On Good Friday, the Biden White House announced its plan to honor “Transgender Day of Visibility,” celebrating, “The extraordinary courage and contributions of transgender Americans.” The announcement also proclaimed the day would fall on Easter Sunday, a move which many conservative Christians perceived as an affront to religious norms in America.

Many saw the announcement as an example of "wokeness" or progressive agendas gone awry. They argue overlapping a clearly political observance with important Christian holiday is an inappropriate politicization of religious tradition. Many also accused the administration of intentionally trying to bait Christians into outrage by disrespecting Easter.

Thinly Veiled Hostility Toward American Christians

Traditional Christians voiced strong opposition to Trans Visibility as an affront to their religious traditions and a challenge to the biological realities of gender. They argue the Biden administration is prioritizing secular, progressive values and gender ideology over Christian ones. Many Americans view the Transgender Day of Visibility, along with “Pride” month in June and “Transgender Day of Remembrance” in November, as an intentional way to disrupt traditional moral norms and the sanctity of family life.

Conservatives argue the administration’s choice to make a big deal of the day is purely part of a political agenda. They see government recognition as political encroachment of secular values upon their religious freedoms. This group feels the White House promoting progressive values and ignoring or suppressing Christian values indicates a certain hostility to American Christians.

• Over Easter weekend, discussion about “transgender rights” with mentions of Joe Biden spiked significantly to 1,200 from a normal baseline of almost zero.
• Sentiment toward Joe Biden regarding trans and LGBTQ issues remained steady.
• Sentiment toward Biden regarding religious issues dipped to 45% in the last week, recovering to 54% on Easter Sunday.

Many conservative and religious groups objected to the timing of Biden’s proclamation. They asserted it was a deliberate attempt to overshadow the significance of Easter. They believe the administration is prioritizing political correctness over religious traditions. Some even suggested the move was intended to further polarize the country, exacerbating the divide between traditional religious people and secular, progressive activists.

Evangelical Christians seem to be among the most vocal group to take offense. Many of them perceive this event as a slight or even a direct attack against their faith, questioning the "blasphemy" of the proclaimed Catholic Joe Biden.

Accusations of Political Pandering

Some also view Biden’s proclamation as a strategic attempt to pander to progressive and LGBTQ voters. These commenters claim the Biden administration is attempting to solidify its base among liberal and younger demographics who are more likely to support LGBTQ+ rights.

There are claims the timing of Biden’s announcement isn’t politically motivated as it likely alienates moderate and conservative voters who are uncomfortable with the juxtaposition of a religious holiday and a political statement. However, others insist this alienation is intentional and an attempt to force traditional and religious views out of the political square.

Progressive voters are more positive and supportive toward Transgender Day of Visibility. This is particularly true for those who identify as Democrats or liberals. This group notes the importance of recognizing the rights and identities of transgender people. They see the announcement as a step towards inclusivity and recognition.

Liberals also tend to criticize more conservative voters, accusing them of hatred or bigotry towards trans people. Progressive Christians also claim that modern "inclusion and equity” is in line with the teachings of Jesus. Some even express a belief that Jesus himself would not mind sharing the day.

Prior to COVID lockdowns, religion played a significant role in the lives of many Americans. For Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others, religious beliefs or lack thereof often shape worldview, political leanings, and day-to-day decisions. The intersection of religion and politics, particularly for evangelical Christians, was a contentious issue pre-2020. Those who supported then-president Donald Trump were often criticized. This was especially true when his actions and attitudes seemed antithetical to evangelical beliefs.

COVID lockdowns brought about a shift in religious sentiment among Americans, however. With churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship closing their doors by mandate, many turned to online platforms to practice their faith. This period of isolation and uncertainty also led to an increase in spiritual seeking for some, while others questioned their beliefs.

Lockdowns combined with the subsequent economic crisis brought about a shift in focus. Discussions around job creation, economic recovery, and the role of government in these areas became more prominent. Some religious individuals linked their faith to these civic issues, citing the importance of caring for God's creation – including the economy and the environment. 

