Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Americas Spiritual-Industrial Complex and the Policy of Revival in the Early Cold War
From the wide halls of Congress to the serpentine corridors of the corporate bureaucracy, from the Cabinet Room to the boardroom, government and business leaders during the late 1940s and 1950s adopted a policy of religious revival in the name of national security and societal well-being. Its optimism was unmatched. But, then again, the early Cold War era was rife with projects on grand scales. This policy benefited from the dawning of a new American age, the time of the other-directed individual and the organization mana time when, at least according to sociologists, the average citizen had devolved into a level of social malleability unthinkable in ages past.1 Similar partnerships had tamed the atom and delivered victory in historys most destructive war. Basking in the glow of this justified confidence, policymakers set their sights on the nations religious economy. For scholars interested in the influence of religion on American policymaking, few time periods are as rich in case studies. Between 1945 and 1960, religious concerns attained a rare degree of salience in the development and implementation of policy. There were specific legislative achievements, such as the addition of under God to the Pledge of Allegiance. But there were less visible, and as a consequence largely forgotten, policy adoptions regarding religion in the areas of foreign propaganda and psychological warfare, military training, statesponsored or state-supported national faith drives, and public education. For most of American history, government and corporate leaders were not in the business of religious revivals. To be sure, presidents periodically
the journal of policy history, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2010. Donald Critchlow and Cambridge University Press 2010 doi:10.1017/S0898030610000138
jonathan herzog |
339
The relationship between religion and policymaking continues to produce excellent historical investigations and policy studies by a growing number of dedicated scholars.3 In a first-rate, introductory article on religion and policy for this journal, Hugh Heclo identified three distinct levels at which this relationship can be studied: (1) the institutional, which focuses on the way organized structures of religion and government impinge on each other and together and society; (2) the behavioral, which is the idea that through religious attachments people are moved to act in public ways; and (3) the philosophical, which tries to capture the intersections of religion and policymaking that involve ideas and modes of thought bearing on the fundamental ordering of a societys public life.4 This article uses the spiritualindustrial complex of early Cold War America as an aperture through which to study the impact of religion on policy at all three levels. Using a case study of national faith drives in the 1940s and 1950s, it examines how policymakers identified a problem in need of a religious solution, the adoption and implementation of religious policies, and both intended and unintended policy effects.
assumptions
The spiritual-industrial complexs policymaking depended on two widely held assumptions: that Communism was itself a sinister religious system and that American society had atrophied spiritually. These fears created a wide canopy of necessity under which a host of projects, material and unworldly alike, found justification. Communist hostility toward religion had been well documented by journalists since Vladimir Lenins Bolsheviks stormed Petrograds Winter Palace in November 1917, and throughout the 1920s and 1930s the media fed Americans stories of executed priests, despoiled relics, unbaptized children, and spiritually browbeaten peasants.5 While Communisms antireligious nature was no doubt troubling, Americans studying it took this conclusion one step further. From the 1930s to the 1950s, journalists, theologians, and scholars saw in Communism a powerful religious system with martyrs, missionaries, dogma, heretics, saints, sinners, promises of redemption, and even a well-developed eschatology. Marxists or Communist sympathizers like Whittaker Chambers, Louis Budenz, Elizabeth Bentley, and Will Herberg made well-publicized conversions to more traditional religions. Theologians like Reinhold Niebuhr probed the tenets of the Communist faith, bandying about words like Marxianity, Collective Messiah, and Man-god to describe its religious foundation. American Catholics prayed en
jonathan herzog |
341
