I don’t know that the US is necessarily more religious than it has been. It’s just that our religious people are very vocal.
The US does have a long history of religious revivals and activism. Religious fervor is behind a lot of our history from the Revolution to the abolitionists to the temperance movement and on to the modern social conservatives. Why it remains so prelevant I don’t know but there is something to the idea already expressed above about it being linked to our diverse churches. There is no one more fervent than a new convert. Also, this diversity may lead to more competition and this competition leads to more active, vocal religious people try to convince everyone else that their theology is the best. It’s almost Darwinian.
This quote is as good a place as any to add my own 2c. I grew up in Philadelphia. When I was growing up there was definitely an age-graded decline in religiosity. In my own (Jewish) community, most adults were more-or-less religious and the children much less so. I assumed that as I got older, religion would have less and less of a hold on society. Now that I have got older, I see that the children are more religious than their parents. I have a friend who cannot visit her daughter on Saturday. Not because she won’t drive, but the daughter has a fit if she does. The same is true among other religious groups and I cannot see that any posting here has explained why.
Note BTW, that religion has a growing (and, IMHO, pernicious) influence in Israel.
Here in Canada, religion appears to have much less influence on public life. I don’t actually know, for example, if the prime minister is Catholic. I could find out, but I wouldn’t dislike him any more in any case.
You mention Canada. Here’s another continental-scale society right next to you, but one that was formed under very different circumstances.
The Canada of 1867 was essentially a compromise between Catholics and Protestants, in roughly equal numbers and power. Neither group was supreme, and each was given a place, and as a result neither religion had to fight to maintain a presence. New groups came and established themselves, but because the original country was founded in compromise, there was no single creed to conform to on the national scale. For example, Irish Catholics were able to move to then-Catholic Quebec, which they found more welcoming than then-Protestant Ontario.
A precedent was set. Later, non-Christian groups came and were (sometimes grudgingly) accepted. By the 21st century, what with all the different groups and all, most of the major public schools had become non-religious. Religion had become, more and more, a private or family affair.
As a result, Canadian politicians and public figures tend to talk about religion in non-worship contexts much less than US ones do.
The four “great awakenings” in U.S. history are probably responsible for some of the extreme religiosity we see today. Conservative protestants have always been very successful at evangelism. Remember that until the mid-20th century America was largely rural, and fundamentalism tends to thrive in a rural atmosphere. For much of the 19th & 20th centuries circuit-riding preachers, camp meetings, and weekly church attendance provided the main source of information and social interaction for large segments of the population.
Conservative evangelists were among the first to realize the potential of mass media…first through tract publication, then radio and later television. Again, these were primary entertainment sources for a large and vigorous rural population, and the hard-hitting evangelicals reached millions while their more mainstream clerical brethren tended to sit in their chapels and seminaries waiting for the public to come to them.
Today they are continuing the tradition through the internet and social media, and their earlier efforts have had a groundswell effect. The target demographic has become suburban rather than rural, but the message is still at least nominally egalitarian and agressively evangelical, and provides a social and moral foundation that, however flawed, meets a deep-seated need in people. It could be said that today’s excess of fundamentalist religiosity is due less to the success of protestant evangelism than to a failure of more mainstream or secular leadership to meet the needs of the public.
SS
It’s important to remember that tolerance of other faiths is a basic tenet of Quakerism. A colony founded on one faith and exclusive of others would have conflicted with Wm. Penn’s beliefs. The colony was instead established as a place where all were welcomed.
Even today, Quakerism is one of the least exclusive belief systems. It is one of very few that allows “dual denominationalism”… and does not require it’s members to foreswear all other faiths. There are many Catholic/Quakers, Quaker/Methodists, Quaker/Universalists, and agnostic Quakers.
The religiosity of certain parts of America has been one of the defining fault lines of the cultural divide in American society since almost its beginning. In recent years it has been described as red state vs. blue state, but the tension is much older than those terms.
I used to manage a US governmnent funded exchange program in Russia. High school kids would go to live with an American family for a year. A lot of the kids were really shocked at how religious America was. Depending on where they went, almost every social interaction was centered around the church. Other kids who went to what is often described as blue state America had a completely different experience.
It’s just as shocking for this secular blue stater from DC. My wife’s parents live in Arkansas. We sometimes go to a highschool football game when we’re there (her nephew plays). When a player gets injured everyone bows their heads in prayer for the child and the players all get on one knee in prayer. I thought the kid was going to ascend right up into heaven.
First-world, you mean - New World is the Americas. But I would say SeldomSeen’s post mentions this difference between the USA and those other Anglosphere nations: revivalism has been a major American phenomenon throughout its history. Who else has four “Great Revivals” (who else has one; and it seems I had missed at least one altogether)? In the 1950s and 60s the US had from Fulton Sheen to Billy Graham to MLK to Malcolm X on the various mass media of the time speaking to the moment. Were there equivalents elsewhere? Around the world arguments about how to face a changing world and over being revolutionary vs. reformist vs. reactionary about it were being made by writers or university professors. But the US had preachers front and center.
How are Australia and New Zealand not New World? They’re both newer (to European-derived civilisation) than the Americas. The Wikipedia article supports my usage of the phrase, at least “sometimes”.
The meaning of the phrase “new world” is as opposed to the “old world” of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Clearly, by that definition, Au and NZ are new world nations.
