-day Saints in America are more likely than the general population to be middle-class, and reside in suburban or rural areas. These groups and areas tend to have lower violent crime rates nationwide, regardless of religion. It’s possible that the kind of individuals prone to serious violence are less likely to be attracted to, or retained in, the Latter-day Saint faith in the first place. Some of the most notable examples of violence in Utah, for example, are among those who left or were disfellowshipped from the Church. We should also note that devout participation in any faith community often correlates with lower crime. 

A Model Worth Noticing

The Latter-day Saint case offers valuable insights into what makes a community safe. Strong families, tight-knit social networks, clear moral teachings, and disciplined living all contribute to a culture where violence is rare. In an era where many are searching for solutions to crime and social unrest, the Latter-day Saints provide an intriguing case study of how values and community structures can foster peace.

The takeaway? Culture matters. Beliefs matter. And when a community prioritizes peace—not just in words but in action—it makes a real difference. Latter-day Saints have built a society where violence is the exception, not the rule. And that’s something worth learning from.

The post A Peaceable People: Why Latter-day Saints Are Less Violent than the General Population appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The idea of violent Islam fits into a persistent criticism of religion in general, which is that religious people and groups are unusually violent. Charles Kimball writes, “It is somewhat trite, but nevertheless sadly true, to say that more wars have been waged, more people killed, and these days more evil perpetrated in the name of religion than by any other institutional force in human history.” For example, recent Netflix series depicts Brigham Young, an early president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as a “villainous, violent fanatic,” despite evidence that Latter-day Saints were less violent than other groups at the time.

All Muslims? 

As a threshold matter, it’s hard to know what it would mean to say that Islam is inherently violent. If this is true, does that mean that every Muslim will unavoidably engage in violence? Or perhaps not everyone, but only 50%? 20%? 10%? 1%? Or perhaps something more ambiguous, such as that “wherever” we see Islam, we see political violence? 

Further, when we speak of Islam, what are we referring to? It is critical to understand that there is no single understanding of Islam. There are myriad sects and movements within Islam, each with its own particular ideas and teachings. Here is a chart showing the basic divisions of Islam:

As with other major religions, these different branches within Islam do not always agree with each other on many core teachings and practices. Even within a particular branch, there can be many differing opinions from different leaders on specific concepts. Whenever extremist groups claim to be speaking for “Islam,” they clearly do not represent the views of millions of other Muslims. 

The Reality of Violent Islam

Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that a great deal of violence has been perpetrated by self-identified Muslims and that such violence is often justified in religious terms. The most recent well-known event was the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel which killed 1,139 Israelis and others and injured thousands. Many Americans have vivid memories of the September 11, 2001, Twin Towers attacks, which killed 2,977 people. As of 2015, four Islamic extremist groups (ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda) were responsible for 74% of all deaths from terrorism. From 2011 – 2019, there were between 13,000 and 33,000 deaths per year from terrorist attacks. Most of these attacks and deaths have been in Muslim-majority countries. One study claims that over 167,000 people have been killed by Islamist attacks over 40 years; 90% of those victims were other Muslims. 

It is also true that Islamic extremist groups often justify their attacks using their religion, specifically their interpretations of Islamic texts such as the Quran, the hadith, and Sharia law. Their reasoning includes armed jihad as retribution for perceived injustices against Muslims by non-believers; the belief that certain self-identified Muslims have violated Islamic principles and are therefore considered disbelievers (takfir); the perceived obligation to restore Islam’s dominance by implementing sharia law and reestablishing the Caliphate as a unified Islamic state (e.g., ISIS); the pursuit of heavenly rewards through martyrdom; and the conviction that Islam is superior to all other religions.

It is difficult to find accurate estimates of how many Islamic terrorists there are in the world due to the clandestine nature of these groups and the different definitions of terrorism. However, estimates have been made. In 2014, ISIS was thought to have at most 30,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria, plus another 30,000 from other countries. There are about 10,000 fighters detained in Syria as of 2024. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban potentially have tens of thousands each. When all the terrorist groups are put together, most sources seem to estimate there could be around 100,000 individuals. The highest number I found was from a report in 2018 that estimated there were up to 230,000 Salafi-jihadist and allied fighters worldwide. In comparison, the global Muslim population is 1.9 billion. Thus, the highest estimates of Islamic terrorism posit that .005% to .012% of all Muslims are terrorists. In other words, 99.99% of Muslims in the world are explicitly not terrorists.

Violent Verses in the Quran

Despite looking at these numbers, some may still say that the actual Al-Quran preaches violence. Specific Quranic verses certainly seem to condone violence, such as the “Sword Verse”: 

“… kill the polytheists who violated their treaties wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way” (Surah At-Tawbah 9:5).

Critics claim that such verses are evidence of Islam’s endorsement of violence. There are three reasons why pointing to violent verses in the Quran as evidence for Islam’s fundamental violent nature is not a particularly convincing argument.

