Why 1940s America wasn’t as religious as you think — the rise and fall of American religion

[rug]

Tobin Grant | Dec 11, 2014

It’s common for people to believe that religion was always more vibrant in the past. Earlier generations were always more religious than we are, right? Not always.

Religiosity can rise and fall just like other things do over time. In fact, America of the 1940s was about as as religious as America today.

Coming out of World War II, America was not very religious. The war had put a halt on many of the things that increase religiosity, particularly marriage and procreation. Churches, just like other organizations, were slowed by drain on resources and volunteers during the war. The post-war years turned this around. The economy improved. The baby boom ensued. And religion grew.

The 1950s were also a time when America began to see itself as a Christian nation in a cold war with atheistic communism. President Eisenhower joined a church after being elected, becoming the first president to be baptized while in office. In 1954, the phrase “under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance to signify the religious stance of the country.

http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2014/12/11/1940s-america-wasnt-religious-think-rise-fall-american-religion/#sthash.3noTNWDt.dpuf

[unrepentant progress]

1. I don't think the American Religiosity Index is a very good measure

It doesn't seem to track new religious movement formation and participation, or non-institutional affiliated spirituality.

Also, if you consider the rise of religiosity in the 1950s a Great Awakening, it would be the fourth, not the third. While there was a rise in church attendance, and public focus on religious belief, in the 1950s it was hardly an organic phenomenon. The U.S. was experiencing a moral panic over Communists and homosexuals at the time, instigated by the power elite, and reinforced by conspiracists.

However, I do think there is substantial evidence for an actual Fourth Great Awakening from the early 1960s through the early 1980s.

[cbayer]

2. This is, of course, a meta-analysis and should be taken with a large grain of salt.

I have looked at the Grant method for measuring this and I think he does just about as good a job as one can do.

But the fact remains that religiosity is not a static definition and the surveys he uses ask questions that might appear to be the same, but might not be.

While interesting, this very, very precipitous fall over the past 8 years is really not backed up by the most reliable survey sources.

Like I said, a grain of salt is much needed.