and due to its recommendations, basic training in the military would include a religious component throughout the 1950s. The spiritual-industrial complexs tangible policies also governed American propaganda and psychological warfare efforts. Voice of America retained a director of religious programming, and the U.S. Informational and Educational Exchange mandated that each of its 165 worldwide information centers contained balanced collections of U.S. publications which portray Americas spiritual heritage and religious values in true perspective.8 Tacit policies fulfilled a far greater part of the spiritual-industrial complexs mission, but because they were not written into published documents or codified into law, the origins of their implementation are more difficult to trace. Leaders from Truman to Eisenhower strived to spiritually mobilize the American people through the use of speeches and highly visible actions. Religion is like freedom, Truman explained, We cannot take it for granted. Unless men live by their faith, and practice that faith in their daily lives, religion cannot be a living force in the world today. Eisenhowers inaugural parade began with Gods Float, an homage to the unifying power of faith across religious traditions, and annual prayer breakfasts sprung up within the halls of power in Washington.9 The most visible syntheses of tangible and tacit religious policies during the early Cold War were national faith drives. Between 1945 and 1960, America bore witness to a host of such efforts. Some were stand-alone operations. Others attached themselves to larger, often procrustean journeys into the heart of the American Way. The fortunate few, those campaigns backed by the right combination of organization, clout, timing, and purpose, could lay claim to the unforeseen and simultaneously unfolding religious revival. In scale and attention, five national faith drives stood out: the Freedom Train, the Religion in American Life campaign, the Crusade for Freedom, the Committee to Proclaim Liberty, and the Foundation for Religious Action. They sketch out the basic contours of the spiritual-industrial complexs unconventional policy implementation. Each urged citizens to develop, or deepen, a religious side to their lives, conflated religion with patriotism, and depended on the tangible and tacit policies of business and government. The tangible policy needs were largely met by business interests due to the constitutional limitations of state interference with religious matters. Business leaders controlled the drives boards of directors, and corporations footed the bills. But this is not to say that government actors did not participate in or tacitly direct these projects. Rather, they offered policy recommendations and afforded the projects crucial measures of legitimacy through the use of a state imprimatur. The drives
jonathan herzog |
343
Clarks crusade peaked in a crowded, sweltering Des Moines convention hall on July 25, 1947. That night at 8:30 he took the podium and electrified the sweaty multitude of five thousand. Clark laid out a divine model for human history, one that sharply contradicted both the Communist concept of economic determinism and the predominant American model of secular progress. His best evidence for so strong an assertion was America itself, since each great document in the nations history flowed from the wellspring of divine inspiration. Clark told the approving crowd that Christianity and democracy were synonymous, that it was impossible to separate religious teachings from the American form of government, and that true loyalty and patriotism received power and endurance from God. He ended with an audacious prescription for any secular official: Let us build for the future on the rock of religion.12 The thunderous applause that followed carried well beyond the Sunday-school teachers assembled in the hall. Associated press reporters were also in attendance, and major newspapers including the New York Times publicized the address. Clark considered religion implicit in the Freedom Trains mission, but the National Heritage Foundation made it explicit as well. The train itself housed a special exhibit of important American religious documents, including The Mayflower Compact, Roger Williamss The Bloody Tenet of Persecution, and the Bay Psalm Book.13 Prior to its arrival, organizers instructed each host community to hold a Rededication Week, of which an Inter-faith Day was an important component. On this day, communities invited local religious leaders to deliver speeches on the religious foundations of American democracy and freedom. Rededication weeks culminated with mass recitations of an oath developed by the American Heritage Foundation. The Freedom Pledge began: I am an American. A free American. Free to speakwithout fear, Free to worship God in my own way, Free to stand for what I think is right, Free to oppose what I believe is wrong. Americans at the dawn of the Cold War eagerly accepted this affirmation of Americanism. In the New Orleans Sugar Bowl alone, 75,000 people recited the Freedom Pledge in unison.14 But they were affirming a particular brand of freedomnot only the liberty of expression but also the entitlement to stand for what was morally right, and this freedom emanated from a belief in God, the lodestar of all moral compasses.
