The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
How America Moderates Religion
A pattern over time
What is the story of religious pluralism in America? Over time, and not without occasionally serious conflict, the wider American society comes to accept minority religious groups it initially finds quite threatening: Quakers, Catholics, Mormons, and others. These groups insist on their legal rights and, eventually, America lives up to its commitments to religious freedom and civic equality. A more tolerant, peaceful society results, a real achievement in a world in which brutal religious persecution still exists.
That is the conventional story, and it is told very well in a new documentary, "Free Exercise: America's Story of Religious Liberty," which I review at the Law & Liberty site. But, to my mind, there is another explanation as well. Religious peace has resulted from moderation on both sides. The wider society becomes more accepting of religious difference, but minority religions themselves often transform in ways that make them more like everybody else.
Take Catholics, for example. Catholics were once deeply threatening to mainstream America, not least because the Catholic Church opposed America's liberal commitments, including religious freedom, as dangerous heresies. But the Church's position on "Americanism" changed over time, and largely as a result of American influence. As I write in my review:
The nineteenth-century Church was the Church of the Syllabus of Errors (1864), a papal document that condemned freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state as dangerous heresies. America's Protestant majority saw this document and the values it espoused as hostile to fundamental American commitments. In the 1928 campaign, The Atlantic published an open letter questioning whether a Catholic like Smith could serve as president, citing the Syllabus and other papal pronouncements on church and state.
A hundred years later, though, and largely through the efforts of American Catholics like Fr. John Courtney Murray, the Second Vatican Council adopted Dignitatis Humanae, a document that specifically endorses religious liberty as a civil right. Catholic scholars have argued that Dignitatis Humanae and the Syllabus of Errors can be interpreted consistently with one another and that, from a theological perspective, there was no change. However theologians understand the situation, though, after Dignitatis Humanae, something had indeed changed as a practical matter. A major point of tension between the Catholic Church and American culture had disappeared, largely because of American influence.
The LDS Church offers another example. Mormons were deeply threatening to 19th century America, mostly because of polygamy. But, again, that changed:
In 1890, however, the LDS Church officially ended the practice—making it possible for Utah to be admitted as a state six years later. Practically speaking, Mormonism changed in a way that made it much less threatening to the wider American public. Mormons conformed to social convention, and relations between the LDS Church and other Americans have been better ever since.
In short, in America, minority religions have tended to move to the mean over time and become, in important ways, more or less like everyone else. (There are exceptions, of course, like the neo-traditionalists in many religious communities who self-consciously set themselves apart from the wider society). What explains this dynamic? It's hard to say. Perhaps the Lockean commitments that underpin our First Amendment lead over time to religious moderation. Perhaps the explanation lies in Americans' tendency to conform to social expectations, an under-appreciated fact about us that Tocqueville noticed 200 years ago. Whatever the explanation, the pattern seems very clear. Minority religions change America, but America changes minority religions, too.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"The LDS Church offers another example. Mormons were deeply threatening to 19th century America, mostly because of polygamy. But, again, that changed:"
Sheesh, that's probably the worst possible example you could use. The LDS Church changed at gunpoint, in response to a literal attack by the US army; The Utah war of 1857!
It's about the worst example of American religious liberty on record.
Ah, but the pre-1857 regime in Utah was such that Brigham Young was the federally-appointed governor, combining spiritual dictatorship with civil leadership. President Buchanan wanted to replace Young as governor with some non-Mormon named Cumming. Young didn’t want to be deposed because he didn’t want to share power with unreliable non-Mormon “Gentiles” (who were, in fact, sometimes corrupt). Then there was the Mountain Meadows massacre of immigrants by Mormon troops and Native American allies, after the Mormons violated a safe-conduct pledge.
So, although I’m not putting Buchanan on the side of righteousness – some of his officeholders were corrupt and Mormons would have a legitimate concern about being governed by such dregs – it was more complex than innocent Mormons persecuted by evil feds.
Even after 1857, Young gave a mere nominal allegiance to Cumming, continuing to be the de facto boss of the territory.
Sure, the Mormons were far from innocent. But it's absolutely clear that the Mormons were compelled by threats of violence, and actual violence, to change their religious doctrines.
Making it a horrible example to use for his thesis. Religious liberty and pluralism didn't lead to this change, a gross violation of religious liberty did.
If you think religious liberty includes marrying multiple wives. I'd say there's a compelling government interest in punishing polygamy, whether it's a religionist or a secularist who is doing the poly-ing.
