Kevin M. Schultz, Assistant Professor of History at the University of Illinois in Chicago, in his new book “Tri-Faith America: How Catholics and Jews Held Postwar America to Its Protestant Promise,” recounts how goodwill and interfaith groups in the early 20th century battled a rise of nativistic politics, antisemitism, and anti-Catholicism to forge the notion of a “Judeo-Christian” America and ultimately (and somewhat unintentionally) usher in a sweeping disestablishment of religion in the United States. A look at how toxic religious nativism can be avoided in favor of pluralism, and how mistrusted religious minorities navigated an America dominated by Protestant Christianity. I think Schultz’s book should be required reading, especially for religious minorities currently struggling for equal treatment in American culture. I was lucky enough to conduct an interview with Kevin M. Schultz about the book, exploring how a new religious image of America was formed in the 20th century, how religious conservatives today exploit that image, and what lessons religious minorities today can take from this period in history.

What prompted you to write “Tri-Faith America?” It certainly seem very relevant to the state of religion and politics in America today. Do you feel this is a bit of forgotten history?

When I wrote “Tri-Faith America,” I wrote it purely as a piece of history. I was interested in the debates about pluralism and “getting along” that took place during World War II, or more generally after the 1930s, when class differences dominated American politics, and before the 1960s, when the civil rights movement thrust race so dramatically into the national consciousness.

As I began to investigate the question, which was in fact not very often investigated, it became increasingly clear to me that battles between Protestants, Catholics, and Jews were vitally important to Americans of that era. These debates dominated the development of the suburbs, the Supreme Court cases, the census, what should be taught in schools, and even the make-up of Little League teams.

It was only after I discovered all these debates that I saw how they fit into the question about whether or not America is a Christian nation, a debate that, as your question suggests, is relevant to the state of religion and politics today. Many of the actors in my story were saying things like “We need a broader, more inclusive, and more accurate conception of the American nation.” Given the limits of the time, they adopted a “tri-faith” model, inviting Catholics and Jews to the table for the first time.

I think many people would be surprised at how manufactured our modern ideas of America as a “Judeo-Christian” country are, that we went from a status quo where, according to Franklin D. Roosevelt, “the Catholics and Jews are here under sufferance,” to one where the commonalities between Protestants, Catholics, and Jews were stressed and a united religious front seen as vital to our nation. It seems remarkable that interfaith and goodwill organizations were able to so quickly turn the United States away from the growing nativism of the times. I understand that WW2 was a great cultural unifier, but the momentum had begun even before that. To what do you ascribe the underlying success of this “tri-faith” effort?

First off, I think I’d disagree with the part of the question where you say “were able to so quickly turn the US away from nativism.” It took a lot of work!

But I think two things are at play in this transformation, a transformation from, to put it too simply, nativism to an acceptance of pluralism. First, and I don’t go into this much in my book, a lot of Americans were challenging the underlying structures of racism, things like the 19th century notion of the hierarchy of races, which of course always premised white Protestant superiority and then had all other groups lower in the hierarchy, with black people always at the bottom. Lots of Americans were challenging this idea in the first decades of the twentieth century–scientists, Leftist Jewish intellectuals, some progressive reformers, many folks in the labor movement of the 1930s, and my interfaith folks, who were demanding greater inclusion and a new national image.

Out of this mix arose the folks I study in the book, who worked hard to reconceptualize the predominate notion of what it meant to be an American. They went on the road, setting up little morality plays with a priest, a rabbi, and a minister on stage all jabbing each other, asking the hard questions–can a non-Catholic get to Heaven? Do Jews run the world? They went to Des Moines and Debuque. They filmed movie-shorts. Ironically, they were helped greatly by Adolf Hitler, who presented an image that Americans sought to avoid, and one way of doing so was by being tolerant of other faiths. The US Armed Forced supported it too, somewhat remarkably inviting these religious advocates on military bases all over the world, one of the only non-military groups to be given such access. Then the Cold War against those godless communists cemented the image of America as a land of religious pluralism.

