Transcripts For CSPAN3 Religious Influence On U.S. Politics 20240714

15 years ago in is your mike on . There we go. Thank you. Theres a switch on the mikes. 15 years ago in a journal of American History article, john butler challenged historians of modern america to Pay Attention to religion. In particular, he noted,lin religions continue importance contains analysis. In political history religion has retained in butlers e voktive term, a jack in the box. Left to pop up occasionally rather than systematically. Today our round table will address how religion matters in american political history and well do so in three ways. First ill each each panelist to focus on a way in which religion matters. That is in their own research how religion plays a role and in spaces they are working on but also how centering religion gives us a different narrative, a different story than if it were on the periphery. Second well talk about butlers provocati provocation. Why have political historians remain reluctant bystanders about religion in American History and why does religion still get left out of calls for papers, courses or as someone joked just today, theres a few of you stall worths which we appreciate but not as many people come to something when religion is centrally part of it. Finally, well discuss the ways in which religion is everywhere in our current moment. We see how religious freedom has become the catch word. How can and should we explain this as political historians and how might political and religious historians Work Together to restore the present moment. Thats whats on the docket for today. With me is Lerone Martin. His Award Winning first book is preaching on wax. Hes currently working on a book about religion, the fbi and the National Security state which is under contract with Princeton University press. To his right is lauren turek. Assistant professor of history in san antonio. Shes completing a book to bring the good news to all nations, religion, human rights and u. S. Foreign policy. It will be out by cornell soonish. The far right is kate rosenblatt. Shes working an a manuscript which is under contract with columbia. Im ronit stahl, an assistant professor at the university of california berkeley. My first book came out last year. With that ill turn to our first question and ask each of our scholars to talk about the role of religion and their own work and the way in which thinking about religion has changed the way we can understand these aspects, certain aspects of American History. Thank you for that. Her book is also an Award Winning booking. Church history prize for the best first book in american religious history. Thanks for bringing us all together. My Current Research project exams texa examines the fbi. The focus on religion in the project illuminates vital aspects of the bureaus internal culture and practices and how that ethos shaped the Public Perceptions of the fbi work and the fbis understanding and american understanding of the relationship between religion and National Security. Existing studies of studies of e strongly dismissed the role of religion in the making in the shaping of the bureau, the role of religion has been more prominent in political histories of post war america displaying how the cold war shaped americas religious landscape. These studies of religion and the cold war tend to down play the role of the nations top domestic Security Force and the cold war watchdog that was the fbi. In fact, all too often the studies hoover is lurking both literally and figuratively on the margins. So in my research i focus on the link between religion and hoovers fbi. I argue that there are three things that i will discuss today that this connection reveals about american politics and american political history. First, Jay Edgar Hoover himself. Examining the role of faith in the life of Jay Edgar Hoover reveals hoover became a central figure in religion. That is americas political faith in Sacred Symbols and rituals in the public sphere. Without looking at the religion in the life of Jay Edgar Hoover, well miss a number of things. For example, in his childhood diaries they show as well as his experiences as a teenage sunday schoolteacher and also that he explored a call to ministry. This reveals how religion shaped his world view long before he became the director of the fbi. His faith remained while he became the director of the fbi. He was a trustee and member of the National Presbyterian church sharing a pew with president eisenhow eisenhower, and he remained in contact with his pastor for the remainder of his life. All of this reveals that hoovers understanding of religion not only shaped how he viewed america but also shaped and how he understood and executed his job in protecting america. This is evident in his speeches, the books in which he became framing patriotic christianity as the sole anecdote to communism and how he organized the bureau which ill address next. Scholars and observers may doubt the sincerity of hoovers faith as im speaking, but americans at his time did not doubt that faith. Every major Christian Faith community from the Catholic Church to the African Methodist Episcopal Church and others, they all crowned him awards, citations and plaques and yes, even a stain glass window at a church. Hoover was deemed and crowned as a champion in american politics. Hoover then can be seen as arguably we could say the high priest of american civil religion. This title has normally been reserved for president s such as hoovers coreligionist dwight eisenhower. As president s came and went every four to eight careers, hoover remained. In fact, for almost half a century he led the bureau and he was the person to look for all things god, flag and country for many americans. Second, a keen eye on the importance of religion reveals the bureau itself had a religious culture which shaped how americans viewed and understood their fbi. Under hoovers auspices the fbi instituted private worship services, spiritual retreats and communion and prayer breakfasts for fbi agents. Even when African American agents were admitted, these were exclusively for white agents only. Similar to american civil religion, the bureaus religious culture borrowed from protestant and catholic forms, especially the militant. His men were seen as more than just federal bureaucrats but as pie yos soldiers drafted to embark on a crusade against all things ungodly. Fbi files are filled with letters from the public requesting religious and political advice. Mr. Hoover, which church should i attend . Mr. Hoover, is billy graham a real chis christian . Mr. Hoover j is Martin Luther king a communist . Should i attend this church led by a woman . Is that subversive . These sorts of letters fill fbi files. Americans may have looked to their pastors and priests to address theological disputes, but many addressed the fbi for the weightier matters of politics. The history of the fbi can be seen and rewritten as an adjudicator of political allegiance in 20th century u. S. Politics. Something observers know all too well. Finally, focusing on religion illuminates how the bureau was able to form partnerships with leading black and white protestant communities. Hoover and his fbi established working and professional relationships with leading clergy. As well as the first clergy member to have his own television show, elder light foot solomon. The fbi worked with these men and they were all men because hoover did not recognize female clergy. They all worked together to bring about a certain ideal of what the proper relationship was between religion and politics in the nation. Indeed, this christian syndicate laundered intelligence for the fbi, preaching and publishing it as gospel. They worked to employ Christian Faith and racialize rhetoric to construct a shared ideal of National Security and policy ideas more broadly. The fbi and its Christian Network worked to promote policies ranging from anticivil rights legislation and forbidding certain bible translations. Those who supported such causes were discredited as domestic and subversive at best or destroyed at worst, and hoover used this christian syndicate to make sure they were kept outside of the realm of when was considered american. Hoovers faith and his religious formation of the Bureau Perhaps we can use this to rewrite american political history. Placing hoover and his fbi as important actors and factors that contributed to the rise of the modern religious right. In the end, a key eye on religion does not replace narratives and studies of the fbi in american politics. Rather