Despite the separation of church and state set out in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, religion has been an important part of politics for much of the country’s history. But are the softening views towards gay marriage and the acceptance of greater religious diversity among political candidates signalling a change in American religious attitudes? USApp Editor, Chris Gilson talks to Thomas A. Tweed, the Harold and Martha Welch Endowed Chair in American Studies at the University of Notre Dame, and president-elect of the American Academy of Religion, about religion and how its role in contemporary American society may be evolving

Tweed, Thomas A.

LSE Research Online

blogs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/02/13/five-minutes-with-thomas-tweed/Five minutes with Thomas Tweed: “We might see a Muslim,Hindu, Jewish, or Buddhist U.S. president before we see anavowed atheist.”Despite the separation of church and state set out in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,religion has been an important part of politics for much of the country’s history. But are thesoftening views towards gay marriage and the acceptance of greater religious diversity amongpolitical candidates signalling a change in American religious attitudes? USApp Editor, ChrisGilson talks to Thomas A. Tweed , the Harold and Martha Welch Endowed Chair in AmericanStudies at the University of Notre Dame, and president-elect of the American Academy ofReligion, about religion and how its role in contemporary American society may be evolving.1.    There is freedom of religion in the US, but is there freedom for religion?At least as they have been enacted in legal decisions that affect U.S. religious history, the First Amendment’s twoclauses have expressed two distinct but related concerns. On the one hand, since there can be no “establishment”of religion, that means there should be freedom from religion. A particular religious institution can’t be granted aprivileged place in the public arena. The U.S., this clause suggests, cannot be a Baptist or a Buddhist nation.  Onthe other hand, the other clause protects citizens’ right to the “free exercise” of religion, or freedom for religion. It’sonly a slight exaggeration to say that many of the public squabbles about contemporary moral and political issues—from prayer at school graduation ceremonies to access to abortions at government-funded clinics—can beunderstood in terms of which clause the participants value most highly.Over the years different courts and legislatures have worried more about one clause than the other, but, yes, it issafe to say that there has been protection for most forms of religious practice in most social spaces. Some Jewswill tell you that the U.S. very much seems like a Christian nation from where they stand. Some Catholics willcomplain that the Affordable Health Care Act’s rules about contraceptives restrict their ability to practice their faithas they want. Some Muslims will say that praying at work is more challenging than it should be. But to aremarkable degree there has been freedom for religion.2.    How do you explain Americans’ recent move towards acceptance for less traditional religions such asMormonism in their politicians? Do you think that national politicians and political figures will ever havethe freedom to not have religion?You raise two very interesting questions here. On the first question, about Mormonism, I was surprised that therewas not more controversy about the Republican candidate’s affiliation with the Latter Day Saints in the lastpresidential election. I had predicted—I was wrong—that Governor Mitt Romney would have to give a majorspeech, much like John F. Kennedy’s famous 1960 Houston speech, defending himself and declaring hisunconditional allegiance to the U.S. tradition of church-state separation. Governor Romney said the right things—though apparently not enough right things to get elected—but there was less expressed hostility and mediascrutiny than many of us expected. I am not sure why, but three reasons come to mind.First, in President Obama the Democrats had a candidate who had endured his own controversy about religionduring his first campaign, and for varied reasons they decided it was not an appropriate—and/or strategicallysound—issue to foreground in public debate. Second, many of those who might have been expected to worrymost about the particulars of the Mormon faith, for example some evangelical Protestants, were also PresidentObama’s most impassioned opponents. Perhaps the sense that they shared a common enemy led many tosuppress public expression of private anxieties. Finally, what counts as “less traditional” changes over time, andthe pattern in the U.S. has been for marginalized groups to eventually gain some minimal acceptance, sometimeseven political power. In the colonial period, some Protestant churches that would go on to have nationalprominence and regional clout, like Baptists and Methodists, were originally seen as “dissenting” groups. JewishMitt Romney on the campaign trail, 2011 Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons BY SA)and Catholic immigrants weren’t warmly embraced as they stepped off ships during the nineteenth century. Anti-Semitism and Anti-Catholicismcontinue, of course, but followersof both faiths are hardly outsidersin politics. Just look at theirrepresentation on the U.S.Supreme Court: there are sixCatholics, three Jews, and noProtestants. Any observers, whosaw that coming, deserve warmcongratulations. I certainly didnot.On the second question, whethernational politicians will ever beable to declare themselvesreligiously unaffiliated or non-religious, I might end up beingsurprised again, but my sense isthat we might see a Muslim,Hindu, Jewish, or Buddhist U.S. president before we see an avowed atheist. Some survey data supports thathunch. Of course, the uncertain factor in all this is the younger generation. Do they continue to be less inclined tojoin religious organizations than their parents and grandparents? How about their children? If so, perhaps a robustsecularist, or a candidate who is “spiritual but not religious,” might get to the White House first.3.    