WI: U.S. Patriotism and Religion not tied together?

"Right before taking office, Eisenhower declared, “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded deeply in religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.” Eisenhower’s dictum was taken up by Graham, and soon going to church was more than just something for the religious, it was part of being a good American."

Could Eisenhower have chosen something other than extreme religiosity to separate the U.S. and Soviets?
What would a less religious U.S. be like?
 
This is a part of US social fabric and a much-prior 1900 POD is necessary, maybe even to major modifications to the future-US colonization and formation aspects.

Basically you had two ingredients that produced this tie: formation of several colonies by independent protestants groups which saw the occupation of the future US lands as part of a mission or a gift from God and a strong sense of political independence and self-reliance since the times of the British colonization: mix both and you’ll end with something akin to the “City upon the Hill” ideia of US exceptionalism, based on religion and patriotism.
 

Wallet

Banned
Going to church was seen as essential to be a good moral person, it's been like this for centuries. The idea of Americans going to church every Sunday wasn't new at all, but it was seen both to deprecate us from the Soviets and to show both the American people and the world that US was in the morally right side.

You can't stop the religious surge without stopping the sexual revolution in the late 60s and 70s. That's when you truly see the religious right and "moral majority" form. I'll also put Roe vs Wade.

Ironically, a more socially conservative US would probably be a less religious one. I think I could be wrong
 
Going to church was seen as essential to be a good moral person, it's been like this for centuries. The idea of Americans going to church every Sunday wasn't new at all, but it was seen both to deprecate us from the Soviets and to show both the American people and the world that US was in the morally right side.

You can't stop the religious surge without stopping the sexual revolution in the late 60s and 70s. That's when you truly see the religious right and "moral majority" form. I'll also put Roe vs Wade.

Ironically, a more socially conservative US would probably be a less religious one. I think I could be wrong

Maybe a more conservative 1960s (from which no idea about how to avoid the Swing Sixities without any major POD, such a WWIII or a second major depression) would also lessen the evangelical revival during the 1980s, as the cultural wars around morality and sexuality wouldn’t be so intense as in our OTL. Would also help if the Sun Belt and suburbs migrations are, somehow, diminished, as those were hotspots for the religious right,

With a subsided evangelical moviment, the US current Religious environment could be more akin to OTL Canada or Australia, with a more muted religious influence in politics or society as a whole

However, let’s not forget that the US “are a nation under God”, so to fully segregate patriotism and religion you would need a totally distinct US
 
Wasn't there a big religious revival in the 1950s, that's the thing I'm trying to stop. Maybe I said it too broad.

Well, maybe I’m missing something but the 1950s were a conservative time, not only from a religious aspect. In general terms, after the roaring 1920s, a chaotic Depression and WWII the ordinary folk was looking to a peaceful and orderly life, enjoying the post-war economic boom. Additionally, non-conformity trends and moviments could be seen as foreign and, most dangerously, as communist based. Remember what was said about the beatniks...
So, I would say that the 1950s were molded not by a specific religious movement or revival but by the circumstances of that time: a growing economy and desire for internal peace, national union against a common enemy (Soviet Union) and desire for internal stability..
In a such conservative and “stable” decade, major changes to religious trends, even more in a general religious county like the US, would need major PODs...
 

Wallet

Banned
When Eisenhower passes the 1957 Civil Rights Act, its much stronger and allows more voting protection. Kennedy survives and doesn't get too involved in Vietnam. He might pass another slightly smaller civil rights act and weaker versions of medicare and medicaid. George Romney or Nelson Rockerfeller is elected in 1968.

With Civil Rights being solved sooner and quieter and Vietnam War never occurring, there goes the two biggest social protests of the 1960s, and the decade is seen as a the calm continuation of the 1950s. So there is a lot less social tension. Sadly, this means the sexual revolution and woman rights are postponed another decade.

No Watergate or Roe v Wade keeps things calm until the gas shortages. Henry Jackson is elected in 1976 but losses to George H.W Bush in 1980.
 
When Eisenhower passes the 1957 Civil Rights Act, its much stronger and allows more voting protection. Kennedy survives and doesn't get too involved in Vietnam. He might pass another slightly smaller civil rights act and weaker versions of medicare and medicaid. George Romney or Nelson Rockerfeller is elected in 1968.

With Civil Rights being solved sooner and quieter and Vietnam War never occurring, there goes the two biggest social protests of the 1960s, and the decade is seen as a the calm continuation of the 1950s. So there is a lot less social tension. Sadly, this means the sexual revolution and woman rights are postponed another decade.