So it took some time, and was the result of people working hard to create a new image of America.

One thing that struck me in your book is seeing Catholics as outsiders, as a somewhat suspect religious minority struggling to gain political and social parity with the nation’s Protestants. One quote in particular from Carlton J.H. Hayes (the first Catholic co-chairman of the National Conference of Christians and Jews) seemed particularly relevant: “I have always maintained that in this country Protestants have the major responsibility for assuring justice and true toleration to non-Protestants, not because they are Protestants but because they are [the] majority group.” With Catholics now the largest Christian denomination in the United States, I can’t imagine a prominent Catholic lay-leader repeating these words, or words very much like them. The idea of the politically dominant faiths in this country “assuring justice and true toleration” to smaller faiths now seems almost radical. Are shifts away from sentiments like these simply a by-product of success? Has tri-faith America lost the ethos of protecting religious minorities today?

Ah, but Catholics were the largest Christian denomination even then, although most Catholics take issue with the label “denomination.” Perhaps saying the largest group of Christians is better.

What changed was the nation’s perception of itself. Now, instead of having Protestants dominating the nation’s social and moral authority, most minority faiths are more or less tolerated and protected, and even to some extent endorsed. The addition of Muslim, Buddhist, and maybe soon a Wiccan chaplain in the military might be one example.

But this tolerance and pluralism came at a cost: conservatives of all stripes–Protestants, Catholics, and Jews–have seen all this tolerance as a sign of a secularizing society. The timing made this seem accurate–it began in the late 1960s and 1970s. So today, instead of having Catholics as a sizable minority demanding inclusion, now many Catholics see themselves as defending the last ramparts of Christianity and civilization. Any breech demands a response and minority faiths present a certain challenge–they might just be the camel’s nose in the tent.

An important split in post-war tri-faith unity was the differing visions of America’s religious future and the idea of pluralism. For Catholics, who were growing in prominence and influence, an “all-in” pluralism was endorsed, where every faith commingled (and competed) in the public square, but for the Jewish community, who were wary of Catholicism’s history of persecution in Europe, secularism seemed the best option. While legal efforts have raised the wall between church and state and helped bring about historic disestablishment rulings, this split over the role of religion in our public life now rages hotter than ever. Where do you think we are going? Will there be a re-establishment, or will post-war secular gains hold?

As a historian, I always hate to predict the future. And the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on religion in public life are awkward, but they do shine a little light. Basically the Supreme Court has said religious icons that are old–say, having “In God We Trust” on our money or “under God” in our pledge, both of which came in the 1950s–are okay. We’re honoring our past. But having new religious icons in public space–say, building a giant statue of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse–is a symbol of endorsement. This isn’t terribly doctrinaire or logical, but as a pragmatic decision, it makes some sense.

My notion is that as a society we will continue to create space for worshipers of all faiths, even secular humanists and atheists–and this is a direct follow up of Tri-Faith America. But alongside that, more and more people will be able to bring their religious perspective openly into the public sphere, and this won’t be automatic grounds for dismissal. The burden then, of course, is for religious people to be able to make secular arguments. The idea that same sex marriage is wrong because it contradicts your faith is fine, but why should everyone have to live to the standards of your faith? If you can create a secular argument for why same sex marriage should be outlawed, then there will be a conversation, and that’s the best we can hope for in a democracy!

While the forming of a Judeo-Christian consciousness had many benefits for future religious minority communities, most notably the idea that “there was no such thing as neutral advocacy of religion,” it also provided a language and framework for the conservative Christian activists of today. Today many of them off-handedly talk of our “Judeo-Christian” heritage, or invoke the post-war/early Cold War religious consensus as a period they’d like to return to. I was particularly taken aback by a quote from a Catholic newspaper that you highlight: “Non-Christian religious groups, prompted by the presence of many of their children in public schools, are seeking to dilute or to eliminate Christ from Christmas.” Rhetoric like that could have easily been placed in the mouth of many “keep Christ in Christmas” activists today. How much do conservative Christian activists owe to this period, and how much is their conception of history shaped by it?

