Transcripts For CSPAN3 Religious Influence On U.S. Politics 20240713

American history tv continues now with a look at the influence of religion on u. S. Politics and Foreign Policy in the 20th century. From purdue university, this is an hour and a half. Thank you all for coming. Im ronit stahl. Ill be chairing this roundtable today. Ill give a brief overview of how it came to be and what well talk about and quickly introduce our group. Then well get started. 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, religions continuing importance contains analysis. In political history religion has retained in butlers evocative term, a jack in the box view. Today our roundtable will address how religion matters in american political history and well do so in three ways. First ill 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 provocation. Why have political historians remained 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 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 on 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 examines the fbi and its relationship to religion. 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 fbi have strongly dismissed the role of religion in the making and 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 downplay 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 School Teacher 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 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 began 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 with 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 years, 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 pious soldiers drafted to embark on a crusade against all things ungodly. Americans began to see their fbi agents as a clearinghouse. 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 christian . Mr. Hoover, 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. All to influence 20th century politics. 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 lightfoot 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 what 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 its 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. [ applause ] 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 evangelical 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 policymaking. I find in particular that it helps shed light on the formation of ideology and national values. And how policymakers 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 Policymaking. 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 evangelical groups 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 evangelicalize. 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 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 soviet 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. 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 human rights and religious freedom language or sport forconstructive engagement in south africa as being an effort to prevent the spread of communist and religious persecution. 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 policymakers particularly conservative policymakers were interpreting state violence and 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 mattered, and bringing religion into our study of politics and Foreign Policy really matters. It reminds us of the way that policymakers 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 beliefs motivate grassroots 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 activism is critical. 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 policymaking. 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, 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 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 human 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 historiography 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 20th 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 2,500 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 write 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 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 civil churches, and the National Catholic welfare conference altogether 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 imagine that there are ways not through anticapitalist activism, but through reformist politics to produce a system that could more equitably distribute the wealth of the nation. And indeed the 1 has become the language post occupy. This always was 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 long before sort of a public consensus that there were challenges with capitalism. And so bringing religionous sort to bear as a category analysis, leigh lous historia allows historians and religious studies people which is something that we can talk about, allow us to complicate prevailing understandings of the rise of 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 t traditions at various times and places have concerned themselves with not only salvation but communal redemption and have attempted to do that through largescale corporate organizing. 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 now working on health care. So two major institutional actors in American History. And when i think about the military, i want to suggest that well, first of all, when i started that project the most common reaction i got was, uh, ive never thought about that before. Like why would religion have any role in the military . Sure, maybe individuals were religious, but sort of end of story. And what i discovered through the chaplainsy 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 or incentives and disincentives for participation in the chaplainsy did a lot to challenge sum religious groups and also facilitate access to power for others. So to take just one example that la ro lerone mentioned, if we look at someone like dwight eisenhower, to look at religion requires understanding his role in the military. Because what he brought to bear when he got to office, when he became a member of the Presbyterian Church in d. C. And was sort of part of that political scene, were certain of understandings of religious pluralism in which a number could coincide and live with one another and that a baction acceptance of god and morality was enough. You didnt have to dwell on the theological details. In many ways, that was a vision that a lot of americans coming outs of world war ii shared, but it was also a vision that could be coopted by others who saw the sought to use it for more divisive purposes. Someone like eisenhower perceived as a shared understanding was not shared but used by others for different ends. And if we look at that moment, its also the moment when more conservative sectarian, oriented religious groups wanted to enter the military and made very distinct decisions to, for example, create their own semnaries so th seminaries and be in a space to shape policy. 