Predictive Analysis Vs Mainstream Narrative

The future of religious people in America will likely continue to be influenced by political and social issues. The intersection of faith and politics, particularly for evangelical Christians, will likely remain a contentious issue. However, it is possible the results of COVID may be a shift in priorities, with more focus on social justice, environmental stewardship, and economic equality.

Factors that shape religious sentiment for Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others will likely remain diverse and complex. These may include personal experiences, societal trends, political climate, and interpretations of religious texts. The rise of online religious practice may also continue, altering the way Americans engage with their faith.

The impact of lockdowns on religion in America has been significant. It seems to have led to permanent changes in religious practice and sentiment. The future of religion in America is somewhat uncertain and will likely be influenced by many factors.

Mainstream media narratives suggest that Christianity, which has historically been the dominant religion in America, is waning. News reports point to decreased church attendance as an indicator of archaic ways of life receding into the past.

Mainstream reporting suggests demographic shifts such as increasing racial and ethnic diversity in America likely leads to increased religious pluralism. There is also a suggestion that secularization will continue to increase, particularly among younger generations who are less likely to identify with traditional religious institutions.

However, external data indicates this narrative does not tell the whole story and may actually be cynical. Some studies show an increase in younger generations attending church services.

• Non-white Millennials drive the largest increase in church attendance.
• 45% of non-white Millennials are attending church weekly, compared to 35% of white Millennials.

Percent Attending Church Weekly

Political dynamics may also shape the future of religion in America. The intertwining of religion and politics, particularly on the Christian right, could further polarize religious communities. Conservative Christians often find themselves at odds with the rise of social justice movements which prompt many faith communities to engage in activism and advocacy.

Technological advancements, from online worship services to religious apps, could transform how people practice their faith. These technologies may make religion more accessible to some. However, they also seem to be raising new questions about the nature of religious community and worship.

In terms of religious sentiment, various faiths continue to hold different views on morality, social justice, and the role of religion in public life. These differences are often shaped by theological beliefs, cultural backgrounds, and personal experiences.

For example, Christians may continue to grapple with issues like LGBTQ rights and racial justice, with different denominations and individuals having differing views. Jews and Muslims may continue to face challenges related to religious discrimination and prejudice, which could shape their religious sentiments and practices. Atheists, meanwhile, may continue to advocate for secularism and the removal of religion from government practices. 

Demographics and Mass Attendance

While Protestant numbers have decreased, Catholicism remains steady and may be trending upward. Furthermore, a possible resurgence of Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) attendees seems to be leading the potential increase. A survey conducted from 2019 to 2021 of TLM parishes across the country identified:

• 2019 average attendance across 59 parishes was 145.
• 2020 average attendance across 61 parishes was 163.
• January 2021 average attendance across 69 parishes was 174.
• June 2021 average attendance across 75 parishes was 196.

In short, the rate of TLM attendance increased by 34% and the number of parishes offering TLM increased by 27%.

“So, at a time when general Mass attendance was decreasing,” the report pointed out, “attendance at the TLM was dramatically increasing." Church attendance also differs among generations. However, this may be an indicator of continued increases in faith since Millennials are less likely than Boomers to stop attending church all together. They are, however, more likely to attend multiple churches.

The economy also seems to be an influencing factor, likely delaying family creation, as well as causing increased housing prices and other general costs of living. These hardships may be encouraging Americans back to faith.

Given difficult economic conditions and societal disillusionment being exacerbated by COVID lockdowns, searching for meaning is a plausible counterreaction to recent societal turmoil for many Americans. Despite the mainstream media's insistence to the contrary and negative portrayal of religiosity, many Americans are clinging to their faith.

Boeing’s PR disaster in recent months over recurring safety complications is not letting up. American voters are feeling overwhelmingly negative about the jet company – expressing fear and criticism. There is a strong sense of frustration and disappointment with the company's handling of the safety issues. One particular issue people bring up is the incident involving the door panel of a Boeing 737 Max plane blowing out mid-flight.

• Boeing sentiment has been hovering in the mid 40% range while online discussion continues to grow more negative.