highlighting religion serves as a complement. It adds more texture to the story and brings more historical actors to an already crowded stage and provides a clearer picture of the bureau and it role in american politics. This naming and framing of this religious picture just might help us to better understand todays fbi and its fraught relationship to religion and National Security, specifically in american politics more broadly. Thanks. So im a historian of u. S. Foreign policy with the focus on politics and religion. And my forthcoming book looks specifically at how conservative evan jell cal christian groups sought to influence policy on a range of religious freedom to International Trade and foreign aid. Starting in the 1970s and moving through the 1990s. In the process of conducting this research, one of the things i have found is that religion is a particularly fruitful avenue for analyzing not just politics but also policy making. I find in particular that it helps shed light on the formation of ideology and national values. And how policy makers and domestic Interest Groups promote those values. Religious beliefs as enduring elements of American Culture and ideology shaped and continue to shape the world view of political leaders as well as the public. They help to steer national discourse, and in some cases they set the parameters of whats acceptable in policymaking in terms of at least Foreign Policy making. And so one of the key arguments that i make in my book is that longstanding anxieties about religious repression and persecution and totalitarian regimes and the threat that persecution posed to the Global Missionary agenda of e venn jell cal groups led to the establishment of a powerful evangelical policy in the United States starting in the late 1970s. Owing in part to their particular theological beliefs, i found evangelicals privileged religious freedom, they mental their freedom to e van ja liez and the freedom of others who hear it, as the most fundamental human rights. Concerns about religious persecution and other abuses against the faithful led evangelical groups in the United States to advocate for a christian Foreign Policy. One that upheld core religious values, and protected american missionari missionaries. I look at a number of case studies to demonstrate this. One thats going to be very sort of familiar for folks who study the cold war is the society union. Theres a lot of concerns about persecution against religious believers in the society union. Cases like the siberian 7 were famous in the 70s and 80s. There are a number of other cases as well that i look at. Theres a considerable amount of activism by evangelicals. Often that aligned with say, reagan era policies. But evangelicals also at times went against reagan era policies with romania, for example, where they sought to have a differentiation policy and extend trade. E janua evangelicals were uncomfortable with that given the religious persecution there. Theres interesting activism that happens. These views were promoting religious freedom in the soviet union and other places at times led evangelicals to view totalitarian regimes as friendly to their objectives. This is where things get interesting. This perception allowed them to interpret state violence in authoritarian countries as acceptable, and sometimes even desirable efforts to combat the spread of communism and, therefore, prevent religious persecution. This is where we see support for genocide dictators in places like guatemala being framed in freedom language and religious rights or support for constructive engagement in south africa, its being an effort to prevent the spread of communism and thus religious purersecutio. Theres an interesting way the language of human rights comes into play. So evangelical lobbyists were adopting human rights language and in their congressional testimony about events in the soviet block, in Central America and southern africa, the middle east and elsewhere. And in doing that, in using this language, what i found is that it was shaping how certain policy makers particularly conservative policy makers were interpreting state violence repression abroad. Ultimately the evangelical Interest Groups were able to exert an influence on official decisionmaking on a range of vital Foreign Policy issues. Everything from military aid to trade relations with the soviet block and diplomatic relations with south africa in terms of politics at home, this includes really significant lobbying effort to strike down the comprehensive antiapartheid act. They play a significant role in the efforts to oppose it. All this to say that evangelical Foreign Policy activism that hea hea mattered, and bringing religion into our study of politics and Foreign Policy really matters. It reminds us of the way that policy makers and politicians understand the world around them. It reminds us that religion is often a part of how they sort of shape their world view. It is integral. Deeply held religious relieves motivate grass roots political activism. Its not just hot button issues like abortion. Its on Foreign Policy as well. And so i found bringing religion into the study of human rights abo activism is pretty cal. These groups may be offering a different vision of human rights than the one we may typically think of being offered by a liberal human rights activist. But they like liberal human rights activists are often couching their activism in explicitly religious terms. There is a sense that they are embracing the sense that morality or freedom of religion should be fundamental parts of u. S. Foreign policy making. There should be explicit goals, and for us, one of the things that this pushes us to keep in mind is that when we think about the history of Foreign Policy, its not just realist calculations of power that often religion is a foundational aspect of shaping what policy makers think of as the national interest. Thinking of exporting morality or Core National values and seeing the ways in which religion is tied up into those particular values. So bringing the history of religion into the study d particularly conservative religion into the study of human rights helps us think about the ways in which human rights history and political history around activism, a lot of these terms are fluid and contested. Human rights as a term the is fluid and contested in the 70s. It shows us the ways in which these activists can use language of human rights. And actually shape the parameters of debate and shape the parameters of politics. And in the 1980s, the views, the ways of thinking about humanen rights that conservative activists put forth end up shaping the politics of the Reagan Administration and shaping the way that human rights policies look in the 1980s. So its quite significant. So religious differences, religious conflicts, those also have an impact in politics. Basically we should be keeping this in mind is where my work shows. Im a historian, modern u. S. Political and labor historian, although i guess to use the popular language today, im a historian of capitalism. And i in particular write about cooperative corporations, cooperatives which are usually in the history dismissed as sort of some variant of radical communalism. I wrote of them as cooperatives. Not only as cooperatives, not only that but cooperatives are democratically organized. One member, one vote. And theyre organized around Service Rather than profit. And the his or theography on corporations suggests that we talk about corporations and we usually, i think most people are sort of pointing toward the private business corporation. But corporations the history, at least, suggests that the corporations emerged as the dominant Organization Form of Economic Life in the u. S. , and this literature largely describes corporations as sort of rational and indeed, natural bureaucratic forms that simply aimed to maximize profits for shareholders. The problem with this is that you miss a lot when you dont ask questions about how and why people deploy their financial resources. And so i take seriously the idea that americans across the 20 th century used criteria other than profit as motivation for their pocketbook politics. And importantly, religion was one such metric used by americans to shape their choices about how and where to use their financial resources. So i write about jewish workers in new york who built somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 units of cooperative housing between the late 20s and early 1950s. I write about protestant immigrants in the Northern Midwest who built massive