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 could make religious arguments and also make what might appear as not religious arguments to shape that religious space, but also that the government 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 start to reshape it. And 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, im 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 cop tntraception ord of life care, the moments that clearly involve theological disagreements. But i was in the archives this past week look atting at a number of papers in the. 30s. 40s, and. 50s. And one thing that that was clear, the pros secretary and erosion sure of the possibility of a National Health insurance program. If part, because think the traditional narrative associates the 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, forgot nin thten in that ne is a group of hospitals that would say it is vital to provide health care to poor people. This is necessary and its tied to our religious beliefs. And 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 . So this is an area in which it doesnt necessarily seem to be about religion or theology, but hospitals are businesses, hospitals are 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. And its this contradictory nature of religion in these institutional spaces that i think deserves far more sustained attention, not just by me, but by others. In part, because it is so complex because there isnt a single party line or about what religion is in this space, but also religious groups themselves. Theres really wonderful back and forth i found in the early 1970s between what was then the National Conference of catholic bishops and catholic thee loath jans disputing what should or shouldnt be allowable and what specifically it met if hospitals were serving a pluralist patients and people working in them werent catholic. They were far more interested in pluralism, than the bishops, that perhaps isnt surprising. But the fact that 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 religious debates as well as intrareligious debates and 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. But 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 synthesis, and call for papers . I regularly cephas natisee fasc calls that list a very long list of subfields and history and religion is still not mentioned. 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 to that question. Theyre simple and short, but i hope that theyre agagenerativer our discussion. The first reason 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 attendence . Is it our relationship to capitalism . Is it fill lan throp snick whph . What is religion . That is something some of us in the field are still debating what it is and it ranges from people who see it every where to folks say it doesnt exist at all. So perhaps settling on a definition of religion that does not focus on the supernatural, but actually focuses more so on how individuals see the world or maybe as catherine has 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 once said, as a jack in the box. Its an epiphenomenon. Its a secondary experience or spectacle that is caused by and accompanies a physical phenomenon, but has no causal relationship to it whatsoever. So religion, as john butler once said in his articles, oftentimes in political history pops up colorfully on occasion. Appearing as a momentary, idiosyncratic thrusting of impulses from a more distant american past. But perhaps armed with a more robust definition of religion that does not simply put forth an extraordinary or an idea of a mystified power and values. If we have a definition that actually deals with the every day and the quoting in every day life, perhaps we can listen aneu n anew to our historical acctors. We can move away from forgone conclusions in the lives of our historical actors and get down to the nittygritty of what they actually believed. How us eisenhower understood the role of joining a church. How j. Edgar hoover understood it, for example. Perhaps this can help to us avoid our own understandings of religion or even sort of reading into our actors, our own biases as it relates to religion. Finally, and second, perhaps another thing that hinders the study of relimgon gion is the i that its exclusively confessional. This idea that the popular notion among scholars and the broader public that for those who study religion are not only themselves relith jos agious an are defending the page. Few understand that religion like race, sexuality, gender, can be approached as a tool of inquiry. I often avoid discussing my research when im on planes, trains, 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 that has plagued them since their childhood . Is heaven and hell real . Will i do go there . Or sometimes did adam name the dinosaurs . These are sorts of questions that im not making up that have actually happened to me. This is often far from the truth about what religion scholars do, especially my colleagues here on the stage or here on the podium, the platform. People actually do study these questions, obviously, in theological training, but that is not the exclusive fear of inquiry, especially talking about political history. Often times folks who study religious are not religious themselves. This is not to call myself and my colleagues heath thaneens, b is to call them to the fact that such notions can hinder us from the