Online Archives, Libraries, and Electronic Resources

The following site is especially valuable for noting online resources in virtually every area of American religion. Compiled by Prof. Randall Stephens, this site has links to discussion lists and blogs, major library collections, online research projects, and materials by topical area (such as women in religion), and a host of other resources. See www.enc.edu/history/rel_cult_resources.html.

Helpful in identifying online primary sources for the antebellum through reconstruction periods is the Humanities Text Initiative of the University of Michigan. Go to www.hti.umich.edu and then click on the link, "Making of America."

The American Council of Learned Societies' Humanities E-Book Project has now made available more than 1000 titles of classic secondary works in the humanities, with a tilt towards history. Many deal with religion. Access is restricted, but many college and university libraries subscribe. For more information, go to www.humanitiesebook.org/.

Many academic journals are now available online from their first issue forward, thanks to JSTOR (journal storage). Access is by individual or institutional subscription. For more information, go to www.jstor.org/.

Audio Resources

A few sites offer online audio resources that supplement the study of religion in American culture.

Although many of the archived discussions deal with more contemporary issues, National Public Radio's "Speaking of Faith" has some more in-depth sites that include audio recordings and even study guides. The one on twentieth-century American theologian and ethicist Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, has audio recordings of Niebuhr speaking, the unedited audio interviews with persons interviewed for a program about Niebuhr, and a comprehensive study guide on Niebuhr's thought and influence. There are similar sites for many other figures, including prominent twentieth-century evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson, Conservative Jewish theologian and social activist Abraham Joshua Heschel, and a host of others. The main site is accessed at speakingoffaith.publicradio.org.

Audio clips and sometimes sermons and speeches by many key figures in modern American religious life are also accessible online; some sites sell audio tapes at a discount:
(1) For early twentieth century revivalist Billy Sunday, see www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=28, www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=16, and also www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Religion-and-Spirituality/Christian-Living/Billy-Sunday-Sermons/15609.
(2) Healing evangelist Kathyrn Kuhlman may be heard at www.KathrynKuhlman.com/audio_files.html.
(3) Some audio clips of Roman Catholic television personality Fulton J. Sheen may be accessed at www.fultonsheen.com.
(4) For Norman Vincent Peale, go to www.mindperk.com/Peale/htm.
(5) Several sites offer audio materials by evangelist Billy Graham. See, for example, www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=118, and www.sermonindex.net/modules/myalbum/viewcat.php?cid=17.
(6) Many evangelicals have audio materials at www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/docs/evanarc.html.
(7) The rhetoric of civil rights leader and preacher Martin Luther King, Jr., may be accessed at www.mlkonline.net/sounds.html.
(8) Audio and video extracts featuring controversial new religious movement founder Sun Myung Moon are available at
www.reverendsunmyungmoon.org/rev_moon_teaching.html.
(9) Bill Hybels, founding pastor of the Willow Creek Church that was central to the "megachurch" and seeker movement, can be heard at www.learnoutloud.com/Results/Author/Bill-Hybels/780.
Among the collection of the Library of Congress are audio recordings that deal with various topics in American history and life, but most are not available online. The catalogue, which also includes photos and prints as well as sound recordings and motion pictures, can be searched at memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html.
Some material relating to American Catholicism may be found at www.catholicity.com/links/163/.

Unfamiliar to most are the sounds of the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition. Hymns from that tradition may be heard at www.goarch.org/en/multimedia/audio

Among many other famous speeches from American history, the audio of Swami Vivekananda’s critical opening address at the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religion is available at: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/swamivivekanandaworldparliamentofreligions.htm.

Dr. Charles Fuller’s long-running radio program, the Old Fashioned Revival Hour, served an important role in the infrastructure of a resurgent American fundamentalism during the mid-20th century.  Audio of many broadcasts is available at http://www.biblebelievers.com/OFRH/mp3_archive.html.

Test Questions

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

Chapter One

  1. Compare and contrast Native American and African tribal religious expression. What was it about the nature of tribal religion that left Europeans unable to recognize its integrity?
  2. How did changes in the religious complexion of European Christianity at the time when imperial expansion and colonial settlement began affect religious patterns in North America?
  3. In what ways did European Christians' engagement with Judaism and Islam, even in their hostility towards those traditions, contribute to a slowly emerging acceptance of diversity?

Chapter Two

  1. Compare and contrast Spanish and French efforts to bring Roman Catholicism to North America. Why did their approaches differ?
  2. Most of the English colonies opted for some form of religious establishment, as was the case in Britain, yet undercurrents of diversity prevailed – perhaps more so in early colonial New England than in Virginia (despite Puritan efforts at conformity). What was it about colonial religious culture that let diversity flourish?

Chapter Three

  1. In many respects, the religious patterns that developed in the middle colonies foreshadowed the wide-ranging pluralism that has come to mark American life. How and why did the middle colonies take a different course to other English colonies?
  2. Settlers who came to the English colonies were overwhelmingly drawn to strains of Protestantism, yet both Roman Catholicism and Judaism made a place for themselves early on. How were their stories similar? How were they different? What does each tell us about how religious groups survive in a social environment in which they are distinct minorities and often consigned to the margins of the larger culture?
  3. Colonial evangelicalism (with its emphasis on experience or "the heart") and the Enlightenment (with its emphasis on reason or "the mind") at first seem almost polar opposites. Yet both contributed to the growing diversity in British North America. What did each contribute? Why?

Chapter Four

  1. Religion was among the constellation of forces that fed into the moves for the English colonies that became the United States to seek independence from Britain, but at the same time the struggle for independence profoundly transform American religious life. How did religion play into the effort and indeed the war that created the United States? In what ways did the Revolution change religious culture in the U.S.?
  2. In one sense the U.S. Constitution set up a government that was secular in that there was no established religion. Yet religion and government remained intertwined. Why did leaders of the new nation decide not to have an established religion? How did the legal apparatus created by the Constitution, especially the First Amendment, help promote religious diversity? How did a civil religion develop? How did religion and the political order remain connected, even if they were legally distinct?

Chapter Five

  1. How and why were aspects of African tribal religious expression able to endure despite the ravages of slavery? How did the American context and the fact of slavery transform African American religion? In what ways did African American religious life in turn influence and change the religion of white Americans, especially those who were involved with slavery?
  2. Compare and contrast the interplay of white and African religion in America with the ways in which Native American religious culture interacted with the religious culture of Euro-Americans.
  3. How did American independence affect both African American and Native American religious life? How was this influence similar to, yet different from the way independence affected the religious culture of European settlers and citizens?

Chapter Six

  1. How did geographical expansion of the new American nation impact religious life? In what ways did the evangelical style that emerged in the camp meetings and urban revivals of the early nineteenth century echo the evangelicalism of the Great Awakening of the eighteenth century? How did it differ from earlier forms of evangelicalism? Why did it become so prominent within American Protestantism in the first half of the nineteenth century?
  2. Discuss how religious currents interacted with public life in the first half of the nineteenth century, particularly in terms of efforts to reform society and/or fashion the social order according to evangelical principles. From this interplay, what can be said about how religion and society are mutually engaged with each other?

Chapter Seven

  1. What is it about American culture and the character of American religion that has led to such wide-ranging experimentation, yielding groups as diverse as those concerned with the Restoration of New Testament Christianity, the Latter-Day Saints, and Christian Science?
  2. Think about the fascination with millennial expectation in nineteenth century America. What produced and sustained the hope that the Second Coming was about to occur? Where in contemporary life do you find currents of millennialism still at work?
  3. Today Americans participate in a host of "self-help" groups, from Weight Watchers to Alcoholics Anonymous. How are their roots in some of the religious currents oriented to mental power in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries?

Chapter Eight

  1. Compare and contrast the experience of Roman Catholicism and Judaism in nineteenth century America as religions of immigrants, as demonstrating the ongoing ties between ethnicity and religion, as illustrating ways to adapt to an alien religious and social environment, and in responding to criticism and prejudice.
  2. If the United States was already a bastion of religious diversity when the ranks of Roman Catholics and Jews began to increase, why do you think that there was such strident anti-Catholicism and anti-semitism in American religious and public life?

Chapter Nine

  1. In what sense could the Civil War be construed as a religious event? What impact did it have on religious notions of the nation? Think here about ties to the discussion earlier about civil religion. Did a distinctive Southern civil religion emerge in part as a result of the war?
  2. The American Civil War usually pits two regions – north and south – against each other. Yet the idea of region is much broader, including, for example, Appalachia as a distinct region, the Great Plains as a distinct region, and so on. How in the nineteenth century did region become increasingly important in shaping religious life and in promoting diversity? Based on this appreciation for region, what would you say are the links between geography and religion more generally?

Chapter Ten

  1. How did the massive immigration between the end of the Civil War and the outbreak of World War I, the rapid growth of cities, and the increasing industrialization of the American nation bring about new social problems emerged that religious groups tried to address? Compare and contrast their response to these issues with the earlier links between religion and social reform discussed in Chapter Six.
  2. In what ways did the interplay of immigration, urbanization, and industrialization also transformed the texture of American religion? How did it affect minority religions as well as the religious life of ethnic minorities, especially African Americans? What were its consequences for gender and the role of women in American religious culture?

