WI: A more Religious Leftist America

How can a more religious (compared to OTL) yet leftist (more leftist than Western Europe) United States can come into fruition?
 
How can a more religious (compared to OTL) yet leftist (more leftist than Western Europe) United States can come into fruition?

This would actually be a little bit of a challenge, TBH(okay, perhaps more than a little bit), but there is a way to accomplish this. One scenario I can think of involves both discredit the religious right and preventing the rise of atheism to OTL levels, and also, at the same time, expanding the influence of the Unitarians and other such organizations that genuinely were leftist for their times. Whether or not that would accomplish the goal of America being leftier than OTL Western Europe? Well, that's hard to say.
 
Don't forget that religious activism at the beginning of the 20th century WAS leftist. Perhaps not further left than Europe.

The founders of the CCF (modern NDP) in Canada (Tommy Douglas and JS Woodworth) were both ministers (Baptist and Methodist, respectively).

The Women's Christian Temperance Union was strongly promoting social issues.

Etc.
 
The founders of the CCF (modern NDP) in Canada (Tommy Douglas and JS Woodworth) were both ministers (Baptist and Methodist, respectively).

That is true, BTW.

Don't forget that religious activism at the beginning of the 20th century WAS leftist. Perhaps not further left than Europe.
The Women's Christian Temperance Union was strongly promoting social issues.

Etc.

Well, there is some truth to that, yes. But here in the States, though, things were pretty complicated at times; let's not forget that even many of the earliest Fundamentalists were very much right-wingers, especially in the South(amongst WASPs above all, who eventually became the dominant group on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, even with the fair bit of Scots-Irish influence that did exist on the outset in parts of the Southeast.). Even the WCTU wasn't really quite solidly leftist. Rather, they seem to have been pretty much middle-of-the-road overall, but in their own way.
 
It's very possible. Just look at Williams Jennings Bryan! Very leftist, and very religious! And of course the abolitionist movement was very religious too, not to mention many leaders of the civil rights movement were religions and ministers too!!

What kind of environment do you think caused those people, who were very religious, and progressive too?
 
Speaking a bit out of nowhere with this, but would a more widespread Quaker movement in US would be possible?

I think so, yes. Though, TBH, I think the Unitarians have an even better chance of seeing widespread success. See, here's the thing: Unitarians believe, above all else, that everyone is forgiven for their sins eventually, regardless of how devoutly religious they may be, or how much they may screw up in life(albeit after they are "purified" first, according to most intrepretations I've read); they have also often been amongst the most progressive of all Christians(perhaps more so than even the Quakers at times!), and I have no doubt that this message of "All will be well eventually." will appeal to many a person who might otherwise have become an agnostic or even atheistic altogether.
 
Perhaps the easiest way to go about this would be the association of fiscal conservatism or laissez faire economics with secularism.
 
Well, there is some truth to that, yes. But here in the States, though, things were pretty complicated at times; let's not forget that even many of the earliest Fundamentalists were very much right-wingers, especially in the South(amongst WASPs above all, who eventually became the dominant group on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, even with the fair bit of Scots-Irish influence that did exist on the outset in parts of the Southeast.). Even the WCTU wasn't really quite solidly leftist. Rather, they seem to have been pretty much middle-of-the-road overall, but in their own way.

Very complicated, when you consider how much of the present view of the Progressive Era is anachronism we project backwards due to where today's sensibilities pan out. I think you can argue that we forget much of nitty-gritty of how the Progressive era did business due to how we write history in the present day.

If you look at many of the Progressive Era social movements, much of their voting strength is religious, often the picture of what we'd call evangelicals today. It's not just temperance and Prohibition - the income tax amendments, woman's suffrage, even the popular election of Senators do not become law without the enthusiastic support of many people who'd currently be labeled fundamentalists(1). Indeed, much of the voting and social support for these causes comes from people who are quite evangelical. Conversely, what 'fundamentalist' even means has drifted over time (2) - until the 1970s, the Southern Baptist Convention had zero problem with many forms of birth control and even abortion amongst married couples. Evangelicals in the fin de seicle sense of the word were the foot soldiers of the Progressive Era. Fundamentalists rarely were - until the 1950s and anti-communism, fundamentalism usually described religious separatists who rarely voted. Things shift with time.

