Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I've always understood that there was a bit of a religious revival in the 50s, especially when it comes to politics, but I always thought it was a nationalist reaction to communism. However, I was surprised to learn the revival goes back a little further in time: corporate America, especially DuPont and GE, courting 10% of American ministers in order to fight the New Deal and propping up this notion that we're a "Christian Nation" (a term still used today).

I was listening to NPR this morning and they were re-running a great piece about this phenomenon, which Professor Kevin Kruse of Princeton wrote about:

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/396365659 ... us-revival

Kruse's book investigates how the idea of America as a Christian nation was promoted in the 1930s and '40s when industrialists and business lobbies, chafing against the government regulations of the New Deal, recruited and funded conservative clergy to preach faith, freedom and free enterprise. He says this conflation of Christianity and capitalism moved to center stage in the '50s under Eisenhower's watch.

I highly suggest listening to the full half-hour; the breadth of research and information is absolutely fascinating.

Perhaps this is a tangent, but many of the guys who founded the country were Freemasons. In masonic ritual, you will see a belief in a supreme being (or great architect of the universe) and an immortal soul, but not the word "God". The masons accept members from all religions, as long as the person believes in a supreme being.

I guess my point here was that yes, the "Under God" stuff was a later creation.

As a response to USSR style communism.

Jjoey52 wrote:As a response to USSR style communism.

Yeah because that was going to happen....
Conservative scare tactics is how God popped up on everything in the 50's

The end.... Next Thread/

93henfan wrote:Perhaps this is a tangent, but many of the guys who founded the country were Freemasons. In masonic ritual, you will see a belief in a supreme being (or great architect of the universe) and an immortal soul, but not the word "God". The masons accept members from all religions, as long as the person believes in a supreme being.

I guess my point here was that yes, the "Under God" stuff was a later creation.

Perhaps I titled the thread poorly, but the main assertion the research makes is that Christian values being the foundation of the US is actually a recent idea born from opposition to the New Deal (with "Under God" and the such being byproducts). And interestingly, this opposition was born from the collaboration of corporate America and the Churches.

And I agree with you. I wouldn't argue Masonic values, which require the belief of a deity, didn't influence the founding fathers' vision of America. Additionally, I wouldn't argue that those Masonic values weren't influenced by Christianity (what hasn't Christianity influenced?). But an argument against a nation based solely on Christian values is certainly valid. And the idea that it's based on Christian values is also more recent than some (many?) believe.

Great read, Trip, thanks!

I found this part especially interesting:

On the message the ministers conveyed

They use these ministers to make the case that Christianity and capitalism were soul mates. This case had been made before, but in the context of the New Deal it takes on a sharp new political meaning. Essentially they argue that Christianity and capitalism are both systems in which individuals rise and fall according to their own merits. So in Christianity, if you're good you go to heaven, if you're bad you go to hell. In capitalism if you're good you make a profit and you succeed, if you're bad you fail.

The New Deal, they argue, violates this natural order. In fact, they argue that the New Deal and the regulatory state violate the Ten Commandments. It makes a false idol of the federal government and encourages Americans to worship it rather than the Almighty. It encourages Americans to covet what the wealthy have; it encourages them to steal from the wealthy in the forms of taxation; and, most importantly, it bears false witness against the wealthy by telling lies about them. So they argue that the New Deal is not a manifestation of God's will, but rather, a form of pagan stateism and is inherently sinful. ..........................

On the Rev. James Fifield

He takes over the pastorate at the First Congregational Church in Los Angeles, an elite church, literally ministering to millionaires in his pews. It's got some of the town's most wealthy citizens — the mayor attends service there, [Hollywood filmmaker] Cecil B. DeMille. He tells these millionaires what they want to hear, which is that their worldly success is a sign of heavenly blessing. He has a very loose approach to the Bible. He says that reading the Bible should be like eating fish: We take out the bones to enjoy the meat; all parts are not of equal value. Accordingly, he disregarded Christ's many injunctions about the dangers of wealth, and instead preached a philosophy that wedded capitalism to Christianity.