Chapter Eleven

  1. How did the US in the postbellum period gradually become more globally aware and more engaged in other cultures? What consequences did this increasing international focus have for religion? How did it alter the face of religious diversity in America? How did all of these forces affect gender as a factor in religious life?
  2. In the years after the Civil War, revivalism continued to be a prominent feature of American Protestant life especially. How did later revivalism and the evangelicalism that sustained it have continuities with, for example, the camp meetings of the early nineteenth century and the style of evangelicalism that emerged with "new measures" revivalism? How did they differ? You may want to look back at Chapter Six as you consider these questions.

Chapter Twelve

  1. How was fundamentalism linked to earlier expressions of evangelicalism? In what ways was it really very "modern" even while "modernism" became a term for what it opposed? Think of American religious culture in the early twenty-first century. Are Americans still wrestling with some of the issues that gave shape to the fundamentalist-modernist controversy?
  2. In the midst of an urbanizing America grappling with everything from immigration to fundamentalism, Pentecostalism emerged as a key force in American religion. How would you explain its rise? Why did many relegate it to the margins at one time? How is the Pentecostalism of the early twenty-first century similar to and different from the Pentecostalism of the early twentieth century?

Chapter Thirteen

  1. Reflect on American life in the 1920s. How and why did women become more engaged in public life? How did efforts at social reform characterized by the Prohibition movement echo antebellum endeavors and the Social Gospel? How did these newer moves differ from earlier ones to create an ideal society?
  2. In the 1920s, the increasing religious diversity in American life joined with other currents to suggest to some that "traditional values" and the foundation of American culture were under attack. What different ways did people respond to those perceived threats? How did religion play into the larger story? What similarities and differences do you see in the anti-Catholicism and antisemitism of that period, along with the racial and religious prejudice stirred by the Ku Klux Klan, with earlier movements that also targeted particular religions or ethnic communities?
  3. In the early twenty-first century, the World-Wide Web and space travel have collapsed distances and made instant communications the norm. In the 1920s, radio and film along with the automobile had created a similar sense. How did new technology affect religious life in the decades just before World War II?

Chapter Fourteen

  1. The era of the Great Depression and then World War II undergirded a need to downplay diversity and stress what Americans had in common. How did that play out in the religious realm? In what ways were efforts to stress common beliefs and values merely a mask that covered continuing, if not growing, diversity?
  2. By the 1960s, the U.S. was in the midst of extraordinary social change as the civil rights movement transformed every aspect of American culture. What impact did the civil rights movement have on American religious life? In turn, what impact did American religion have on the civil rights movement? How did a similar dynamic work in cognate movements that challenged traditional authority and the status quo, movements such as second-wave feminism and the gay rights movement? How does the influence of this epoch remain a part of American religious life in the early twenty-first century?

Chapter Fifteen

  1. There has never been a time in American life when "new religious movements" were not appearing. Yet the 1960s and 1970s seem to mark a period when such activity was more prevalent than usual. Compare and contrast this period, and the response to new religious movements that emerged, with antebellum America, particularly religious life on the frontier and in the "burned-over district."  Are there sets of social conditions that seem to allow for greater religious experimentation in some periods rather than in others? You may want to review Chapter Seven as you think about these issues.
  2. From the mid-twentieth century on, courts have wrestled more and more with issues related to religious diversity. What particular issues have come before the courts? How and why did courts come to address these issues more directly? Why is it that some critics believe that legal efforts to avoid even a hint of favoritism on the part of government as well as to assure free exercise of religion have led to an assault on the idea of "the majority rules" in matters of religion?
  3. Since the 1960s, more and more Americans have described themselves as being "spiritual, but not religious." What do you think they mean by that term? How does it reflect yet another way in which religious diversity and an abiding pluralism have become central to American religion and culture? How does this idea also echo some of the challenges to traditional authority discussed in Chapter Fourteen?

Chapter Sixteen

  1. What new faces of diversity have appeared in American religious life since the 1970s? What have they added to American culture and society? Although some analysts believe that this "new pluralism" is undermining the religious core of American life, others believe it a positive development. How would you make a case for both positions?
  2. Alongside this new pluralism has come a remarkable resurgence of evangelical and Pentecostal religious expression. How would you account for that reawakening? Does it also signify that traditional religion is losing ground in American life?

PowerPoints

These presentations model various ways to deliver the material of Introducing American Religion in a classroom setting.  One, titled “Original Diversity,” is a simple, less-detailed outline based mostly on chapter 1, but also draws from material in chapters 2 and 4.  “Made in America,” by contrast, is more detailed but treats a subset of information from chapter 7.  The remaining two presentations stick closely to the material and structure of chapters 10 and 14, as a model for those who wish to teach the book chapter-by-chapter.

The following are a ready-to-use PowerPoint presentations which correspond to each chapter in the book.

Additional Images

John Eliot preaching to the Indians

This 19th century engraving depicts John Eliot, pioneering Puritan missionary, preaching to a group of Native Americans. From Ballou’s Pictorial (1856), courtesy of the Library of Congress.

John Calvin

A portrait of Genevan reformer John Calvin, whose theology towered over the Puritan social and ecclesiological experiment in New England. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

19th century structure

This 19th century structure is home to one of North America’s oldest Jewish congregations and an early practitioner of Reform Judaism, Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim Synagogue in Charleston, SC. It is also a classic example of the Greek Revival architecture often used for American church buildings of the mid-19th century. John O’Neill, photographer. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Thomas Jefferson, head-and-shoulders portrait

homas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and key architect of the nascent American government, was a revolutionary proponent of religious liberty, drafting the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom that foreshadowed the contents of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Bishops of the A.M.E. Church

The African Methodist Episcopal Church, founded by Richard Allen in 1816, is the oldest independent African-American denomination. Courtesy of the Library of Congress

A Southern Baptism

An early 20th century southern baptism in Aiken, South Carolina. Courtesy of the Library of Congress

Rev. Lyman Beecher

One of the 19th century’s most famous preachers, Congregationalist Lyman Beecher served as pastor, seminary president, and patriarch of one of American religion’s most influential families. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

The Propagation Society. More free than welcome

This sketch illustrates the strong anti-Catholicism inspired by waves of Irish immigration in the mid-19th century. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Emigrants leaving Queenstown [Ireland] for New York

A Harper’s Weekly illustration, showing Irish immigrants preparing to sail for America. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Lincoln's second inaugural

Abraham Lincoln, delivering his Second Inaugural Address, in which he famously reflected on the religious implications of the Civil War. Alexander Gardner, photographer. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Andrew Carnegie, 1835-1919, half-length portrait, seated at desk, facing right

Presbyterian-born Andrew Carnegie, one of America’s most famous philanthropists, was a strong proponent of the Gospel of Wealth. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Martin Luther King and Malcolm X waiting for press conference

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X found resources in Christianity and Islam, respectively, in their struggle for racial justice. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Jimmy Carter waving at the Democratic National Convention, New York City

Jimmy Carter, pictured here at the Democratic National Convention in 1976, was the first president to publicly identify himself a “born again” Christian. Warren Leffler, photographer. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

A Guide for the Study of American Religious History

Though there are certain principles that serve students well no matter their subject, studying history well requires work at a special set of skills.  The purpose of this guide is to provide tips for honing your abilities in the three tasks most basic to the practice of history: analyzing primary sources, analyzing secondary sources, and writing persuasive historical papers.  The material below is adapted from two excellent sources that provide much more detail than is possible here: Mary Lynn Rampolla’s A Pocket Guide to Writing in History, 4th ed. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004); and Patrick Rael’s Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students (Brunswick, ME: Bowdoin College, 2004), available online at http://www.bowdoin.edu/writing-guides/.

Analyzing Primary Sources

Historians cannot say just anything they want about their subjects, as much as they might enjoy such freedom.  Because they are interested in the details of the past---what events took place, how people lived, what they thought, etc.---historians are bound to whatever concrete materials remain from that past.  They must be faithful, in other words, to what are known as “primary sources,” the basic building blocks for any historical narrative.  These sources come in many forms.  The most commonly used are written sources---letters, diaries, books, sermons, newspaper articles, minutes, etc.  But other sources, like material objects, can be quite useful as well---architecture, furniture, clothing, tools, utensils, or any other of the vast possibilities.