Yes, I was struck by that too. A lot of the conversations I found in the archives could have happened on The Daily Show or Fox News last week. It was remarkable.

As for how much today’s conservatives owe to the formulations of middle of the twentieth century, I think the answer is “not much.” The reason is because they are ignorant of it. They think (as do lefties, I should add) that something called “Judeo-Christianity” has been around forever, when in fact it was more or less invented in the late 1930s to combat Hitler and to bring Jews into the fold of “good Americanism.” Well, the thinking then went, if we can’t be “Protestant” or even “Christian,” what’s next? Judeo-Christian? Okay, let’s go with that. It wasn’t quite this simple, but that was the progression of thought, and the effort was to increase inclusivity. Today’s conservatives, however, use “Judeo-Christian” as an exclusive term–to keep those secularists and atheists and Muslims and Hindus out–and that’s the real distinction.

As for bringing Christ back into Christmas, there is a long history to that complaint, going back to the early 20th century and basically the invention of mass marketing and advertising.

Today the splits in religion seem to be between liberal and conservative visions of America (and theology), not between Catholics, Protestants, and Jews. You note that the United State’s growing religious diversity since the 1960s has “made it difficult to refer to the United States as a ‘Judeo-Christian nation’,” though this growth hasn’t supplanted the “liberal-conservative divide.” Is America moving towards a post-Christian identity, religiously speaking, or do you think the conservative religious alliances will manage to hold back (or even reverse) this tide?

Good question, and again I hate to guess about the future. I do think it would take extraordinary circumstances for the United States to become a “Christian nation,” whatever that might mean (and few advocates bother to develop a vision). There just are too many diverse faiths in America and too many constitutional protections to kill off all our religious pluralism. Plus, if you look back to colonial Massachusetts, even those folks felt like they were living in un-Christian times. Recall that the great form of speech then was the Jeremiad. The threat of a coming American godlessness has a long, long history.

If you were to offer a lesson from the history of Tri-Faith America for religious minorities struggling today for acceptance and equal treatment, what would it be?

Histories lessons are always complicated because the events of the past happen in contexts that are very different from those that exist today. One of the things the advocates of “Tri-Faith America” did quite successfully, though, was to present a positive and forceful image of what it meant to be an American, one that made their position the obvious next step. They were fighting over the meaning of America, and they were using historical actors and historical antecedents to push their vision forward. Today’s conservatives are much better at this than today’s liberals. But religious minorities in the past have used the various languages of good Americanism to show they belong, and those arguments were very successful for the people I study too.

–

My thanks to Kevin M. Schultz for the interview, you can find ”Tri-Faith America: How Catholics and Jews Held Postwar America to Its Protestant Promise” at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Powell’s, Google, and other fine book (and e-book) sellers.

Ronald Hutton

“I have no interest in contesting the claims of modern Pagans to represent a secretly surviving tradition, as long as the practitioners do not attack me or offer any actual historical evidence for scrutiny. If they do neither, then they are effectively standing outside history and are not the concern of a historian. I regularly read articles by contemporary witches, expounding one system or another which they say has been passed down through their family or their initiatory tradition for centuries, and offering no evidence to support this claim. They are no concern of mine, and it is open to others to believe or disbelieve them as they will. Gerald Gardner’s Wicca was, however, based on specific historical evidence, above all the early modern trials, and academic framework of interpretation of it, which were very much the business of historians.”

I encourage anyone with any interest in Hutton’s work to head over and read the entire thing. There’s really too much to easily summarize, and quite a bit of insightful commentary concerning history and modern Paganism. In addition, Hutton generously lays out his plans for future books that may be of interest to modern Pagans, including works on witchcraft, and Britain’s pagan heritage. Thanks to Caroline Tully at Necropolis Now for making this happen.