We are literally not a christian nation, and we never have been.

This should in no way harm a person's freedom to worship. If these facts bother you, you are un-american and worship a very insecure god.

kalm wrote:

This image typifies America today. Too many Republicans are too far right and believe this crap, and too many Democrats are too far left with their own beliefs, like putting religion in the the closet. The minority are people in the middle with liberal social views and conservative views that people should get to keep what they earn and people should be able to express their religion without government interference. Neither party has conservative spending views.

Chizzang wrote:

Jjoey52 wrote:As a response to USSR style communism.

Yeah because that was going to happen....
Conservative scare tactics is how God popped up on everything in the 50's

The end.... Next Thread/

Let's not be revisionists when it comes to history here. It wasn't just in the 1950's when people were reacting against the growth of communism, it was pretty much for most of the 1900's that the world was responding to communism. Obviously Russia embodied a lot of that at the start of the century, but heck, even WW1 came to the conclusion that it did because the warring nations were starting to realize the growth of socialist and communistic elements in their own country and wanted the war done with as soon as possible so that they could stem this rise. You have the Palmer Raids in this country in the early 20's as well. And clearly there was a very real rise in communistic fervor following WW2, where communist Russia played a big role in the defeat of Germany and you saw widespread communistic victories in many countries, including France, directly following the war. Communism was a very real possibility in much of Europe at that time. It wasn't so much here in the US because fortunately we didn't suffer during the war like Europe did - we were pretty much intact and prosperous at the end of the war and there wasn't a desire to switch politics. In Europe, surrounded by rubble and desolation, communism was a very real alternative. Thankfully, the Marshall Plan put an end to that. I agree, they got carried away with the anti-communism stuff in the 50's and the 60's, but prior to that it wasn't just a made up fear that communism was going to spread far from where it was.

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Yeah because that was going to happen....
Conservative scare tactics is how God popped up on everything in the 50's

The end.... Next Thread/

Let's not be revisionists when it comes to history here. It wasn't just in the 1950's when people were reacting against the growth of communism, it was pretty much for most of the 1900's that the world was responding to communism. Obviously Russia embodied a lot of that at the start of the century, but heck, even WW1 came to the conclusion that it did because the warring nations were starting to realize the growth of socialist and communistic elements in their own country and wanted the war done with as soon as possible so that they could stem this rise. You have the Palmer Raids in this country in the early 20's as well. And clearly there was a very real rise in communistic fervor following WW2, where communist Russia played a big role in the defeat of Germany and you saw widespread communistic victories in many countries, including France, directly following the war. Communism was a very real possibility in much of Europe at that time. It wasn't so much here in the US because fortunately we didn't suffer during the war like Europe did - we were pretty much intact and prosperous at the end of the war and there wasn't a desire to switch politics. In Europe, surrounded by rubble and desolation, communism was a very real alternative. Thankfully, the Marshall Plan put an end to that. I agree, they got carried away with the anti-communism stuff in the 50's and the 60's, but prior to that it wasn't just a made up fear that communism was going to spread far from where it was.

You should both try reading the article that Trip posted. It has some good information too.

Chizzang wrote:

Jjoey52 wrote:As a response to USSR style communism.

Yeah because that was going to happen....
Conservative scare tactics is how God popped up on everything in the 50's

The end.... Next Thread/

As opposed to democrat scare tactics WRT "making abortion illegal" and "making church mandatory" if one of those dastardly Republicans gets into office!

Gil Dobie wrote:

kalm wrote:

This image typifies America today. Too many Republicans are too far right and believe this crap, and too many Democrats are too far left with their own beliefs, like putting religion in the the closet. The minority are people in the middle with liberal social views and conservative views that people should get to keep what they earn and people should be able to express their religion without government interference. Neither party has conservative spending views.

I don't believe we're the minority, Gil. Just not as easy to pin down, and not represented by either major party.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
This image typifies America today. Too many Republicans are too far right and believe this crap, and too many Democrats are too far left with their own beliefs, like putting religion in the the closet. The minority are people in the middle with liberal social views and conservative views that people should get to keep what they earn and people should be able to express their religion without government interference. Neither party has conservative spending views.