Successful analysis of a primary source depends mostly on reading the source (written or material) with a critical eye, and this in turn requires asking the right questions of your source.  Especially when reading a written primary source, it is important to try to understand the author’s perspective, to empathize with her concerns, while also resisting the urge to take what is said at face value since there are always biases and unique agendas at work below the surface.  This is the balance the historian must maintain as he interrogates his sources, a balance between empathy/understanding and a healthy skepticism.  Different types of primary sources may require distinct types of questions, but the following should offer a rough guide for your interrogation:

  • Historical Context: What was the environment in which the source was created?  What sorts of events were happening?  What ways of thinking were in fashion?
  • Authorship: Who wrote this text or created this object? What do you know about his or her background?  About their position or profession at the time of writing?  What else has the author written or created, and how does it relate to the source in question?
  • Purpose: Why did the author believe it was necessary to create this object or write this text?  What did she hope to accomplish?  Who was the intended audience, and how did the author hope that audience would respond to the information?
  • Argument: What does the text actually say?  What is the structure of the argument, and what sorts of evidence is used to support that structure?
  • Assumptions: What unspoken assumptions can you detect in the source?  Does the argument rest on any presuppositions that the author does not support or acknowledge?  Are there any biases or blindspots that play a significant role?  How is the author’s perspective different from your own, and how might that shape what is written or created?

Analyzing Secondary Sources

“Secondary sources” represent the next set of materials historians must master.  If primary sources constitute the subject historians must study, secondary sources are documents written about the subject of study.  So, for example, if you are studying preaching during the Great Awakening, a primary source would be a sermon by George Whitefield, while a secondary source could be an article on Whitefield’s preaching written in the 1990s, or a book like Harry Stout’s New England Soul (Oxford, 1986).

Locating relevant and trustworthy secondary sources---and doing so in a timely and efficient manner---takes practice and is a skill that develops over time.  The principles for effective use of these sources, however, remain constant.  In some ways, these principles overlap with the suggestions for analyzing primary sources.  As with primary sources, the most important thing to remember when you begin to read a secondary source is that you must approach it critically, with a firm grasp on what information you need to gain from the source.  As a critical reader of a secondary source, you must be active rather than passive.  Think of yourself as the bus driver, in control of the bus and guiding it for your own purposes, rather than the passenger drifting along with the traffic.  The critical reader is the treasure hunter who plunders the text, seeking the precise information she requires.  In this sense you must not read a secondary source on a historical subject like you would read a novel, savoring every word and being carried along by the beauty of the language and the details of the unfolding plot.  To read a good historical article or book in this way would only bog you down in the details, and you would likely lose a clear sense of what is and is not significant.  The following guide is designed to help students recognize what is and is not important in a secondary source, to read books and articles on historical subjects critically and effectively.  According to Patrick Rael, to best capture the content of a secondary source, you must STAMP it:

  • Structure: What is the structure of the book or article?  What are its main points and subpoints?  Does it flow smoothly and make sense immediately?  Or is it choppy, disjointed?  Look for topic sentences in each paragraph as signposts for where the argument is heading.  Pay close attention to transitional sections, where the author attempts to make a connection between one section of material and another.  Are these transitions clear?  Once you have identified the overall argument or thesis, consider whether the structure as the skeleton of the argument is sound enough to bear the weight.  Does it clearly relate to the thesis?
  • Thesis: And speaking of the thesis, what is the central argument of the secondary source?  The thesis should be the blueprint or DNA of the entire piece, and could be short and simple or quite complex, depending on the type of book or article and its length.  Paying close attention to what is said in the introduction, try to capture the thesis in no more than two or three sentences.  What is this author arguing?
  • Argument: When you have identified the thesis, you must also determine whether this argument works as it is developed through the body of the text.  Do supporting points clearly unfold the central argument?  Does the reasoning proceed in a logical, coherent manner?  Does the author have enough evidence to support her claims?  Are there unspoken assumptions made?  If so, where, and what effect do they have on the plausibility of the argument?  It is important to recognize, as Rael notes, that the primary question here is not whether you like the argument on a personal level, but whether and how it works.
  • Motives: Why is the author writing this text? What is the author hoping to accomplish?  This is a question that most historians will answer in their introductions, where they will often compare their work to what has already been done or said on the subject.  So the author may be writing because there is a gap left by prior historical studies, something important that has not been described.  At other times an author may write to directly challenge something another historian has written on the subject, using some new evidence or a new reading of old evidence to overturn what was formerly believed.  Your question is simply why does the author believe it is necessary to write this book or article?  And, more specifically, why make this argument?
  • Primaries: What are the primary sources the author is using to support his claims?  Is he using books, sermons, letters, diaries?  Or is he using material objects, like church buildings or liturgical clothing?  Is the author using enough evidence?  And is the evidence appropriate, does it match the kind of claims being made?

One final note: one of the most important things to remember for critical reading, in the search for this kind of information, is that the introduction and the conclusion should be the first places you look.  If you attempt to read a secondary source in historical studies from the first page to the last page, as you would a novel, you will be distracted by details and lose the forest for the trees.  Before seeking the details in the meat of a book or article, you must determine the skeleton on which that meat will hang, and this information is more often than not stated and restated in the introduction and conclusion.

Writing Persuasive Historical Arguments

Many believe historians exist to tell stories about the past, and to some extent that is true.  But it would be more fully accurate to say that what historians do is argue.  Historians argue about the meaning and significance of the past and its stories.  Historians, in other words, must do their best to determine what actually happened and cannot go beyond that record, but their real work involves explaining why what happened is important.  The following guide offers suggestions for how to shape and support a compelling argument about your chosen subject once the research in primary and secondary sources is complete.

Locating Sources

The first step, once you have selected a subject, is to locate relevant sources that can provide insight into that subject.  This takes some practice, but the links on this website offer a good starting place in online archives and relevant bibliographies.  The most important factor in the search, though, is a clear idea of your subject and, more specifically, what you are interested in discovering about that subject.  It is helpful, then, to begin with a research question, and then you can decide what kinds of sources will best help you answer your question.  If your subject is preaching during the Great Awakening, then perhaps your question could be something like, What were the similarities and differences in the preaching styles of George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards?  If this were your question, you would need to locate sources that relate to this question specifically, like sermons from each preacher.  Once you have located relevant sources, the guides above for analyzing sources will help you find the information you need.

Shaping a Thesis

The most important part of historical writing is shaping a clear and compelling thesis.  A thesis is your answer to the question you asked of your sources in the research phase.  It is your conclusion about the material you have investigated, and it is the controlling theme for your entire paper.

A thesis is not…

  • A statement of your topic or subject (“This paper is about the Great Awakening…”)
  • A description of something that happened (“Jonathan Edwards preached many sermons during the revival…”)
  • An opinion about your subject

A thesis is…

  • Contestable---it is your unique interpretation of the sources you investigated, so it should be possible for someone else to reach a different conclusion
  • Significant---more than a summary of what you studied, the thesis as your interpretation of the data should say something about why it matters
  • Simple---the thesis should be as clear and concise as possible, but should also be…
  • Substantive---it must be complex enough to bear the weight of the entire paper, which will be devoted to explaining why you reached this conclusion.

Structure

If the thesis is the DNA controlling the composition of the entire paper, you must be careful to make certain that every word is relevant to proving that thesis.  This begins with a sound structure.  Ask yourself what you must say to convince your reader that the thesis is sound.  Your answer to this question gives you your argument, and the structure along which it will unfold.  Structure your paper with the several points you want to make, and pay special attention to the transitions you use to make it clear how each point relates to the others, and how all relate to the thesis.  Everything you say should help support your central thesis, and you should say nothing that does not clearly support that thesis.

Evidence

Finally, make certain you have enough evidence to support every claim that you make.  This must be true for the thesis itself, but also for every little argument you build along the way.

  • Make sure that the kind of evidence you select is relevant to the argument you are making
  • Use quotes to support your analysis of what an individual said or believed, especially where the language is unique or memorable
  • But be careful not to quote too often and overshadow your own analysis.  Always keep your points front and center, and use quotes to support your points.
  • Keep quoted material as brief as possible, and summarize in your own words where you can.

For a wealth of further information on all of these topics, visit the online pamphlet of Patrick Rael at http://www.bowdoin.edu/writing-guides/.

Tables of Statistics

Explanatory Paragraphs for Charts on Religious Affiliation

Religious Diversity, 1700  
From the earliest days of the European colonization of North America, the continent offered an environment for vibrant religious diversity.  Not only were there longstanding religious beliefs and practices among the Native Americans, and among the African slaves transported forcibly to the New World.  Europeans, too, brought with them the many strands of Christianity that had developed in the wake of the Protestant Reformation.  The following chart illustrates the number of Christian varieties extant in the English colonies in 1700, some 80 years after the settlement at Plymouth.
Source: Edwin Gaustad, Historical Atlas of Religion in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), 1-3.

