No, I’m being realistic. Show me things where religion is everywhere. I’m very curious.
Excellent point. But please don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying that religion was never an issue…your Al Smith example is a great one. My point was that if you were a member of the “default” religion (mainstream Protestantism), your religion wasn’t an issue. And in large part, that’s still true, I think.
That was the point I was trying to make about him, though obviously I didn’t make it too clearly. My point with him is not his denomination, it’s that his religion and his politics seem too closely intertwined.
True…I was just discussing with my husband that the Republicans have to downplay their religion when campaigning, and the Democrats do the opposite. It’s kind of funny, but I think it’s all part of having a “comfortable” level of religion. The majority of the population want their candidates to have some kind of religious belief, but not to be to rabid about it…that tends to make them nervous, and even more so if it’s a “strange” religion.
A lot of the ‘ceremonial deism’ got worked into American culture in the 1950s, as a reaction to the enemy-of-the time, the Godless Commies. Real Americans are everything the Godless Commies are, so put God on everything.
Yeah, “under God” was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance by Sen. Homer “I’m good friends with Henry J. Kaiser” Ferguson because it’s a magic phrase which Godless Commies cannot bring themselves to utter.
They don’t have to say it daily.
People don’t inspect their currency very often, so it isn’t like you really encounter this regularly. Besides, “God” is pretty generic, and can mean lots of different things to lots of different people.
These types of displays have to be part of an overall, secular Christmas type of display. A creche, by itself, at the exclusion of secular elements would not be allowed. A banner proclaiming “Jesus is Lord” would not be allowed.
Only allowed when it is part of a display of other objects related to the history of our legal system.
I think you’re impression is built on some factually incorrect information.
And yet you are basing this on exactly the same anecdotal criteria. Thus the irony. Some anecdotes of my own (to blow the irony meter off the scales): I’m from the South West btw…New Mexico to be exact. I wouldn’t call this exactly one of the more secular (or even more civilized) part of the country. And yet…religion isn’t in your face even here. I don’t know (or care) about my neighbors religion…nor do they know or care about my own. Because people are religious doesn’t mean that they are foisting religion on others…and my own anecdotal ‘evidence’ is that even here, in an area that has some fairly heavy duty religious types, no one is overtly pushing their religion on others. The one exception is politicians…as always they speak with forkedededed tongue.
So…does my anecdote trump your own? Probably not…but then I don’t expect it to. You however seem to think your’s should. I have no doubts that there ARE places where religion and religious thought is pushed here in the US (and guess what…in OTHER countries to)…but the norm is more plain vanilla I think. People, by and large pretty much ignore religion here in the US. For the most part they don’t CARE that much for it, simply paying lip service to the whole concept. Like everything else about our society most people are of the live and let live variety…or perhaps a better characterization is that they are of the ‘just leave me alone so I can have my 2.5 kids with a vacation once a year’ life. It’s only those folks on the extremes (BOTH sides) who make all the noise…and get all the attention.
-XT
Religion is everywhere…in politics, but not in real life. I have no idea of the religious leanings of my half-dozen closest co-workers.
Expressions of religiosity in politics have always been there. I wish IMDB had the exact quote, but they don’t…but in The Best Man (1964), a presidential candidate (Henry Fonda) is chatting with the sitting president about his religious beliefs (Henry has none); the prez replies that in his day, religion was poured over everything in politics, like catsup.
But it was all just “ceremonial deism” – every candidate was assumed to be mainline protestant, and ending speeches with “thankyou&godblessamerica” was just boilerplate. It changed not with Jimmy Carter, but in the 80s, and Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority’s entrance into politics.
With the probably vain hope that I won’t simply muddy the waters further…
In 7th grade choir, we sang almost entirely spirituals. This was in an urban, Midwestern public school. Nobody really gave it much thought.
As for religion being everywhere, no, but it’s awfully common. I’ve lived at my current address for two years, and get door-to-door proselytizers about every three months. American born-agains have NO subtlety or courtesy, and there are a LOT of them. That they’re so gawdawful LOUD is why furriners think they dominate. They don’t, they’re just a very unified and active voting bloc, so the pols figure (often rightly) that appealing to them will be a deciding factor in an election. Woe is us.
As for “In God We Trust” on currency, there was actually a SCOTUS case on this. No cite, 'cause I don’t know how to use legal libraries. The decision was that the phrase had become dissociated from any actual meaning, so it could stay. I’d ditch it myself, but nobody cares what I think.