jonathan herzog |
345
The way I see it, when youre a father youre automatically a founding father too. Totalitarian countries do a top-flight job of founding their philosophies, their nations, in the hearts of their youngsters. I think what they give them is faithfaith in false gods a burning, positive, dynamic faith which permeates their lives. Some folks think we can challenge that faith simply by being against it. But thats like scolding an atom bomb. The only force which can conquer faith is a greater and deeper faith.17 This was a crucial way station in the journey of an idea. Forged in the 1920s and 1930s by theologians and intellectuals whose inquiries concluded that Communism was a faith and fanned by politicians as they contemplated the Red menace, RIALs ad execs distilled decades of arguments into a terse, simple statement. The Advertising Council and its RIAL campaign were creatures of government and business symbiosis. Business lent money, organization, and conceptualization, advocating a position that the state could not. The councils official advisory board boasted executives from the Rockefeller Foundation and Studebaker along with the publisher of the Washington Post. General Electrics president Charles E. Wilson oversaw the RIAL campaign. The J. Walter Thompson Company, credited with inventing modern American advertising, developed the ads. American periodicals, radio networks, and budding television stations donated valuable space or time. Added up, these contributions exceeded $3 million over the initial three-week campaign.18 Government, by contrast, offered the project a warrant. The evening before the 1949 campaign began, President Truman endorsed RIAL in a live address. Each one of us can do his part by a renewed devotion to his religion, he spoke. If there is any danger to the religious life of our Nation, it lies in our taking our religious heritage too much for granted. The following year, as RIAL geared up for another campaign, Wilson called the program an effort toward spiritual rearmament. Truman once again endorsed the plan, noting: These are times that demand the vision and fortitude of men of faith such as never before in the history of the world. Impressed by RIALs success, Truman tapped Electric Charlie, as Wilson was known, to head the Office of Defense Mobilization in 1951. After all, once he had mustered the nations spirituality, mobilizing its material resources for the Korean War would be straightforward by comparison.19 The RIAL campaign ran for ten consecutive years from 1949 to 1958 and reached millions of Americans. In its first year, more than two thousand
jonathan herzog |
347
Freedom Bell on a twenty-one-city tour, and the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times widely covered the crusade and supported it in editorials. On the evening of September 4, General Eisenhower delivered an address supporting the cause that was carried by all four of Americas major radio networks. He spoke of Communist godless depravity in government and asked Americans to declare their faith in freedom and in God. They responded in the millions.23 The crusade explained its mission in a straightforward statement of purpose: The soul of the world is sick, and the peoples of the world are looking to the United States for leadership. It beckoned Americans to light the lamps of spiritual guidance. And so they did. Twenty-five million signed the Freedom Scroll, raising $3.5 million for Radio Free Europe. Millions more went to their churches and synagogues on October 8 for Freedom Sunday. The Crusade for Freedom wrote to more than eighty thousand religious leaders requesting that they prepare sermons emphasizing the truth that all human rights are derived from God. New Yorks mayor Vincent Impellitteri urged residents to spend the day offering thanksgiving to the Almighty for safeguarding our way of life against the evil forces who would destroy it and by begging God to give hope and courage to the enslaved peoples of the world seeking to regain freedom and self-government.24
jonathan herzog |
349
they considered Independence Day a secular occasion.28 Yet on July 4, 1951, the opposite rang true, literally. Rather than serving as one of many props to the state, religious groups subordinated it. They asserted the preeminence of the sacred over the secular and continued to do so. As late as 1955, the mayor of Los Angeles was still declaring the Fourth a religious holiday.29
jonathan herzog |
351
to the radio, watches television, or looks at highway billboards, she cannot avoid noticing the RIAL advertising campaigns each year that beseech her to find God. As a matter of simple probabilities, chances are best of all that this ordinary American will participate in the postwar religious revival then in full stride. In fact, at no other point in history did higher percentages of Americans pray, belong to churches, and believe in God. By the mid-1950s, the engineers of the spiritual-industrial complex could celebrate efforts that had corresponded with one of Americas most statistically significant periods of religious renewal. They had, at least in numerical evaluations, achieved their intended policy effects. Eisenhowers personal pastor declared the nation to be in the midst of the greatest moral resurgence and spiritual awakening in the history of our land. Sales of the Bible doubled that of the previous decade, seminaries operated at full capacity, the rabbinate boasted record enrollments, and religious titles accounted at times for up to half of the national bestseller list.34 From the classroom to the living room, Americans during the 1950s prayed more visibly than ever before. Such expressions of piety had been part of American life since the beginning, but during Eisenhowers first term, prayer became an exercise in social acceptance and public duty. The president prayed before cabinet meetings, athletes prayed before events, followers of Norman Vincent Peale prayed for wealth, celebrities prayed for continued popularity, schoolchildren prayed for protection, and the obese prayed for weight loss. Popular magazines featured articles on proper prayer technique. Prayer guides like Pray Your Weight Away and Go with God made their way to the bestseller list. Those too busy or uncreative to conceive their own entreaties to the Almighty could pick up the phone and call Dial-A-Prayer. Public opinion polling revealed the magnitude of the praying 1950s: 94 percent of Americans believed in the power of prayer, and 82 percent reported praying often or occasionally.35 Unlike some previous religious renewals, Americas growth in church membership in the 1950s can be closely measured. In 1951, American religious groups claimed a total of 88 million members. By 1961, these same denominations and faiths claimed more than 116 million, an impressive increase of 31 percent, especially since the U.S. population grew only 19 percent during the decade. The percentage of Americans who belonged to a church or synagogue rose steadily, setting records throughout the decade, from 57 percent in 1952 to 60.3 percent in 1955. While Protestants grew a healthy 23 percent, Catholics could claim an explosive 46 percent increase.36 Because such figures
jonathan herzog |
353
them, the spiritual-industrial complex, that joint effort of government and business, had privileged visible acts over internal beliefs. It had created a broad umbrella of religious acceptance under which Americans could shelter themselves without troubling themselves, and this sucked valuable oxygen from the fires of what might have been a true national awakening. Eisenhower had warned his countrymen of the military-industrial complex, the concentration of power made necessary by postwar exigency, but he had also presided over the work of an equally tenuous religious collaboration. Whereas the former threatened liberty, the latter imperiled the vitality of American religiosity.