I don't believe we're the minority, Gil. Just not as easy to pin down, and not represented by either major party.

Here's a link to our favorite PEW Research group.

Pew Link

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Yeah because that was going to happen....
Conservative scare tactics is how God popped up on everything in the 50's

The end.... Next Thread/

Let's not be revisionists when it comes to history here.

I like your post, but I'm going to respond to your first sentence because it is wrong. Just plain wrong. History needs to be revised as new facts are discovered. Revisionists are important to history.

Revisionist history can be 1 of 2 things:

1) A distortion/denial of the facts, like people saying the Holocaust didn't exist or the Neo-Confederates that think the South was so righteous in their secession. The Nazi's were great at this. Really, this should be referred to as "negationism."

2) A scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge. This is necessary and good. This is a revision of our Historical Record. For instance, we know now that Columbus wasn't the first European to discover the New World. The historical record has been accurately revised to account for this (it also is starting to discuss his atrocities with regards to the indigenous people). We revise history due to new technology/science that has uncovered something previously unknown or misunderstood. We have access to new data (We revised history when Mark Felt was exposed as Deep Throat.) There are national and cultural aspects that skew the reality (The American Revolution vs The War of Independence). Understandings and interpretations get challenged. Lincoln has been greatly challenged in the late 20th Century. His speeches and actions towards blacks were ignored for so long. Now, people are starting to learn about his involvement in the American Colonization Society (i.e. send blacks to Africa or Panama). Heck, it used to be taught that Germany and Japan were the sole causes of WW2. We completely ignored our own involvement (Treaty of Versailles) but that is changing. Jefferson's relationship with Hemmings. The Dark Ages are being re investigated. Bodies are found and the record is changed. Ships are discovered. The history is changing with all the research being conducted on the HL Hunley.

So, don't simply say "revisionists" or "revisionist history" when referring to something you either don't agree or should more aptly refer to as "negationism." Revisionists is always referred to, on this site, as a negative when it's truly both.

EDIT: Might I add that the USSRs contribution to defeating the Nazi's was largely ignored or downplayed for so long but has recently (within the last 25-30 yrs) has begun to be appropriately taught.

/rant.

Ibanez wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Let's not be revisionists when it comes to history here.

I like your post, but I'm going to respond to your first sentence because it is wrong. Just plain wrong. History needs to be revised as new facts are discovered. Revisionists are important to history.

Revisionist history can be 1 of 2 things:

1) A distortion/denial of the facts, like people saying the Holocaust didn't exist or the Neo-Confederates that think the South was so righteous in their secession. The Nazi's were great at this. Really, this should be referred to as "negationism."

2) A scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge. This is necessary and good. This is a revision of our Historical Record. For instance, we know now that Columbus wasn't the first European to discover the New World. The historical record has been accurately revised to account for this (it also is starting to discuss his atrocities with regards to the indigenous people). We revise history due to new technology/science that has uncovered something previously unknown or misunderstood. We have access to new data (We revised history when Mark Felt was exposed as Deep Throat.) There are national and cultural aspects that skew the reality (The American Revolution vs The War of Independence). Understandings and interpretations get challenged. Lincoln has been greatly challenged in the late 20th Century. His speeches and actions towards blacks were ignored for so long. Now, people are starting to learn about his involvement in the American Colonization Society (i.e. send blacks to Africa or Panama). Heck, it used to be taught that Germany and Japan were the sole causes of WW2. We completely ignored our own involvement (Treaty of Versailles) but that is changing. Jefferson's relationship with Hemmings. The Dark Ages are being re investigated. Bodies are found and the record is changed. Ships are discovered. The history is changing with all the research being conducted on the HL Hunley.

So, don't simply say "revisionists" or "revisionist history" when referring to something you either don't agree or should more aptly refer to as "negationism." Revisionists is always referred to, on this site, as a negative when it's truly both.