Safety Concerns for American Travelers

There is a clear concern about how safe Boeing planes are for passengers, particularly the 737 Max. People recurringly mention a near-collision incident involving a Boeing 737 Max and a Boeing 777, which, among other events, is fueling safety concerns. Some Americans question the safety of Boeing aircraft and often express nervousness about traveling in them.

Following the death of Boeing whistleblower John Barnett, more people are discussing their view of a decline in Boeing's quality and the impact of rushing projects. People are relating the problems to poor management and the company's focus on profits over audits and worker wellbeing, and a growing sense of incompetence in modern society.

The disapproval of safety standards at Boeing are not generally partisan, however right leaning Americans are more likely to bring up DEI, criticizing its woke impact on Boeing's operations. They suggest that DEI is partially responsible for the company's difficulties and call for its removal.

Reactions to Boeing CEO’s Resignation

The public seems to believe Boeing's priorities are more focused on production than on safety and quality. Some even go so far as to suggest that all Boeing aircraft should be melted down and started over.

Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun’s resignation is seen by many as a positive step. But there is also skepticism about whether this will lead to any real changes in the company's approach to safety.

American appear to have a generally negative view of Dave Calhoun and his leadership at the company. They also criticize the executive and management levels of leadership broadly.

There is some public relief at the news of Calhoun's resignation, and some suggest the entire company needs a complete overhaul or "start over." Public views on the company’s brand value indicates widespread dissatisfaction with Boeing's current image.

While some see Calhoun’s resignation as an appropriate response to the company's troubles, others question the timing and express cynicism about the executives' motives.

There is also criticism of large exit packages for departing executives, especially in the light of perceived gross negligence in handling safety issues. Some express concerns about the future of Boeing as a leader in the industry given the ongoing crises.

General Criticism of the Company

There are calls for more accountability and transparency from Boeing, with some suggesting that more information should be released about safety incidents and negligence allegations. Some even raise questions about potential criminal charges or ethical investigations related to safety issues and suspicion around John Barnett’s death.

Overall, public sentiment indicates a lack of trust or confidence in Boeing and its leadership, as well as increasing fear of boarding a Boeing jet. The way the company handles this crisis and its commitment to safety and quality moving forward will likely influence public perception and trust in the company.

The War on Drugs, a global campaign led by the U.S. federal government with the aim of reducing the illegal drug trade, has long been a point of political and social contention. Views on this issue tend to vary depending on political affiliation, racial and economic background, age, and geography.

Partisan Views of the War on Drugs

Democrats generally advocate for a more health-centered approach to the issue. They emphasize prevention, treatment, harm reduction strategies, and decriminalization of marijuana. They often argue the War on Drugs has disproportionately targeted minority communities, leading to systemic racial disparities in drug-related arrests and incarcerations.

Decriminalization or legalization of marijuana efforts emphasize potential economic benefits and reducing the number of nonviolent drug offenders in prisons. They often argue the War on Drugs has disproportionately impacted communities of color and lower-income individuals. This, they say, leads to systemic injustices. The Democratic Party has increasingly endorsed medical marijuana and decriminalization of possession.

Republicans typically support strong law enforcement measures to combat drug trade. They argue for increased border security and stringent punishment for drug offenders. They often attribute the drug problem to lax immigration policies and assert that stronger border controls could help prevent drugs like fentanyl from entering the country. This group prioritizes maintaining public safety however, this viewpoint is evolving.

Some Republicans, such as Georgia's Governor Brian Kemp, have shown support for marijuana legalization, causing confusion among conservative constituents.

Independents generally lean towards more moderate strategies that balance law enforcement with prevention and treatment. Their views are varied, but they often align more closely with the Democratic viewpoint, favoring decriminalization or legalization. 

Other Demographic Groups on the Drug War

Age also plays a significant role in shaping views on the War on Drugs. Younger generations, who have grown up in an era of changing attitudes towards certain drugs like cannabis, are more likely to support reformative approaches like decriminalization and treatment. Older generations tend to maintain more conservative views, favoring law enforcement and punitive measures.