Are debates about abortion and gay rights simply religious debates in disguise?Yes, for the most part, but in public protests in front of abortion clinics or state capital buildings there is usually notmuch question about which constitutional clause the sign-carrying protestors cherish and there’s not much“disguising” of the their stand on religious affiliation—or unaffiliation. There are surprising counterexamples, aswith the evangelical with a lesbian daughter who softens or challenges his congregation’s official stand on theissue, and, more generally, U.S. attitudes toward homosexuality seem to be changing, the quantitative evidencefrom surveys tells us. The shrillest voices do not represent the more nuanced opinions of the majority.But in the U.S. the public divides about gender and sexuality usually seem to reflect deeper conflicts about moralvalues that, in turn, are grounded in terms that might be framed as religious. That’s one reason that the positionsseem so intransient and the debates have been so nasty. Many of us have called for civil discourse that politelyrecognizes differences while striving for pragmatic solutions rooted in shared goals, but, as you might havenoticed from the news, those efforts have not been greeted with widespread enthusiasm.  Ungenerous discourseand shrill debates continue. 4.    Despite their being a separation of church and state, artifacts of religion are common in public life,e.g. on money, within the pledge of allegiance. Do you think that this is appropriate?Sometimes religious symbols have appeared in civic spaces and political ceremonies in ways that seem toapproach, even cross, the boundaries mapped by the First Amendment’s “establishment” clause, and this long-standing practice might befuddle some observers around the world. But since the late-eighteenth century U.S.political life has held in tension twin impulses: a concern to steer clear of any privileging of a particular religioustradition and a (grudging or enthusiastic) acceptance of what scholars have called “civil religion” in somegovernmental spaces, like capitals and courthouses, and in some solemn ceremonies, like Memorial Day paradesand presidential inaugurations.Since the 1970s, scholars have pointed out that the claim, or presumption, that all Americans affirm this civic pietyoverstates agreement and ignores dissent. Not all Americans—including some African Americans, AmericanIndians, non-Christians, and atheists—have been as eager to sacralize government spaces and civic rites.American Buddhists, for example, don’t accept the theism—the belief in a personal creator of the universe—Credit: Kevin Dooley (Creative Commons BY)implied in most civil religious expressions,so that while many of them have beenhappy, even eager, to express theirpatriotism, some have been unsure whatto make of U.S. coins that urge they trustin God or school rituals that demand theyproclaim their nation is “under God.” Andthere have been public expressions ofthat dissent, even legal challenges. Ionce signed a friend of the court brief, forexample, in a U.S. Supreme Court caseabout the pledge of allegiance, as I joinedmy scholarly colleagues in confirmingthat in the 1950s members of religiousgroups, mostly Catholics and Protestants,advocated for the addition of the phrase“under God” to that civic rite. That 2004legal challenge was unsuccessful, as Isuspected it would be. The contested butfamiliar mix of legally sanctioned religiousdisestablishment and religiously inflectedpolitical symbolization is still with us.5.    How do you think religiosity in the US will change as the demographics of the country change as thiscentury unfolds?You’ve probably already noticed my caution—and mixed record—at predicting religious trends. But since I showno signs that I’m able to learn from past mistakes, I’ll offer a few thoughts about how the changing demographicsmight affect U.S. religious life. But I’m not the only one who can’t predict things. As he signed the 1965 immigrationAct that led to accelerated transnational flows, President Lyndon Johnson wrongly suggested that it “would notaffect the lives of millions.” Unforeseeable factors also can open and close the gates, just as counter-immigrationcampaigns and U.S. economic recession slowed the migration from Latin America by 2010.However, if the current immigration trends hold, with the majority of new Americans hailing from Latin America andAsia, the ethnic and religious diversity of the population will at least be maintained. Some faiths, including RomanCatholicism, will have more Latino members, since most Latin American migrants claim Catholic heritage. About80 percent of the newcomers from the largest sending nation, Mexico, are Catholics, even if a small but significantproportion of transhemispheric migrants claim Protestant affiliation. And, the surveys suggest, those LatinAmerican migrants are even more religious than the U.S. adult population, just as other migrants, for example theChinese, report that they have reaffirmed their heritage faith, for example Buddhism, or turned to a new faith, forexample Christianity, in their adopted land. It’s unclear whether all this will counter the secularizing patterns wesee among some native-born citizens. It might. In any case continued immigration might lead observers in anotherdecade or two to suggest that, for good or ill, religion continues to play an important role in American life.Please read our comments policy before commenting.  Note:  This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of USApp– American Politics and Policy, norof the London School of Economics.Shortened URL for this post:  http://bit.ly/1evKDTz _________________________________About the authorThomas A. Tweed – University of Notre DameThomas A. Tweed holds the Harold and Martha Welch Endowed Chair in American Studies andhas a concurrent appointment in History, at the University of Notre Dame. He is also FacultyFellow in the Institute of Latino Studies and the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. Heedited Retelling U.S. Religious History and co-edited Asian Religions in America: A DocumentaryHistory, which Choice named an “outstanding academic book.” He also wrote The AmericanEncounter with Buddhism, 1844-1912: Victorian Culture and the Limits of Dissent and Our Ladyof the Exile: Diasporic Religion at a Cuban Catholic Shrine in Miami, which won the AmericanAcademy of Religion’s book award. His most recent book is an historical study of the Basilica of the NationalShrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, which appeared in 2011 as “America’s Church”: TheNational Shrine and Catholic Presence in the Nation’s Capital, 1917-1997. He has served as the president of theAmerican Society for the Study of Religion, and in 2014 he is president-elect, and future president, of theAmerican Academy of Religion.CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 2014 LSE USAPP

Five minutes with Thomas Tweed: “We might see a Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or Buddhist U.S. president before we see an avowed atheist”

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online