Talkin‘ Politics & Religion Without Killin‘ Each Other

Most people imagine themselves as the ones who would have resisted. The ones who would have spoken up. The ones who would have refused to go along. History tends to tell a different story. In this episode, Corey Nathan explores how anonymity subtly yet significantly reshapes moral responsibility. Not all at once, and not dramatically, but steadily. What begins as distance or abstraction often ends as permission. Permission to flatten, dismiss, or dehumanize without fully reckoning with the human cost. This episode serves as a spoken companion to the essay Anonymity and the Collapse of the Thou, tracing how moral imagination thins when people stop encountering one another as full human beings. Calls to Action ✅ If this episode resonates, consider sharing it with someone who might need a reminder that disagreement doesn’t have to mean dehumanization. ✅ Check out our Substack: coreysnathan.substack.com ✅ Leave a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen: ratethispodcast.com/goodfaithpolitics ✅ Subscribe to Talkin' Politics & Religion Without Killin' Each Other on your favorite podcast platform. ✅ Watch the full conversation and subscribe on YouTube: youtube.com/@politicsandreligion What This Episode Explores Anonymity as a continuum Anonymity is not simply named versus nameless. At one end lies healthy privacy and necessary protection. Move far enough along that continuum, however, and something shifts. Neighbors become avatars. Persons become categories. Moral responsibility begins to erode. From I-Thou to I-It Drawing on the work of Martin Buber, the episode contrasts I-Thou relationships, which recognize the other as a person, with I-It relationships, which reduce the other to a function, role, or obstacle. Anonymity subtly nudges human interaction away from encounter and toward objectification. How dehumanization actually happens Rarely does anyone set out to be cruel. Language flattens. Tone sharpens. Context disappears. Once people become abstractions, harm starts to feel like enforcement, righteousness, or necessity rather than cruelty. The story we tell ourselves about history History is rarely judged by who people imagined themselves to be. It is judged by who benefited from their choices, who was cast as the threat, and who paid the price. The episode challenges the comforting assumption that moral clarity would have come easily. Moral distance and accountability Anonymity creates moral distance, and moral distance makes unbearable actions easier to justify. This insight reaches beyond platforms and politics into Scripture, civic life, and the foundations of constitutional self government, all of which presume identifiable responsibility. Why this matters now Cultures trained to dehumanize do not become lethal overnight. Words loosen first. Norms erode next. By the time violence appears, it often feels inevitable to those involved. Democracy survives not on procedures alone, but on people repeatedly choosing to see one another as human. Episode Sponsors and Partners Thanks to Pew Research Center for making today’s conversation possible. Gratitude as well to Village Square for coming alongside this work and helping foster better civic dialogue. Links and additional resources: Pew Research Center: pewresearch.org The Village Square: villagesquare.us Meza Wealth Management: mezawealth.com Proud members of The Democracy Group Connect on Social Media Corey is @coreysnathan on all the socials... Substack LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Twitter Threads Bluesky TikTok Final Thought The question is not who we would like to identify with in the story. The question is where our words, positions, and actions actually place us. Go talk some politics and religion with gentleness and respect.