Advertisement

Abstract

Continuities in the social history of American religion are so significant and so obvious that competent pictures of relationships between religion and the remainder of society drawn by skilled observers a century or more ago are still valid. Thus the general pattern remains much the same as it was in the new nation in the 1830’s when Tocqueville wrote,1 but many of the details have changed. The United States has grown from obscurity into a position of international leadership. The tides of immigration, reaching their highest flow from 188o to 1920, multiplied the variety of peoples and of religions. The growth of legal traditions, especially through the accumulation of case law, has clarified the nature of religion in relationship to other institutions. The complexity of formal social organization increased vastly with population growth, urbanization, and political differentiation as the nation changed from an agrarian to an urban-industrial society.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Referenzen

  1. 1.
    Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (New York: J. and H. G. Langley, 2 volumes, 1840) .Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clifton E. Olmstead, Religion in America: Past and Present (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), p. 1.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Similar analyses could be made of the relationships of religion to science, social welfare, family life, the economic order, the normative system of ideologies, laws, mores, and folkways, social stratification, mass communications, etc.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Franklin H. Littell, From State Church to Pluralism (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1962), p. 5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ibid., pp. 18–21; Olmstead, Religion in America, pp. 41–48; and H. Richard Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism (Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1957), pp. 148–152.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cf. William Warren Sweet, in: Cultural Pluralism in the American Tradition, American Culture and Religion (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1951), pp. 1–30, and Wm. Warren Sweet, Religion in the Development of American Culture, 1765–1840 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1952), pp. 1–53.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The last disestablishment occurred in Massachusetts in 1833.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Talcott Parsons, Structure and Process in Modern Societies (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960), p. 296.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibid., pp. 305–306.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benson Y. Landis, editor, Yearbook of American Churches 1963 (New York: National Council of Churches, 1963), p. 271.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ralph Lord Roy, Apostles of Discord (Boston: Beacon Press, 1953), pp. 185–202.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    David O. Moberg, The Church as a Social Institution (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962), pp. 246–251. See also Ross W. Sanderson, Church Cooperation in the United States (New York: Association of Council Secretaries, 1961).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cf. C. H. Dodd, G. R. Cragg, and Jacques Ellul, More Than Doctrine Divides the Churches: Social and Cultural Factors in Church Divisions (New York: World Council of Churches, 1952) .Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Papers presented at the conference are published in Mathew Ahmann, editor, Race: Challenge to Religion (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1963).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ed., A Protestant Columnist, Commonweal, 77:377, January 4, 1963. Cf. Brown’s first contribution, Catholic Journal, Protestant Columnist, ibid., p. 388. Dr. Brown was formerly Auburn Professor of Religion at Union Theological Seminary.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bernhard E. Olson, Faith and Prejudice (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1963).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rabbi Calls on Jews to Revise View of Jesus (UPI), St. Paul Dispatch, November 18, 1963, p. 32.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rabbi Arthur Gilbert, Rolfe Lanier Hunt, and Father Walter M. Abbott, S. J., editors, Bible Selections for General Education (New York: Harper and Row, 1963).Google Scholar
  19. 10.
    Among other things, Graham said in addressing the audience of 1,500 priests, seminarians, and novices that reforms initiated by the late Pope John XXIII have produced “new understanding that might bring a great Christian revolution”. (Priests Hear Billy Graham (AP), St. Paul Dispatch, November 19,1963.)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    It is not our purpose to discuss here the theological doctrines which are equally significant. As Christian and Jewish theological leaders seek to discern the basic essentials of their faith, they are drawn into an emphasis upon the nature of man and of God, however abstrusely their conclusions may be stated. Focusing upon the essence of their religion makes them recognize the similarities of their conclusions to those of other scholars, and thus theology sometimes helps to break down barriers between groups. (This is not to deny that it often accentuates the differences between them.) In addition, within each of the specific theologies which have been developed within Christianity are basic positions upon which persons from many denominations agree, and the Bible incorporates a strong plea for Christian unity. Theological ”renewal“ has thus contributed to the ecumenical movement, but even these theological trends are largely a product of sociological forces.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cf. Editorial, Review and Outlook: The Seekers of Unity, Wall Street Journal, October 8, 1962, p. 12.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dayton W. Roberts, Protestant-Catholic Dialogue, The Sunday School Times, 105:149,152, March 2, 1963.