What if the US census had a question asking respondents about their religion? (There has never been such a question on the decennial census. There were some surveys taken by the Bureau of the Census in non-census years, but they were addressed to church and synagogue officials, not the general public, and no answer was legally mandated. There was also the March 1957 survey which I shall discuss below.)
In 1956-57 there was a very lively public debate on whether the 1960 census should include such a question. The debate is extensively reviewed in Chapter 7, "Keeping Religion Private (and Off the US Census)" of Kevin M. Schultz, *Tri-Faith America: How Catholics and Jews Held Postwar America to its Protestant Promise* (Oxford UP 2011). http://books.google.com/books?id=FZNE-Em8uxgC&pg=PA159 (All quotes in this post are from that chapter, unless otherwise indicated.)
The chief (though by no means sole) advocates of such a question were Catholics; the National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC) made the question its top political priority for 1956 and 1957. A leading spokesman for Catholics on this issue was Thomas B. Kenedy, Catholic representative to the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, editor of *The Official Catholic Directory*, and an intellectual with ties to the NCWC. According to Schultz,
"[Kenedy's] overt argument was that the data would be useful to charitable groups, hospitals, and schools, allowing them to better deploy their resources. Secular social planners and charitable organizations would find the information useful, too. As cities hollowed out and America suburbanized, such statistics would be useful to groups trying to keep tabs on their flocks. This civic and sociological argument was strong enough to win the support of the American Sociological Association, the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, the Census 1960 Advisory Committee, the Population Association of America, and other secular demographic agencies."
Schultz also suggests that "Kenedy and the NCWC may have had an ulterior motive, believing that the census data would provide demonstrable proof of the numerical power of Catholics in the United States. Previously, the debate about whether Protestants or Catholics had numerical superiority had been hampered by the fact that the Catholic Church counted in its ranks everyone born Catholic, while Protestant churches waited until its members were thirteen years old before including them. An official tally by the Bureau of the Census would alleviate confusion and perhaps clarify the extent of Catholic power in the United States. For a minority group whose place in American life was suspect because its members were supposedly unable to adhere to democratic principles, a third party's demonstration of their large and continuous presence would help solidify their standing and legitimize their group identity. Furthermore, a demonstration of the large number of American Catholics would be sure to impress politicians, who frequently debated issues important to midcentury Catholics...For these and possibly other reasons, following the NCWC's call, the National Council of Catholic Men, the Catholic Press Association, the *Catholic Digest*, the *Catholic Review*, and the *National Catholic Register*...all came out in favor of the measure."
The chief opponents of having a religious question were Jewish groups. Jewish suspicion of censuses has a long history. To quote Jonathan D. Sarna's *American Judaism: A History* (p. 356):
"Enter a traditional Jewish worship service just as prayers are commencing and you may behold a curious sight. The people in charge will be searching for a *minyan*, a prayer quorum. Counting up those in attendance, they will pretend not to count them, calling out 'not one, not two, not three, not four.' When 'not ten' finally arrives, the service may begin.
"Rooted in a Talmudic teaching ('Whoever counts the people of Israel transgresses a negative commandment'), this practice also reflects an ancient taboo, exemplified in the Bible, against communal censuses, so often the portents of taxation and conscription..." http://books.google.com/books?id=Ujw_IawuIIgC&pg=PA356
Of course in modern times, the American Jewish community has become very number-conscious and in Sarna's words (p. 356) "has sponsored expensive nationwide 'population studies' to gather information about itself." Yet most Jewish organizations in 1956-57 drew the line at having the *government* ask people about their religion. It wasn't just that the Nazis had shown that censuses could be used for purposes much worse than even "taxation and conscription." Even if one could assume that the confidentiality of individuals' census replies would be absolutely secure, there was still the danger that anti-Semites might try to use data about, say, the median income of Jews compared with other groups to argue that Jews had too much money, etc. In any event, since answering census questions was legally mandated, Jewish organizations argued that by forcing people to declare their religion, a census question about religion would violate the rights protected by the free exercise and establishment of religion clauses of the First Amendment. The lawyer Leo Pfeiffer was a leading spokesmen for this point of view.