American Experience and the American History. We have more historians whether heathen or otherwise studying religion, we can help 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 jackinthebox phenomenon that john butler referred to and even, yes, add nate religion can be colorful and surprising, but it should not be left on the periphery. It should not be left to pop out of the 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 or triumphant narrative, nor one thats relative to a periodic disdain and neglect, but a rigorous and consistent interrogation in our political narratives. So instead of a jack in the box, perhaps we could let religion enjoy what john butler called an extended performance, not as a standalone performer on the historical stage, but alongside other aspects of the americexpe of democracy. I would echo some of what lerone said in the sense that i think 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 has 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, 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 methodological 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 . And 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, you know, one might not always want to go in that direction. They can get a lot of pushback. Yeah, i have a few thoughts on this. One is structural related to the academy. As a person who thinks about capitalism a lot, there has been this sort of resurgence, this sort of 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 jetsonned any sort of specialty and religion to religious studies departments. Which is fine to some extent, but, you know, if we want historians to do religion, we actually is to hire them to do it in history departments. Really radical idea, i know, but it is it is, in fact, about oftentimes where you are structurally located in the university. Im a historian working, you know, based in a Religion Department in an institute for jewish studies and i have a real i love when people ask me what i do. I say im a political historian, just to let them think for a second, wait, how do those things connect, right . And it always confuses them. I sort of get a good chuckle. The second thing i think short of shapes this sort of historians who ignore religion i might get in trouble but ill say this anyway. Which is will herberg seems to have a real outsized influence. And it is this kind of real thing where everybody sort of just assumes that herberg is right. And it always seems to me that the sort of underlying sort of thought process is, well, he got it. He got it right and so whats there left to say . And this is, i think, wrong in a lot of ways. But also i think its important to place herberg in his political context, which is in a world of consensus history. Will herberg was pro scriptive, not descriptive. To a large extent i would argue, and maybe you can speak more to this directly, by the time herberg writes profit tent catholic jew in 1955, its all of most a decade later that Time Magazine can ask on its cover is god dead . Which i think in some ways points to how problematic it is that we sort of accept this idea of sort of, you know, judeau christian tradition. Although i say im not even sure what that means. So i think that and also by the 1950s there are a range of other faith traditions that are banging at the door of the state in particular for resources and acknowledgements, right . So buddists and hindus and atheists and evangelicals are critiquing that structure. But even so, historians, you know, particularly those who dont do rewritligion, when the, they reference herberg and move on. I think that might be part of why historians are ignoring it. The last thing i would say is it seems intimately connected to me to teaching, which is that its really hard to teach religion insofar as a student of mine comes in and theyre, you know, saying something that i would consider to be, you know, in the vane of white supremacy. I know how to combat that. I know how to respond to that. But faith claims are actually really different insofar 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 and prior to that i had only taught history classes and no student had ever proclaimed their religion to me before asking a question. But in my classroom now, i would say at least half of my students begin their question by say i am or am not x, but. And its really intimate and it requires, you know, deafness that not all of us, i dont think you know, certainly were not trained to have in graduate school and i think many of us have sort of cobbled together skills to be able to teach religion for those of you who are not religion people by birth or methodology or something. So i think that, you know, its hard to teach religion and i think that thats also a real barrier. Yeah, and i think this kind of question around finesse and how do we work whether its with students or with sources, one of the things ive been thinking 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, you know, if you do legal history you learn law. If you do medical history you learn a lot about medicine. If you do Business History you learn a lot about business methods. But i think part of what it means to do religion well at least is to kind of become fluent in a number of different religious languages to be able to discern the difference between what certain words mean and different faith traditions and what theyre therefore signaling to be able to think about what it is that those words are signaling to a Faith Community and what at the same time they may be registering quite differently with other faith communities and with just other communities in general. And i think thats thats a real challenge. So figuring out this sort of religious literacy necessary to unpack and work with terminology thats 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, meth methodologically, we do a lot of work trying to think through sources in deep and sophisticated ways, and religion often challenges what that looks li 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 lang wage uage in 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 africanamerican church that is, you know, very much on the Progressive Left when it comes to Racial Justice in many domains, but isnt necessarily when were grappling with gender . I think tailors work 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 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 there, again, the bishops were, like, didnt like it. But amidst all of the screeds in terms of the need to support, you know, vouchers and parental rights and education and like, you know, 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 imgra immigrant, dont build a wall, we need to welcome immigration. So this doesnt fit, necessarily, how we understand politics of either the present or the past. So i think that does give us, i mean, a lot to work with if were willing to work with it. But one of the reasons it can be set aside is because is it does challenge some conventional narratives. 