Also, and not something I know much about, but my understanding of everything south of the USA is that it’s heavily Catholic. Is that the case?
I mean Catholic in a religious sense, not just “culturally Catholic” but actual church-going believers. Do the south-of-the-USA countries have a comparable level of religiousness to the US or are they more secular in practice?
A lot of religious people are noisy about it too, protesting frequently, putting Jesus stickers on their cars and writing letters to the local paper to complain about all the sinners in town.
If you work with them one might get asked to go to church with them. Indiana has licence plates with “In God We Trust” on the plate, not sure what other states have but probably there are other licence plate like it. Florida has many people whose cars are covered with Jesus tchotchkes and are crappy drivers as well.
I’m not a great driver either but at least my car isn’t covered with icky tacky stickers.
Atheists, pagans and other non-religious people just don’t make the same fuss, and aren’t noticed until they happen to say something about it, either something horrible or anything at all. We just go about our lives, working, dating, doing chores at home.
Note that the UK especially has groups of religious nutcases that could put even most American fundamentalists to shame.
The various Free Churches (“Wee frees”, “Wee wee frees”, etc.), are hyper-conservative Calvinistic churches, which have a stronghold in the Scottish Western Islands, Scottish Highlands and Northern Ireland. Adherents to one of the churches started a protest a few years ago when it was decided to run a ferry service to their islands on the Sabbath, and padlock children’s swings on the Sabbath to stop them from being used.
I think it causes one to wonder, if we in the USA are a religious people why do we have the need for so many Jails,prisons, etc, and the cost of crime is so hig.,What good are the religions doing? Of course there is a few charities but I wonder if religion was doing good,why the money spent on crime couldn’t be spent more fo help people that really need it, or on education,or helping them get employment. Too many it would seem spend a lot of money trying to get rich,and call themselves Christian, when Jesus is quoted as saying, it would be difficult for a Rich man to get into heaven!He was also quoteds as telling the rich man to sell what he had, give it to the poor,then come and follow him. During early Christianity(before Constantine used it for political reasons) there was no ornate churches etc. Small groups of people just met in their homes.
Then when one looks to countries where religion rules the people,how little they care for other peoples lives,they seem to care more for their beliefs than for their people. Women are treated like property…I take that back, less value than property!
As a post script I would add…people want the words" In God We Trust" put on everything, but…do we really trust? Many want the 10 commandments also posted, but seem to care more for the posting then keeping them!
Fair enough, and I didn’t know dual denominationalism existed. I was taught, however, that Penn went into this as a business and not as any sort of haven. I’m sure that his Quakerism entered into the picture, but it wasn’t his sole motivator.
I think it’s driven by Republican strategy. The GOP encourages it and benefits by disproportionate voting from Evangelicals. Seriously. I think one of the Four Horsemen of the New Atheism developed the idea convincingly.
Napier, I would say the “Religious Right” political strategy was built upon a preexisting base of generalized devotion and traditionalism which the Conservative Movement opportunistically hops on, and provides organization and focus that multiplies its visibility and power.
Why, I say, learn something new every day… “at least sometimes”! I’m keeping the traditional usage in my writings, though.
As to Latin America, the zone has been for the last 40 years primo boomtown expansion grounds for the Evangelicals, Pentecostalists, Mormons, JWs, etc. – 450 years of the RCC as the only show in town (though heavily syncretized before you even left the upper class neighborhood) tends to wear down. But remember also that in that region was where Catholic Liberation Theology tried to have its big flourishing, before JP2 reeled them in, so even going Marxist for practical purposes did not mean having to ditch church.
IME the usual situation in Latin Am is very similar to old-USA in the sense that everyone is presumed a practicing believer, the political, social and business leaders mostly don’t need to make a campaign propaganda point of how orthodoxly Christian they are but they had better be* seen* in church regularly to have any chace at success, and once actually governing they can pass things like the recent Nicaragua and Dominican Republic absolute bans on abortion. But then you contrast the approval of same-sex marriage in Argentina and various states of Mexico and you get the feeling that it’s more a matter of dissimilar rates of social and economic modernization.
While it was indeed the refuge for the religiously oppressed, who longed to practice is freedom, whatever their faith, there was never the less a deeply held respect for Christianity and their God. It is in all of their language, and those underlying Christian principals shaped a lot of policy for a lot of years. Birth control, abortion, women’s rights, etc.
I think, what we are really hearing, is the howling of a dying beast. Of course everything is an affront, (gay marriage, don’t ask, don’t tell, contraception), if you’ve enjoyed having your Christian beliefs enshrined in the law for a hundred or more years.
I have some sympathy for them, that’s really got to sting, to assume you’d always have it your way, because you always have, and then watch as that support erodes.
It’s the 21st century people are better able to see more cause for separation of Christian morality from the laws of the land. And the dying beast howls loudest, and feels under attack, and imagines an unholy war against their beliefs.
It’s kind of their swan song, to my mind, they know if they don’t rally the remainder, and make a big noise now, they won’t be able to make but a peep later. That’s my opinion.
Dunno. I think the 30% of the US population who are probably both religious and right wing, is a group whose beliefs will be felt for quite some time. They may feel extra-embattled these days but I don’t think they are dying off all that rapidly.
Also the policies they support are the same policies which promote increased income inequality and hence increased suffering and insecurity, which promotes religiosity, so well there ya go.