EDIT: Might I add that the USSRs contribution to defeating the Nazi's was largely ignored or downplayed for so long but has recently (within the last 25-30 yrs) has begun to be appropriately taught.

/rant.

Cool story, bro, but I wasn't posting that I disagreed with the position, I was posting that I disagreed with the statement of fact and hence that revision of history. I'm fine with revising history when the facts point that way, but I don't see how the facts don't point to communism and the spread of it being a very real thing in the 1900's, and heck, maybe the defining theme of foreign relations in the 1900's.

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: I like your post, but I'm going to respond to your first sentence because it is wrong. Just plain wrong. History needs to be revised as new facts are discovered. Revisionists are important to history.

Revisionist history can be 1 of 2 things:

1) A distortion/denial of the facts, like people saying the Holocaust didn't exist or the Neo-Confederates that think the South was so righteous in their secession. The Nazi's were great at this. Really, this should be referred to as "negationism."

2) A scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge. This is necessary and good. This is a revision of our Historical Record. For instance, we know now that Columbus wasn't the first European to discover the New World. The historical record has been accurately revised to account for this (it also is starting to discuss his atrocities with regards to the indigenous people). We revise history due to new technology/science that has uncovered something previously unknown or misunderstood. We have access to new data (We revised history when Mark Felt was exposed as Deep Throat.) There are national and cultural aspects that skew the reality (The American Revolution vs The War of Independence). Understandings and interpretations get challenged. Lincoln has been greatly challenged in the late 20th Century. His speeches and actions towards blacks were ignored for so long. Now, people are starting to learn about his involvement in the American Colonization Society (i.e. send blacks to Africa or Panama). Heck, it used to be taught that Germany and Japan were the sole causes of WW2. We completely ignored our own involvement (Treaty of Versailles) but that is changing. Jefferson's relationship with Hemmings. The Dark Ages are being re investigated. Bodies are found and the record is changed. Ships are discovered. The history is changing with all the research being conducted on the HL Hunley.

So, don't simply say "revisionists" or "revisionist history" when referring to something you either don't agree or should more aptly refer to as "negationism." Revisionists is always referred to, on this site, as a negative when it's truly both.

EDIT: Might I add that the USSRs contribution to defeating the Nazi's was largely ignored or downplayed for so long but has recently (within the last 25-30 yrs) has begun to be appropriately taught.

/rant.

Cool story, bro, but I wasn't posting that I disagreed with the position, I was posting that I disagreed with the statement of fact and hence that revision of history. I'm fine with revising history when the facts point that way, but I don't see how the facts don't point to communism and the spread of it being a very real thing in the 1900's, and heck, maybe the defining theme of foreign relations in the 1900's.

I'm just putting it out there, revisionists get a bad rap when really they shouldn't. I agree with your post (did I say that? If not I do) I just wanted to put it out there about the 2 types of revisionism since i'm always referred to as one when I dare to use facts to go against something some people hold so dear.

Ibanez wrote: For instance, we know now that Columbus wasn't the first European to discover the New World. The historical record has been accurately revised to account for this (it also is starting to discuss his atrocities with regards to the indigenous people).

I despise when this shit is brought up. Columbus did what Columbus did, and his treatment of indigenous peoples was considered normal and customary for the time. It wasn't like he was some "one-off" psychotic a-hole who did shit NOBODY else did. IT WAS THE WAY IT WAS. We really need to stop putting people from the 1400's and 1500's through our 2000's moral compass and judging them that way.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: For instance, we know now that Columbus wasn't the first European to discover the New World. The historical record has been accurately revised to account for this (it also is starting to discuss his atrocities with regards to the indigenous people).

I despise when this shit is brought up. Columbus did what Columbus did, and his treatment of indigenous peoples was considered normal and customary for the time. It wasn't like he was some "one-off" psychotic a-hole who did shit NOBODY else did. IT WAS THE WAY IT WAS. We really need to stop putting people from the 1400's and 1500's through our 2000's moral compass and judging them that way.