The anachronism comes up in when you remember that history is us telling stories of the past. What's called fundamentalism in the present day eschews most social activism, in the past because it got associated with communism, and in general because its much easier to sell "go to heaven and get rich" than "do things for people you'd normally avoid and go to heaven." They have no desire to remember evangelicalism when it was for the greater good, for the poor, for the disenfranchised now that its for the comfortable and in power. And on the other side of the coin, the people who are progressive now would rather remember the seculars who were a much smaller slice of the Progressive voting block but are also more inline with what your modern lefty sees themselves as - better, wiser, above the sheeple and their religions.


(1) It's not all light and roses though - there's a ton of anti-immigrant sentiment, particularly anti-Catholic sentiment, that's an integral part of this movement too. And its not just the WASPs and the fundamentalists - many of the hip, unbeliever reds at the time were first rate nativists and anti-semites.


(2) You can have the Dawkins crew/Redditors try me for heresy latter, but fundamentalism-as-unchanging-monolith-that-is-the-only-true Christianity trope is wildly historically inaccurate, but it's such a useful trope and recruiting tool that. Like every other social/religious movement, fundamentalist Protestantism has morphed over the ages. Which is probably why the fundamentalists themselves have encouraged that misconception, years before every 'rationalist' on the internet swallowed it hook line and sinker.
 
Perhaps the easiest way to go about this would be the association of fiscal conservatism or laissez faire economics with secularism.

It could happen. A lot easier to do up North than in the South, though, TBH.

Very complicated, when you consider how much of the present view of the Progressive Era is anachronism we project backwards due to where today's sensibilities pan out. I think you can argue that we forget much of nitty-gritty of how the Progressive era did business due to how we write history in the present day.

True, although what I've found may differ from some others' findings.

If you look at many of the Progressive Era social movements, much of their voting strength is religious, often the picture of what we'd call evangelicals today. It's not just temperance and Prohibition - the income tax amendments, woman's suffrage, even the popular election of Senators do not become law without the enthusiastic support of many people who'd currently be labeled fundamentalists(1).

That was somewhat true, though not quite entirely accurate, TBH. Fundamentalism was actually quite a bit nuanced before the 1950s; so you are correct when you say that the definition drifted quite a bit between say, World War I and the 1970s. However, though, the truth is, a good chunk of the self-described Fundamentalists of the Progressive Era would actually have been labelled as moderates, or even liberals, by the latter time period, especially the vast majority of those who DID throw their support behind women's suffrage in particular, and because Fundamentalism had become so far-right by then.

until the 1970s, the Southern Baptist Convention had zero problem with many forms of birth control and even abortion amongst married couples.

Which may have been true for a little while(but only from about 1960 'til about 1980), but from what I've been able to gather, this seems to be very largely thanks to African-Americans, who were typically significantly more liberal than white Baptists in many regards.

Evangelicals in the fin de seicle sense of the word were the foot soldiers of the Progressive Era.

Some were, yes. There were indeed a fair number of evangelicals who leaned leftward until the '50s, but there was always a right-wing element even amongst non-Fundie evangelicals; chiefly in the South at that.

Fundamentalists rarely were - until the 1950s and anti-communism, fundamentalism usually described religious separatists who rarely voted. Things shift with time.

That is true.

What's called fundamentalism in the present day eschews most social activism.....

Erm, not exactly, TBH. In fact, a huge amount of the support for the anti-abortion movement was very much not just supported, but even largely created by Protestant Fundies(although Catholic groups did have significant influence for some time, at least up until the end of the '80s, early '90s at least).

and in general because its much easier to sell "go to heaven and get rich" than "do things for people you'd normally avoid and go to heaven." They have no desire to remember evangelicalism when it was for the greater good, for the poor, for the disenfranchised now that its for the comfortable and in power.

That's certainly true, but as I noted above, it didn't stop them from engaging in social activism. It was just a different type of social activism, that's all.

And on the other side of the coin, the people who are progressive now would rather remember the seculars who were a much smaller slice of the Progressive voting block but are also more inline with what your modern lefty sees themselves as - better, wiser, above the sheeple and their religions.

Erm.....not that much smaller, TBH.

(1) It's not all light and roses though - there's a ton of anti-immigrant sentiment, particularly anti-Catholic sentiment, that's an integral part of this movement too.