policy changes
By the early 1960s, much of the spiritual-industrial complex had become a casualty, first of growing disinterest and then of conscious policy changes. Religious revival proved unsustainable over a long period of time. In the late 1950s, the signs were unmistakable that the crest was already receding. In 1957, a year often considered the apex of the postwar religious renewal, 69 percent of Americans believed that religion was increasing its influence on American life. Five years later, only 45 percent believed that religion was still expanding in influence. This percentage continued to fall, reaching a low of 33 percent by 1965. Questions like these were value-neutral. They did not ask Americans whether or not they approved of religions declining influence on society. Were that the case, most Americans would have deplored the return of secularization. But the renewal began shrinking in other statistical measures, too. Between 1960 and 1962, the percentage of Americans who were members of religious groups fell, as did the number of ordained clergy.40 By the time of John F. Kennedys inaugural, the Freedom Train was a distant memory, and the Freedom Scrolls were collecting dust. Church bells no longer rang in unison across the nation on July 4, the RIAL campaigns ten-year run had ended (though a tamer version would reappear in future decades), and the Foundation for Religious Action was but a shadow of its former glory. Why, then, did these ongoing faith drives and the spiritual-industrial complex behind them break down? There is no single, convincing answer. Rather, a change in the policy of religious revival was the combined result of several developments: altered Cold War assumptions, electoral calculations, the politicization of anticommunism, and policy constraints imposed by the courts. As with all policies, Americas spiritual-industrial complex built its plan of action on changeable assumptions. What the urgency of the early
jonathan herzog |
355
short, the spiritual-industrial complex became a casualty of politics. Policymakers began objecting more stridently to politicians insincere appropriation of religion in the name of anticommunisma trend that journalist William Lee Miller cynically labeled piety along the Potomac. One of the first major politicians to speak out against the public displays of religiosity then at the center of the spiritual-industrial complex was Matthew Neely, the eightyyear-old senator from West Virginia. On March 28, 1955, in a speech before the United Autoworkers Convention in Cleveland, Neely questioned Eisenhowers public use of religion. Eisenhower never joined a church until after he became President, Neely observed, Next Monday, I dont want to have to see in the papers a picture of the President and a story that he attended this or that church. And then the kicker: Any man who tries to parade his religion that way before the public is ungodly. Neelys colleagues in the Senate were quick to repudiate his criticisms of Eisenhower, but he augured the reintroduction of partisan politics back into government-sponsored religious anticommunism.43 In the wake of McCarthyism, some well-established policies of the spiritual-industrial complex also came under fire. In June 1955, for instance, army intelligence released the ill-fated pamphlet How to Spot a Communist, which was designed to give troops the tools of detection necessary to purge their ranks of Marxist traitors. Still in the heyday of its spiritually-centered character guidance program, the army devoted one-third of the booklet to religion. While it is generally believed that Communists are atheists as a result of their political indoctrination, it declared, it appears likely that many find in Marxist philosophy a substitute for religion in which they had previously lost faith.44 Arguments like these were common in years past, but influential newspapers like the New York Times lampooned the enterprise. One doesnt know whether to laugh or cry at the contents of the pamphlet, opined the papers editorial board. The ACLU worried that it would encourage Americans to spy on one another, and rather than making a stand, the army confiscated and quickly destroyed all pamphlet copies.45 More instrumental in policy changes was the growing conclusion among liberal politicians and journalists that virulent anticommunism was becoming a weapon of the American right. Worries about the fusion of anticommunism, politics, and religion in the military intensified over the next several years and culminated in the summer of 1961 after Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote a widely publicized letter to President Kennedy and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. The twenty-two-page missive, which became known as the
jonathan herzog |
357
invalidated prayer and Bible reading in public schools. The precedent carried beyond the nations public schools, serving as a shot across the bow of state promotion of religion. The military, for instance, abandoned the religious components of its character guidance program in the wake of the Supreme Courts decisions. When asked about the Engel decision in a press conference, Kennedy noted that people were divided in their reactions, but that if they truly supported their Constitution, they would follow the Supreme Court decisions even when we may not agree with them. Then, in a savvy political pivot, he argued that by removing prayer from public schools, the court had given parents an opportunity to reinforce their childrens religious development at home.48 It was an argument for the re-privatization of spirituality.
