This Scholar Wants More Liberals and Conservatives at Church Together 39%

5/19/2026, 7:06:57 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 35.3% saturation with 55 hits. Analysis detected 463 faulty-reasoning hits from 156 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.2% and a BS Rank of 39% (13,548 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.90% of the article peer group.

The scholar and pastor Ryan Burge says that, not all that long ago, it was normal for right- and left-leaning evangelical Christians to share the same pews with each other. 
Then came the culture wars, and many churches leaned hard into conservative politics, in turn prompting liberal and moderate churchgoers to leave in droves. 
And Burge says this is a problem because, as he sees it, churches still have a lot to offer the country. 
He’s joining us to talk about why he wants to see more people come back to church and why that’s a good thing for democracy. 
GUEST  
Ryan P. 
Burge | He’s a professor of practice at the Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at Washington University. 
His book is called “The Vanishing Church: How the Hollowing Out of Moderate Congregations is Hurting Democracy, Faith, and Us.” 
Airdate: May 20, 2026 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 35.3%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect35.3%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 19.2%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias19.2%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.5%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 28.2%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias28.2%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect13.5%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect11.5%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 27.6%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority27.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 16.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning16.0%This article: 34.6%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization34.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.8%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion12.8%This article: 13.5%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question13.5%This article: 15.4%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.4%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 26.9%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice26.9%This article: 16.0%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination16.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…12.8%

156 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers58%attributed speech65writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Burge • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageRyan Burge • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageRyan P. • 2 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Burge • 18 words • 100.0% coverageRyan Burge • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ryan Burge

100%flagged-word coverage
89 attributed words98% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Indoctrination-38.5 ptsWriter: 38.5%Ryan Burge: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-16.7 ptsWriter: 36.9%Ryan Burge: 20.2%20.2%Attempt to Sell a Product +22.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ryan Burge: 22.5%22.5%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.