Please explain to me why a guy and several gals living together is ok if they are not married, but bad if they are married.
We have decided that marriage cannot be restricted to 'one man and one woman', so how can polygamy be illegal?
“We have decided”
We?
Because the 'one' part of that has not been changed?
"Please explain to me why a guy and several gals living together is ok if they are not married, but bad if they are married."
Down at our rendezvous ...
Three's Company too!
What, precisely, is the compelling government interest in prohibiting consensual polygamy?
I don't think that's right. The revelation condemning polygamy didn't happen until 1890, and you have to get to the Reed Smoot hearings before the church cracked down on members who still practiced it.
Yes, US government coercion was a significant part of the story, but the Mormons also went from a small dissident sect to a group that had a lot of political power, chiefly in Utah but also in other states. The OP's implicit claim that respectability politics drives theological changes is not false, IMO, and is part of the Mormon story specifically.
The way I heard it, statehood was made contingent on the Mormons giving up on polygamy. (In 2020 Utah decriminalized it, by the way. Well, sorta: It's now a misdemeanor.) That was the final straw that resulted in the LDS church officially changing their doctrine.
Any way you look at it, coerced.
You give us this and we’ll give you that is not coercion. And OP’s general point still stands: marginalized religious groups often change to make their religion more palatable to the mainstream as the mainstream adjusts to their new ideas.
He said America influenced fringe religions to become more mainstream. He didn't say we were always nice about it. Seems like a fine example.
I would add the first group on your list: Quakers.
At one point in the mid-17th century many Quakers were actively proselytizing, so you might even confuse them with Jehovah's Witnesses (except JWs didn't go naked to make their spiritual points). Gradually, throughout the colonies they became prosperous farmers and merchants with the peculiarity of not taking oaths or doing military service. But in Pennsylvania they compromised - they had no militia, but the legislature gave no-strings-attached grants of the money to the king, knowing the government would spend the money on war and war preparation.
Even after that situation in Pennsylvania collapsed, and even after mainstream Quakers stood aloof in the Revolution, they were considered too economically valuable to single out for special persecution. They might have to pay fines for refusing militia service, but otherwise were OK - they were allowed to affirm instead of swear. They were even tolerated (grudgingly) when some of them went in for social reform, including abolitionism.
And they produced prominent businesssmen, philanthropists, and even politicians - like A. Mitchell Palmer and Richard Nixon.
I knew about Nixon, of course, but I had no idea that Palmer was a Quaker.
Then there's Herbert Hoover, of course.
I wonder if their move from quaking to silence was also a move to avoid persecution and better assimilate.
To be fair, they were persecuted for quite a while *after* they shifted to silent worship.
(I'm not counting their publication of lots of pamphlets, because everyone did that.)
A long winded way to say “assimilation”. It’s been true pretty much everywhere, for as long as there have been societies. Most people just want to get along and make a life, for themselves and their families.
I think any attempt to explain this phenomenon that treats organized religion as somehow distinct from other forms of association or associational identity, or that ignores how organized religion evolves and adapts in other societies and governments, is going to be so hopelessly blinkered as to be useless. A just-so story about how great the American melting pot is, tying the strategic and often idiosyncratic decisions of generations of church and sect leaders to some nebulously hand-waved conception of our "Lockean" constitutional commitments, is not really contributing much to understanding.
Worse, it will tend to lead one to miss ways in which modern America now seems to be encouraging religious extremism.
Ideological extremism, perhaps, if you want to call that religious.
You may have a different assessment of the situation than I do.
'if you want to call that religious.'
Only if you want to handwave away actual religious extremism and its current role in politics.
“actual religious extremism” is real. My question is how dangerous it is, and in any event how America is encouraging it.
The extremism which seems influential today seems to be of the ideological type. Whether that's religious or not is a matter of semantic preference, so I won't insist on any particular definition when "ideology" will do just as well.
It is surprising how little attention religious extremists in the US gets, people seem to prefer to pretend it doesn’t exist or isn’t influential. But Trump would never have gitten elected if religious fundamentalists hadn’t suddenly decided that he, of all people, was the new messiah. As for ideological extremists, there is lots of overlap, but also if you oppose extremists, you can become an extremist by default without ever shifting an inch in your actions and beliefs.
Whatever you say.
A difficulty comes when, if society and its normative expectations abruptly change around them, members of religious minorities that had previously been living comfortably within the mainstream of American society suddenly find themselves outside it. Among other developments, this can give rise to pressure to seek to restore the prior norm so they can feel comfortable again, resulting in a political reorientation.