agricultural cooperatives that are still alive and well. Theyre immensely successful. I think about catholic adherence of the social gospel who look toward cooperative models, and all of these sort of groups sort of wide range of americans looked to religious texts. They looked to teachings, and to their clergy to produce what i would call a moral political economy. In order to sort of allow people of faith to sort of use their religious traditions and apply those teachings to the complex social problems of the day. And so indeed by the 1930s, the central conference of american rabbis, the federal counsel of churches and the National Catholic welfare conference all together sort of embraced cooperative models with the possibility that these kinds of corporations could produce well, a more humane capitalism. A capitalism that was not as extractive as sort of private business corporations. And they also really embraced the idea that you could within capitalism produce accumulation without concentration. In other words, they imagined that there are ways not through anticapitalists activism but through sort of reformist capitalist politics to produce a system that could more equitably distribute the wealth of the nation. Post occupy was always language, being deployed by workers and farmers across the United States in trying to highlight the ways in which capitalism simply was not working for them. And doing so before there was a consensus there were challenges with capitalism. Bringing religion to bare as a category of analysis, it allows us to complicate prevailing understandings of the rise and formation of american capitalism and ultimately that people of faith have always remained central to american visions of social change. And that american religious tra traditions at various times and places have concerned themselves not only with individual salvation but with communal redemption and have attempted to do that through large scale corporate organizing. All right. Thank you. Now its my turn to give a little bit about my own work which draws on many of the strands mentioned by my fellow scholars. As i mentioned earlier, my first book was about the military and im not working on health care. To major institutional actors in American History. And when i think about the military, i want to suggest that well, first when i started that project the most common reaction i got was huh, ive never thought about that before. Why would religion have any role in the military . Sure, maybe individuals were religious, but sort of end of story. What i discovered was that a massive Government Institution and enterprise dedicated to not just thinking about the religious lives of soldiers and officers and war but also an institution that shaped religion itself. And that the sort of carrots and sticks are incentives and disincentives that did a lot to challenge some religious groups and also facilitate access to power for others. To take one example that was mentioned. If we look at someone like dwight eisenhower, i think to understand mid century religion requires understanding eisenhowers role in the military, because what he brought to bare when he got to office, when he became a member of the Presbyterian Church in d. C. And was part of that political scene, were certain understandings of military pluralism where a number of religions could coincide and live together with one another, and that a basic acceptance of god and morality was enough. You didnt have to dwell on the theological details. And in many ways, that was a vision that a lot of americans coming out of world war ii shared, but it was also a vision that could be coon theed by others who sought to use religious for other purposes more sectarian or divisive ones, because there was what someone like eisenhower understood as a perceived understanding was not shared but used by others were different ends. If we look at that moment, its also the moment when more conservative sectarian oriented religious groups wanted to enter the military, and, in fact, made a very distinct decisions to, for example, create their own seminaries, so they would be able to meet the militarys education requirements. Then enter the military and be in a space to shape policy. And so what this gets at is both the ways in which religion within the infrastructure of the military could shape the military itself, and people within that space could make religious arguments, and also make what might appear as not religious arguments to shape that religious space, but also that the government in itself, had a role in either holding to lines in which pluralism was a value, or at other times sort of letting go of that. And allowing groups that didnt share those pluralist values to participate in this space and saturday to reshape it. I think to understand the dynamic of american religious politics in the 20th century, we have to think about that liberal conservative back and forth and where they had opportunities to be engaging with one another. And the military was one such space. And then ill just add that if were thinking about spaces of government and governance, ive now working on a different project on hospitals and health care. And i have come to believe that you cant actually understand the shape of the American Health care system without understanding the role of religious hospitals and religious groups in it. And by that, i dont simply mean the current debates about abortion or contraception or end of life care, the sort of flashy moments that clearly involve theological disdisagreements. I was in the archives this past week looking at a number of papers about hospitals in the 30s, 40s and 50s. One of the things that was very clear and really made me rethink was our Narrative Around Health insurance, and the prospect and then absolute erasing of the possibility of a National Health insurance program. In part because i think the traditional narrative associates that as an impossible resolution due to both pressures from groups like the American Medical Association and from unions like the uaw that wanted to tie insurance to employment. But forgotten in that narrative is a group of hospitals, religious hospitals that would on the one hand publicly say that it is absolutely vital to provide health care to poor people. This is necessary and its tied to our religious beliefs. At the same time, because they felt that a government Health Care System would completely destroy their own hospital systems, didnt want any part of a government Health Care System. Right . This is an area where it doesnt necessarily seem to be about religion or theology, but hospitals are businesses and corporations and groups that were heavily invested in the health care industry, therefore, were making calculated Business Decisions that in some ways contradicted their own sort of social justice or other theological orientations around health care and healing. Its this contradicting nature of religion in these institutional spaces that i think deserves far more sustained attention, not just by me, but by others, and part because it is so complex. Because there isnt a single party line about what religion is in this space, but also religious groups themselves, theres a really wonderful back and forth, i found, in the early 1970s, between what was then the National Conference of catholic bishops and catholic thee loejens disputing what should or shouldnt be acceptable in health care and what it meant if catholic hospitals were serving a pluralistic population including many patients and Health Care Providers working in them who werent catholic. The theologians were more interested in pluralism than the bishops. Thats not surprising, but the fact they were willing to call some of the positions of the hierarchy a disaster, i do think is worth attention, and so thinking also then about these intrareligious debates swelz interreligious and religious secular debates that emerge in these key and really formative institutions of American Society, i think is critical to understanding american politics in the 20th century. With that, ill turn to the next question i asked everyone to think about which is weve all just made claims for the ways in which religion tells us something about american politics and American History, especially in the 20th century, thats not necessarily evident or clear if we dont pay specific attention to religion itself. So why, then, is this still a struggle to get religion into spaces, into courses, into sint these and into calls for papers . I regularly see fascinating calls, or Conference Calls that list a very