I agree that we shouldn't necessarily judge a 15th century explorer with modern views and morals. But we shouldn't ignore what he did. It's part of the story. His story. History.

Ibanez wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Cool story, bro, but I wasn't posting that I disagreed with the position, I was posting that I disagreed with the statement of fact and hence that revision of history. I'm fine with revising history when the facts point that way, but I don't see how the facts don't point to communism and the spread of it being a very real thing in the 1900's, and heck, maybe the defining theme of foreign relations in the 1900's.

I'm just putting it out there, revisionists get a bad rap when really they shouldn't. I agree with your post (did I say that? If not I do) I just wanted to put it out there about the 2 types of revisionism since i'm always referred to as one when I dare to use facts to go against something some people hold so dear.

I think revisionists do deserve the rap they get sometimes. It's fine to challenge the prevailing thought, but a lot of times that's done by ignoring the facts that truly do go against what they're trying to change. It's more often the case that the revisionism goes wrong when it's a political motive for the revising.

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

I'm just putting it out there, revisionists get a bad rap when really they shouldn't. I agree with your post (did I say that? If not I do) I just wanted to put it out there about the 2 types of revisionism since i'm always referred to as one when I dare to use facts to go against something some people hold so dear.

I think revisionists do deserve the rap they get sometimes. It's fine to challenge the prevailing thought, but a lot of times that's done by ignoring the facts that truly do go against what they're trying to change. It's more often the case that the revisionism goes wrong when it's a political motive for the revising.

Putting politics into the mix will most certainly make something go wrong.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I despise when this shit is brought up. Columbus did what Columbus did, and his treatment of indigenous peoples was considered normal and customary for the time. It wasn't like he was some "one-off" psychotic a-hole who did shit NOBODY else did. IT WAS THE WAY IT WAS. We really need to stop putting people from the 1400's and 1500's through our 2000's moral compass and judging them that way.

I agree that we shouldn't necessarily judge a 15th century explorer with modern views and morals. But we shouldn't ignore what he did. It's part of the story. His story. History.

No, we shouldn't ignore it. But making him out to be some kind of monster because of it is BS. Sure, he's a monster in today's mamby-pamby, politically correct world. But not back when men were men.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: I agree that we shouldn't necessarily judge a 15th century explorer with modern views and morals. But we shouldn't ignore what he did. It's part of the story. His story. History.

No, we shouldn't ignore it. But making him out to be some kind of monster because of it is BS. Sure, he's a monster in today's mamby-pamby, politically correct world. But not back when men were men.

Gil Dobie wrote:This image typifies America today. Too many Republicans are too far right and believe this crap, and too many Democrats are too far left with their own beliefs, like putting religion in the the closet. The minority are people in the middle with liberal social views and conservative views that people should get to keep what they earn and people should be able to express their religion without government interference. Neither party has conservative spending views.

I'm not sure I agree that the middle is a minority. We do have quite a few people like Kalm, Cleets and Jon who are off the deep end, but there are more folks like me in the middle.

89Hen wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:This image typifies America today. Too many Republicans are too far right and believe this crap, and too many Democrats are too far left with their own beliefs, like putting religion in the the closet. The minority are people in the middle with liberal social views and conservative views that people should get to keep what they earn and people should be able to express their religion without government interference. Neither party has conservative spending views.

I'm not sure I agree that the middle is a minority. We do have quite a few people like Kalm, Cleets and Jon who are off the deep end, but there are more folks like me in the middle.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
No, we shouldn't ignore it. But making him out to be some kind of monster because of it is BS. Sure, he's a monster in today's mamby-pamby, politically correct world. But not back when men were men.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
This image typifies America today. Too many Republicans are too far right and believe this crap, and too many Democrats are too far left with their own beliefs, like putting religion in the the closet. The minority are people in the middle with liberal social views and conservative views that people should get to keep what they earn and people should be able to express their religion without government interference. Neither party has conservative spending views.

I don't believe we're the minority, Gil. Just not as easy to pin down, and not represented by either major party.