Protestants were divided on the issue. Some argued that since religion was of as much sociological importance as occupation, income, national origin, etc., there was no reason not to include it. (Interestingly, Paul Blanshard, America's most famous critic of the Catholic Church, agreed with the Catholic position on this issue, stating that "church affiliation is an important social datum in American life. It has great social significance...[and] exact knowledge about church statistics" would be valuable.) Others sympathized with the argument that an individual had a right to keep his or her religion private; *Christian Century* published an article by Pfeiffer to this effect (though the magazine did not explicitly endorse Pfeiffer's position).
Also, groups like Christian Scientists and Mormons were doctrinally opposed to outside tabulations of their numbers. The Seventh Day Adventists also opposed the idea. In general, religions which had faced persecution--except of course the Catholics--were opposed.
In any event, the Census Bureau, headed by Ike's appointee Robert W. Burgess (a professed Baptist) and operationally run by the respected demographer Conrad Taeuber, showed considerable interest in the question. In the fall of 1956 Burgess issued a press release saying that inclusion of questions about religion in the 1960 census was "under consideration." The ACLU immediately issued a statement opposing the idea--but significantly added that they would not object provided that replying to the question about religion would be left voluntary. Burgess and Taeuber knew that this would require legislation by Congress (since existing law provided that answering all questions was mandatory) and considered seeking such legislation. They reasoned that support by the ACLU would help to undermine the First Amendment objections to a religious question. As a test of Americans' willingness to answer questions about religion, they included the question in a March 1957 survey of 35,000 households; only one percent of the respondents did not answer the question.
Eventually, however, after being lobbied by the American Jewish Congress, the ACLU decided to oppose the question even if respondents had the right not to answer it. And in any event, by late 1957, Burgess decided that the question was too touchy, so he would stop pushing for a question about religion in the 1960 census. Catholics--and many secular demographers-- were disappointed by the decision, but the chance to include the question was lost from then on. In today's atmosphere--with suspicion of government far more intense than during the 1950's--introducing such a question would be unthinkable. (Indeed, one often sees it argued by Tea Party types that the entire idea of using the census for sociological data is illegitimate, that the only valid purpose of the census is to serve as a guide for congressional and Electoral College reapportionment, etc.)
Anyway, suppose religion had indeed been included in the 1960 census. A possible POD: Have Jewish organizations less united in opposition to the question than they were in OTL. Some members of the National Jewish Welfare Board favored the inclusion, because such data could have facilitated the NJWB's tasks of planting Jewish community centers and providing job assistance to Jews. Sanford Solander, the director of the Jewish Center Division of the NJWB, thought that religion was part of the "objective social data" that the Census Bureau could legitimately ask about. He was confident that the Bureau would keep such information confidential, and stated that he "did not agree with the American Jewish Congress' position" on the issue. But his opinion was never made public, mainly because of fears by other NJWB officials that American Jews would look weak if they divided on such an important issue. And when Burgess finally decided against inclusion, the *American Jewish Year Book* expressed frustration, claiming that "such an inquiry, although questioned under other grounds by the major Jewish community organizations, would have offered an excellent opportunity for the development of basic decennial estimates of Jewish population and other demographic details..." Maybe if they had said that *before* the decision not to include the question, it would have made some difference.
Could a lawsuit challenging the question on First Amendment grounds have been successful? At the very least, it might have led to a requirement that answering the question be kept voluntary--though it could be argued that even a "decline to state" option forces an individual who wants to keep her religious beliefs private to draw attention to herself, like those who refuse to participate in "voluntary" school prayer. But an obvious difference is that census returns are confidential, and in the 1950's most people, including judges, would have regarded it as somewhat paranoid to suggest that the confidentiality might be violated.
If such a question had been included in the 1960 census--and upheld by the courts--then, despite the increasing suspicion of government I have mentioned, it might still be asked in the 2010 census, since once included, the burden would be on opponents to remove the question from future censuses. Besides the sociological uses already mentioned, one consequence that occurs to me is this: Both Muslim and anti-Muslim advocates today have an incentive to exaggerate the number of Muslims in the United States, and an accurate census figure might help counter such exaggerations. (Though of course this assumes, perhaps dubiously, that facts actually have some effect on public attitudes toward such things.)