long list of sub fields in history, and religion is still not mentioned. I mean, even with religion clearly around us. So just to reflect and think about why this is, and how we might rethink how this works. Anyone can so ill offer up two responses to that question. Theyre simple and short, but i hope theyre generative for our discussion. The first reason i will offer is perhaps its an issue of definition. Perhaps the reason why political historians fail to engage religion is that we struggle still to understand exactly what is religion. Where does one look for religion in sources . Is religion static . Does it change over time . Is it Church Attendance . Is it private devotional life, consumption habits, our relationship to capitalism . Is it philanthropic . What is religion . This is a debate so much so that those of us on this panel are still debating exactly what religion is and the debate ranges from people who see it everywhere to folks who say that it doesnt actually exist at all. So perhaps maybe settling on a definition on religion that does not focus on the supernatural but actually focuses more so on how individuals see the world or maybe as its been talked about, that religion can be seen as a system of symbols by which people locate themselves and others in the world with reference to ordinary powers, meanings and values. Perhaps that type of definition can help us wade through. But since religion is usually not clearly understood in this way, its usually treated as somewhat as john butler said, as a jack in the box. Its an epiphenomenon. Its a secondary experience or spectacle thats caused by and accompanies a physical phenomenon but has no causal relationship to it whatsoever. So religion as john butler once said in his article often pops up colorfully on occasion appearing as a thrusting of impulses from a more distant american past. But perhaps armed with a more robust definition of religion that is not simply put forth in extraordinary or idea of mystified power and values. If we have a definition that deals with the everyday and quoting and every day life, perhaps we can listen anew to our historical actors and in their political mote vagus. We can move away from foregone conclusions about religion and the lives of our historical actors and really get down to the nittygritty of what our historical actors believed. How eisenhower understood the role of religion and joining a church. Perhaps this can help us to avoid our own understandings of religion or even reading into our actors or our own biases as it relates to religion. Finally and second, perhaps another thing that hinders the study of religion in political history is the idea that the study of religion is exclusively confessional. This idea that the popular notion, those who study religion are not only religious and pie yos but are studying it to promote the faith and defend the faith. Few understand that religion like race, sexuality, gender, class, et cetera, can be approached as a subject and tool of historical inquiry. For this very reason, i must confess i often avoid discussing my research when im on planes, trains and automobiles and other casual venues. Ordinarily people see me reading a text and if it has anything to do with religion, they feel free to ask me any type of theological question thats plagued them since their childhood. Is heaven and hell real . Will i go there, or even questions like did adam name the dinosaurs . These are sorts of questions im not making up that have happened to me. This is often far from the truth about what religion scholars actually do, expressley my colleagues here on the stage or on the podium, the platform. People actually do study these questions in theological training, but that is not the exclusive fear of religious inquiry, especially when were talking about political history. Oftentimes folks who study religion are not even religious themselves. Now, this is not to call myself and my colleagues heathens, but it is to call our attention to the fact that such notions can hinder us from engaging a critical aspect of the American Experience in American History. If we have more historians where are heathen or otherwise studying religion, we can help to dispel the myth that the study of religion is exclusively done on confessional terms. In doing so, political historians can help put a stop to this jack in the box phenomenon that john butler referred to, and even yes, admit that religion can be colorful and surprising at times. But it should not be left on the periphery. It should not be left to just pop out of a confessional box occasionally, usually surrounding a president ial election. No. We should engage religion in our political history as a common yet transfiguring vital force in american politics. One that is worthy not of uncritical worship in a triumphant narrative, nor one that is relegated to disdain and neglect, but a consistent interrogation in our political narrativ narratives. Instead of a jack in the box, perhaps we could let religion enjoy what john butler called an extended performance. Not as a stand alone performer on the historical stage, but alongside other aspects of the american experiment and democracy. Im going to start referring to myself as a heathen historian. Just very briefly, i would echo some of what lerone said. There is an assumption that historians who work on religion are religious. That is definitely not necessarily the case, and folks coming from an external perspective have a lot to offer religious studies. One of the challenges that i think historians of politics and Foreign Policy encounter when they seek to examine religion is that it is it is challenging to demonstrate how an idea or a faith or a world view leads to a specific policy. And its not always possible to show the exact mechanism by which that happens. Which means you have to be creative in reading sources and thinking about the ways that ideas and influence work in making policy, so i think it just may be a sort of methodology challenge. How do you prove that it was faith and not an appraisal of power or National Security that was the driving force in shaping a particular decision . It may not always be possible to do that, but it adds a lot when we consider the ways that religion has influenced policies. Perhaps not the only factor, but an important factor. But since its hard, i think it one might not always want to go in that direction. You get a lot of pushback. Yeah. I have a few thoughts on this. One is structural related to the academy in the same way as a person who thinks about capitalism a lot, there has been this sort of resurgence, this even new history of capitalism. Of course, it wasnt that historians werent previously doing great history on the economy. They used different language. But in reframing how history departments operated, i think particularly by this sort of 70s and 80s, economics departments sort of claimed economic history away from history departments. And i see something similar with respect to religion. That, indeed, history departments i think have really jet senned things to religious studies department. Thats fine to some extent. If we want historians to do religion, we have to hire them to do it in history departments. Radical idea, i know, but it is, in fact, about oftentimes where you are structurally located in the university. Im a historian working based in a religion part in an institute for jewish studies. I love them when ask what i do. Im a political historian. To let them think for a second, how do those things connect . And it always confuses them. I sort of get a good chuckle. The second thing i think sort of shapes this sort of historians who ignore religion, i might get into trouble, but ill say it anyway. There seems to be a real outsized influence, and it is this kind of weird thing where everybody sort of just assumes that herberg is right. It seems to me the underlying sort of thought process is well, he got it. He got it right. Whats left to say . And this is, i think, you know, wrong in a lot of ways. But also i think its important to place herberg in his political context which is in the world of consensus history. Right . Herberg was proscriptive. To a large extent, i would argue about the way that by the time herberg writes protestant catholic jew in 1965, the structure is almost collapsed. I mean, its less than almost a decade later that Time Magazine can ask on the cover is god dead. I think in some ways it points to how much of a problem it is that we accept this idea of sort of Judaeo Christian tradition. Has a historian, im not sure