Protestant Growth by Denomination, 1740-1820  
The 80 years from 1740 through 1820 were years of remarkable social change in America, and American religion was deeply involved in the evolutionary process.  These years saw significant growth in population through immigration, spurred by the opportunities of westward expansion.  They saw an epochal shift in political government, wherein the Americans staged a successful revolution against England’s colonial authority and set about building a new nation.  And these years saw periods of religious revival, known as the Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening.  The following chart illustrates how the various Protestant groups fared in this shifting environment.  Notice, for example, the increase in the number of Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches from 1740 to 1780, as, among other things, the gains from the Great Awakening settled in.  Even more significantly, notice the tremendous shifts from 1780 to 1820.  Where the Congregationalists had sustained numerical dominance for the past century and a half, by 1820 their growth had stagnated and remained largely confined to the New England states.  Baptists and Methodists, the latter of whom had not yet separated from the Anglicans (or Episcopalians) in 1780, saw their number of churches increase dramatically during this period.  These more than any other groups benefited from the style and emphases of the Second Great Awakening.  But even more importantly, 1) they held theological beliefs made more attractive by the prevalent democratic ethos; 2) they had a polity more conducive to westward expansion and the sparse resources of the frontier; and 3) for a variety of reasons these groups more than others enjoyed significant growth among the expanding African slave population in the south.
Source: Edwin Gaustad, Historical Atlas of Religion in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), 3-5, 37-44.

Catholic Expansion in the 19th Century  
At the birth of the new American nation, Catholics represented a longstanding but very small presence in the American religious landscape.  By 1820, there were approximately 2700 Baptist churches alone, compared to merely 124 Catholic churches.  Two waves of massive immigration during the 19th century would change all that, hastening Catholicism along its path to becoming the largest Christian body in the United States.  The first wave occurred in the 1840-50s, when a severe potato famine drove thousands from Ireland to seek new opportunities across the Atlantic.  Then, in the years following the Civil War, numbers of immigrants once again exploded, but in this case the majority hailed from southern and eastern Europe, from heavily Catholic countries.
Source: Edwin Gaustad, Historical Atlas of Religion in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), 42-47, 101-111.

Judaism in the Late 19th Century  
Jews had been even more isolated than Catholics in early American history, but they would enjoy rapid growth in the late 19th century thanks to the same patterns of immigration that had benefitted Catholicism in America.  Jews from countries like Russia, Poland, and Austria came to America in droves in the closing decades of the century, with the result that a population numbering approximately 50,000 in 1850 had ballooned to roughly 1,000,000 by 1900.
Source: Edwin Gaustad, Historical Atlas of Religion in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), 144-148.

Sources for American Religious Demographics

In 1962, Edwin Gaustad published what would remain the definitive source for demographic information from the history of religion in America.  Then, in 2001, Gaustad released a significant revision co-authored by Philip Barlow, which brought statistical information up to date through the end of the 20th century and also rearranged some of the previously published material (Edwin Gaustad and Philip Barlow, New Historical Atlas of Religion in America [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001]).  These volumes offer an indispensable guide to anyone interested in the minute details of American religious history.  Though built upon a solid narrative base, the signal contribution of the atlas is its innovative presentation of statistical data in a wealth of charts, graphs, and maps, all beautifully illustrated.
Another very useful guide is the Religion by Region series published by AltaMira Press.  The series is composed of various collections of essays devoted to a specific region, each of which aims to explain the distinct religious culture of the region with a view to its impact on public life.  Volumes typically contain essays on the religious history of the region, as well as contemporary demographical information on areas like religious affiliation and voting patterns.
Finally, the links to online resources provided on this website offer guidance to some of the most valuable tools for studying current patterns of religious belief and practice in America.  Among these are the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, the American Religious Identification Survey, and the Hartford Institute for Religion Research.

Articles

Islam, 9/11 and America

The fallout from 9/11 is still reverberating across the United States and outside.  Perhaps those who feel it most keenly are Muslim-Americans, who watched the visibility of their faith tradition skyrocket and Osama bin Laden become the terrorizing face of Islam. A Muslim woman, blogging about bringing up Muslim children in America, wrote how she dreaded the moment when her 8-year old son would ask “What happened on 9/11?”  She feared that knowledge of that fateful day would lead to doubt about Islam or self-doubt about his status as an American (http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/explaining-911-to-a-muslim-child/).  Yet, the topic is unavoidable.  Nowadays people speak in dualistic terms: pre-9/11, post-9/11.  It’s as if every Muslim in America had dropped their lunch trays at once and the eyes of the country became fixed on them as they hastily tried to pick up the remnants of their peaceable anonymity (for more information on the Muslim experience in America and this “new pluralism”: check out Ch. 15 of Introducing American Religion). 

Eight years has not dimmed the spotlight either. Islam and the state of Islam in America still are the topics debated most frequently in news, blogs and editorials.  This begs the question: can Muslims in America live their faith quietly?  Or has the media attention required them to wear their belief system in a way that is not required of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc…? Are Muslims de facto forced to be conspicuous by the court of public opinion?  In Dallas, following the capture of a 19-year old Jordanian terrorist who had threatened to blow up a prominent building downtown, Muslims expressed fear at the possibility of reprisals, dreading a return of post-9/11 hostilities.  One woman noted the dangerous double standard whereby if a non-Muslim perpetrates a crime, s/he is a bad person, but if a Muslim commits the same crime, Islam, not the individual, is found guilty (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/101909dnmetmuslimangst.3f4b3c3.html.)

However, American Muslims are not simply passive recipients of such scrutiny; they are actively trying to counter such negative images and hopefully preclude any such anti-Muslim rhetoric of the kind following 9/11.  The defensive mode, into which many American Muslims have been forced, has been turned into a proactive attempt at creating a counter-consciousness in America, one that celebrates the compatibility between Islam and America, rather than simply the innocuousness of the former.  A National Day of Prayer was called on September 25 when thousands of Muslims arrived on the west lawn of the Capitol building to pray (see the following sites for coverage of this event: http://www.layalina.tv/publications/review/PR_V.21/article8.html; http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-muslim-prayer26-2009sep26,0,930355.story?track=rss).  The intent, as emphasized by several of its leaders, was to combat the hostility toward Islam and alter the image of Islam from one of violence to one of peace.  By praying outside one of the most symbolically resonant buildings in America, Muslims showed their allegiance to both their faith and their country (see http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2009/09/the_national_mall_is_for_all.html?hpid=talkbox1).  Not surprisingly, backlash did occur (see: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11253). There are those who see such events as the “Islamicization” of America.  What is more fearsome: that Islam could potentially influence and shape policy and society in America?  Or simply that Islam is carving out place at all?  That the reaction is not wholly defined does not mean it is not deeply felt and visceral. 

Yet, perhaps the most visible embrace of Islam came during President Obama’s celebration of Ramadan at the White House (see: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/the-white-house-celebrates-ramadan/ or http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/66020).  He like his predecessor, George W. Bush, began the practice to show that the United States war on terror was not a war on Islam.  However, as several articles note, President Obama did not shoulder the baggage that Bush did, given that he was in office during 9/11 and it was his administration that ushered in the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  This act begs the question of whether Islam is only tolerated (just as Puritanism and other sectarian groups were in the 17th century) or whether it is becoming accepted as a viable and vital piece of the American religious landscape?  How this question will be answered will be affected by events on the world stage but also through continued efforts by both the Muslim community in America and by those in positions of power.

The Muslim experience in America is the probably the most prominent example of current issues of religious liberty.  However, first amendment issues are by no means under the sole purview of American Muslims.  Under deliberation in the Supreme Court is Judge Roberts’ very first religious establishment issue: that of the California Mojave cross.  A cross erected in the Mojave Desert to commemorate the veterans of World War I has been deemed a breach of first amendment protocol.  Debate as to whether the cross is meant to cover veterans of all faiths or whether the cross is being used as a specifically Christian symbol has caused a great deal of contention between the ACLU and various conservative justices on the bench. In spite of the explicit Christian symbolism of the cross, the issue is by no means cut and dry given that the land was bought by the federal government after the erection of the cross.  One blogger writes that the ACLU actually takes their case too far- that disallowing any space for religion on public ground is a violation of basic rights.  By no means one-sided, the Mojave Cross is one like others before it that has a great potential to either unify or divide Americans (see: http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2009/09/supreme-court-to-consider-fate.php; http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2009/09/supreme-court-to-consider-fate.php; or http://media.www.reflector-online.com/media/storage/paper938/news/2009/10/09/Opinion/Courts.Aclu.Err.On.Cross.Issue-3798509.shtml). (Also see chapters 4 and 8 in Introducing American Religion for information and examples of free exercise and establishment issues)

The most popular (and controversial) arena for church and state issues, where victory is most coveted, is in schools.  Most recently, Oregon reinstated a ban on religious clothing in the classroom (one of three states, also including Nebraska and Pennsylvania to do so).  Ostensibly, the more visible the clothing, the greater the offense- thus faith traditions that require the more distinctive garb are going to feel the sting more acutely.  (see: http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1052362&lang=eng_news)
Does religious clothing in schools countenance an establishment issue?  Conversely, what is the ethical responsibility of the school to allow each and every person under its purview the right to free exercise?  Schools prove such contentious proving grounds precisely because it involves the education of children.  History is laden with rhetoric about the nature of religion and education and whether schools were intended to train the next generations of religious persons or not.  Nowadays, unless a child attends a parochial school, no one religion can hold dominance in a school; therefore, any religious symbol, relic or reference is taboo.  Is there any place for religion in school?  What is the fallout for students who leave school having encountered one faith tradition or none? 
There are those that argue that there is a religion in schools: secular humanism.  Social Studies has come under fire by certain conservative groups who see it as ignoring the religious foundation of this country (http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-right-wingers-call-social-studies-an-attack-on-religion-r-1252088807). The argument is that the Constitution was not created in a vacuum devoid of religious identity, but that the Founders were religious individuals trying to protect religion from the eroding powers of civic life not eradicate it from society.