The one thing that many today seem to forget, however, is that, as I've discovered, the label of "Progressive" was, unfortunately, co-opted somewhat early on by opportunists and dishonest tricksters, who otherwise would not be considered so(a great example would be Mississippi's Ted Bilbo, who seems to have been a particularly slick operator).....so it wasn't so much integral as it was added on by these outside infiltrating elements. (Also, a good amount of support for the progressive movement, at least early on, came from sections of many of the various immigrant communities, at least in many of the Eastern cities, anyway)

For a rough-ish comparison, think of how the label of "Patriot" was hijacked by the extreme right from the 1980s onwards.

(2) You can have the Dawkins crew/Redditors try me for heresy latter, but fundamentalism-as-unchanging-monolith-that-is-the-only-true Christianity trope is wildly historically inaccurate, but it's such a useful trope and recruiting tool that. Like every other social/religious movement, fundamentalist Protestantism has morphed over the ages. Which is probably why the fundamentalists themselves have encouraged that misconception, years before every 'rationalist' on the internet swallowed it hook line and sinker.

Can't disagree with that, TBH.
 
But in the context of this thread, I'm using a definition of activism that is not reactionary, which is a very fair characterization of the 1980's fundamentalism. Also, not sure where you're getting African-American influence on the SBC from - all of the Southern denominations of the Great Awakening Protestants were birthed in the fight over abolition, and tokens excepted, tend to observe the color line to this day. My point is that they changed beliefs for political reasons and then Orwelled it, so the details may not be so important here. (But then, the SBC has been the most opportunistic when it's come to folding every Creflo Dollar or Reverend Long into the fold... but they never exactly seem progressive...)

But the urban rural divide, and how much of the population was on the rural side, is another thing that is missed when one looks at the Progressive Era. The wobblies, the seculars, the communists are creatures of the cities - and aren't even all of the cities. In an age when a majority of the country is still rural. When you get into the countryside, Progressivism gets its voting strength from the pews. In terms of raw numbers, this is quite so. There is no great conspiracy suppressing how every good thing comes from people who were secretly atheists; the fact that the Progressive amendments passed is proof that at the end of the day, Progressive religiosity triumphed in those decades over the reactionary side of the different Protestant congregations.(1)

But this detours from the OP. It seems that the two big things that lead to a reactionary evangelicalism supplanting a Progressive evangelicalism are the First World War and the Bolshevik victory in Russia. The first dents the faith in the postmillenialism that was standard amongst elites and the most seminaries - the idea that Christ will return after mankind has built a perfect world was popular before the Great War, but takes a hit afterwards when people think mankind is irretrievably fucked. Into this gap steps the premillienial dispensationalism that we all deal with from every prosperity gospel megachurch and Left Behind movie, of a spiral into doom where the faithful get to laugh at everyone else burning (2). And of course, the Russians soundly turn concern for the poor and meek into lack of patriotism in the West, which really doesn't help matters much.

So could a PoD be keeping the US out of World War I? Or at least out of the fighting? If the US avoids having a generation see the horror of the trenches, does premillenialism never get its chance to supplant postmillenialsim? Or failing that, having some variety of White victory, or nationalist victory, or something that doesn't taint every form of social justice with the Reds for the next century?


(1) Not necessarily saying this is you, Cali, but its a certain tendency on these boards some days... And as a city person, I personally tend to have trouble comprehending how progressive change could come from the rural. But I'm a product of my time.

(2) Again with apologies to the Dawkins contingent/Reditors, this is in fact a new thing, these dispenationalists are far from the "only true Christians." Apologies to the present day born-agains too, I guess - y'all and the Redditors are the only ones with stakes saying the pre-millenials are the only true Christians...
 
Last edited:
(1) Not necessarily saying this is you, Cali, but its a certain tendency on these boards some days... And as a city person, I personally tend to have trouble comprehending how progressive change could come from the rural. But I'm a product of my time.

Well my highschool loves Obama yet we are mostly low-income worker families or farmers from East Washington (at least the majority).

Anyways, progressive change from a religious stance is freaking hard to come into fruition, which is why I posted this thread on before 1900 to expand any sort of PODs between the birth of the US to the present day.
 