what that means. I think that and also by the mid 1950s there are a range of other faith traditions that are banging at the door of the state in particular for resources and acknowledgment. Right . Buddhists and hindus and atheists, evangelicals, most importantly, are sort of critiquing that structure. But even so, historians, you know, particularly those who dont do religion, sort of when they try to do religion, they sort of reference herberg and move on. I think that might be part of why it is that historians are ignoring it. The last thing i would say is that it seems intimately connected to me also to teaching. Its really hard to teach religion. In so far as a student of mine comes in and theyre they Say Something i would consider to be in the vein of white supremacy, i know how to combat that and respond to that, but faith claims are actually really different. In so far as you neither have to believe or agree with them, but you actually do have to respect them. And my first time teaching in a Religion Department was at emory. Prior to that i had only taught history classes. No student had ever proclaimed their religion to me before asking a question. In my classroom now, i would say at least half of my students begin their question by saying aam or am not x, but and so its a really intimate, and it requires deafness that not all of us certainly were not trained to have the deftness in graduate school, and many of us have cobbled together skills to be able to teach religion for those of us who are not religion people by birth or methodology or something. I think its hard to teach religion, and we i think thats also a real barrier. Yeah. And i think those kind of questions around finesse, and how do we work whether its with students or with sources, one of the things ive been thinking a lot about is the i mean, its trite to say that religion is complicated. Of course, so in many ways are race, gender, sexuality, capitalism, all sorts of other categories with which we as a historical profession regularly engage, and when if you do legal history, you learn law. If you do medical history, you learn about medicine. Business, business methods. I think part of what it means to do religion well is to become fluent in a number of different religious languages, to be able to discern the difference between what certain words mean in different faith traditions, and what theyre, therefore, signaling to their to be able to think about what it is that those words are csignaling to a faith community, and what they may be registering quite differently with other faith communities and with just other communities in general. And i think thats a real challenge. So figuring out the sort of religious literacy necessary to unpack and work with terminology that often is not necessarily intentionally coded, but speaking in many different registers at once, and understood in many different registers at once, and i do think that is a real challenge that religion presents, that i think one of again, methodologies, we do a lot of work in history, of course, of trying to think through sources in deep and sophisticated ways, and religion often challenges what that looks like. I think in ways that maybe other categories also challenge us but not in quite the same way, not with sort of the need to learn another language in the same way. And i think similarly the challenge that religion presents which i think is a wonderful challenge but still can be difficult is that religious faith groups, religious groups dont necessarily adhere to conventional political alignment. So how do we look at the African American church that is very much on the Progressive Left when it comes to racial justice, in many domains but maybe isnt necessarily when were grappling with gender . Women in the nation of islam, and its a really challenging to think about how a space that in many ways was a space of liberation was also a space of not of sort of accepted suppression or repression of gender and sexuality. These are both operating at the same time. I was reading recently the pamphlets of this extraordinarily right wing Catholic League for civil and religious rights. I mean, so to the right that the bishops were didnt like it. But amidst all of the skreeds in terms of the need to support vouchers and parental rights and education and an overwhelmingly antiabortion, anticontraception stance is in 1979 an article arguing against any effort to stop the flow of immigrants, and it was like this very pro immigrant dont build a wall, we need to welcome immigrants. Theres no such thing as illegal immigration. This doesnt fit necessarily how we understand politics of either the present or the past, and so i think that does give us i mean, a lot to work with if were willing to work with it, but also can i think one of the reasons it can be set aside is because it does challenge some conventional narratives. And so i think that brings us to the present moment which as i said when we started, i think in many ways politically religion is all around us. Its invoked constantly. Its certainly seen to be generating a lot of the policies of the trump administration. We see it on the whether its with the muslim ban on the one hand or the setup of the office of the division of conscience and religious freedom in the office of civil rights within health and human services, you know, we see religion playing clear roles in the administration. We also see, you know, what are we at, 22 candidates in the democratic primary also talking about religion in i think interesting and new ways. We see reverend william willia. The question to think about, how do we work with this . How do we explain this politically, religiously . What does this do to our notions of narratives of the 21st century, how did we get here . Whats changed . Whats different or not about this moment . I think one thing i would say in response to that in thinking of the long trajectory of history is if we look back, one of the things we might notice is there are moments in time when religion is particularly salient. Particularly influential in politics and Foreign Policy. And then it kind of ebbs and flows. And my sense is that there is more salience for religion in moments of social dislocation and challenge. So when i think of the gilded age and progressive era, religion as more salience in politics. When i think of the long Civil Rights Movement, this isnt to overgeneralize. Its just when there are these moments, it seems as though religious actors either because there is sort of a built in locust for organizing in a particular faith community, or because those arguments, the nature of the theoretical arguments are can be applied, it seems that that can be sort of more salient in the moment. So religion can be a way to understand the problem, and to propose what seemed to be god ordained answers to them. Though, it can also be a way to argue for keeping things as they are. Right . There are plenty of people who made religiously inflected arguments for the reason things were the way they were, and that imperialism is great for reasons related to god. You can make the arguments on both sides. Its not just the left or the right. These are religion is malleable. You can have different interpretations of ente religious texts. Thats the whole thing. And who is the outside arbiter to tell you youre right or wrong, and therefore, its one of the questions that was posed was a question of the language of religious freedom in our current political debate, and how do we see religious conservatives and religious liberals making arguments about religious freedom and theyre talking about completely Different Things . Being forced to provide services equally to everyone is seen as an infringement of religious freedom and then people say if you look abroad at people being killed and imprisoned for their religious beliefs, thats an attack on religion. Both sides are using the language. Its politically powerful. You dont want to argue against religious freedom. The language is powerful. Even if it is meaning Different Things to different people, and so because these sort of terms are so malleable, its a challenge, but it also means that were going to keep seeing this. Its not going away in this particular moment of so much sort of challenge in society. Thats right. Yeah. Im not sure i have a great answer. I mean, in some ways for me, my inclination is always again to ask about money. And, you know, i think perhaps one of the things that can help explain our political moment is how deeply seemingly disinterested academics are in americans religious