Over the past three decades, the proportion of Americans who say that they have no religion at all has risen steeply, from about 5 percent to about 25 percent. Numerous social scientists, journalists, and clergymen have commented on the growing numbers of these “nones” (as demographers have dubbed them), but Stephen Bullivant adds something new in his book Nonverts: The Making of Ex-Christian America. Mark Movsesian writes in his review:

What makes his book original and worthwhile, in addition to the engaging writing and interesting case studies, is [Bullivant’s] focus on an important factor that scholars sometimes overlook. The vast majority of nones, about two-thirds or three-quarters, weren’t born that way. They made a conscious choice to disaffiliate from the faith traditions in which they were raised. They converted, in other words, from having a religion to not having one: they are, in his phrase, “nonverts.” Focusing on nonverts specifically, rather than nones generally, is a useful way to understand the changes that are roiling American culture.

Bullivant rejects the conventional view that nonverts tend to come from the ranks of people whose religious affiliation was indifferent to begin with—those who were Christians in name only. Many nones “were once genuinely believing and practicing—even ‘painfully devout,’” he writes. It isn’t simply weak Christians who are drifting away, but true believers. As a consequence, he believes, the crisis facing American Christianity is real and worse than many would like to admit.

Bullivant is quick to point out that American Christianity, even conservative Christianity, is by no means dead. American Christianity still has many millions of followers and great spiritual resources. Indeed, traditional religions in general have shown some surprising resilience lately. As Bullivant points out, the culture wars have done wonders for ecumenism, encouraging conservative followers of many faith traditions—Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so on—to make a common cause. Still, Bullivant’s basic point, that “America is demonstrably becoming less religious than it was,” seems correct. Nonverts give a good sense of exactly what is going on.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.