conclusion
Historians and contemporary policymakers alike can benefit from studying Americas policy of revival in the early Cold War. For historians, the period illuminates the fluid relationship between religion and society during the twentieth century and documents a spiritual facet of Americas domestic Cold War that is too often underdeveloped in major narratives of the conflict. For policymakers, the spiritual-industrial complex carried a maxim widely held by American leaders from George Washington to George W. Bushthat a more religious society is a stronger societyto its logical (and illogical) conclusion. One should not learn from history, for it never repeats itself, but, nonetheless, this episode in managed religiosity offered up several important insights. Americas Cold War policy of revival demonstrated the consequences of interference in the nations religious economy. Put simply, religion is most robust when it exists in tension with society and exacts a high cost of participation. This, of course, seems counterintuitive. When it comes to attracting and maintaining religious followers, one might think the blander and more accessible forms of religious expression enjoy a certain advantage. Sociologists of religion have been able to put more flesh on these bones of contention thanks to detailed explorations of sect growth and denominational decline. In his groundbreaking and controversial 1972 book Why Conservative Churches Are Growing, Dean M. Kelley called the widely held belief that blander is better a recipe for the failure of the religious enterprise. The more demanding religious groups, in this case those of the proliferating fundamentalist and evangelical movements, were flourishing at the expense of the mainstream denominations.49 The lessons learned from denominational growth and decline can also be applied to the spiritual-industrial complex. In its quest for the lowest
jonathan herzog |
359
notes
1. The two specific works I allude to are David Riesman, in collaboration with Reuel Denney and Nathan Glazer, The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character (New Haven, 1950), and William H. Whyte, The Organization Man (Garden City, N.Y., 1957). 2. For works that examine how religious revivals reflect social, cultural, and economic changes as movements from the bottom up, see Richard L. Bushman, From Puritan to Yankee: Character and the Social Order in Connecticut, 16901765 (Cambridge, Mass., 1967); Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven, 1989); and Christine Leigh Heyrman, Southern Cross: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt (New York, 1997). Bushman told not so much a story of the Great Awakening as a tale of how a revival could challenge and eventually attenuate the law and authority of the colonys governing institutions. For his part, Hatch studied the Second Great Awakening and saw reected a host of larger societal issues, such as democratization, populism, class, and, as did Bushman, a crisis of authority. Likewise, in her exploration of evangelical culture during the Second Great Awakening, Christine Leigh Heyrman used religion to explore questions of class, order, gender, and social compromise. For the single best study of Americas religious economy that traces the rise and fall of denominations across time, see Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, The Churching of America, 17762005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy (New Brunswick, 2005). 3. In a gesture underscoring the important relationship between religion and policy, the Journal of Policy History devoted a special issue to this topic in 2001. For religion and welfare policy, see Stanley W. Carlson-Thies, Charitable Choice: Bringing Religion Back in American Welfare, Journal of Policy History 13, no. 1 (2001): 10932; John Aloysius Coleman, American Catholicism, Catholic Charities U.S.A., and Welfare Reform, Journal of Policy History 13, no. 1 (2001): 73108; and Kimberly J. Morgan, Working Mothers and the Welfare State: Religion and Politics in Work-Family Policies in Western Europe and the United States (Stanford, 2006). For work on policy and faith-based organizations, see Maria Roberts-DeGennaro, Executive Orders for the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Journal of Policy Practice 5, no. 4 (2006): 5568; and Michael R. Sosin and Steven Rathgeb, New Responsibilities of Faith-Related Agencies, Policy Studies Journal 34, no. 4 (2006): 53362. For religion and foreign policy, see William Inboden, Religion and American Foreign Policy, 19451960: The