Geography is another factor, as urban and rural communities experience different aspects of the drug crisis. Rural areas, for instance, have been hit particularly hard by the opioid epidemic. And urban areas often struggle with issues related to drug trafficking and violence.

Racial and economic backgrounds also influence perceptions of the War on Drugs. Minority communities, particularly African American and Latino populations, have been disproportionately affected by drug-related arrests and incarcerations. Economically disadvantaged communities often bear the brunt of the drug crisis, suffering higher rates of substance abuse and related health issues.

It's likely that the War on Drugs will remain a politically divisive issue. As the country continues to grapple with the fallout from the opioid epidemic, debates will likely center around the balance between law enforcement and treatment strategies. Furthermore, concerns about racial justice and the societal impacts of drug criminalization will continue to shape public discourse on this issue.

As newer generations become more politically active, it’s possible there will be a shift towards more progressive policies. However, strong law enforcement measures will likely remain a key component of the country's overall strategy to combat drug abuse.

Online commentary concerning opioids is a large, varied topic which produces a lower sentiment than conversations pertaining to drug enforcement. 

Some of the common discussion include:

Fentanyl

There's a widespread concern about the proliferation of fentanyl in the illegal drug supply — a highly potent synthetic opioid. Many Americans express fear and confusion about reasons for its presence, given the drug's high lethality. They see fentanyl as counterproductive for drug dealers or the cartels. Some people believe the introduction of fentanyl is a deliberate act to harm or kill users, and there are theories that it is part of a broader conspiracy. Many also acknowledge the extreme danger posed by fentanyl, with some likening its use to playing Russian roulette. Others connect the presence of fentanyl in drugs to the need for changes in border policy.

Opioid Crisis

The opioid crisis is a significant point of discussion, with criticism aimed at politicians and pharmaceutical companies for their roles in the epidemic. Many feel these entities are profiting from the crisis and doing nothing to stop it. There's also a sense of frustration and anger over the perceived lack of action and accountability in addressing the issue, along with related border and crime issues.

Personal Responsibility

Some users emphasize the importance of personal responsibility in drug use, arguing that individuals must make the choice not to consume drugs. However, this viewpoint is not universally shared. Some point to external factors like the availability and potency of drugs and the difficulty of getting clean.

Drug Legislation

There's skepticism about the effectiveness of drug legislation in curbing the drug problem, with some viewing proposed initiatives like the END FENTANYL ACT with cynicism. There's a sense that previous legislation has only made the situation worse, and there's little faith that future legislation will be any different.

Drug Prohibition

Some users see drug prohibition as a significant factor in drug-related deaths, arguing that it forces people to use unregulated drugs and contributes to the prevalence of dangerous substances like fentanyl. There are calls for drugs to be regulated and sold in the same way as alcohol.

The Effect on Families and Communities

The impact of drug use and addiction on families and communities is a recurring theme. Users share personal stories of loss and devastation caused by drug addiction, particularly from fentanyl poisoning. There's also a sense that certain communities, like those with high opioid use, are stigmatized and overlooked.

After a controversial encounter a female Planet Fitness member had with a trans person shaving his beard in the women’s bathroom, Planet Fitness is facing Budweiser-style public backlash. Allegations also include a biological man allegedly exposing himself to a 15-year-old in the women's locker room at Planet Fitness.

Many Americans are deeply upset with Planet Fitness's stance on trans issues. They feel the company is not respecting the rights of women but is supporting woke gender ideology. There are frequent calls for boycotts and strong language used against Planet Fitness, accusing the company of supporting potentially dangerous trans activists at the expense of women.

• Sentiment towards transgender rights has decreased slightly in the last two weeks, while discussion volume is up in the last week.

Online Discussion About Woke Policies at Planet Fitness

Public discussion about Planet Fitness is decisively negative, with many people declaring they intend to or have already canceled their memberships. Many are also praising the economic consequences of a growing Planet Fitness boycott, causing the company to lose stock value.