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moberg, The Church as a Social Institution, p. 261.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Richard D. N. Dickinson, Reflections on a Dialogue, A Journal of Church and State, 4: 83–91, May 1962.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dr. Alvin N. Rogness (President, Luther Theological Seminary), as quoted by James George, Ecumenical Peril to Church Cited, St. Paul Dispatch, November 18, 1963, p. 12.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    James E. Wood, Jr., Editorial: Interfaith Dialogue, A Journal of Church and State, 4:7, May 1962.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    The term “conflict” is used here in its sociological sense, which includes all forms of opposition, competition, dissociation, and avoidance. In America it occurs within the framework of the democratic political process.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    For bibliographical materials see M. Searle Bates, Religious Liberty (New York: International Missionary Council, 1945), pp. 583–596; M. Searle Bates, A Select List of Books on Religious Liberty, Church and State, published 1945–1959; Occasional Bulletin (New York: Missionary Research Library), vol. 1o, no. 6, pp. 6–19, July 15, 1959; and Nelson R. Burr with James Ward Smith and A. Leland Jamison, editons, A Critical Bibliography of Religion in America (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 2 vols., 1961).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    This was a major factor leading to establishment of the separate Roman Catholic parochial schools. The Holy Scriptures read were generally from the Protestant King James Version, and Catholic dogma also held that religion should be taught only by proper religious authorities. In the second quarter of the nineteenth century the strongest voluntarily supported church-related school system in the world arose as Roman Catholics erected their own institutions alongside the public schools. The controversy linked with the drive to obtain public funds to assist in the operation of these schools will be discussed below.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Richard B. Dierenfield, Religion in American Public Schools (Washington, D. C.: Public Affairs Press, 1962), pp. 17–25.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ibid., pp. 39–90. Cf. Robert T. Anderson, Religion in the Michigan Public Schools, School and Society, 87:227–229, May 9, 1959.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Before the U. S. Supreme Court: Prayers and Bible Reading in the Public Schools (New York, Institute of Human Relations, The American Jewish Committee, 1963), PP. 6–7.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
    Ernst Christian Helmreich, Religion and the Maine Schools (Brunswick, Maine: Bureau for Research in Municipal Government, 1960), p. 73.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Donald E. Boles, The Bible, Religion, and the Public Schools (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1961), pp. 58–135.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    For an excellent summary and interpretation, see Leo Pfeffer, The New York Regents’ Prayer Case, A Journal of Church and State, 5:150–158, November 1962. The 1963 case and other relevant materials are presented in Arthur Frommer, editor, The Bible and the Public Schools (New York: Pocket Books, 1963).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    See: Children Still Pray in School, Life, vol. 55, no. 19, November 8,1963, pp. 53–56.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leo Pfeffer, The Schempp-Murray Decision on School Prayers and Bible Reading, A Journal of Church and State, 5:165–175, November 1963. See also: Text of Supreme Court Decision on School Prayers and Bible Reading, ibid., pp. 280–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    C. Emanuel Carlson, How Much Religious Litigation Do We Want? Report from the Capitol, vol. 17, no. 7, September-November 1962, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dierenfield, Religion in American Public Schools, pp. 22, 38.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Theodore Powell, The School Bus Law (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1960).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Since each state has its own constitution, what is legal in one state may be illegal in another.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    For instance, in May 1963 Catholic parents in Missouri protested refusal of the state legislature to provide public school bus transportation by temporarily sending their children to public schools where makeshift accommodations had to be provided for them. (Public schools cannot legally refuse to enroll children who reside in their attendance districts.)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Thomas J. Fleming, The Crisis in Catholic Schools, Post, vol. 236, no. 37, October 26, 1963, pp. 19–25; Jack Star, Trouble Ahead for the Catholic Schools, Look, vol. 27, no. 21, October 22, 1963, pp. 37–40.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    William Gorman, A Case of Distributive Justice, in Robert Gordis et al., Religion and the Schools (New York: The Fund for the Republic, 1959), P. 34.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ibid., PP. 34–63.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Robert F. Creegan, Quality and Freedom Through Pluralism, School and Society, 87:248–251, May 23, 1959. For a summary of opposing viewpoints on these and related issues see Philip Jacobson, Religion in Public Education (New York: The American Jewish Committee, rev. ed., 1963).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Robert M. Hutchins, A Liberal Calls for Aid to Church Schools, Post, vol. 236, no. 22, June 8,1963, pp. 6–8.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    George R. Lalloue, Public Funds for Parochial Schools? (New York: National Council of Churches, 1963), pp. 45–47. See also Leo Pfeffer, An Analysis of Federal Aid to Parochial Schools, A Journal of Church and State, 3:137–148, November, 1961, and: The Constitutionality of the Inclusion of Church-Related Schools in Federal Aid to Education: The Roman Catholic Viewpoint, ibid., 4 159–165, November, 1962.Google Scholar
  50. 5.