Well my highschool loves Obama yet we are mostly low-income worker families or farmers from East Washington (at least the majority).

Anyways, progressive change from a religious stance is freaking hard to come into fruition, which is why I posted this thread on before 1900 to expand any sort of PODs between the birth of the US to the present day.

I kid... mostly...

The forum divide is so hard on these late 19th Century pieces. :) I suggest the ones I did because before 1900, it looks like the US is barreling towards a sort of Christian left-ism. As with so many other things, its the Great War that throws it off the tracks. But, as its's your freaking thread.... perhaps less publicity to Darwin? Or a latter publications of some theory of evolution by natural selection? The first stirrings of that premillenialism are in the 1870s, and while they're an expression of rural vs. urban issues, they did tend to gel around Darwin. Or an evolution that retained its fudge factor when it came to human evolution? It delays the reactionary backlash a bit, certainly.

Or maybe tweak the beliefs the Second Great Awakening? Hard to twist one knob and see another one go, but you can argue a huge amount of the bedrock of American society and culture is laid on the foundation of number two, however far from its religiosity it may have strayed...
 
Last edited:
...I kid... mostly...

The forum divide is so hard on these late 19th Century pieces. :) I suggest the ones I did because before 1900, it looks like the US is barreling towards a sort of Christian left-ism. As with so many other things, its the Great War that throws it off the tracks. But, as its's your freaking thread.... perhaps less publicity to Darwin? Or a latter publications of some theory of evolution by natural selection? The first stirrings of that premillenialism are in the 1870s, and while they're an expression of rural vs. urban issues, they did tend to gel around Darwin. Or an evolution that retained its fudge factor when it came to human evolution? It delays the reactionary backlash a bit, certainly.

Or maybe tweak the beliefs the Second Great Awakening? Hard to twist one knob and see another one go, but you can argue a huge amount of the bedrock of American society and culture is laid on the foundation of number two, however far from its religiosity it may have strayed

You mean an alternate publication of Darwin in which God had "guided" evolution of species from one form to another over millions of years. God is seen as the guide to our being and our existence through evolution?
 
You mean an alternate publication of Darwin in which God had "guided" evolution of species from one form to another over millions of years. God is seen as the guide to our being and our existence through evolution?

Not something you can expect of Darwin. One where he sticks to the finches, and doesn't say a word about what was called the "transmutation of species at the time." Or writes a less through book. Admittedly, Darwin's a hard one - natural selection is just too elegant of a theory to be kept in the bottle, as it were.
 
Not something you can expect of Darwin. One where he sticks to the finches, and doesn't say a word about what was called the "transmutation of species at the time." Or writes a less through book. Admittedly, Darwin's a hard one - natural selection is just too elegant of a theory to be kept in the bottle, as it were.

Could evolution and maybe all of science be integrated into religion? Religious science that promotes unitarianism? :confused:
 
You mean an alternate publication of Darwin in which God had "guided" evolution of species from one form to another over millions of years. God is seen as the guide to our being and our existence through evolution?

Had another thought, didn't want to clutter up the quotes with a late edit. Not Darwin. Huxley. Butterfly Huxley and you don't have the idea spreading as quickly, thoroughly, and secularly. Remember, there's a good forty years from the 1880s to the 1920s when a lot of biologists thought Darwin was in wrong in the sense of the mechanism proposed for evolution - Lamarck's theories get aired out again, there are some orthogenicists talking about change factors. These are secular, wrong, but still a bit less threatening to certain species of fundamentalists than natural selection. No Huxley, and natural selection doesn't have the flare before its eclipse. Fr. Mendal still will show that Darwin's right, but the idea won't take off as fast.

In fact, if you slow down Darwin, you also have some butterflys on Herbert Spencer as well. Without the grand daddy libertarian saying "charity? Fuck'em all - Science says so!" you also have less elite interest in finding some stick to beat the Social Gospel and Progressive contingents with.
 
Could evolution and maybe all of science be integrated into religion? Religious science that promotes unitarianism? :confused:
This is impossible. The scientific method does not mix well with broad, sweeping statements about the nature of the world. Or at least, it isn't supposed to. I mean, religion can be a complement to science, but integrating religion into science or vice versa wouldn't work out (and this is not exclusive to religion, the Soviets didn't believe in Charles Darwin either).
 
Top