Ascertaining what the Founders really meant has truly become, besides baseball, the American pastime.  What the Founders envisioned when they called for free exercise and what they would say could they see the degree to which America is pluralistic is always relevant if not easily able (or possible) to prove. 

In many ways the arguments are the same: just the people, places and terminology has changed. 

American religious history

If anything is true of American religious history, it is that a singular and concise narrative is nigh on impossible (if anyone wishes to counter me on this, feel free and consider me flummoxed in advance).  For this reason, consensus history, or the historiographical pursuit of a master narrative, has come under fire, basically since its inception in the post-WWII years.  In some of these narratives, the primary character is the white, Protestant man and therefore (unwittingly or not) the voices of women, ethnic and racial minorities, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc. are glossed over.

Consensus history/ historiographical pursuit of a master narrative:

  • American history as told from only East to West
    • or even more microscopically as the story of New England/New England Puritans and their denominational offshoots
  • American history as the history of religious liberty/pluralism
  • American religious history as the history of liberals versus conservatives

The thrust of this entry is not to detract from the effort of those mid-20th century historians who were looking for a primary story of American religion.  Their work is important, albeit incomplete.  The goal of books like Introducing American Religion is to introduce “alternative histories” into a broader and more comprehensive American religious history.  Diversity is the name of the game.  Those voices, once silent, are now given airtime.  Every person, regardless of race, color or creed is now awarded the opportunity to find him or herself in the historic American past.

Stories of religious diversity are often found within the individual, in the personal religious history.  What Dr. Lippy does in a more macroscopic way, others can attempt microscopically. 

Every American contributes, in some way, to religious diversity.  There are the obvious markers like what one wears, how one acts or talks about their religious identity that reveals one’s past or family’s past.  Some things, like an individual’s own religious journey, are not as immediately obvious.  Thus, in every person is a unique and individual contribution to diversity in American religion, which can be thought of in one of two ways:

(1) the objective version of one’s history (an actual, beat-for-beat, account of family history)
(2) the subjective version (referring to those identity markers a person actually chooses to incorporate into his or her identity). 

I ask my readers: is either of these methods a more effective (or comprehensive) way of telling history?  Or perhaps more to the point: should the subjective version be considered historical? 

Whatever the answer to these questions, I propose that the subjective version is often the necessary starting point.  Thus, here is my own personal understanding of my religious self, my religious history:

  1. I am a European mixed breed.  From a national sense I am English, French, Finnish, Ukrainian and Polish.  From a religious standpoint, my roots (that I know of) include Anglican, New England Baptist, Lutheran and Jewish elements.  Has interfaith (or interdenominational at the least) become the true representative religious faith?  Or is this a regional phenomenon? Opinions wanted.
  2. From my maternal grandmother, I can trace my lineage to the Captain and the First Mate of the Mayflower (which landed on Plymouth in 1620), Myles Standish and John Alden, who were, if my historical information is accurate, the only non-dissenting Anglicans aboard (someone had to steer the boat…).  In this way they were sort of passive participants in religious diversity; there to charter a boat, they represented an alternative way of thinking on a boat filled with alternative thinkers (see Ch. 2 of Introducing American Religion for more details on the Massachusetts May Colony and the early colonial settlers).
  3. I know very little about what happened in the interim between my relatives in the early Massachusetts Bay Colony and my grandmother.  Somehow she grew up New England Baptist. 
  4. Though all of my paternal grandfather’s eleven siblings were born in the United States in the late 19th- early 20th century, none of them spoke English until they attended grammar school.  The Finnish community in Gloucester, MA was large and their Lutheran church had a Finnish pastor.  Thus, my grandfather’s early identity was tied as much, if not more, to language than to religion.  Little actual Lutheranism has defined my own religious identity, but my tie to my Finnish roots in a nationalistic, even ethnic sense, has been passed down from my mother through her father (see Ch. 10 for an in-depth look at immigration during the turn of the 19th and 20th century).
  5. I was raised Jewish, but there was little correspondence between home and Hebrew school.  I was Bat Mitzvahed in a Reform synagogue, but we had a Christmas tree.  My father was raised a Conservative Jew and I believe the religious identity of his children was always more important to his parents than to him.  I do not doubt that he identifies strongly as Jewish and would not call himself anything else.  He simply participates in his religious identity in a different way than I do.
  6. Like my connection to my Finnish roots, my connection to a Jewish past is more ethnic and nationalistic, than religious.  I feel more protective of Jews and Jewish history than any other faith tradition I study and tend to come to their defense swiftly and vigorously if I perceive a threat.  For this reason, I’m inclined to believe my identification with my Jewish roots is stronger than even I know.
  7. From a professional standpoint, I am historian of Christianity, an American religious historian and a scholar of liberal Protestantism, primarily 19th century Unitarians and Transcendentalists.  My encounters with these people, their writings and the events in which they took part have led me on a spiritual path I never deemed necessary or possible.
  8. I regularly attend a Pentecostal church.  The charismatic style and heightened sense of connection with God and the Holy Spirit appeals to me in a way that no other church or synagogue I have attended has.  Theologically, I’m still working things out, as many at my age and in my position do.
  9. I find it daunting to hold all of these elements in balance at all times, but I am trying. 

Some questions to think about
On your personal religious identity:

  • What do you consider your strongest identity markers? Do they create a cohesive narrative?
  • If you had to write your own religious history: where would you start?
  • Is your religious history linear? Or are there stops, starts, speedbumps, etc…?
  • Is such an exercise necessary to understand religious history? What is the place of the religious narrative in an academic sense? In a national sense? In a personal sense?

On American religious history, “the master narrative problem”:

  • Do we run the danger in constantly paring down history to the individual person (though perhaps my own attempt is an extreme account) of losing a greater sense of national religious identity?  In other words- do we lose sight of the forest staring at the trees?
  • In your opinion, current and future scholars of American religion: can we EVER have a master narrative that incorporates everyone?

Lydia Willsky- Blog 3

"Extreme Positions"

Modernists and Fundamentalists. Liberals and Conservatives. Radicals and Traditionalists. No matter what moniker seems most fitting, these terms denote people or groups of people who generally fall on opposite sides of any given political, religious, ideological and social issue. Exactly how “opposite” or opposed the two sides are is debatable, of course. In fact, I ask my readers, how helpful are these categories?

Nonetheless, these positions (however accurate or inaccurate they may be) crop up constantly in our cultural vocabulary and in the media because people do use them to describe their own opinions and ideals and that of others. Thus, the subject of this blog is the most recent (and most controversial) issues around which people have split, dividing themselves into warring factions of liberals and conservatives or whatever else they may be called. (For more on historical examples of such positions please see Introducing American Religion, especially chapters 12-16).

Before I delve into the news events themselves, here are some things to think about as you read: beyond the stated facts, what do you think are the basic reasons for such splits of opinions? In other words, why do their opinions differ to begin with? Are the politicians, educators and other voices involved fighting a series of disparate, unrelated battles? Or are they fighting the same battle, simply couched in different language and agendas?

With those questions in mind, let’s move on to current events.

Perhaps the most talked about issue in recent months is the decision by the Texas State Board of Education to adopt several changes suggested by a conservative Christian faction within the board. These changes include the removal of Thomas Jefferson from discussion of the Enlightenment, the incorporation of the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) into discussion of First Amendment rights and, most controversially, the espousal of the idea that the Founding Fathers did NOT have it in mind that church and state should be separated.

The response to the adoption of this curriculum, needless to say, has been uproarious. The Interfaith Alliance posted a statement decrying such a move as an effective rewrite of history (http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2010/03/25/dont-let-texas-narrow-world-view-restrict-everyones-textbooks/?cxntfid=blogs_get_schooled_blog). The problem then, in their opinion, is the teaching of belief labeled as historical fact. But the real problem is one of both accuracy and constitutionality.

What do you think? Is it possible to hearken back to some mythical moment of our country’s founding in order to make sense out of present issues? Do “the founders’” intentions come into play? Things to think about folks.

Anyway, this controversy has sparked what one journalist from Oregon calls another battle in the long series of “culture wars” between the liberal intelligentsia and the conservative rabblerousers (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/03/the_texas_curriculum_controver.html). It certainly seems that way at least. How and if it will be resolved, whether the amendments will stand, time only will tell. However the dispute has certainly re-opened talk of whether America was conceived as a Christian nation and why arguments of such a nature continue to reappear. For more on this topic look, take a look at the following links: http://www.dailyevergreen.com/story/31293; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/the-crazy-imaginings-of-t_b_507535.html; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/us/politics/11texas.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fB%2fBoard%20of%20Education)

Along these same lines, the Tea Party, with Sarah Palin as its most visible figurehead, is attempting to garner support for the Christian Nation platform by drawing on the sensational (if somewhat ingenious) byline: “We’ll hang on to our constitution, religion and guns” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/the-perpetual-american-ly_b_538525.html).