beliefs, but those people were not ambivalent in any way about those beliefs. They invested heavily. They give money. They tie whatever form of labor they have to their religious commitments and they build institutions. And i think that part of the reason that religion is so powerful in our moment today is because they have a lot of capital. I mean that in the financial i mean, they also have other kinds of capital, but they have a lot of money. And they use that money and those resources in pursuit of their political world views. And so without paying attention to religion, i think were getting a really thin understanding of americans, their political commitments and where they come from. Also thinking just one thing that that raises for me, thinking institutions but also tv, radio, and other media. Universities and colleges. The other question is also thinking forward. What is the rise of folks who dont identify with a particular religion going to mean for those of us who study religious history . How is that going to interact with some of the questions of these groups that have a tremendous amount of capital, and incredibly Large Population of americans who are not part of that, that community. Right. I think it raises these its said, religion does exist as a protected constitutional category, and i mean, i do think that probably belief is the most protected category legally in the United States. You can believe whatever you want. The expression of it, the action on it is, of course, where the challenges are. I think that gives rise to a lot of people who if my belief is protected, i should be able to do whatever i want with that belief on the one hand. As weve seen, particularly politically with immigration, with migration, what happens on the border, who gets labeled a terrorist in this country, who doesnt . These are all questions that do tie into american understandings of religion which, again, i think has been as much shaped by government as by religious groups themselves. But i also we want to leave time for questions from the audience, for questions, challenges for things that you think are interesting to discuss, debate, or otherwise talk about. If you could just say who you are. Sure. Im paul. I teach at a liberal arts college in florida. Im really interested in all of the presenters here. Very helpful for so Much Research in teaching, too. And my question is about the attention to religion beyond its confessional terms. So Lerone Martin you put it most sharply. But its tacet throughout much of the panel here, and that suggests a way of thinking about religion beyond church and beyond theology. Toward lived experience. At the same time, its a tacet acceptance of a less trans its imminentism or things along those lines. I wonder your thoughts about the whether through methodology, a kind of tacet acceptance of this broader range of reledge yosty, and for extra credit, if anyone is interested on commenting how that might mike some conservatives upset. Yes. Let me maybe give an example. One of the things that ive been thinking about lately is jesuit spirituality. And the jesuits are all about what they see as cooperating with god and the world. To help bring humanity back to god. So that, to me, is a very lived experience. This is a very idea that everything we do is related somehow as to a worship of god. So its not about necessarily going to church. Its not about necessarily how much you pray. But it is about the kind of actions that you do in the world. And this is why in my own research, i find that Jay Edgar Hoover finds it helpful for his fbi agents. Their actions in the world can be framed in a way that theyre cooperating with the divine to bring america back to god or to keep america on track. So for me, im very comfortable with that, because it helps me as a historian to sort of track these ideas and these actions that are stemming from certain religious categories and ideals that are have reference to transcending ideas but are lived out in the world. Im comfortable with that. And i think that those of us who are living in the world today and watch the news understand that even the religious right has this kind of idea that everything theyre doing and their political activism is somehow for them rooted in a certain type of religious commitment to god in that regard. Ill leave the extra credit to other folks. I sometimes tell my students that we study notthly matters, but matters of the earth as a kind of play to sort of emphasize the extent to which questions of faith are always intimately connected to questions of politics. In fact, i think theyre inseparable, and im not sure everyone agrees with us but nathan. I really enjoyed this panel. And ive been grappling a lot in my own effort to achieve religious literacy and fluency in thinking about what to do with institutions and churches that are actually funding projects or thinking a lot about the language of religion as being one that is as important as learning romance languages or language of music. I wonder if one other the answers to dilemma to reasoning as a language, is there needs to be a methodology piece thats dropped. Kind of a gender did some work or folks for bringing the state back in. Is this a moment where you need that piece to really call to arms historians who would benefit from having religion in the tool kit of other fluencies that they have . Thats a general question for the panel to respond to. Specifically, and i have this is an interesting time. Ill reduce this to one. I wanted to get professor martin, if you could, respond to what in the news cycle. Mlk. Around the documents being scrawled around Marten Luther king, and for those less familiar, a historian felt it his duty to release some salacious scuttlebutt around Martin Luther king junior that had to do with speculations from an unnamed author in the fbi who thought mlk was a its an extraordinary revision of the fbi to think about it as a religious institution. And to think about the moral fbi. And believe it or not, i have access to Colonial Office records about my great grandfather and theres marge untilty about crimes he may have committed. Im grappling with this and where you come down on what we may credibly draw or infer given your research on a moral fbi about what the character of the organization might be, and what does it tell us about the nature of state surveillance, and what to do with these kinds of things where you have a bundle on documentations talking about folks who are intimately concerned about their spiritual lives and morality, but we know the fbi is trying to very clearly engage in preemptive strikes against black radicals and the likes. Where are we supposed to balance your findings with what leaves historians broadly very uncomfortable about speculations . Well, so i guess well go backwards. Ill do the mlk thing. Thank you for raising that. I appreciated the comments i read that you made about this as well. I have to say that i was disappointed in the way that david garo who i count as a colleague. I was disappointed in the way that he framed his findings. We all know from his wonderful work on bearing the cross and the fbi Martin Luther king, we know that as you mentioned, that the fbi was out to get martin king. Theres no doubt about it. I was disappointed that he presented the research in a way with leaving most of that context out. So for folks who havent read his books, they dont know that the fbi makes a claim in 1963 to Jay Edgar Hoover in a 70page report by saying martin king is not a communist. The communists dont have any influence on the Civil Rights Movement. Everything is influence on this movement. Everything is fine. Hoover is upset and writes back to William Sullivan and others this is ridiculous. And after martin kings march on washington address, they immediately change their analysis. You know what, mr. Hoover, youre right, hes the most dangerous negro in the world and we cannot count on, and this is key and i wish garro cited this, we can no longer count on evidence that will stand up in a court of law or congressional committees in order to discredit Martin Luther king. We have to go beyond that sort of evidence. He doesnt mention that. And i think thats really important that the fbi is aiming to find anything they can to discredit him. Including, as i mentioned in my own work, funneling and having ministers launder information about Martin Luther king as if he is a communist when they said themselves they have no evidence of this. So one of the things i think that garro could have done in the article is at least mention the