Two points seem apparent:
-
While there appears to have been a brief lull in religious expressions by public officials during the era cited in my OP, it was indeed quite common in previous years.
-
Since in those years it was assumed that pretty much everyone was a believer, the expressions were less designed to stigmatize the ungodly (or the ‘wrong-godly’) than to invoke an inclusive ceremonial deism. IMO, the more polarized types of statements of today may be a reaction to increased religious diversity.
Actually, I’ve got a better idea of how this varies than many, having moved from one of those “secular pockets” to one of the “religious pockets” (California desert to NW Ohio).
- For those of you who are quoting the “law” regarding religious establishment, I suggest you need to visit reality land. While I don’t THINK there are any school districts in NW Ohio any more that have religion classes (I certainly wouldn’t put money on it!), all that happens is that the kids have a 45 min. period every day where they walk across the parking lot to the church and have them there. Perfectly legal, btw. And you can bet that prayers are included in everything that their school district, city council, etc. do, regardless of compulsory attendance or not. No one sues, because no one cares: it’s how they want things to be.
Similarly, many places still have Ten Commandments plaques or signs without there being some sort of overall display of the history of the tenets of American legal thought. And numerous other examples can be found. Indeed, the Supreme Court ducked the Pledge of Allegiance issue (“under God”) on the basis of standing, and Mr. Newdow’s attempts to get the issue back in front of them have so far failed.
-
Politicians have always called upon faith and God in this country. While it was less obvious during the 60s and 70s, a time when we were more non-religious in viewpoint, it was true throughout the 1800s and early 1900s, and it has been a part of every president’s message starting with Carter. This isn’t because Carter won by being overtly Christian, but rather because as a country, we have reacted to our liberal behavior of the 60s and 70s by returning to more traditional mores, including being more religious.
-
Nevertheless, the current political emphasis on religion traces to the faith-based political activities of the “religious right.” Since there is a significant portion of one of the political parties that bases its politics on moral issues, and since moral issues are often inextricably linked to religion, the result is a coupling of religion and politics. Not surprisingly, this has affected politicians all along the political spectrum. The fact that many parts of the country are fairly religious helps make that trend resonate. This, I suspect, leaves other parts of the country doing what I used to do in Northern California: scratching our heads and saying, “what is up with that?”
Funny, that. It is constantly put forth that it is o.k. to have “In God We Trust” on our money because it is tradition and has lost its religious message. Yet whenever there is an effort(or even rumors of an effort) to have it removed, religious groups by the busload throw a hissy fit about it. The exact same thing happens when the possibility to have "Under God"removed from the Pledge of Allegiance is proposed. In the secular world, we call this “hypocrisy”. What’s it called in the religious world?
Paul Martin was Catholic - this came up during the legalization of same sex marriage when a Calgary bishop suggested that he should be excommunicated for the issue. But you’re right that the notion of faith, or whether they even have one, doesn’t enter into political thinking here.
I can’t resolve the debate in this thread about the presence or absence of religion in American life, but I would like to recommend a book about the subject. You should read Head and Heart: American Christianities by Garry Wills. This has a lot of information about how varied the influence of Christianity in the U.S. has been over its history. There have been three or four waves and troughs in the religious influence in the U.S. over its history.
DSYoungEsq, I grew up in rural northwest Ohio, and I wouldn’t call it one of the most religious areas of the U.S. It was more religious than some areas but not the “Bible belt” by any means There was a certain amount of official recognition of religion (to within just the level possible without getting sued for enforcing religious views), but outside those ceremonial occasions religion wasn’t discussed that much. Proselytization was uncommon.
Do you think Ford lost because he didn’t express his faith? Jimmy Carter was a Washington outsider who ran against a man intimately associated with the Nixon administration. It seems more likely that Carter’s election was a reaction to the establishment in Washington and the Watergate scandal. Although Carter was open about his religious faith, he was, and still is, a firm believer in the separation of church and state. He didn’t exploit religious voters to win an election.
I agree that religion and faith are part of the current political culture in a way that is reminiscent of the Puritans. Proclaim faith or be a heretic and lose the election. The appeal to religious conservatives in Right-Wing radio and news sites is considered normal American culture, and most Americans believe in a religious faith. The evangelicals are organized, well funded and entrenched in the GOP. The Christian Right carries elections, and politicians need votes. This particular administration has used government to promote religious beliefs, specifically evangelical Christian beliefs. President Bush supports instruction of creationism in public schools and Federally funds faith based organizations.