This idea of cultural impurity and anti-syncretism, of course, ignores the many historical and provable cases in which there was eclecticism or syncretism in operation. Anyone who worships Gaulish or ancient British deities is doing so from syncretistic sources. Shinto is a syncretistic religion, having combined certain concepts from various forms of Buddhism into itself, as well as both Japanese and Ainu animism, Taoist energetic philosophies and esoteric techniques, amongst other things (including, in some cases, Christian saints becoming kami!). For that matter, what we think of as “Greek religion” or “Roman religion” is also, at its core, syncretistic. Most polytheistic systems are profoundly local, and thus the “religion of Rome” is combined from Latin, Sabine, Umbrian, Etruscan, and any number of other Italic religious elements…and that’s in its strictly Roman form. As time went on, increasing influence from Greece, and encounters with the cultures of Carthage, the Near East, and a variety of other peoples from diverse geographic areas influenced the Roman practices and the content of the Roman pantheon. “Greek religion” is–what, exactly? The religion of ancient Athens, about which we have the most information? The religion of ancient Sparta? Boeitia (including Thebes)? Crete? While some ancient Greeks might make an argument for any of those possibilities, they would most likely exclude Crete from the picture…and yet, as far as we’re concerned, Crete is under the heading of “Greek religion.” Take a god like Dionysos, for example, and he seems to be the combination of many possible different deities from originally separate, local cultus; the same is true of Artemis (compare Artemis of Ephesus to Artemis of Brauron to Artemis Orthia of Sparta, for starters!), and Zeus, and Demeter, and any number of other deities that we consider “Greek.”

It is, of course, human nature to create a past we feel comfortable with. Especially our “pagan” pasts. Several nonfiction books I’ve been reading lately, “Knossos and the Prophets of Modernism”, “Electric Eden”, and “The Birth of Classical Europe”, all deal with how our ancient pasts are constantly redefined, reexamined, and retold to suit our current needs. As our present recedes into memory, even when we have ample documentation, we tend to keep a kind of cultural shorthand and forget the rest until some new frame of reference is required. The problem is when we use a certain (often incomplete) conception of the past as a way to feel superior, or even give us permission to act callously towards others.  Of course, Pagans aren’t the only ones who create incomplete or mythic images of our ancient past, Christian apologists are very fond of the exercise as well.

“I recently finished watching the first season of the Starz Channel series “Spartacus.” The series is definitely not for the squeamish, or those easily offended by the salacious depiction of Roman debauchery, maybe not even for those not so easily offended. But it is a powerful depiction of the pagan Western world prior to the advent of Christianity, and as impressive as Roman civilization was at the time, it was nightmare for those who were not Roman citizens. [...] As I was watching the show, I was wondering what the Western world would have looked like if Christianity had remained a small Jewish sect stuck in Palestine [...] The juxtaposition of Roman culture to that of the spreading Christian Church is stark, as light is to dark, day is to night and as up is to down.”

I vacillate between laughter and dread at the thought that there are people out there who believe “Spartacus: Gods of the Arena” is even close to an accurate portrait of ancient Rome. Yet, even if we removed the specter of that nudity and blood-drenched series, Christian revisionism of the past has been common since that religion rose to prominence in the latter part of the Roman Empire. Even when the past is largely Christian, it must be made even more so to suit current agendas.

The quest, I feel, is to keep our images of the past from becoming calcified into immovable doctrine. That we should be supple enough to absorb new information and theories. Faiths that build their foundation on historical claims in some ancient era, no matter how well researched, always run the risk of encountering new information, new theories, better scientific data. Such a faith can be shaken or shattered, whether it’s based on the Biblical creation story, or where Atlantis is. Some have tried to discredit Wicca by attacking its origin myths, but they miss the point of most modern Pagan faiths, which are often more focused on the experiential than on proper doctrine or utter faith in its creation myths. I have great faith in my religion, I can have meaningful experiences with its myths in the proper contexts, while still laughing at the Pagan-themed “teach the controversy” t-shirts. My belief doesn’t hinge on Gardner, or any other Pagan elder (or text), being “right”. The past should inspire, enrich, and help guide our efforts to (re)build modern Pagan faiths, so long as we remain aware of  our limitations and the limitations of our source material.