There is also a recurring theme of freedom of speech throughout the discussion. Some voters believe that by supporting transgender rights, Planet Fitness is suppressing the freedom of speech of women who disagree with their stance. They argue that everyone has the right to voice their opinions, even if they are seen as offensive or controversial by others.

There are also growing social media movements that display how dissatisfied people are with Planet Fitness' policies on transgender people using their facilities. There are people posting with the hashtags #BoycottPlanetFitness and #Misogyny, indicating a negative sentiment towards the company due to their perceived negligence of women's safety.

The discussion is heavily influenced by political ideologies, with many linking their views on Planet Fitness to their broader political beliefs. There is a clear divide between conservative and liberal viewpoints, with each side accusing the other of trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.

While the discussion is predominantly negative, there are also voices in support of Planet Fitness's stance on trans issues. These people argue that supporting trans rights is a matter of basic human rights and equality, and they applaud Planet Fitness for taking a stand.

How Different Voter Groups View Trans Rights

Conservative Voters

In general, conservatives tend to speak out against the inclusion of trans people in women's spaces like restrooms and locker rooms. This group often views this issue through the lens of biological sex rather than gender identity, arguing for the preservation of spaces designated for biological women.

Liberal Voters

More left-leaning voters are generally more supportive of trans rights, including the right to be included in spaces that align with their gender identity. They often argue for inclusivity and equality, seeing this issue as part of the broader fight for LGBT+ rights.

Moderates and Independents

There's no strong consensus among Independents, but they generally strive to find a middle ground. Some may support trans rights but also voice concerns about potential implications for cisgender women.

Online discussion of how people think and feel about COVID is varied and complex. It appears the majority of people believe the COVID pandemic is ongoing, according to the high number of tweets referencing current issues such as vaccines, potential risks, and ongoing political debates. Additional polling indicates that overall, people believe the COVID pandemic is over. There are also a small number of people who express skepticism about the reality of the pandemic, suggesting that it is a "fake pandemic" or "charade."

In terms of political affiliation, there are significant differences among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Some Republicans credit former President Trump with managing the pandemic effectively, while others criticize his handling of the crisis.

Among Democrats, there is strong criticism of Trump's handling of the pandemic, with some blaming him directly for their perception of a high number of COVID deaths in the United States according to the media. Independent views are not explicitly stated, but they seem to be divided, much like the other groups.

There is a strong focus on the COVID vaccine in online discussions, with some people praising its life-saving properties while others express concern about potential risks and side effects. Some voters mention vaccine mandates and their impact on employment and sports participation, indicating a significant concern over personal freedom and health.

Gallup data published March 2024, indicates similar data, indicating a trend that Republicans and Independents no longer consider COVID-19 to be a pandemic. While Democrats have been increasingly accepting, these levels appeared to have plateaued at around 40%. Also noteworthy is Gallup polling indicating that a return to normalcy is not a shared sentiment. The level of Americans who believe life has gotten back to normal has increased with distance from the pandemic. What has remained consistent are the levels of people who do not believe there will be a return to normalcy.

Kyle Rittenhouse, a divisive figure in American public discourse, gave a speech at the University of Memphis, which was met with significant protest. The event was charged with tension as students, evidently more politically active than in previous years, made their opposition to Rittenhouse's presence clear.

Rittenhouse, who was acquitted after shooting three people during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin in 2020, was invited to speak by Turning Point USA. His speech was met by a wave of protests. These protests show a more active and vocal student body at the University of Memphis, compared to 2018 when conservative speaker Ben Shapiro visited without any significant opposition. This suggests a growing awareness or “wokeness” among the student body, reflecting a shift in political consciousness, or posturing, over the past five years.

The protest against Rittenhouse's speech was part of a larger thread of student activism on the day. Elsewhere, pro-Palestinian students at the University of Kentucky disrupted a speech by British Jewish conservative pundit, Ian Haworth. This was marked by anti-Israel chants and the pulling of the fire alarm. This indicates a broader trend of political activism on campuses, often directed against conservative speakers. It could also suggest a growing divide between the left and the right — and, increasingly, various factions within the left — with each side increasingly intolerant of the other's views.