Thoughts?
In 1956-57 there was a very lively public debate on whether the 1960 census should include such a question. The debate is extensively reviewed in Chapter 7, "Keeping Religion Private (and Off the US Census)" of Kevin M. Schultz, *Tri-Faith America: How Catholics and Jews Held Postwar America to its Protestant Promise* (Oxford UP 2011). http://books.google.com/books?id=FZNE-Em8uxgC&pg=PA159 (All quotes in this post are from that chapter, unless otherwise indicated.)
The chief (though by no means sole) advocates of such a question were Catholics; the National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC) made the question its top political priority for 1956 and 1957. A leading spokesman for Catholics on this issue was Thomas B. Kenedy, Catholic representative to the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, editor of *The Official Catholic Directory*, and an intellectual with ties to the NCWC. According to Schultz,
"[Kenedy's] overt argument was that the data would be useful to charitable groups, hospitals, and schools, allowing them to better deploy their resources. Secular social planners and charitable organizations would find the information useful, too. As cities hollowed out and America suburbanized, such statistics would be useful to groups trying to keep tabs on their flocks. This civic and sociological argument was strong enough to win the support of the American Sociological Association, the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, the Census 1960 Advisory Committee, the Population Association of America, and other secular demographic agencies."
Schultz also suggests that "Kenedy and the NCWC may have had an ulterior motive, believing that the census data would provide demonstrable proof of the numerical power of Catholics in the United States. Previously, the debate about whether Protestants or Catholics had numerical superiority had been hampered by the fact that the Catholic Church counted in its ranks everyone born Catholic, while Protestant churches waited until its members were thirteen years old before including them. An official tally by the Bureau of the Census would alleviate confusion and perhaps clarify the extent of Catholic power in the United States. For a minority group whose place in American life was suspect because its members were supposedly unable to adhere to democratic principles, a third party's demonstration of their large and continuous presence would help solidify their standing and legitimize their group identity. Furthermore, a demonstration of the large number of American Catholics would be sure to impress politicians, who frequently debated issues important to midcentury Catholics...For these and possibly other reasons, following the NCWC's call, the National Council of Catholic Men, the Catholic Press Association, the *Catholic Digest*, the *Catholic Review*, and the *National Catholic Register*...all came out in favor of the measure."
The chief opponents of having a religious question were Jewish groups. Jewish suspicion of censuses has a long history. To quote Jonathan D. Sarna's *American Judaism: A History* (p. 356):
"Enter a traditional Jewish worship service just as prayers are commencing and you may behold a curious sight. The people in charge will be searching for a *minyan*, a prayer quorum. Counting up those in attendance, they will pretend not to count them, calling out 'not one, not two, not three, not four.' When 'not ten' finally arrives, the service may begin.
"Rooted in a Talmudic teaching ('Whoever counts the people of Israel transgresses a negative commandment'), this practice also reflects an ancient taboo, exemplified in the Bible, against communal censuses, so often the portents of taxation and conscription..." http://books.google.com/books?id=Ujw_IawuIIgC&pg=PA356
Of course in modern times, the American Jewish community has become very number-conscious and in Sarna's words (p. 356) "has sponsored expensive nationwide 'population studies' to gather information about itself." Yet most Jewish organizations in 1956-57 drew the line at having the *government* ask people about their religion. It wasn't just that the Nazis had shown that censuses could be used for purposes much worse than even "taxation and conscription." Even if one could assume that the confidentiality of individuals' census replies would be absolutely secure, there was still the danger that anti-Semites might try to use data about, say, the median income of Jews compared with other groups to argue that Jews had too much money, etc. In any event, since answering census questions was legally mandated, Jewish organizations argued that by forcing people to declare their religion, a census question about religion would violate the rights protected by the free exercise and establishment of religion clauses of the First Amendment. The lawyer Leo Pfeiffer was a leading spokesmen for this point of view.