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, you know, whether its with the muslim ban on the one hand or the setup of the office of the division of conscious 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 barber, his organizingful morful monday morning movement. So the question therefore 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, you know, history in the 21st century and to think about whether its historical antecedents or just as we do as historians, how do we get here . Whats changed . Whats different or not about this moment . I think one thing i would say in response to that, thinking of the long trajectory of history, if we look back one of the things we might notice is that there are moments in time when religion is particularly salient, particularly influential in politics and Foreign Policy, and then 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, right, religion has more salience in politics. When i think of the long Civil Rights Movement, this isnt to overgeneralize, when there are these moments it seems as though religion and religious actors, either because there is sort of builtin locust for organizing in a particular Faith Community or because those arguments, the nature of the theoretical arguments can be applied, it seems that 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 . So there are plenty of, you know, robert barons who made religiously inflected arguments for the reason things were the way they were and that, you know, imperialism is great for reasons related to god. You can make these arguments on both sides. Its not just the left or the right. Religion is inherently mall youll be one of the questions that was pose was this question of the language of religious freedom in our current political debate. And, you know, how do we see religious conservatives and liberals making arguments about religious freedom . And theyre talking about completely Different Things, right . Being forced to being forced to provide services equally to everyone as seen as ann fringe meant of religious freedom. And then people are saying, well, if you look abroad at people who are being killed and imprisoned for their relith jous beliefs, thats really an attack on religious freedom. But both sides are making this argument using this language and its because that language is politically powerful. You dont want to be arguing 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 theyre going to were going to keep seeing this. Its not going away in this particular moment of so much sort of challenge in society. Me . Yeah, im not sure i have a great answer. I mean, in some ways, for me, my inclination is to always ask about money. I think, perhaps, one of the things that can help explain our is our political moment is, in fact, how deeply seemingly disinterested academics are in americans religious beliefs. But those people were not ambivalent in any way about those beliefs and they invested heavily. They give money. They tie their whatever form of labor they have to their religious commitments. And they built they build institutions. And i think that part of the reason that religion is to powerful in our moment today is because they actually as it turns out, have a lot of capital in this financial 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, you know, americans, their political commitments, and where those commitments come from. You know, 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 white house study religious history. How is that going to interact with some of these questions with these groups that have a tremendous amount of capital and a Large Population of americans who are not part of that community. Yeah. I think it raises these questions i mean, as 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 you can believe whatever you want. The expression of it, the action on it is, of course, where the challenges are. And i think that that gives rise to a lot of people who, you know, if my belief is protected i should be able to do whatever i want with that belief, on the one hand. And then, of course, 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. And if you could just say who you. Sure. My name is paul. I teach at set itson university, liberal arts college in florida and im really interested in all 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, throughout much of the panel here. That suggests a way of thinking about religion beyond church and beyond theology toward lived experience. And at the same time, its a tacit acceptance of a less transdentalist expression of religion, to use the fancy language, its eminentism. So i just wondered about your thoughts whether through nod methodology, a tacit acceptance of this broader range of reli religiosity, and if someone wants to comment on how that make might make some conservatives rather upset. Yes. Well, let me maybe give an example. So one of the things that ive been thinking about lately is jesuit spirituality. And the jesuits based on Saint Ignatius 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, right . 