Previously, high volumes of social commentary on protests have peaked during causes for Palestine, such as:

• 3-month anniversary of the Israel-Palestine War (Jan 7)
• March for Gaza (Jan 13)
• Worldwide protests of the Israeli-Palestine War (Jan 18)
• "Uncommitted Protests” in Democratic Primary (Feb 27)

Protests such as the one targeting Rittenhouse's speech could be seen as an exercise in free speech, a right both the left and right claim to champion. On the other hand, some might argue that these protests demonstrate an intolerance for opposing viewpoints, a criticism often leveled at the left by the right.

Rittenhouse's speech at the University of Memphis was a flashpoint in a broader narrative of increased political activism and polarization on American university campuses. The reaction to his speech is indicative of the heightened political consciousness among students, and of the tensions that can arise when controversial figures are invited to speak. Sentiments seem to be exacerbating a polarized political landscape, where both the left and right are increasingly unwilling to engage with opposing viewpoints.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs generate a high level of polarization in the viewpoints across online discourse. Some people support DEI programs, viewing them as important tools to foster more inclusive and equal societies. They believe its efforts are to bridge the gap between different racial, ethnic, gender, and religious groups. They see DEI programs as a way to educate people about the importance of embracing diversity and promoting equality.

However, many others express skepticism and resentment towards DEI programs. They see these initiatives as forced and unnecessary, arguing they lead to reverse discrimination or that they are a form of political correctness gone too far. Others believe DEI programs do not address the issues they claim to and, rather, are tokenistic and break down traditional values.

Many view DEI as an ideology that exacerbates division and is a breeding ground for anxiety and depression. Some in this group believe “woke” activists are more likely to be unhappy, anxious, and depressed. This is backed by a study by psychological researchers in Finland, which has is frequently mentioned in these discussions.

MIG Reports also analyzed a trend of people calling for more transparency and accountability for DEI programs. They argue organizations need to provide clear evidence that these programs are effective, and not merely symbolic gestures.

Viewpoints on DEI can often be simplified in the “right-left” paradigm. There is also a gender aspect to the discussion, with the Finnish study suggesting that women are more likely to identify with woke beliefs than men. This has prompted conversations about gender roles and societal expectations.

Deeper Analysis

More Americans accept the possibility of DEI practices producing unintended outcomes. They believe forced DEI practices lead to negative impacts on organizational effectiveness, compromised safety standards, disrupted workflows, or internal tensions. For instance, if DEI initiatives prioritize diversity metrics over technical qualifications in hiring or promotion decisions, many believe it will lead to issues with competence or performance in critical roles within the aerospace industry.

Recently, online discussions about airline travel, airline delays, and airline safety events are trending — specifically regarding Boeing. Late 2023 saw large, parallel Google search trends spike for “DEI” and “Boeing.” 

Americans are beginning to push back on DEI programs and other forced diversity projects pushed by the media or corporations. Some of the issues many fear could arise from the forced introduction of DEI practices include: 

Compromising Safety Standards

Prioritizing diversity metrics over technical qualifications in aerospace industries may compromise safety standards, potentially increasing the risk of errors or safety incidents, especially if critical roles lack the necessary technical expertise due to diversity-focused hiring decisions. 

Disrupting Workflows

Introducing DEI initiatives may disrupt operations and productivity, potentially causing interruptions and delays to production schedules. 

Creating Internal Tensions

Forced DEI practices, if perceived as unfair, may lead to internal tensions, decreased collaboration, and morale issues among employees who believe diversity metrics supersede merit-based criteria in hiring, promotion, or project assignments. 

Undermining Competence and Performance

Prioritizing diversity metrics over technical qualifications in DEI initiatives for hiring or promotion decisions may lead to decreased competence and performance in critical roles. 

Legal and Regulatory Compliance Risks

Implementing DEI practices without considering legal requirements may expose organizations to compliance risks, including potential legal challenges, fines, and reputational damage if discriminatory practices violate anti-discrimination laws.