Why do you think these three things- government, God and arms- are so intricately connected for this particular group? Have they always been connected in history?

Their enlistment of God in particular has become the centerpiece to the campaign; after all: if God be with us, who is against us? As one journalist writes, “folks are throwing the God punch every which way” (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/04/sarah-palin-christian-nation-god-founding-fathers/1).

Also relating to the issue of religion in public and civic spaces is the recent suit won by the Freedom from Religion Foundation making the National Day of Prayer and the law that allowed for such a potentiality violations of the First Amendment (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/24atheist.html). Historically, national days of prayer or thanksgiving were ordered during troubling times (i.e. during the Civil War) as a means of calling the American people to acknowledge and atone for their the collective sins (for lack of a better word) and, well, pray for the alleviation of any strife or chaos.

What is significant about this controversy is not, in my opinion, the subject matter (the National Day of Prayer) nor even that the suit was won. Thomas Jefferson refused to order a national day of prayer during his tenure as President and famously defended his decision in his “Letter to the Danbury Baptists.” The National Day of Prayer has long been debated for its constitutionality and will continue to be debated. What has caused this suit to become a viable hailstorm of controversy is that the Foundation from which it sprang is headed by an atheist, Annie Laurie Gaylor, and is founded on an “anti-religion philosophy”.

Much of the criticism of this suit uses the same vocabulary that those opponents of the Teac Party and the Texas State Board of Education used, returning to the old standby: the Founders and that mythical founding moment. The Mayor of Topeka Kansas stated in an interview that “Every day is a prayer in most Kansas lives, whether they are Christian or Muslim or Jewish or whatever and to say that a prayer day is illegal is just ridiculous. That judge better go back and read some history about how this country was formed. Next thing you know we won’t be able to sing God Bless America.” (For full quote see: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWiD9zVD5IijUKfLEQzg-1jMWLTAD9F911PG0)

Is it like Dwight D. Eisenhower said? Is it merely crucial that America be recognized as a religious nation and Americans as religious people, regardless of the specific form that religion takes?

What about Atheism is so dangerous? Yes, I’m asking you. Also- is it fair to equate atheism with anti-religion?

I leave you with these questions and thoughts. Until next time.

September 30 2010

Lydia Willsky

Women and Religion in America

In the mid-nineteenth century, many denominations fractured over the issue of slavery (i.e. the Baptists who split into the Southern Baptist Convention and the National Baptist convention).  It became necessary to “take sides” depending upon where one fell on the pro-slavery/anti-slavery spectrum- though geographical lines would often make the decision for parishioners.  What this schism proved was that social and cultural issues matter for religious peoples.  So, for the next series of blogs, I plan to tackle three of the major social (and political) topics being debated by and within American religious institutions and peoples today: women in religion, sexuality/gay marriage and environmental/green initiatives. These will be my social issue…Issues.

For my readers: what would you add as an “important contemporary social issue confronting religion in America”?  What do you think of the topics I’ve included?  Am I on the money or are there others you would add as equally if not more fundamental to the matters facing religious institutions and peoples today?

Though there are many major social concerns that various religious bodies can (and do) weigh in on, for my first social issue blog, I weigh in on one which has long been a “problem” long facing religious institutions: women (for any male readers out there- what would you say are the primary issues at stake for men in American religion?).

For Christian, namely Protestant denominations in America, how to navigate the troubled waters of equality before God and inequity in the world has long been a well-documented problem. Following the First and the Second Great Awakenings and the American Revolution as well, the ethos of churches shifted from hierarchical to more democratic institutions wherein those who were often relegated to the sidelines of church life, like women, were given a voice and a platform for that voice (for more on this see Chapters 3, 4 and 6 in Introducing American Religion and for additional reading consider Nathan Hatch’s The Democratization of American Christianity).  Women spearheaded much of the social reform arising out of the nineteenth century (i.e. Temperance, anti-slavery, even some nascent gender reform and suffrage movements were prominent), though the question of women as pastors proved a more elusive goal. 

It is still for many denominations.  Most recently, the Anglican church reached crisis level over the issues of female and gay clergy.  Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, has thrown her weight behind a more progressive path for the church.  In a recent visit to the Archbishopric of Wales, she and Archbishop Barry Morgan set out to reinforce international ties just as relations within their own denominations were deteriorating. 

Both Wales and the United States have had similarly tumultuous paths it seems toward the ordination of women.  Membership levels have fallen; though, this was often as a much a reaction to perceived lack of progress as it was to gains made by more “liberal” factions of the church.  Some conservative members of the Anglican Church have decided to cut their losses and leave forming the Anglican Church in North America, which boasts 100,000 members.  (For full article, check out the following link: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/welsh-politics/welsh-politics-news/2010/07/24/american-woman-bishop-visits-wales-91466-26919984/).  A question for all of you: do you think ultimately schism is an inevitable result of change?  Or another question: what changes are worth “splitting for” in your opinion?  What are the issues that people most often refuse to compromise on? 

In perhaps the most compelling twist in recent news, the Vatican, long considered immovable on the subject, have added the ordination of women to their list of the “church’s most serious crimes.”  Keep in mind this list of “delicta graviora” also includes the sexual abuse of children- this seemingly equates the two, which has angered many.  What do you think?  Are the two equally “criminal”? (http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/US-bishops-defend-womens-ordination-in-new-abuse-laws.aspx).  Further, the inclusion of women’s ordination to the list has had more conservative members view the church as backpeddling or worse, weakening in their resolve.  However, many supporters of women’s ordination also see this as a step in the wrong direction; sensationalizing the subject of women priests will not serve the greater goal of changing church policy on the matter.

Debates over the place of women in various Christian denominations have been around basically since this country’s inception.  More recently, different issues have arisen as the population continues to diversify both religiously and culturally.  The bodies of Muslim women are consistently a matter of debate or curiosity among the American public.  On the one hand, it is less and less of a shock to see women in partial or full hijab; it is simply another piece of the American religious landscape.  On the other hand, within the American Islamic community, “Americanization” of Muslim women, in dress, attitude and behavior, can be an unwelcome side effect of life in the US. 

Just this past spring, the status of Muslim women and their public (bodily) presence was very much a top story as Rima Fakih was crowned Miss USA 2010.  One Muslim journalist, Haroon Moghul, pointed out that the nature of her victory was double-edged (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/haroon-moghul/shes-hot-and-hezbollah-wh_b_580936.html).  While her face would serve to show that “yes, Muslims are Americans, too” and “’normal’”, the image she was projecting was one that many women, both Muslim and non-Muslim, may find counterproductive.  Beauty Pageants (I’m not sure if this term is PC) in general have been the target of criticism stating that they place unrealistic bodily expectations upon women, especially young girls, making the standard of womanhood one that is oft unattainable.  Moghul also points out to his Muslim sisters in the faith, that their hijab is just as womanly and beautiful as any strapless pageant gown and just because Fakih donned a bathing suit, does not meant that they must to be American.

What is your opinion?  What does Fakih’s victory mean for American Muslims in general and American Muslim women specifically? 

Perhaps for many American Muslim women, donning secular dress CAN be seen as a means of showing their affinity for their country as well as their religious and cultural roots- though it would be a mistake to see every such act as some intentional act of defiance.  So much attention gets placed on dress that it is easy to forget that it is simply one piece of an entire religious world.  However, changes in dress and behavior have had tragic consequences for Muslim women, in the past and present.  An Arizona teen, Noor Almalaki, was killed in a hit-and-run by her own father for her increasing defiance of family tradition and adoption of American customs  (http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/latest/honor-killings-in-america).  Her father saw this as a means of saving his daughter, a final desperate act to protect her from the perils of American life.  I can make no real comment on the crime itself expect to say how sad and how horrifying it is.  I cannot generalize and say that this would not happen in other religious traditions, it certainly has in the past, but it is, as this article relates, certainly a lived reality for many Muslim women and girls, even if not taken to this extreme.

Final takeaway:  why is it that women or the subject of women is often a catalyst for heated debate and even change or evolution?  What is it about women that causes so much debate?

Until next time…

Sexuality and religion in America

Lydia Willsky

As I mentioned in my last blog, this entry is the second in a series dealing with current social issues in religion.  The subject of this post is sexuality.  Perhaps it is an overstatement, but it seems as if issues of sexuality, most specifically those dealing with gay, lesbian and transgender people, garner some of the most high-pitched battles on all levels of society from the private living room to the halls of our Federal Government.  Terms like "gay marriage" or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" are buzzwords in the media.  What is more, for many, sexuality is a religious matter more than anything else. 