Protestants were divided on the issue. Some argued that since religion was of as much sociological importance as occupation, income, national origin, etc., there was no reason not to include it. (Interestingly, Paul Blanshard, America's most famous critic of the Catholic Church, agreed with the Catholic position on this issue, stating that "church affiliation is an important social datum in American life. It has great social significance...[and] exact knowledge about church statistics" would be valuable.) Others sympathized with the argument that an individual had a right to keep his or her religion private; *Christian Century* published an article by Pfeiffer to this effect (though the magazine did not explicitly endorse Pfeiffer's position).
Also, groups like Christian Scientists and Mormons were doctrinally opposed to outside tabulations of their numbers. The Seventh Day Adventists also opposed the idea. In general, religions which had faced persecution--except of course the Catholics--were opposed.
In any event, the Census Bureau, headed by Ike's appointee Robert W. Burgess (a professed Baptist) and operationally run by the respected demographer Conrad Taeuber, showed considerable interest in the question. In the fall of 1956 Burgess issued a press release saying that inclusion of questions about religion in the 1960 census was "under consideration." The ACLU immediately issued a statement opposing the idea--but significantly added that they would not object provided that replying to the question about religion would be left voluntary. Burgess and Taeuber knew that this would require legislation by Congress (since existing law provided that answering all questions was mandatory) and considered seeking such legislation. They reasoned that support by the ACLU would help to undermine the First Amendment objections to a religious question. As a test of Americans' willingness to answer questions about religion, they included the question in a March 1957 survey of 35,000 households; only one percent of the respondents did not answer the question.
Eventually, however, after being lobbied by the American Jewish Congress, the ACLU decided to oppose the question even if respondents had the right not to answer it. And in any event, by late 1957, Burgess decided that the question was too touchy, so he would stop pushing for a question about religion in the 1960 census. Catholics--and many secular demographers-- were disappointed by the decision, but the chance to include the question was lost from then on. In today's atmosphere--with suspicion of government far more intense than during the 1950's--introducing such a question would be unthinkable. (Indeed, one often sees it argued by Tea Party types that the entire idea of using the census for sociological data is illegitimate, that the only valid purpose of the census is to serve as a guide for congressional and Electoral College reapportionment, etc.)
Anyway, suppose religion had indeed been included in the 1960 census. A possible POD: Have Jewish organizations less united in opposition to the question than they were in OTL. Some members of the National Jewish Welfare Board favored the inclusion, because such data could have facilitated the NJWB's tasks of planting Jewish community centers and providing job assistance to Jews. Sanford Solander, the director of the Jewish Center Division of the NJWB, thought that religion was part of the "objective social data" that the Census Bureau could legitimately ask about. He was confident that the Bureau would keep such information confidential, and stated that he "did not agree with the American Jewish Congress' position" on the issue. But his opinion was never made public, mainly because of fears by other NJWB officials that American Jews would look weak if they divided on such an important issue. And when Burgess finally decided against inclusion, the *American Jewish Year Book* expressed frustration, claiming that "such an inquiry, although questioned under other grounds by the major Jewish community organizations, would have offered an excellent opportunity for the development of basic decennial estimates of Jewish population and other demographic details..." Maybe if they had said that *before* the decision not to include the question, it would have made some difference.
Could a lawsuit challenging the question on First Amendment grounds have been successful? At the very least, it might have led to a requirement that answering the question be kept voluntary--though it could be argued that even a "decline to state" option forces an individual who wants to keep her religious beliefs private to draw attention to herself, like those who refuse to participate in "voluntary" school prayer. But an obvious difference is that census returns are confidential, and in the 1950's most people, including judges, would have regarded it as somewhat paranoid to suggest that the confidentiality might be violated.
If such a question had been included in the 1960 census--and upheld by the courts--then, despite the increasing suspicion of government I have mentioned, it might still be asked in the 2010 census, since once included, the burden would be on opponents to remove the question from future censuses. Besides the sociological uses already mentioned, one consequence that occurs to me is this: Both Muslim and anti-Muslim advocates today have an incentive to exaggerate the number of Muslims in the United States, and an accurate census figure might help counter such exaggerations. (Though of course this assumes, perhaps dubiously, that facts actually have some effect on public attitudes toward such things.)
Thoughts?