It seems that separation of church and state isn’t clear anymore – not with President G.W. Bush or his stacked Court.
unconventional, thanks for the links. And I thought I was keeping up with the news…
I’m part of a small but 200 year old mainline Protestant denomination. We are mainline in that we are one of the branches of the Presbyterians. I think that I will inquire about how much money we have received for faith-based initatives.
Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota is of special interest to our denomination. Hmmm. Want to make any guesses?
I assume they have given enough to mosques to cover their fannies.
Hein v. Freedom of Religion Foundation
Wow.
It was the holding of SCOTUS that:
“Taxpayers do not have the right to challenge the constitutionality of expenditures by the executive branch of the government.”
Scrap the idea that the President is a public servant. *Of the people, for the people, by the people"? Nyah! That ruling seems self-referential and outrageous!
I’m not surprised that the Bible classes are going on. Surely that won’t hold up in Federal Court when they have to provide textbooks and information.
A quick Google search indicates that groups working with Pine Ridge Reservation have received faith based grants. Pine Ridge certainly needs the help.
I don’t know about mosques. The grants are fairly large; so many individual mosques are shut out of applying directly for specific Federal money because there isn’t enough need. The money is generally allocated to large organized charities, churches and states. Then the money is dispersed to smaller church groups, synagogues, mosques, schools, etc. There doesn’t seem to be any real effort by the Bush Administration to track the money or hold faith based groups accountable for how it’s spent. I believe Bush’s religiosity is a disguise to de-fund Federal programs.
This press release from the Center for Inquiry about a recent study shows that secular America is expanding. It’s still nowhere near the situation in New Zealand though. These figures from the 2006 census, only showing responses over 1%, indicate that about a third of NZers are secularist.
Affiliation Percent
Buddhist nfd 1.3
Baptist nfd 1.3
Hindu nfd 1.5
Methodist nfd 2.8
Christian nfd 4.5
Presbyterian 9.2
Catholic nfd 12.2
Anglican 13.3
Object to answering 5.8
Not Stated 6.0
No Religion 31.1
Perhaps the ‘civic expressions of religion’ are more common in the US, but for a country with such a large number of people expressing no religion, it’s funny how NZ’s Parliament still opens with a (Christian, most of the time) prayer each day.
The survey in the link given in Kiwi Fruit’s post is fairly vacuous. It’s based on a survey of 35,000 people. The margin of error in a poll for that many people is .5%. A change from 3.2% to 4% is close to the edge of how small a change the poll could possibly measure, so it doesn’t mean much. So 44% of people have left their childhood religion. Does that mean that they have no religion or a new one? (Other surveys I’ve read say that both have happened.) So 16.1% have no religion. Is that an increase or a decrease from previous surveys? If it’s an increase, does that mean more people have no opinion at all about religious matters, or that it’s less common these days to give (when you’re asked in a poll) as your religion the church you attended occasionally as a child, even if you haven’t been to church in forty years.
Here’s another point of reference, though it probably won’t affect this badinage about “religion is/isn’t pervasive in the US.”
This is from an article be Cathy Lynn Grossman in USA Today on Jan. 9, 2008. It appeared in the Indianapolis Star on Jan. 11, 2008. I’ll be paraphrasing from a paper copy on my desk. USA Today wants money to show me the article, and indystar.com tends to box my ears when I try to dig into the archives. Maybe you’ll have better luck.
LifeWay Research, the Southern Baptist Convention’s researchers, surveyed 1,402 “unchurched” folks last spring-summer. By “unchurched” they mean those who haven’t set foot in a house of worship in the last half-year.
More than 1 in 5, 22% never go to church, a new high.
Researcher Ed Stetzer said nonchurch people now lean to a generic god that fits many different religions. From a century ago til now, the consensus was that “God” meant the biblical God. “We can’t assume this any longer. We no longer have a home-field advantage as Christians in this culture.”
Most, 86%, of unchurched say they get along fine with God without being part of a church.
Note to moderators: Though I worked from Grossman’s piece, I was careful to use my own words whenever possible, without warping the meaning. Stetzer’s quote is verbatim.
For those outside the US, the Southern Baptist Convention is a large protestant denomination here. I think it’s fair to call them fundamentalist. I’m not SoBap myself, so I won’t describe them further.
Exactly. That is how it SHOULD be.