Many view this as an issue.  Some officials, most recently from within the Southern Poverty Law Center (who recently listed 18 advocacy groups as anti-gay, http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/13-New-Organizations-Added-to-Anti-Gay-Hate-Groups-List-5921 ) have asserted that religion has nothing to do with the issue of sexuality, and to associate "hatespeak" with religious principles is how anti-gay or homophobic propaganda is spread.  In the words of one official, "When we go to the religious direction, we give these groups a chance to cover themselves." 

A question for all of my readers: Is sexuality a religious issue?  Why is or is not this categorization warranted?  What does religion bring to the table on such controversial issues as these mentioned?  How does it help or hinder the conversation?

In any case, religious language appears in almost every article written on contemporary questions of sexuality.  In some cases, blogs or initiatives have been spanned for the sole purpose of battling anti-gay statements in the name of religion and those anti-gay movements that have arisen from such statements, as is the case of truthwinsout.org whose byline is "Fighting Anti-Gay Lies and the Ex-Gay Myth."  Most recently truthwinsout.org wrote a scathing critique on Carl Jenkins, founder and bishop of Christ Central Christian Ministries Worldwide, who traveled to Africa to aid in the dire economic straits of its people.  While there, he is reported (see both http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2010/11/12974/ and http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/21/georgia-preacher-leads-anti-gay-crusade-in-uganda/ ) to have met with church leaders in Uganda in order to "discourage homosexuality" in Africa.  Jenkins himself, bases his views in the Bible (Leviticus is classically the book referred to), but is clear in his advocacy for a "holistic" approach to homosexuality, discouraging violence or political action against gay people.  What the author of the truthwinsout.org article takes issue with is that in his opinion all anti-gay speak is violent by nature.

What is your take on this?  Should a man like Jenkins be enabled to speak his mind to his congregation and those outside? Or is anti-gay language by nature violent or "hatespeak" and therefore should be censored?  Do issues of free speech and civil rights clash here? 

Of course, not all those using religion to back their claims are anti-gay.  Some are using the same language, the same Scriptures to speak out for equality and benevolence to those who are openly gay as well as those who have not come out.  Faith in America, founded by Mitchell Gold in 2005 along with Rev. Jimmy Creech, stripped of his orders after having presided over a gay union in 1999, and Brent Childers, a professedly conservative evangelical Christian, is an association whose purpose is to educate the public about the harm done by religious based gay-bashing.  In a controversial billboard campaign, Faith in America presented verses of the Bible stating the acceptance of gay people by Jesus and his religion.  Billboards sported verses such as "Jesus said some are born gay (Matthew 19:10-12)."  Though not a literal translation, the verses selected are meant to reflect the opinions of those like Childers, that the Bible should be read not literally but for its overall message, which to him is one of acceptance and generosity of spirit.  (Read more at http://sdgln.com/news/2010/09/03/faith-america-non-profit-confronts-religion-based-bigotry). 

The broad educational campaign used by Faith in America is one means of disseminating a message of tolerance over against ignorance.  Humor is another means.  At least that is the tack of Bryan Butvidas and Kirwin Watson, developers and administrators of Christwire.org.  At first glance, the site appears to be a haven for those of a right-wing conservative or fundamentalist persuasion.  However, upon perusing some of the articles, entitled "Soviet Russians Fire Missile Over California, Days After UFO Over Centreville DC" or "Is My Husband Gay?" (an article that provides a list of "signs" one's husband may be gay like, "gym membership but no interest in sports" or "love of pop culture"; http://christwire.org/2010/08/is-my-husband-gay/ ) it becomes clear that the site is a farce. Though this site is not specifically devoted to discussing issues of sexuality, in a recent New York Times article Butvidas and Watson state its purpose as an attempt to startle those who are complacent in their views, including those that are anti-Muslim, anti-big government, and yes, anti-gay.  (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/us/04beliefs.html?_r=3&src=me).

What do you think of the methods of both Faith in America and Christwire.org?  How do you think they will be received?  What works in your opinion?  What would you change?

Finally, it would not be a post about sexuality, without presenting one article dealing with one of the hot button issues in American religion at the moment: gay marriage.  This summer the ban on gay marriage in California known as Proposition 8 was overturned by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, calling it "unconstitutional."  In an opinion piece printed in the Charlotte Observer (South Carolina), the author compares the reversal of Prop 8 with other pivotal events such as the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 that gave women the vote (STILL cannot believe how recent that seems) and the Civil Rights Movement of the '60s that called for greater equality between whites and blacks (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/08/08/1608600/taking-a-big-step-toward-true.html).  These sorts of comparisons are being drawn increasingly into the fight for marriage equality, often as a means to drown out the claims made by those that gay marriage is an "abomination in God's eyes."  In this way, proponents of gay marriage bring the fight to politics: but will it ever be out of the reach of religious voices?

Do you see this as a sign of things to come?  Will the overturn in one state mean more states will begin to allow gay marriage?  What is significance of making gay marriage a civil rights issue?

Things to think about.  Until next time…

Religion and being 'green'

Lydia Willsky

Green.  Had you asked people to conjure up associations to this word a quarter of a century ago, what would they have been?  Grass?  Tea? The Hulk? Kermit?  Now this word is possibly the most prominent buzzword sweeping over all forms of virtual, print and visual media and it has one specific association: those initiatives intended to help clean and protect our planet from the myriad threats it faces from energy output, environmental and manmade toxins and general misuse.  Green is the thing to be nowadays.  Or at least it’s the thing to discuss and debate in all venues political, economic, social and even, religious.

Thus, this blog entry is dedicated to the third and final topical subject “du jour”, religion and being “green” (the last two were entries dealing with the relationship of religion to gender and to sexuality, respectively).

Side question: Of the three topics introduced, which in your opinion is the one that needs to be dealt with first, i.e. which has priority in your mind?  Which is the most controversial? Which is the one you are the most sick of hearing about and why?  Thoughts, please.

Overall, there seem to be two thrusts to the media coverage of religion and the environment.  First of all are those news pieces, editorials, and blogs discussing dialogues, discourses and green initiatives being undertaken within religious communities, churches, synagogues, mosques, etc…  Secondly, much of the media speculation also appears to concern what is being coined the “green religion,” as in devotion to saving the environment as a religion in and of itself.  We will get to both herein.

As to the first of the two topics, it appears environmental discourse is on the rise among religious people and institutions in the United States.  In one instance, Ibrahim Abdul-Matin, a policy advisor in New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office, wrote and published a book entitled Green Deen: What Islam Teaches About Protecting the Planet.  Abdul-Matin’s goal in writing such a book is both to “rebrand Muslims from terrorists to environmentalists” and to provide scriptural and legal references from Islam that mandate the protection of the earth.  This article also reveals his desire to reach across religious lines to illustrate commonalities between Islam and other religious traditions when it comes to views on the sacredness of the earth. (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/16/author-wants-to-rebrand-muslims-from-terrorists-to-environmentalists/).

Do you think that the green movement provides a means to reach across the divide between various religious traditions, especially perhaps Christianity and Islam?  Would this be effective, why or why not?  What is the benefit or deterrent for the green movement having the backing of various religious traditions?

In an editorial in the “On Faith” section of the Washington Post, Rev. Dr. Rebecca Parker, a self-described “progressive person of faith,” described the need of Christians to have a “rebirth of reverence for life here and now on planet earth,” to stop preparing for a spiritual future only at the expense of a healthy and vibrant present (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/
oil_spill_spirituality_the_environment_end_times_theology.html).  What prompted her to speak out was her viewing of a sermon given by a TV preacher telling Christians to avoid green initiatives and eschew the rhetoric of environmentalists for fear that such things would stifle religious and economic freedom, but most significantly, stymie the coming of the End Times.  Premillennialism (or End-Time theology) puts emphasis on the future rather than the present, viewing the planet’s environmental woes as part of the ensuing chaos that precedes the Rapture and final trials and tribulations of Armageddon before the eventual arrival of Christ (for more on premillennialism or “dispensationalism” see Charles Lippy’s Introducing American Religion, Chs. 11-12). 

There are others like this TV preacher who are speaking out against environmentalism because of its “brainwashing” capacity, a quality which campaigns like “Not Evil, Just Wrong” intend to combat by seeking to inform Americans of the natural causes of global warming and argue against the human activity. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kevin-mooney/2009/10/19/anti-human-environmentalism-jeopardizes-civil-rights-american-freedom-; http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/home).  In fact, I was personally shocked at the long list of blogs disputing environmentalism in general and the role of religious institutions in environmental initiatives specifically.  Not that they exist per se, but rather that they appear to far outnumber those blogs espousing religiously motivated “greening.” 

What is your take on this?  Does this surprise you or does it fit what you feel to be the general climate surrounding religion and the environment?  Why or why not?