First, like many religious texts, I suspect that these verses are often taken out of context by both critics of Islam and violent Muslims themselves, trying to religiously justify their actions. There are many people who perpetuate evil in religious and non-religious contexts. People with evil intentions will find justifications for their actions if they look for them. The Al-Quran is certainly not the only holy text used as justification for horrendous acts. 

Second, if one is going to accept the Al-Quran as an authoritative voice when it comes to violence, then one must accept the whole Al-Quran. There are other verses that preach peace rather than violence:

“… Whoever takes a life … it will be as if they killed all of humanity; and whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity” (Surah Al-Ma-idah 5:32).

“Good and evil cannot be equal. Respond to evil with what is best, then the one you are in a feud with will be like a close friend” (Surah Fussilat 41:34).

“The true servants of the Most Compassionate are those who walk on the earth humbly, and when the foolish address them improperly, they only respond with peace” (Surah Al-Furqan 25:63).

The meaning of particular verses is situated by the overall meaning of the text. While I may not be an expert on the Al-Quran, Christians and other believers (and non-believers) should be able to understand that certain passages can be selectively employed in a way that goes against the overarching message of the text.

The Concept of Jihad

Beyond specific Quranic verses, the concept of jihad offers a clear example of how Islamic doctrine can be subject to widely varying interpretations. Critics and Islamic extremists often claim that jihad primarily means “holy war” and use it to justify violence against non-believers by presenting it as a divine mandate for conquest. However, many Islamic scholars and practitioners interpret jihad differently by viewing it primarily as a personal, spiritual struggle to live a righteous life and resist evil—much like the Christian exhortation to “put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil” (Ephesians 6:10-11). 

Armed jihad is still considered a significant concept in mainstream Islamic teaching, but it is thought of as secondary and limited to defensive contexts. Thus, as with many religious teachings, the meaning of jihad depends on interpretation and context. The existence of peaceful, alternative interpretations within Islam demonstrates that the Quran, like any religious text, offers a range of possible readings. That flexibility itself suggests that Islam cannot be reduced to a singular, violent doctrine.

It is also worth pointing out that most victims of extremist violence are Muslims. In other words, the violence mostly comes from some Islamic sects against other Islamic sects, highlighting that the violent sects do not necessarily represent Islam itself, nor do they primarily target non-Islamic populations. Extremist groups often represent fringe interpretations that are condemned by most other Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims simply don’t belong to terrorist sects of Islam. 

Potential Origins of the Call to Violence

While extremist groups and their actions are often cited as evidence of Islam’s supposed inherent violence, a closer look reveals that their motivations and justifications are often far more political than theological. In fact, many of these groups and the regimes they represent leverage religion as a tool to consolidate power, often distorting Islamic teachings to suit their ambitions.

While there are Islamic terrorist groups in many places around the world, the majority of them are concentrated in a few countries of the Middle East. Often these groups aren’t just operating within a country’s borders, they are running the country. The Taliban regained control of Afghanistan in 2021, Pakistan has housed various Islamic terrorist groups, and ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. These governments are run by people who have shown they will leverage religious authority and their people’s faith for their own violent ends.

Personal and Observational Evidence

The most compelling evidence for me as to why I don’t think Islam is fundamentally violent comes from personal experience. It’s not official, it’s not professional, it’s not scientific, but I do think it is relevant. 

I served a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Indonesia, which is the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. For two years, I lived alongside 235 million Muslims, at least 87% of the nation’s total population. I talked with, walked with, ate with, and lived with Muslims every single day for two years in Indonesia. Not one of them tried to kill me. None of them assaulted me. None of them even gave me a little push or yelled at me to get out of their country. In fact, the only people who kicked me out of their house for teaching about Jesus Christ were other Christians. 

During my time there, Indonesian Muslims would frequently and emphatically disavow terrorist groups, insisting “they are not really Muslim.” These weren’t casual statements made in passing—they were heartfelt declarations from people who were deeply troubled by how their faith was being misrepresented by extremists. Despite being a visible religious minority as a Christian missionary in a Muslim-majority country, I never once felt physically threatened or in danger.

Looking Forward

I have yet to be convinced that Islam is an inherently violent religion. The bigger question for me is, how do we live with our Muslim neighbors? How do we, as a country, a society, a world, and a people live with others who have a radically different worldview than us? Well, that’s always been the question. How do people with irreconcilable differences get along? I have no idea, but for what it’s worth, I don’t think the differences are as big and daunting as they might seem. Every religion and worldview has some sharp edges that need to be smoothed down, edges that come more from culture and history rather than doctrine and teachings.

One thing is certain: insisting that your Muslim neighbor’s faith requires violence is not a good foundation for friendly relations. Claiming all Muslims are disposed to violence because of their religion is a gross and misleading generalization. As the Muslim and Western worlds increasingly come into contact with each other, we have choices about how we will interact. Refraining from tarring all Muslims as violent is a crucial first step toward building better relationships with our Muslim neighbors.

The post Beyond the Sword: Challenging the Myth of Islam’s “Inherent” Violence appeared first on Public Square Magazine.