broader background that the fbi has already decided that they are not going to depend on evidence that will stand up in a court of law or before a congressional committees. The second thing i think i wish he would have done is also to put the fbi surveillance of martin king and his sexual habits in a broader history of surveillance of black sexuality and black bodies. That we know in lots of centuries that the way that africanamerican bodies, especially talking about sexuality and especially black women is always characterized as unnatural. Right. Or something that is abnormal. And so for the fbi to make this claim, they are in a long tradition of doing that within america. And, finally, the framing of the article i think was made to be in a kind of me too format. Right. The idea that Martin Luther king had sat back and laughed and given advice while a women was sexually assaulted. So i think it was framed in a way to be a palable me too moment. And the me too moment has taught us we need to listen to women around issues of Sexual Assault, in particularly around men of power. But we dont have these womens voices in this article. What we have the fbi and margin el written by an unwritten person in the fbi upon a transcript of an audio recording. And thats a lot of steps. An audio recording that we wont have access to until at least 2027. So it was framed in a way that i think was inappropriate. And i think if garro had done some of those things, we could have engaged the work and engaged the claims. But, instead, it was presented in hawaii that i think was unfair to the historical evidence that is there. Now in 2027, perhaps well be able to listen to the tapes and judge for ourselves. It may be in fact the sexual encounter, but the way it was described the fbi agents i think again has to be understood in light of the longer campaign against king, thats not concerned about evidence and data. For example, let me say real quickly, if it was, if that was the case of the fbi had actually had martin king on tape with evidence that he was sitting back watching a Sexual Assault occur, why not turn that over to the local authorities in d. C. , then you have martin king supposedly with evidence being part of a crime that was committed. So i just question if that was the case, why the fbi did not use that material to actually do the very thing they wanted to do. So, again, i think if it was framed in a way that was more truthful to the evidence with more context, with a longer broader historical narrative about the fbi, African Americans, especially africanamerican activists like your family, i think the article we could have really engaged it in a way. But instead it was presented in a way that i would argue that wausau l was salacious and not always truth in context of the historical record. The wonderful question about the historical, an an article being dropped, ill just say, yes. All right. Hi, im berth fr from the university. Isnt one of the reasons religions and politics is not discussed, personal, a number of historians and other scholars and academia intripsicly between religion and politics and other sectors of life is based on misplaced fear that engaging in such discussion would fall establishing a religion or promoting any form of religious expression or preference. I mean, i think it is certainly a long standing convention that the explanation for historians not engaging deeply with religion is that they are not religious or more extremely hostile to religion. But that doesnt explain why religion has retained importance in early American History. Like you dont do early American History without paying attention to religion. So i dont think early americanists are somehow more religious bunch than modern americanists. And, you know, and similarly, i think if we look at other related fields, sociology, for example, where i dont think religion is necessarily always the central category, but it is certainly present in a way in most sociological analyses that i think hasnt been the case for history. So, and i dont think as a group, though i havent studied it, i wouldnt put money on sociologists being more friendly to religion than historians either. So i mean i think thats why these other i think there is probably some maybe disinterest or disinclin ages because it doesnt seem personally powerful perhaps. Or because it seems less critical to a certain ways of understanding the past than other categories do. But, you know, i think thats wyatt least some of the explanations we have offered today i think kind of help get at some of the other structural and other difficulties. Because i think sort of mere indifference. If it was mere indifference, then there are lots of other not everyone comes to graduate training in history with an intrin sick interest in race, gender, class, sexuality, yet all of those you could not get away with not engaging in those categories, i dont think. And so the question to me remains, why this one . And i think, you know, yes some disinterest may explain part of it. But i think there are other dimensions. Yeah, i mean that sort of captures that. Im not sure its not why inherently religion. Im not religious and i find it fascinating in peoples world views and beliefs shape their engagement with the wider world. And its so significant in the past for so many different groups, not all. It seems surprising to me we dont talk more about it in 20th century. And its still significant. And its still significant today, yeah, sab absolutely. And ill just add in teaching, i taught american religious history this semester, and a number of students said, you know, wow, like this just explains things. And ive never recognized havent understood or i teach in fl ka. They are like this is not the narrative of Caesar Chavez that you get. There is a lot of good things you dont get with that in the Public High School system in california. But nevertheless, like paying attention to his catholicism does explain certain aspects of his organizing farm workers. And also the ways in which why when he sets up when they set up health care clinics, they dont provi provide contraception at them. Like a lot of registers that are important. And california has finally done away with build a Mission Project in fourth grade which is incredibly problematic for imperialistic reasons but also for the simplistic understanding what the role of the missions in the california. And but at the same time students would say even understanding the geography of california and politics of california its important to understand the legacy of Spanish Colonial missions. So students i think are very thankful for this. So one of the things i would urge is just, you know, this is an opportunity that students really, in my experience, have really attracted to. And i say this also as the first person to teach american religious history at berkeley since henri maher retired in 1980. So, you know. And i would only add to that thinking about the classroom, i think this is where professor conleys point is so important, is that i find students in the classroom struggle in the same way that student in the classroom struggle to talk about race and sophisticated and informed ways. I think our students also struggle with talking about religion and sophisticated and informed ways. Especially in the midst of, in this country where our students if they are inundated at all with religion, its the loudest which is mostly the right. And i think students struggle when they haear religion they think religion right. And when you introduce them to martin king, they said this is not what i thought religious people did. So i think we are confronted with a wonderful opportunity, but to professor conleys point, we also have to be clear about giving them a language and dis course how to talk about these ideas in the classroom. Yeah. I mean the other thing is my i dont know if this is truly true, but miocene sus a lot of students their engagement only perhaps engagement around religion on American College campuses is usually related to the israel conflict and groups disagreeing. And now nobody wants to touch that stuff with a tenfoot poll. So i teached a class on american zionism, and of course they would let me teach it, but they are sort of looking at me you are opening up a bag of worms you really dont want. So miocene sus is we cannot under play how much that conversation has hijacked any sort of serious engagement around religion for fear of in flaming tensions that already exist and that universities so poorly manage to begin with. Go ahead. I take religion very seriously. So my