Some of the vehemence toward green initiatives by its opponents can most likely be explained by the fact that the green movement is being called a “religion” in its own right.  There are those who see this as an attempt to eclipse their own religious traditions in the priorities and hearts of the American people.  Several blogs see environmentalism as one stepping stone on the path to socialism or communism.  One Christian writer makes the point of parsing “progressive” ecology from Christian ecology, the latter she states as her preference, while referring to the former as part of the “green cult.”  (http://americaneedsfatima.blogspot.com/2010/08/green-religion-from-communism-to-cave.html; see also http://pepperedwithsalt.blogspot.com/2010/11/church-in-america-and-adopting-religion.html)

There are some however who view this new type of national or “civil religion” as a positive (to steal a phrase from Robert Bellah, see Introducing American Religion, Ch. 14).  One blogger writes critically about America as a latecomer to the religion of environmentalism, seeing its focus on consumerism as hindering efforts at greening America.  The blogger continues, asking the American government to take a inspiration from Hinduism, which places a great deal of emphasis on “reverence for nature” and scorns wastefulness or more recently Catholicism, which has, according to the blogger, named pollution a “moral sin.” (http://www.fabamp.com/fab-amp/527).  It is important to add that both Hinduism and Buddhism have long been known for their respectful association with nature.  Also, one need not only look East for traditions devoted to nature.  Native American religious traditions grew out of and sustained a deep and mutually edifying relationship with nature- our original American environmentalists.

Still others are more objective, even cautioning against the appropriation of religious rhetoric by both those for and against a progressive environmentalism.  One writer indicates that although religious metaphors may be useful in describing both the environmental movement and the fate of the planet itself, the true task at hand “will be to draw on the core truths of the environmental message while adapting them to the full scientific and economic complexities of the 21st century.” (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/new-religion-of-environmentalism-484726.html).

Does religious rhetoric cloud the issues at hand?  Do you think it applies to the situation at hand?  Why or why not? 

I leave you with that.  Until next time folks…

“Sacred Texts”

Lydia Willsky

In the beginning, there was the Word. 

Got your attention, eh? 

Of course, I do not write that just for its attention-grabbing qualities, but because it is a phrase that most Americans can immediately identify as sounding biblical.  Ultimately, from “the beginning” of this country, even before we became a nation of united States, the Word, the Bible, the Good Book has been infused in our culture and our cultural vocabulary.  The Puritans came here to practice “primitive” religion (see Charles Lippy, Introducing American Religion, Ch.2, for more information on this term), which translated meant biblical religion.  They sought historical precedent for every action from their sacred text. 

It certainly did not stop there of course.  How many of you, my readers, have heard the phrase “because that’s what it says in the Bible” as an answer to any number of questions as to a person’s actions, beliefs or principles?  The Bible has been used as an authoritative source for every piece of evidence, intention or thought that can be imagined.

Think back: what are some of the things people have spoken about, defended, etc., using the Bible as their source?  How did they use the Bible?  What did you think about their argument?

However, in the pluralistic society of today, the Bible is joined by more sacred texts than can be honestly counted.  Almost every religion comes equipped with some form of sacred text.  From the big religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism to newer religions like Scientology, Christian Science, Raelianism, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which is or is not, depending upon who you ask, part of the larger body of Christianity), sacred texts form a foundational part of these religious traditions and their sense of identity.  Being people of “the book” no longer necessarily means being a Christian or following the Bible.

There are really two sacred texts in particular that have made headlines recently, notably, the Bible and the Quran.

The Bible seems to be a constant topic of conservation in all forms of public matters, politics, education, even technology.  One article entitled “Putting faith in technology, literally” describes how the Bible has been created as an iPhone app by Lifechurch.tv and has been downloaded more than 18 million times. The Bible is not alone in this, of course: other sacred texts, prayer books and missals are also available instantaneously via an array of new gadgets.  “It’s not replacing religion,” Barry Schwartz says of his downloadable Hebrew prayer book, but rather “it gives [Jews] the ability to basically make their daily task of being a Jewish person.” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/24/sunday/main20056841.shtml). 

What do you think of this trend of having sacred texts available through phones, iPods, etc…?  Does it “replace religion” or does it aid religious observance as Schwartz says?  What are the upsides?  What are the downsides?

There always seems to be something brewing with the Bible and politics.  In a recent article in the Huffington Post, Frank Schaeffer, author of the book Sex, Mom and God, talks about his fears that Americans over-reliance on the Bible as the sole source of political or social knowledge makes them uninformed as voters- he says so in much more scathing terms than I do here, but I digress.  Most pointedly he notes how ignorance has become a virtue in America (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/the-biblical-root-of-amer_b_852838.html).  Another article notes, ironically, that atheists, agnostics, alongside Jews and Latter-day Saints, actually know more about the Bible than the average Christian in America.  The article reports on a pew survey taken on 3,400 adult Americans that asked multiple questions to test people’s knowledge about the text itself.  The results are certainly interesting. (http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/question+about+Bible+atheist/4149109/story.html ).

What do you think of Schaeffer’s assessment?  Is it fair? Unjust?  Thoughts, people.  Also, what do you think of the second claim, that agnostics and atheists are the most informed about the Bible?  Do you think this is accurate? Exaggerated?  Further, is knowledge of the Bible the best measure of religious observance?  What do you think?

From Christianity and the Bible, we move now to Islam and the Quran.  Or really, to the intersection of the two traditions, because the story that has splashed across most media outlets over the last month or so was the Quran burning perpetrated by an American Baptist minister.  Gainesville, Fla. Pastor Terry Jones made headlines on March 20 after he literally put the Quran on trial for events like 9/11 and movements like Islamic fundamentalism.  Following the trial, the Quran was promptly burned for its purported “crimes.”  The response to the act, as we may have guessed, was swift and emotionally-charged.  Demonstrations occurred throughout the Middle East.  In Afghanistan, twelve U.N aid workers were killed and many Afghanis injured in the process.  Rev. Jones spoke out against such acts of violence, even as he denied any responsibility in sparking them.  Public figures like President Obama and Senator John Kerry spoke out against both the acts of retaliatory violence overseas and the act of the Quran-burning itself, asking Rev. Jones to be accountable for his actions. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-04-03-quran_burning_pastor_02_ST_N.htm?csp=34news or http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Legislators-Condemn-Quran-Burning-Violent-Reaction-119148959.html ).

Further, Christians living in primarily Muslim countries have spoken out against the Quran burning as well.  A human rights organization held a press conference on March 23, 2011 where they condemned the follow-up burning of the Quran by Wayne Sapp (also in Florida).  “Professor Anjum James Paul, direction of the SHADOW Organization, told the ASSIST News Service, ‘The press conference that we helped to organize on behalf of our Christian brethren, is a proof that the burning of the Holy Quran is the act of an individual.  We, the Pakistani Muslims and Christians, will live peacefully together respecting the religions of each other.  We equally respect the Holy Bible and the Holy Quran.’” (http://continentalnews.net/christian-news/pakistani-christians-condemn-burning-of-quran-by-florida-pastor-7369.html)

What is more, Christians, Muslims and voices from many other religions have joined a chorus of those condemning the mock trial and burning of the Quran, petitioning Jones and those with similar worldviews to examine their own sacred text, namely the Bible, for a message of peace and compassion. (See for example http://annistonstar.com/view/full_story_religion/12715816/article-Religion-Roundtable--After-the-Quran-burning?instance=1st_left)

What is your take on these events- specifically the trial and burning of the Quran and the reaction that has come about as a result from a variety of religious groups?

I leave you with that until next time…

List of Relevant Films

Arranged by Topic:

Native American/Religion

Black Robe (1991)

Squanto: A Warrior’s Tale (1994)

The Last of the Mohicans (1992)

Dances with Wolves

African American/Religion/Civil War

The Green Pastures (1936)

Malcolm X (1992)

Amistad (1997)

Glory

Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1927)

Colonial religion/Puritan

Plymouth Adventure (1952)

The Scarlet Letter (1995)

The Crucible (1996)

The New World (2005)

Religion and the Revolution

“John Adams” (2008)

“The Revolutionary War” (1995) (Documentary)

Judaism

Sunshine (1999)

The Chosen (1981)

The Believer (2001) (anti-semitism)

Catholicism

Angela’s Ashes (1999)

Doubt

Gangs of New York

The Godfather

World War II/Cold War

Good Night and Good Luck

Joyeux Noel

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Evangelical Religion/Revivalism/Fundamentalism/Charismatic

There Will Be Blood (2007)

Marjoe (1972) revival documentary

The Calling (2002)

Elmer Gantry (1960)

The Apostle (1997)

Inherit the Wind (1960)

Billy Graham: God’s Ambassador (2006)

Saved!

Jesus Camp

Left Behind

New Religious Movements/Modern Religious Diversity

Gran Turino

Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple (2006)

Battlefield Earth (Scientology)

American Piety (2008) (Buddhism/pluralism in America)

Islam

American Psyche (2007)

Allah and America (2010)

Divided We Fall: Americans in the Aftermath (2006)

Miscellaneous:

September Dawn (2006) (Church of Latter-Day Saints)

“Big Love” (Church of Latter-Day Saints/fundamentalist offshoot)

“Angels in America” (LDS/millennialism)

The Shakers: Hands to Work, Hearts to God (1984) (Shakers)

Witness (Amish/Pennsylvania Dutch)

Friendly Persuasion (1956) (Quakers)