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 j. Edgar hoover finds this so helpful for his fbi agents, because 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 that are have reference to transcendent ideas but are really, really lived out in the world. So 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 right has this kind of idea that everything that theyre doing and their political activism is somehow, for them, rooted in a religious commitment to god in that regard. So ill leave the extra credit to other folks. I sometimes tell my students that we study not earthly matters but matters of the earth as a kind of play to sort of emphasize the extent to which, yeah, questions of faith are always intimately connected to, you know, questions of politics. In fact, i think theyre inseparable. And im not sure everyone agrees with this, but. Nathan, Johns Hopkins university. I really enjoyed this panel and ive been grappling a lot in my own effort to achieve credible literacy and fluency and thinking about what do with institutions and churches that are actually funding projects or thinking a lot about, you know, the language of religion as being one that is as important as learning romance languages, the language of music. So i wonder if one of the answers to the dilemma of religion as a language is that there needs to be some kind of methodological piece thats dropped in a major, the way that gender has a category,al nis did some work, bring williing the s back in. Is this a moment that you need to call to arms historians who would bring in the toolkit with influences that they have . Thats a question for the panel to respond to. And specifically, ill just reduce this to one, i wanted to get professor martin to respond within the news cycle around around the documents being skro scrolled around Martin Luther king. David thought that his duty to release some pretty salacious scuttlebutt around Martin Luther king jaune jur king jr. Felt that dr. King been a party to or a witness of a crime of sexual violence. Im curious to get your 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 about crimes he may have committed as a salacious nature. Im grappling with this having to do my own writing but thinking about the news cycle it self and where you come down on what we may credibly draw or infer given your research on what the characterization of the fbi might be and what does it tell us about state surveillance and what do with these kinds of claims where you have a bundle of documentation thats talking about folks who are intimately concerned about their spiritual lives and morality on the one hand. But we also know that the fbi is trying to very clearly engage in preemptive strikes against black radicals and the likes. So where are we supposed to balance your findings with what leaves historians, broadly, very uncomfortable. Well, so i guess well go backwards, thank you for raising that, nathan. I appreciated the comments that i read that you made about this as well. I 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. As we all know from his wonderful work on bearing the cross and the fbi Martin Luther king, we know that, as you mentioned, 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 j. Edgar hoover ins a 70page report by saying martin king is not a communist, the commune necommuneist dont have any findings on the movement, its fine. He writes back saying this is absurd, ridiculous. And then after martin kings march on washingtons address, they immediately change their analysis. You were right, hes the most dangerous negro in the world and we cannot count on and this is key, i wish that garo would have 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 theyve said themselves they have no evidence of this. So one of the things i think that garo could have done in the article was at least mention the broader background that the fbi has already decided that theyre not going to depend on evidence that will stand up in a court of law or before a congressional committees. The second thing i wish he would have done is also to put the fbi surveillance of martin king and his sexual habits and a broader history of surveillance of black sexual history and black bodies. And we know in lots of records and lots of centuries the way that africanamericans bodies, especially talking about sexuality and black women is always, always characterized as unnatural, right . Or something that is abnormal. And so for the fbi to make this claim, theyre 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 king had sat back and laughed and given advice while a woman was sexually assaulted. I think it was framed as a way to be palpable for a me too moment of, but the me too moment has taught us among many things is that we need to listen to the voices of women, both past, present, and future around these issues of Sexual Assault. Especially around people and particularly men of power. But we dont have these womens voices in this article. What we have is the fbi and written by an unnamed 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. It was frimd inamed in a way th not appropriate and the evidence that is available to us right now. I think that if garo had done some of those things, we could have engaged the work and engaged the claims. But, instead, it was presented in a way that i think was unfair to the historical evidence that is there. Now, in 2027 perhaps well be able to listen to the tapes, well be able to judge for ourselves and maybe, in fact, the sexual encounter but the way it was described by 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 just say really quickly, if it was, if that was the case. It 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 engaged in a way but instead presented in a way that i would argue was salacious and not true to the historical record in the context of a historical record. The wonderful question about the historical article being dropped, ill just say, yes. [ laughter ] all right. So. Im burt shannon from the university. Isnt one of the reasons particularly in secular academia why religion in politics is not first of all, a number of historians and other scholars are intrinsically hostile to any forms of religion. And it is it possible that they discuss and other sectors alike is based on misplaced fear that engaging in such discussion would involve, you know, establishing religion or promoting, you know, any form of religious expression or preference . I mean, i think it is certainly a longstanding convention that the explanation for historians not engaging deeply with religion is is that theyre not religious or or more extremely hostile to religion. But that doesnt explain why religion has retained importance in early American History. You dont do early American History without paying attention to religion. So i dont think early americanists are somehow a more religious bunch than modern americanists. 