“Wiccan teachings are for the most part a stew of demonstrably false historical claims. There’s no better time to examine this penchant for dissembling than at winter solstice on Dec. 21, which Wiccans say has been their holiday for thousands of years. For it’s just such unfounded claims to old age and continuous tradition that may keep Wicca from growing to be truly old.”

For the most part? Ouch! Now I’m the first to admit that certain strains of contemporary Paganism, including Wicca, have been, shall we say, “creative” with the past, but I’ve got a problem with this sort of article being re-published (and not just because it takes a jab at Wiccans). First off, even in 2005, this piece was years behind the curve of what was actually happening inside Pagan communities in America and around the world. Modern Paganism has been re-evaluating and questioning certain historical claims for decades now. Aidan Kelly was causing a stir nearly ten years before historian Ronald Hutton explored Wiccan historical claims in “Triumph of the Moon”, and Hutton’s book was published ten years ago! Oppenheimer even grudgingly admits in the article’s closing that changes have been going on.

“There’s evidence that many Wiccans may be wising up. Starhawk has backed off her boldest assertions and now concedes that some part of her original historical matrix may not be true. The debatable notion that Hanukkah is also based on solstice celebrations has been floated but has not caught on, even among diehard Goddess worshippers. Both Starhawk and Carol Christ, another prominent Goddess evangelizer, told me they had no reason to believe the Hanukkah theory. Chastened by the attacks on their bad historiography, Wiccans are growing more likely to say that their faith is based on a love of Wiccan practices, rather than on particular historical claims. It’s a heartening development when religious belief isn’t dependent on the latest archaeological findings. Wiccans might no longer have to sacrifice intellectual rigor to get their spiritual sustenance.”

That this historical re-evaluation has been going on for years should have been evident to Oppenheimer, since one of the sources he cites and praises, Charlotte Allen’s 2001 piece for The Atlantic, came to the same conclusion.

“…both Starhawk and Eisler, along with many of their adherents, seem to be moving toward a position that accommodates, without exactly accepting, the new Goddess scholarship, much as they have done with respect to the new research about their movement’s beginnings.”

So why even write about (and continue writing about) a problem that’s in the process of resolving itself? Perhaps because Oppenheimer has an ax to grind? Back in 2006, Oppenheimer published a book entitled “Knocking on Heaven’s Door: American Religion in the Age of Counterculture” that claimed to look at how 60s counterculture shaped religion in America, but quickly drew some interesting boundaries for the sake of “clarity”.

“The alternative groups we identify with the late 1960s were far smaller than imagined, and some historians, easily infatuated with the new and the sexy, have been led badly astray…there has never been reliable evidence of widespread Satanism or paganism…One might argue that by excluding the preponderance of cults, sects, and communes from this study, we are denying them the status of “religion.” That is correct – but for the purpose of clarity not condescension…religion is commitment to a set of beliefs that requires meaningful sacrifice. A belief that you must tithe, or donate of a portion of your income to your church or faith community…religions require sacrifice and exclude other religions.”

You see, in Oppenheimer’s imaginary, arbitrary, definition of religion, Wicca, and other modern Pagan faiths aren’t “real” religions because we, in his imagination, don’t sacrifice or tithe (or own lots of real-estate). That his assertions about sacrifice within our communities are largely ignorant and untrue don’t seem to matter, just as he ignores the important and significant role modern Pagans did indeed play in shaping culture during the 1960s. But hey, anything to save a little work doing research for your book, right?

Ultimately, what gets me isn’t that Slate.com wants to re-publish a critical article about Wiccan history, but that it wants to re-publish a critical article from someone who has barely skimmed the surface of the topic (with his whopping two citations), who seems to have a chip on his shoulder regarding the subject, and who actively ignored our faiths when he actually did write a book on religion. Surely we can do better than this for evergreen material? Oh, and Mark? For the record there are several hundred thousand modern Pagans in America alone, not “thousands of adherents and many more occasional dabblers in the United States and Europe”. It looks like your article’s assertion is a bit out of date, you might want to contact Slate.com for an update lest you look hypocritical.