No Watergate or Roe v Wade keeps things calm until the gas shortages. Henry Jackson is elected in 1976 but losses to George H.W Bush in 1980.

How to pass a stronger Civil Rights Act só soon, when the moviment was in its initial steps? Even during JFK administration the support for a comprehensive Act was dubious...things just picked up speed with the quasi-chaos which became Southern US, MLK, international bad image and with LBJ, which saw the huge opportunity to win the black community to the Democracts...

Also remember that you would still have in the 1960s the first “teen generation” in human history (the Baby Boomers)...they had time (no need to work so early) a more elevated educational profile, some money (economy was still strong until late 1960s) and were fed up with its conservative (and for some, hypocrites, parents), willing to discuss and experience new ideas...even JFK’ election in 1960 was a sign that there was a mood for change in the country...
 

Wallet

Banned
How to pass a stronger Civil Rights Act só soon, when the moviment was in its initial steps? Even during JFK administration the support for a comprehensive Act was dubious...things just picked up speed with the quasi-chaos which became Southern US, MLK, international bad image and with LBJ, which saw the huge opportunity to win the black community to the Democracts...

Also remember that you would still have in the 1960s the first “teen generation” in human history (the Baby Boomers)...they had time (no need to work so early) a more elevated educational profile, some money (economy was still strong until late 1960s) and were fed up with its conservative (and for some, hypocrites, parents), willing to discuss and experience new ideas...even JFK’ election in 1960 was a sign that there was a mood for change in the country...
The vast majority of baby boomers were fairly conservative normal suburban kids. The OP question is how to prevent the rise of the connection of patriotism and religion. I'm arguing that a calmer 60s leads to the religious right now gaining power
 
The vast majority of baby boomers were fairly conservative normal suburban kids. The OP question is how to prevent the rise of the connection of patriotism and religion. I'm arguing that a calmer 60s leads to the religious right now gaining power

Understand, but, IMHO, the necessary POD is still much before the 1950s...by such time, the US mix of patriotism and a kind of "Judeo-Christianism" religious sense was already prevalent in the population. Eisenhower's speech was just a reference to it and not the source of it.

A calmer 1960s really helps to lower the religious right movement by the 1980s, but also don't see how to (much) postpone the generational trends that were coming in such decade. Even Civil Rights as a no subject during the 60s (which I find very remote) and no Vietnam (Vietnam could have been avoided, but there were plenty of other spots for miscalculated military actions by the US), the new trends (a teen generation, emancipation of women) would have surfaced, even if in a more subtle form. Even the continuous post-War economic boom would have lead to changes, as prosperous societies tends to starting spend money and time on more "cultural affairs", which, by its own, can lead to the discussion of old standards and thinking.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
. . . let’s not forget that the US “are a nation under God”, so to fully segregate patriotism and religion you would need a totally distinct US
I think “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the ‘50s. a heck of a lot later than many people think.

I do agree the U.S. is a more religious nation than most European countries.
 
Last edited:

Bob_Semple

Banned
Going to church was seen as essential to be a good moral person, it's been like this for centuries. The idea of Americans going to church every Sunday wasn't new at all, but it was seen both to deprecate us from the Soviets and to show both the American people and the world that US was in the morally right side.

You can't stop the religious surge without stopping the sexual revolution in the late 60s and 70s. That's when you truly see the religious right and "moral majority" form. I'll also put Roe vs Wade.

Ironically, a more socially conservative US would probably be a less religious one. I think I could be wrong

Only to a certain extent. If you put too much pressure on one side then you risk them becoming more partisan/extreme. It's not just the Sexual Revolution either.

The 1960s was a perfect storm of Leftist movements that culminated from events during the 1950s. Generally, in simplistic terms, it's like a pendulum. The Right put pressure on the Left during the 1950s so the Left broke out and started putting pressure on the Right during the 60s and 70s and thus you got the 1980s. Then the cycle broke with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Now we're dealing with the Aftermath.

If you want to prevent the cycle in the first place, I'd say, on a macro level, the easiest way is to avoid the Cold War. The Cold War drove the fear of those damned Communists and gave the Right the desire to force conformity, which then forced the Left to oppose that conformity in the 60s and 70s.

But if you want a more subtle PoD, then perhaps something that makes the Communists less threatening, which could take the pressure off the Right and prevent the Red Scare and McCarthyism. And avoiding Vietnam could also help as well.
 
Only to a certain extent. If you put too much pressure on one side then you risk them becoming more partisan/extreme. It's not just the Sexual Revolution either.

The 1960s was a perfect storm of Leftist movements that culminated from events during the 1950s. Generally, in simplistic terms, it's like a pendulum. The Right put pressure on the Left during the 1950s so the Left broke out and started putting pressure on the Right during the 60s and 70s and thus you got the 1980s. Then the cycle broke with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Now we're dealing with the Aftermath.