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 sos y sos yolgyists being more interested either. I think theres some disinterest 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 i think thats why at least some of the explanations weve offered today i think kind of help get at some of the other structural and other difficulties because i think sort of mirror in difference, if it were mere indifference, then, you know, there are lots of other not everyone comes to graduate training in history with an intrinsic interest in race, gender, class, sexuality and yet all of those you could not get away with not engage willing in those categories. I dont think. So the question remains why this one . I think some disinterest may explain part of it, but i think there are other dimensions. Yeah, mine, that sort of captures it. Im just not sure why its not im not religious and i find this i find it fascinating the way so much worlds beliefs shape their engagement with the wider world. Its so significant in the past for so many different, not all, sbou many different groups. It seems surprising to me that we dont talk about it more. Its still significant. Its still significant today, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Ill add it teach requiring taught american religious history this sneftemester and a number of students said, whoa, this just explained things that i recognized and hadnt understood. This isnt the narrative cesar chavez that you get. Theres a lot of things about him that you dont get in the Public Schools of california. But nevertheless paying attention to his catholicism explains certain aspects of his organizing farm workers and also the ways in which why when he sets up whfs th when they set Health Care Clinics they dont provide contraception. There are a lot of registers that are important. Or, you know, california has finally done away with the build a Mission Project in fourth grade which is incredibly problematic for, you know for imperialistic reasons, but also for the simplistic understanding of what the role of the missions in california. But at the same time students would say to me, oh, like, you know, even just understanding the geography of california and the certain politics of california, its important to understand the legacy of spanish coloni colonial missions. Students i think are really thankful for this. So this is an opportunity that students really, in my experience, have, you know, really attracted to. I say this also as the first person to teach american religious history at berkeley since henry mayer retired in 1980. So, you know. I would only add to that, in thinking about the classroom, i think is this is where professor conleys point is so important. I find student in the classroom struggle in the same way students in the classroom struggle to talk about race and sophisticated, informed ways, i think our stid dents aludents t talking about religion in sophisticate and informed ways. Especially in the midst of this country, our students, if theyre inundated with religion, its the groups that are the loudest and thats mostly the religious right. I think a lot of our students struggle with religion, when they hear religion they think religious write reli relithous right. And then when you introduce them to other people, they say this is not what i thought religion did. I think were confronted with the wonderful opportunity. But to professor conleys point were we have to be clear in giving them a language and discourse about how to talk about these ideas in the classroom. The other thing is my i dont know if this is actually true, but my census that a lot of students their only engagement around religion on campuses is about jewish groups and muslim groups disagreeing. And now its, you know, nobody wants to touch that stuff with a ten foot pole. And so, you know, i pitched a class on american zionism and all of my colleagues went you know, of course they would let me teach it. Back up theyre sort of looking at me going youre opening up a bag of worms that you really dont want. And so i think my sense is that, you know, question nwe cannot s underplay how much that conversation has hijacked any sort of serious engagement around will arou around religion for fear of inflaming beliefs that exist and its so poorly managed to begin with. Im early american so [ laughter ] awesome. I take religion very seriously. So my question sort of comes out of teaching as well, and ill sort of just for my own personal experience. I teach at a smaller college in oregon. And most of our students, its the west, you know, theyre very unchurched, for the most part. They dont know they dont even know what the reformation was, right . Most of them, not all. But part of me, in trying to understood their reticence, the difficulty they have talking about religion, ill frequently have this occasion where a student will be talking about e religion in class and afterwards theyll come out to me as being religious. I dont identify as a person of faith, but they sense this is a safe space where they can talk about the fact that they go to church and its okay. Its stunning that they feel that sense its not okay. I wonder how much of that has to do with the death of this narrative of ecomanualism. And when the cold war ends, the sense of unity goes away and it emerges its connected to the polarization in general and the iefts identities have gotten stacked and polarized that students around race and other issues, students are afraid to say the wrong thing and there isnt that space to kind of create a shared sense of openness with difference. That its okay that we have different faiths and we can talk about that. So i dont know how for those