“This book is a tour de force: surely the definitive work on our perception of the Druids. The only thing missing from this exhaustive account is an overview, however brief, of today’s colourful Druid groups – an odd omission by the acknowledged historian of neo-Paganism. For that, you need his earlier book.” – David V Barrett, The Independent

“This is an ably researched and well-written book. It charts the history of an obsession, representing the strange creation of a wholly fabulous people who by dint of repetition become lodged in popular consciousness. They then become part of history. They become real. Hutton explains this alchemical process very well, in a study notable for its humour as well as its scholarship.” – Peter Ackroyd, The Times

“His real concern is with the constantly developing role the Druids have played in Britain’s various cultures since the 17th century, and their place in changing notions of nationality in these islands. From the first of the “antiquaries” through the foundation of the thoroughly modern Ancient Order to the Stonehenge solstice-celebrations of recent times. The result is an engrossing, endlessly thought-provoking read.” – Michael Kerrigan, The Scotsman

You can read an excerpt of the new book, here. It seems a shame that, as David Barrett reports in his review, there is little information on modern Druid groups in this book. Perhaps it was an issue of space? If so, maybe we’ll be graced with a third tome on Druids from Hutton, this one giving an extensive focus to modern Druidry. Still, despite a lack of focus on modern Druid groups, I can only imagine that anyone interested in the history and evolution of perceptions concerning Druids in Britain will find much to enrich themselves with in “Blood and Mistletoe”. I can’t wait to pick up my own copy.

“In bygone Greece we see a culture plainly unperturbed by its erotic inclinations, largely saturated by both sexual imagery and sexual narratives. We also see a culture where these attitudes would seem to have worked out quite well, both for the ancient Greeks and for humanity at large. They may well have been hollow-eyed and hairy-palmed erotomaniacs, but on the plus side they invented science, literature, philosophy and, well, civilization, as it turns out.”

So where did it all go wrong? Well, in the opinion of Moore, Christianity and the shaming of sex influenced by such thinkers as the Apostle Paul.

“Sexual openness and cultural progress would seem pretty much to have walked hand in hand throughout the opening chapters of the human story in the West, and it wasn’t until the advent of Christianity, or more specifically of the apostle Paul, that anybody realized we should all be thoroughly ashamed of both our bodies and those processes relating to them. Not until the Emperor Constantine had cut and pasted modern Christianity together from loose scraps of Mithraism and the solar cult of Sol Invictus, adopting the resultant theological collage as the religion of the Roman Empire, did we get to witness the effect of its ideas and doctrines when enacted on a whole society.”

This massive social experiment, in Moore’s opinion, eventually brought about the fall of the Roman Empire.

“If we take a traditional (and predominantly Christian) view of the collapse of Rome, then conventional wisdom tells us that Rome was destroyed by decadence, sunken beneath the rising scum-line of its orgies, of its own sexual permissiveness. The merest skim through Gibbon, on the other hand, will demonstrate that Rome had been a heaving, decadent and orgiastic fleshpot more or less since its inception. It had fornicated its way quite successfully through several centuries without showing any serious signs of harm as a result. Once Constantine had introduced compulsory Christianity to the Empire, though, it barely lasted for another hundred years.”

In his view, this compulsory conversion experience destroyed the syncretic and (mostly) religiously tolerant (for its time) society of Rome. Specifically, it hurt the recruitment of foreign military who didn’t wish to toe the new religious line making Rome weak to invasions by barbarians. Moore’s conclusion?

“…sexually open and progressive cultures such as ancient Greece have given the West almost all of its civilizing aspects, whereas sexually repressive cultures like late Rome have given us the Dark Ages.”

It should be interesting it read the entire article to hear Moore’s views on the tension between libertine excesses and repressive shame in our modern era. It seems that no happy balance has yet to be struck. With one side often losing its own compass with issues regarding the degradation of women, and the other so worried about homosexual sex that it sees such impulses as demonic possession and pure evil.
]]> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2006/12/why-empire-fell.html/feed 1