If you want to prevent the cycle in the first place, I'd say, on a macro level, the easiest way is to avoid the Cold War. The Cold War drove the fear of those damned Communists and gave the Right the desire to force conformity, which then forced the Left to oppose that conformity in the 60s and 70s.

But if you want a more subtle PoD, then perhaps something that makes the Communists less threatening, which could take the pressure off the Right and prevent the Red Scare and McCarthyism. And avoiding Vietnam could also help as well.
Dealing with the aftermath is an understatement, though I do not wish to talk about current politics right now nor ever.

But anyway, maybe having the cold war die early via WWIII or the USSR collapsing on itself without one might do the trick; no point in the whole left and right shift (or at least the extremes) when communism in most of its likeness is dead and gone.
 
"Right before taking office, Eisenhower declared, “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded deeply in religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.” Eisenhower’s dictum was taken up by Graham, and soon going to church was more than just something for the religious, it was part of being a good American."

Could Eisenhower have chosen something other than extreme religiosity to separate the U.S. and Soviets?
What would a less religious U.S. be like?

Well.....

This is a part of US social fabric and a much-prior 1900 POD is necessary, maybe even to major modifications to the future-US colonization and formation aspects.

Basically you had two ingredients that produced this tie: formation of several colonies by independent protestants groups which saw the occupation of the future US lands as part of a mission or a gift from God and a strong sense of political independence and self-reliance since the times of the British colonization: mix both and you’ll end with something akin to the “City upon the Hill” ideia of US exceptionalism, based on religion and patriotism.

I largely agree, but I think you could at least plausibly avoid the rise of the OTL Religious Right altogether with a POD as late as the early 20th Century-though what, exactly, might lead to this outcome at such a late date, I'm not certain.

Ironically, a more socially conservative US would probably be a less religious one. I think I could be wrong

In all likelihood, no. If anything, a more socially traditionalist US would actually almost certainly be significantly more religious, not less. For one, even in the 19th Century, the religious revivals had a not rarely substantial rightward slant, even though religious liberalism was also indeed a notable phenomenon.
 

Bob_Semple

Banned
But anyway, maybe having the cold war die early via WWIII or the USSR collapsing on itself without one might do the trick; no point in the whole left and right shift (or at least the extremes) when communism in most of its likeness is dead and gone.

Not really necessary, but yes, that would do it. But it wouldn't really take that much.

Another way to do it is prevent the defeat of Nat. China in the Civil War, perhaps by preventing the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria. Extra benefit, you avoid Korea!

All you have to do is boost the Right's confidence.


Frankly I'm of the opinion that give Nat. China a bunch of Bob Semples we'd be in Moscow by Christmas!
 
Not really necessary, but yes, that would do it. But it wouldn't really take that much.

Another way to do it is prevent the defeat of Nat. China in the Civil War, perhaps by preventing the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria. Extra benefit, you avoid Korea!

All you have to do is boost the Right's confidence.


Frankly I'm of the opinion that give Nat. China a bunch of Bob Semples we'd be in Moscow by Christmas!
Hmm, good point, though maybe you could kill off the USSR via defeat at German hands or do worse in WWII; of course in the case of defeat at German hands, Nazi Germany still needs to be defeated in the process.
 

Bob_Semple

Banned
Hmm, good point, though maybe you could kill off the USSR via defeat at German hands or do worse in WWII; of course in the case of defeat at German hands, Nazi Germany still needs to be defeated in the process.

Honestly, anything that reduces the threat of communism without introducing a new ideological threat that's clearly anti-religious. If your enemy is anti-religion, then, to compensate, you have to be pro-religion.

The Nazis could work in that regard at least since Hitler's stance on religion was kind of weird.

But if you want to avoid an ideological conflict completely, that's easy. Just change the ending to WWI. Butterfly the Russian Revolution and butterflying Fascism just give the Italians more land in the Peace Treaty. There are plenty of PoDs to do both of these things.

Boom. You just butterflied Nazism and Communism AND WWII. You just saved tens of millions of lives, bruh! Congrats!

Have a beer on me!
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
. . . a more socially traditionalist US would actually almost certainly be significantly more religious, . . .
I tend to instead agree with @Wallet. When traditional values feel under attack is when people often put the more energy into their pre-existing religious beliefs.

When everything is going swimmingly, people are often more lackadaisical and casual about religion.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'


Mr. Worf became most dedicated to his religious beliefs when his ability to live freely as a Klingon was most threatened.
 
Top