Soul of Containment (New York, 2008); Jody C. Baumgartner, Peter L. Francia, and Jonathan S. Morris, A Clash of Civilizations? The Inuence of Religion on Public Opinion of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East, Political Research Quarterly 61, no. 2 (2008): 17179; and Paul Froese and Carson F. Mencken, A U.S. Holy War? The Effects of Religion on Iraq War Policy Attitudes, Social Science Quarterly 90, no. 1 (2009): 10316. For the inuence of religious ideas or institutions on the making of public policy, see D. G. Hart, Mainstream Protestantism, Conservative Religion, and Civil Society, Journal of Policy History 13, no. 1 (2001): 1939; A. James Reichley, Faith in Politics, Journal of Policy History 1, no. 1 (2001): 15780; Joe Micon, Limestone Prophets: Gauging the Effectiveness of Religious Political Action Organizations that Lobby State Legislatures, Sociology of Religion 69, no. 4 (2008): 397413; and Simon Fink, Politics as Usual or Bringing Religion Back In? The
jonathan herzog |
361
10. Board of Trustees of the American Heritage Foundation, brochure, 27 May 1947, Box 22, Folder 10, Henry R. Luce Papers (Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.), hereafter cited as Luce Papers; American Heritage Program, brochure, n.d., Box 18, Tom C. Clark Papers (Truman Presidential Library, Independence, Mo.), hereafter cited as Clark Papers; American Heritage Foundation, Documents of the Freedom Train, brochure, Box 22, Folder 10, Luce Papers; Robert T. Elson to Allen Grover, 27 May 1947, Box 22, Folder 10, Luce Papers. The most comprehensive examination of the Freedom Train is found in Wendy Lynn Wall, Inventing the American Way: The Politics of Consensus from the New Deal to the Civil Rights Movement (New York, 2008), 20140. Wall argues that the project was supported by businessmen for the purpose of reselling Americans in the postwar period on the promise of free enterprise. See also Stuart J. Little, The Freedom Train: Citizenship and Postwar Culture, 19461949, American Studies 34, no. 1 (1993): 3567. 11. Tom C. Clark, Address to the National Heritage Foundation, 22 May 1947, Box 18, Clark Papers; Tom C. Clark, Address to the Second National Conference on Citizenship, 10 May 1947, Box 18, Clark Papers; Tom C. Clark, Address on the 215th Anniversary of George Washingtons Birth, 22 February 1947, Box 18, Clark Papers; Tom C. Clark, Address Before the National Conference on Catholic Youth Work, 21 May 1947, Box 18, Clark Papers. 12. Tom C. Clark, Address Before the International Sunday School Convention, 24 July 1947, Box 18, Clark Papers. 13. Freedom Train Dedicated Amid Attack on Reds, Chicago Daily Tribune, 18 September 1947, 7; American Heritage Foundation, American Heritage Program. 14. American Heritage Foundation, Highlights of the National Rededication Program of the American Heritage Foundation, brochure, 1947, Box 22, Folder 10, Luce Papers. 15. Ibid.; Wall, Inventing the American Way, 222. 16. Ad Council Turns to Housing Issue, New York Times, 3 January 1946, 30. 17. Advertising Council, Advertising Proofs, 1949, Box 52, Folder 11, Luce Papers. 18. Advertising Group Sets Peace Drives, New York Times, 6 June 1946, 42. Advertising Council, The Advertising Council: What It Is and What It Does, brochure, 1950, Box 52, Folder 11, Luce Papers. Go-to-Church Ads Win Wide Support, New York Times, 5 December 1949, F5. 19. Truman, Religion in American Life. For a detailed description of the Advertising Councils various Cold War campaigns, including RIAL, see Daniel L. Lykins, From Total War to Total Diplomacy: The Advertising Council and the Construction of the Cold War Consensus (Westport, Conn., 2003). Religions Revival Sought for Nation, New York Times, 29 October 1950, 45; Wilson Is Praised for Religious Gain, New York Times, 19 January 1951, 5. 20. Church Advertising Raises Attendance, New York Times, 8 February 1952, 15; Committee on Religion in American Life, Annual Report, 1956, James M. Lambie Papers, Box 38, Folder R (Eisenhower Library). 21. A Spiritual Airlift, New York Times, 22 October 1950, 23; National Crusade for Freedom Council, Report, 24 July 1950, Box 33, Folder 11, Luce Papers. 22. Radio Free Europe was formed by a splinter group of the American Heritage Foundation called the National Committee for a Free Europe. It was funded by a coterie of powerful businessmen disillusioned with the governments Voice of America. See
jonathan herzog |
363