    5o Maryland Court Suit Seeks to Bar Use of Tax Funds by Church-Related Colleges, Higher Education and National Affairs, vol. 12, no. 31, September 13, 1963, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Moses Rischin, Our Own Kind: Voting by Race, Creed, or National Origin (Santa Barbara, California: Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 196o).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nearly all the popular and quality magazines dealing with current affairs carried articles in 1960 dealing with Catholicism and civil liberties, church and state, religion and politics, and related subjects. Bigoted right-wing extremists distributed millions of leaflets warning that religious liberty would end the day a Roman Catholic became president. Charges of bigotry were directed at both Catholics and Protestants during the campaign.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kenneth W. Underwood, Protestant and Catholic (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957).Google Scholar
  54. 544.
    See Moberg, The Church as a Social Institution, pp. 368–381.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Norman St. John-Stevas, Birth Control and Public Policy (Santa Barbara, California: Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 1960). See also Richard M. Fagley, The Population Explosion and Christian Responsibility (New York: Oxford University Press, 1960), and Alvah W. Sulloway, Birth Control and Catholic Doctrine (Boston: Beacon Press, 1959).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    John Rock, The Time Has Come (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, inc., 1963). See a comparable proposal by a Roman Catholic priest, John A. O’Brien, Let’s Take Birth Control out of Politics, Look, October io, 1961.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    See Gerald Grant, The Fauquier Hospital Sterilization Story, Background Reports (New York: National Council of Christians and Jews, January 1963).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    For more complete discussions of this topic see Moberg, The Church as a Social Institution, pp. 311–323; James S. Coleman, Social Cleavage and Religious Conflict, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 44–56, 1956; Don J. Hager, Introduction: Religious Conflict, ibid., 3—11; Charles Y. Glock, Issues That Divide: A Postscript, ibid., pp. 40–43, and the other references cited below.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Olson, Faith and Prejudice.Google Scholar
  60. 80.
    Robin M. Williams, Jr., has identified twenty types of divergences in the valueorientations of organized faith groupings in the U. S. in what he recognizes to be only a partial listing. (Religion, Value-Orientations, and Intergroup Conflict, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 12–20, 1956.)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Leo Pfeffer, Creeds in Competition (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958), p. 153.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gerhard Lenski, The Religious Factor (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday ana Co., 1961), pp. 17–19, 300–303, 310, and Underwood, Protestant and Catholic, pp. 168–185.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dean M. Kelley, Beyond Separation of Church and State, A Journal of Church and State, 5:181–198, November 1963. Evidence to support his claim includes the regular blessings of a publicly-paid chaplain in Congress; use of God’s name on coins and currency and in the pledge of allegiance to the flag; the requirement that all cadets in officer-training academies of the armed forces attend chapel every Sunday; mandatory orientation lectures on religious themes to men in military training; “nonsectarian” religious practices in public schools, and the common assumption in records of prisons, hospitals, the armed forces, adoption courts, etc., that everyone has a religion and that this religion is either Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    For empirical evidence see Paul H. Besanceney, S. J., Unbroken ProtestantCatholic Marriages Among Whites in the Detroit Area, American Catholic Sociological Review, 23:3–20, Spring 1963, and Erich Rosenthal, Studies of Jewish Intermarriage in the United States, in Morris Fine and Milton Himmelfarb, editors, American Jewish Yearbook 1963 (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1963), vol. 64, pp. 3–53.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Will Herberg, ProtestantCatholicJew (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday and Co., Anchor Books, rev. ed., 1960).Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Judith R. Kramer and Seymour Levantman, Children of the Gilded Ghetto (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962) .Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Eugene J. Lipman and Albert Vorspan, editors, A Tale of Ten Cities: The Triple Ghetto in American Religious Life (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1962) .Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Andrew M. Greeley, Some Aspects of Interaction Between Religious Groups in an Upper Middle Class Roman Catholic Parish, Social Compass, 9:39–61, no. 1–2, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ibid., pp. 45–46, and John W. Dykstra, Catholics as a Pluralistic Minority, Christian Century, 77:1212–1214, October 19,1960.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lenski, The Religious Factor, p. 303, and David O. Moberg, Religion and Society in the Netherlands and in America, American Quarterly, 13:172–178, Summer 1961 (reprinted in Social Compass, 9:11–19, no. 1–2,1962).Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lenski, ibid., pp. 288–308.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Cf. Responsibilities of Religious Freedom, The Dialogue, Bulletin No. 21, January 1963.