of you that teach relimg justgi history, how what have you done that has enabled students to kind of just rerelease some le that pressure and be comfortable sitting with each other in a diverse setting of people with different faiths . I dont know if you have ideas about that, but i would be open to suggestions you have about how do that. When i teach my seniorlevel seminar, its sometimes the first time that that my history students are reading about just how pluralistic American Society was from very early on. Some of it is just introducing them to different notions of american religions interacting, islam early on, native american religions. Theres so much going on. So i think giving them a space to think about pluralism and then the way that that comes out in the founding documents, i mean, some of that just gives them a space thats so far removed from the current polarization that i think they do feel safe talking about it in the earlier periods of American History the a h history. And then there are politically left leaning evangelicals, theres a whole group of them. The fact most students dont realize that. So trying to sort of pull them out of this sense that theres the only religion is this religious right and its very polarizing and they dont identify with it, many of them, not all of them. I think i think introducing this idea that there has always been such a wide diversity of religion in american, really gives them a space to talk about, oh, what does this mean for politics . What does it mean for the constitution and the laws that passed . Why do some groups have so much outside influence and what does that mean for us now . I would say primary sources. Its methodologically, having them start way piece that isnt related to them or maybe even to me allows them the sort of ability to start talking. Eventually they do sort of begin to assert their own sort of opinions and thoughts more, but they have something to start with thats sort of like, you know, in black and white and they, i think, appreciate that. Yeah, i think thats yeah. I often find that my students will religious has a deficit. Especially the secular students. This person somehow doesnt understand the this person has a set of beliefs, right, that blind them from seeing the world. Whereas i, of course, see the world exactly as it is. This kind of bill mar, whatever this silly, whatever this and so getting the students out of that space, right, to respect it. And then when you add the politics on to it, theyre like i dont want to get inside of that. Not only does that person have a deficit, but theyre also somebody they dont like and i dont agree with. So, like, bursting that bubble i find is incredibly hard. Well, not to really go after herberg today, but the truth is, is that, like, the bulk of, i would argue, 20th century american religious history say history of contestation. And despite attempts to make everything seem very consensusy and united, like, its actually, like, difficult to find sources that, you know, if we take out the, you know, protestant catholic jew ones, its difficult to find these brotherhood weeks who sort of organize one week a year, usually city or municipalwide events. So, yeah, if you just reveal the sort of past to them. I mean, you cant escape it. Its so painfully obvious that sort of protestant catholic jews, it does not 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 groups, denominations as like somehow theyre unified. Theyre going at each other too, right, in their spaces. So, you know, understanding that this kind of religious history is always a battleground, i think, is, you know, key to being able to sort of combat that kind of, like, acumenical sort of civil religion were all in this together cold war kind of thing. Ill only add to that to what my two colleagues have just wonderfully colleagues have wonderfully pointed out, the way i try to point out also with my students, we have a religion and politics minor and what ive been finding is that increasingly students, while some of them may doubt the importance of religion or, as you said, some may view it as some type of deficit students from 18 to 23, whatever it may be, 17 to 23, are also trying to figure out who they are. Theres a way, i think, studying religion for some of them is a way to help them figure out who they are, who they want to be, the type of world they want to live in. Felt compelled by religion to engage in progressive politics and i do in particularly in a class called religion in the Civil Rights Movement where i try to expose them to folks and the modern Civil Rights Movement who felt compelled. And the longer seminar or longer, excuse me, course of religion of politics in america, of course, would extend to other folks in the 20th century, the movement, things of that nature. At least in my context in the midwest ive found to be helpful, are there other religious voices besides those that i view as trying to be regressive in some ways in politics but actually being more progressive . That, i think, is helping students to understand that religion, right, can be used for not used but religion has been involved in a number of projects, both progressive and liberal and conservative nonetheless. One final question. A shout out to the whole panel that when i asked the question in the remedy of a question was binary that leone martin, when you answered in particular, showing in ways in which there are intersections. Theres a microcosm of how each of your presentations was added complexification with textualization to understanding religious history. So just a shout out to say thanks. Thank you. Thank you all for joining us today. Thank you. [ applause ] tonight on American History tv, beginning at 8 00 p. M. Eastern, more from purdue universitys remaking american political history conference, with a panel on the correlation between violence and u. S. Political change, from the time of the American Revolution to present day. Watch American History tv tonight and over the weekend on cspan3. With the federal government at work in d. C. And throughout the country, use the congressional directory for contact information. Order your copy today at cspan. Org