question sort of comes out of teaching as well. And ill sort of for my own personal experience, i teach at Oregon University Smaller University in. They are the west. They dont know what the reformation was, right, most of them, not all. But part of me, and trying to understand the reticence that students have and the difficulty they have talking about religion, and ill frequently have this occasion where a student will be talking about religion in class, then afterwards a student will come out to me as being religious. I myself identify as a person of faith. But clearly they sense like this is a safe space where they can talk about the fact that they go to church. And that thats okay. And its stunning to me that they feel that sense that its not okay. And i wonder how much of that has to do with the death of this narrative of ecumenical and how the cold war fits into that. I think of ways in the 70s and 80s and protestant and the ju. And we are not godless one. And when the cold war ends the sense of emergency goes away and connected to the polarization in general and where id tedentiti have gotten so polarized. And issues around race, i get the issue teachers are afraid to say the wrong thing and there isnt the space to share the opened awareness with difference, that its okay we are of different faiths and we can talk about that. So i dont know those of you teach religious history, you have experience with that, how do you do that . Or what have you done that has enabled students to release some of that pressure and be comfortable sitting with each other in a diverse setting of people of different faiths . I dont know if you have ideas about that. I would be open to suggestions you have how to do that. Yeah. I mean one thing when i teach my religion and politics seminar which is a sort of senior level seminar, sometimes the first time that my history students are reading about how pluralistic American Society was even, as you know, from very early on. So some of it is just introducing them to notions of different religions interacting, native american religions, islam, early on, i mean so much happening in early america. So i this hi just giving them a space to think about pluralism and the way that that comes out in the founding documents. I mean, some of that just gives them a space so far removed from the current polarization that i think they do feel safe talking about it in the early periods of American History. Then we Start Talking about religious right, introducing there are politically left leaning evangelicals, a whole group of them, the fact most students dont realize that. So trying to pull them out of this sense there is pt only religion is this kind of religious right and very polarizing and they dont identify with it, many of them, not all of them. I think introducing this idea that there has always been such a wide diversity of religion in america really gives them a space to talk about, oh what does this mean for politics and the constitution and the laws that get passed. Why do some groups who might it be relatively small in numbers but very loud have so much outside influence and what does that mean for us now. Id say primary sources. I think, its so obvious, but m method logically but also ped pedologically, eventually they do begin to assert their own opinions and thoughts more, but they have something to start with that is in black and white and they i think appreciate that. Yeah. I find that theyll assume a person who is religious has a deficit especially the secular students. This person somehow doesnt understand it. This person has a set of beliefs, right, that blind them from seeing the world, whereas i have course see the world exactly as it is. You know, this kind of silly agnostic or whatever. So getting the students out of that space, right, to respect it. Then when you add the politics on to it, they are like i dont want to get inside of that. Not only does that person have a deficit, but also someone they dont like and agree with. And so the bursting that bubble i think is incredibly hard. Well, not to really go after herbert today, but the truth is that the bulk are you 20th century american religious history is really history of condensation. And despite discussions and dis cursive attempts to make everything consensus and united its difficult to find sources that, you know, if we take out the protestant catholic jew ones, its hard to find these events. So, yeah, if you just reveal the sort of past to them, you cant escape it. Its so painfully obvious that sort of protestant catholic jewish. It does not in any way get at the complexity diversity and deep, deep sort of discontent between and amongst and within even. I mean, we even talk about these religious institutions, groups, denominations, right, as somehow they are unified. They are going at each other too in their spaces but understanding this kind of history is always a battleground i think is key to being able to sort of combat that kind of like acumen cal religion we are all in this together cold war type of thing. Ill add to what my two colleagues have pointed out is one way i try to point out that with my students, we have a religion in politics minor at wasu, and what ive been increasingly finding while students may doubt the importance of religion, as you said some may view it as some type of deficit, ive also found at this age, and im sure youll find it too students from 18 to 23 are also trying to figure out who they are, right. And there is a way that i think studying religion for some of them is it a way to help them figure out who they are, who they want to be, the type of world they want to live in. So one way that i do that is to expose them to folks who felt compelled by religion to engage in progressive politics. And i do that in particularly in a class called religion in the Civil Rights Movement where i try to expose them to folks in the modern Civil Rights Movement who felt compelled. And longer course politics in america would extend to other folks in the 20th century. I found that at least in my context in the midwest to be very helpful for students to say, oh, well there are other religious voices as though i view as trying to be regressive in politics but being more progressive. So i think that helps students to understand that as lauren said early that religion, right, can be used for, not used, but religion has been involved in a number of projects both progressive and liberal and otherwise. All right. One final question. Really, just a comment or a shout out to the whole panel. When i asked a question that in the body of the question was y y nary between this, that martin, when you answered in particular showing ways in which there are intersections with your examples, i think it was the jesuits and others, and thats just a micro cocosm that each o yours to understanding religious hours. So just a shout out to say thanks. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you all for joining us today. Thank you. [ applause ] week nights this month featuring American History tv programs. As preview of whats available every weekend on cspan 3. Tonight we continue our look at apollo 11 moon landing about the mission commissioned by nasa. The film covers prelift off preparations to parades for the ast astronauts as people watch imagines first steps on the world. You can see it starting tonight on cspan3. Enjoy cspan 3 tonight and every night on cspan3. We are featuring American History programs as a preview whats available on every weekend on skpran 3. American art facts. Real america. The civil war. Oral history. The presidency. And special event coverage about our nations history. Enjoy American History tv now and every weekend on cspan3. Watch book tv for live coverage of the National Book festival. Saturday august 31 starting at 10 00 a. M. Eastern. Our coverage enjoys ruth bader ginsburg, her own words. Sharon robinson talks about her book, child of the dream. British are many coming. And Thomas Malone founding director of the mit center for collective intelligence discusses his book super minds. The National Book festival, live saturday, august 31st, at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on book tv on cspan2. American history tv continues now with a look at the first u. S. Congress which was seeded in 1790 in new york city. Right after that, George Washington was inaugurated as americas first president. They now exactly the early years of the federal government and politics of the 1790s. From Purdue University this is an hour and a half. All right. I think well get started. Welcomeve