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Philip Wogaman, The Changing Role of Government and the Myth of Separation, A Journal of Church and State, 5:61–76, May 1963 and Marshall Sklare, Ethnic-Religious Groups and Public Subsidized Pluralism, School and Society, 87:260–263, May 23, 1959.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Don J. Hager, Introduction: Religious Conflict, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 7, 1956.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Pfeffer, Creeds in Competition, pp. 166–167.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Reinhold Niebuhr, A Note on Pluralism, in John Cogley, editor, Religion in America (New York: Meridian Books, 1958), P. 44.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    See, e. g., The Statement of 165 Catholic Laymen on Religious Liberty, A Journal of Church and State, 2:161–162, November 1960; Moberg, The Church as a Social Institution, pp. 54–66; and Peter H. Odegard, editor, Religion and Politics (Rutgers, N. J.: Oceana Publications, 1960) .Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Since Protestantism is not truly united, it is usually fallacious to think of it as a unit. Although Protestants comprise 55 per cent of the nation’s church members, even without a correction factor for those denominations which do not count children in their statistics, they are divided into a large number of competing denominations. The largest single religious unit in the U. S. is the Roman Catholic Church with only about one-fourth of the population.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    William Clancy et al., Religion and American Society (Santa Barbara, California: Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 1961), pp. 55–58, 63.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    F. Ernest Johnson, A Problem of Culture, in Robert Gordis et al., Religion and the Schools (New York: The Fund for the Republic, 1959), p. 70.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Cf. Lowell J. Averill, In Defense of Christian Pluralism, Christian Century, 77:664–667, June 1, 1960.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Will Herberg, Religion in a Secularized Society, Review of Religious Research, 4:33–45, Fall 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    For further explanation of functional analysis, see Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, rev. ed., 1957), pp. 21–84, and Harry M. Johnson, Sociology: A Systematic Introduction (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1960), pp. 48–79.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lenski, The Religious Factor, pp. 296–297, 329, passim.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Clancy et al., Religion and American Society, pp. 36–37.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Pfeffer, Creeds in Competition, p. 155; Moberg, The Church as a Social Institution, pp. 300–316; John J. Kane, Catholic-Protestant Conflicts in America (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1955)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Robert Lekachman, The Perils of Power, in The Churches and the Public (Santa Barbara, California: Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 1960), p. 20.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    John W. Dykstra, Problems of a Religiously Pluralistic Society, Sociology and Social Research, 45:401–406, July 1961.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    J. Milton Yinger, Sociology Looks at Religion (New York: Macmillan Co., 1963), pp. 80–81.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Dykstra, Problems of a Religiously Pluralistic Society.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Lenski, The Religious Factor, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Clark E. Vincent, Interfaith Marriages: Problem or Symptom, in Jane C. Zahn, editor, Religion and the Face of America (Berkeley: University Extension, University of California, l950), pp. 67–87.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Cf. Pfeffer, Creeds in Competition, pp. 155–158, 167.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Reinhold Niebuhr, A Note on Pluralism, in John Cogley, editor, Religion in America (New York: Meridian Books, 1958), p. 48; Clancy et al., Religion and American Society, pp. 75–77; Robert Lekachman, An Unreligious View, in Gordis et. al., Religion and the Schools,pp. 88–89.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Clancy, et al., Religion and American Society, pp. 74–75.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Ibid., p. 75.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Yinger, Sociology Looks at Religion, pp. 80–81 and Moberg, The Church as a Social Institution, p. 316.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Moberg, Religion and Society in the Netherlands and in America.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Minor political parties arise occasionally and are active in the elections of many states, but they are relatively impotent on the national scene.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Robert F. Creegan, Quality and Freedom Through Pluralism, School and Society, 87:248–251, May 23, 1959.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Richard C. C. Kim, A Roman Catholic President in the American Schema, A Journal of Church and State, 3:33–40, May 1961. Cf. Daniel Boorstin, The Genius of American Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19s9).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Martin P. Chworowsky, Subsidized Pluralism: Its Implications for Intergroup Relations, School and Society, 87:257–260, May 23, 1959.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Leo Pfeffer, Creeds in Competition, pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    F. Ernest Johnson, A Problem of Culture, in Gordis et al., Religion and the Schools, p. 78.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Westdeutscher Verlag Köln und Opladen 1965

Authors and Affiliations

  • David O. Moberg

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations