Actual victories for and defeats of religion in the U.S.

[softwareNerd]

We have another thread discussing the number of evangelicals in the U.S., and of course we have the recent thread discussing what Dr. Peikoff said about the Republicans. I started this thread to ask about the past rather than to request predictions about the future or recommendations about voting.

What have been the actual political and ideological victories for and defeats of religion in the U.S. during the last few decades (say since the 70s and 80s)?

[DavidOdden]

I don't think there has been any significant bad news for religion over the past 20 years, although certain brands may take a hit for a few years, and there seems to be a shift to freak religions in the US. I'm not sure if I think that's good or bad: I guess that politically it's good, since the sage-sniffers aren't politically organised. Various religious agendas such as anti-gay marriage, bans on stem cell research, abortion restrictions, restrictions on physician-assisted suicide, Schiavoism, teaching creation in schools have advanced, and even though teaching intelligent design isn't the law yet, not even in Ohio, there have been close calls and flirtations in areas that were done and decided years ago, and now they are back. If you widen the scope of the question, in the olden days there were many defeats for religion, such as the prohibition of school prayer, outlawing the teaching of creation in public schools, Roe v. Wade, gays coming out of the closet, stores being open on Sunday. At most, these days, you get some cracker judge (well, Spreme Court Chief Justice) in Alabama being told that he can't have a religious display in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court.

[softwareNerd]

Would it be accurate to summarize it thus: in the U.S., religion has taken many defeats over the last couple of centuries. However, this has slowed down and we are beginning to see a levelling off and even the beginnings of an upturn.

In other words, could one also say this: if one compares the rules and practices as they actually are today with where they were in (say) 1950 religion is far less than it was. The problem is that rather than falling further, we seen signs of an upturn.

[DavidOdden]

Yes, that is quite accurate. One further fact should not be ignored, namely the political rise of The South. If The South were irreligious (as I think the West Coast generally is), religion would probably be less of a threat to our freedom.

[Axil]

DavidOdden what do you mean by "Schiavoism"?

[softwareNerd]

DavidOdden what do you mean by "Schiavoism"?

I assume he means the idea that one does not have the right to one's life when it comes to Euthanasia, as the Christians were claiming in the Schiavo case. The Christians in Michigan sent Dr. Kervorkian to jail for assisting in suicides. (BTW: FOr specific discussion of the Schiavo case, we have this earlier thread.)

[DavidOdden]

Yup, that's a reference to the Schiavo case, and the assumption of the religious radicals that "life is sacred", and not yours to choose. It puts new meaning into the expression "life sentence", and despicably decrades the concept of living.

[hunterrose]

Would it be accurate to summarize it thus: in the U.S., religion has taken many defeats over the last couple of centuries. However, this has slowed down and we are beginning to see a levelling off and even the beginnings of an upturn.

In other words, could one also say this: if one compares the rules and practices as they actually are today with where they were in (say) 1950 religion is far less than it was. The problem is that rather than falling further, we seen signs of an upturn.

Hmm.

I suppose it could be said that 1950s law was more religion-stained than today's laws currently are.

But from what little I know, today there is much more pushing of religious laws than in the 1950s. You didn't have organizations with primary purposes of creating more religious legislation or "get out the Christian vote for Christian issues" campaigns. In this way I think it's gotten worse since the 50s.

More importantly, religious groups have gotten to the point of trying to legitimize their arguments by casting them as rational arguments. Instead of "God says abortion and gay marriage is wrong" now we hear

"The unborn have human rights"

"Heterosexual marriage creates better society"

Personally, I think it is a dangerous point when irrational ideas are dressed up rational, arguable ideas. And to the extent that religionist attempt to change things from a faith vs. reason nonissue to a (purported) reason vs. reason argument, I think that today is worse than the 1950s.

[DavidV]

I think that the increase in religiously-motivated legislation might be a reaction to growing secularization. The rationalization of religious dogma is a sign of improving epistemological standards. "The Bible says so" used to be proof enough - now one must use some scientific-sounding terms like "intelligent design." Surely such an expectation of rationality is better for us. If the rise of religious activism is primarily reactionary, it's not surprising that it is more prominent in the news. The question is - has this activism actually been successful?

[Qwertz]

OTOH...

I don't think religious dogma is being 'rationalized' in any significant, let alone good, way. For the religious, "the Bible says so" is still good enough. They haven't, for the most part, changed that way of thinking. Rather, I think the move by the religious to justify their beliefs in seemingly more reasonable terms is at best pandering and at worst an insidious and deliberate effort to undermine reason.

I don't think the growing prevelance of ideas like 'intelligent design,' or carbon dating the Shroud of Turin, or trying to hear the voice of Jesus recorded in ancient clay pottery demonstrate at all that there is a fundamental shift towards reason taking place in the minds of the religious, or in society in general. They beg the question. They presuppose the answer to their question. That this sort of behavior has been viewed as legitimate scientific enquiry is rather appalling when you consider that they are examples of reason being used to try to justify the wildly irrational.

I think this is the greatest victory of religion since the enlightenment. Somehow, society has been convinced that scientific enquiry into the ineffable mind of God is not only possible, but laudable.

-Q

[gags]

Would it be accurate to summarize it thus: in the U.S., religion has taken many defeats over the last couple of centuries. However, this has slowed down and we are beginning to see a levelling off and even the beginnings of an upturn.

In other words, could one also say this: if one compares the rules and practices as they actually are today with where they were in (say) 1950 religion is far less than it was. The problem is that rather than falling further, we seen signs of an upturn.

In demographic terms (rather than political terms), the situation may be improving somewhat, according to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARI) which was conducted in 2001 through the City University of New York.

”The United States appears to be going through an unprecedented change in religious practices. Large numbers of American adults are disaffiliating themselves from Christianity and from other organized religions. Since World War II, this process had been observed in other countries, like the U.K., other European countries, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. But, until recently, affiliation with Christianity had been at a high level -- about 87% -- and stable in the U.S.”

I found it quite interesting that ”14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together.”

Perhaps another hopeful sign: ”From 1972 to 1993, the General Social Survey of the National Opinion Research Center found that Protestants constituted about 63% of the population. This declined to 52% in 2002. Protestants are expected to slip to a minority position between 2004 and 2006. Respondents were defined as Protestant if they said they were members of a Protestant denomination, such as Episcopal Church or Southern Baptist Convention.”

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

Edited November 3, 2006 by gags

[softwareNerd]

That's an interesting site. Lots of references.

Here's a speculative hypothesis: the people who have been leaving organized religion over the last few decades were the more moderate believers to begin with. So, they are leaving behind a more polarized and religious group. As these religious groups lose their more moderate members, they also develop a more activist religious agenda.

The other influence is the multi-culturalist/nihilists. As these people turn some aspects of the culture into a sewer, some folk who might have left organized religion and lived a middle-of-road life, find that the only place they find wholesome values is around their religion.

That is not all. The message of the multi-culturalists is also a message that preaches that every lunatic isn't actually a lunatic, but just different. So one has XYZ-pride, where XYZ is a fill-in-the-blank for anything that old-fashioned middle of the roaders might have considered weak or bad. (E.g. deaf people who are proud of being deaf and think that fixing their deafness is a betrayal of who they are, etc.) This message is probably heard, in some form, by some people who might have previously kept their sillier religious beliefs to themselves. Perhaps this is, in part, another source of new found "religious pride" and assertiveness.

[softwareNerd]

Harvard's "Task Force on General Education" recommended adding a required course for undergrads, titled "Reason and Faith". The faculty rejected the idea. That's both a good sign (that is was rejected) and a bad sign (that it got that far). It's quite possible that some version of such a course, perhaps something that has religion as a component, may be made a requirement some day. On the bright side, it is also quite like that Harvard will offer an optional Objectivism-related course sometime in the next 10 years.