Coordinating Board Central Files (Eisenhower Library); Foundation for Religious Action, Proposal to OCB, report, 1954, Box 2, Folder 000.3, Operations Coordinating Board Central Files. 33. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Remarks to the First National Conference on the Spiritual Foundations of American Democracy, 9 November 1954, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Eisenhower, 1954 (Washington, D.C., 1961), 327; George Dugan, Moslem Leader Asks Moral Gain, New York Times, 25 October 1955, 34; Laurence S. Kuter to Charles W. Lowry, 11 January 1955, Box 37, Folder 1, Luce Papers. 34. Churchmen See Spiritual Gains, Washington Post and Times Herald, 12 January 1955, 15; George Dugan, American Data on Organized Faiths Emphasizes New Widespread Growth in This Country, New York Times, 12 April 1954, A1. 35. For a good overview of prayer during the 1950s, see James Hudnut-Beumler, Looking for God in the Suburbs: The Religion of the American Dream and Its Critics, 1945 1965 (New Brunswick, 1994), 4447; Gerald Weales, A Family That Prays Together Weighs Together, New Republic, 25 March 1957, 1920; Phone Devotions Shared by Thousands, Washington Post and Times Herald, 25 February 1956, 23; Survey by Gallup Organization, 16 June21 June 1951, available at iPoll Databank, University of Connecticut, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ipoll.html (accessed 15 January 2010). 36. George Dugan, American Data on Organized Faiths Emphasize New Widespread Growth in This Country; Report Church Membership at All-Time High, Chicago Daily Tribune, 6 September 1955, A1. 37. Surveys by the Gallup Organization, 24 February1 March 1939; 21 November26 November 1940; 17 June June 1942; 2 May7 May 1954; 15 March20 March 1957, available at iPoll Databank. One should note that the results of such polls vary according to the time they were taken. But despite these minor variations, it is clear when examining the polls from 1939 to 1958 that self-reporting of religious attendance among Americans climbs by 1015 percent. For the tendency of Americans to exaggerate attendance, see C. Kirk Hadaway, Penny Long Marler, and Mark Chaves, Overreporting Church Attendance: Evidence That Demands the Same Verdict, American Sociological Review 63 (February 1998): 12230; and Kirk Hadaway, Penny Long Marler, and Mark Chaves, What the Polls Dont Show: A Closer Look at U.S. Church Attendance, American Sociological Review 58 (December 1993): 74152. Surveys by the Gallup Organization, 7 November12 November 1947; 28 March2 April 1953, available at iPoll Databank. 38. Indeed, in 1954, when researchers returned to Plainville, a pseudonym given to an anonymous Missouri farming community, they noticed that the nonbelievers had gone underground. During the first round of research there from 1939 to 1941, social scientists detected a sizable group of agnostics, atheists, and irreligious inhabitants. In their follow-up thirteen years later, researchers concluded that the number of nonbelievers in Plainville had probably remained constant, but that many agnostics do not declare their belief, and at the same time advocate support of local churches, arguing that they stand for moral right as opposed to wrong. James West, Plainville, U.S.A. (New York, 1945), 142; Art Gallagher, Jr. Plainville: Fifteen Years Later (New York, 1961), 169. 39. Clergy Skeptical over Revivalism, New York Times, 12 September 1955, 18; Church Leader Says Revival Isnt Genuine, Washington Post and Times Herald, 19 May 1955, 21; Juke Box Religion Hit by Adventist Speaker, Washington Post and Times
jonathan herzog |
365
though they do warn that costs alone do not determine growth or failure. See Stark and Finke, The Churching of America, 25051. 50. Robert N. Bellah, Civil Religion in America, Daedalus 96 (Winter 1967): 121. Will Herberg agreed with Bellah insofar as he believed civil religion was synonymous with the American Way of Life. See Will Herberg, Americas Civil Religion: What It Is and Whence It Comes, in American Civil Religion, ed. Russell E. Richey and Donald G. Jones (New York, 1974), 7688. 51. Rodney Stark and Roger Finke call this process sacralization, which they define as a breakdown of differentiation between sacred and secular and the suffusion of basic societal functions with religious symbols and belief. See Stark and Finke, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2000), 193217. 52. For the best-known account of structural denominational change in the postwar period, see Robert Wuthnow, The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith Since World War II (Princeton, 1988).
Copyright of Journal of Policy History is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.