Religion in the 40's & 50's

[Lincsong]

On the flipped side of the coin

[

QUOTE=Briscoeteque]People who don't practice religon, be them from Catholic, Jewish or anything, don't like religon shoved in their face by the government they pay taxes towards. It's foolish to single out non practicing Jews and Catholics.

People who practice religion don't like their government banning words and events and having inocuous phrases censored in their face by people who just want to stir the pot. If someone hasn't seen the inside of a church or synagogue in years then why do they have to say they are something they're not? Why can't they be honest and say they're indifferent. But, don't give me the standard; "I was raised Catholic. I went to parochial school for twelve years" and then find out they weren't married in a church, they're kids are not baptized and they haven't been to Mass since high school. Name an actual event in the past 70 years where the U.S. government forced people to attend a certain religious denomination regularly, to pay taxes directly to said religious denomination and forbade them from worshipping as they choose?

I'm sorry, but a great deal of people who push religon through government are also deprived in the tack and taste department. People have the right to say whatever they believe, and the goverment should stay out of this domain entirely by taking the neutral position of not endorsing religion.

Who said government was endorsing religion? The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. Thanks for the points made.

 

[Briscoeteque]

[


Who said government was endorsing religion? The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. Thanks for the points made.

That's not fair, there is not to be any consideration from people who don't want to be bothered by religon simply because the Constitution doesn't expressly say so? The Constitution is a great thing, but as an American I can disagree with parts of it, this being one of them. Is there really something so abhorrent with keeping something as private as spirituality private? I don't want to live in a place where everyone says 'Happy Chanukah' as the default eiather. It's ettiquite. You chew with your mouth open at a table, I'm going to call you on it. I'm not going to start a hunger strike or anything, but it is very impolite.

It's not that the government forces people to go to services or anything, but religon does color the government, a goverment that is as for the atheist as it is for us. It's not too much to ask that we just keep it down, at least out of respect. If Under God was removed from the Pledge, would I be affected? Would my God's honor be tarnished? If my money did not say 'In God We Trust' on it, would that challenge my God? No. I understand why it would make an atheist uncomortable, and therefore am more than willing to accomodate a fellow human being by doing something that has absoutely no cost to me or to my God.

I don't know how Catholics define it, but as a Jew I have no qualms with non-practicing Jews calling themselves Jewish. It is as much a race and culture as a religon.

 

[MudInYerEye]

Anti-semites, whether brazen or thinly veiled, are the lowest of kind of scum. I suppose it was naive of me to expect better from certain members of this forum. Congrats on the ruination of a promising thread.

 

[Lincsong]

I agree

Anti-semites, whether brazen or thinly veiled, are the lowest of kind of scum. I suppose it was naive of me to expect better from certain members of this forum. Congrats on the ruination of a promising thread.

Each persons personal religious affiliation has nothing to do with this thread. Let's stay objective on the subject; Religion in the '40s and '50s.
:cheers1:

 

[Lincsong]

A little too much off topic

I don't know how Catholics define it, but as a Jew I have no qualms with non-practicing Jews calling themselves Jewish. It is as much a race and culture as a religon.

Let's not hijack this thread. I think we all need to take a little breather and get back to the original intention of the thread.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I wasn't around, but in 40s/50s small town Scotland everyone went to church. My grandparents went because they wanted to, and believed. My parents went because they were forced, and because everyone else in the town expected them to. The 60s allowed them to break away from the enforced religion. Funnily enough they (well, my mother) forced me to go to church too. And then i could make the choice to break away. But i got the choice. They had to leave town when they chose to abandon the church.

bk

 

[Big Man]

Between discussions on religion and (in another thread or two) race relations, I'm beginning to feel that I was deprived as a child. I must of really lived a dull life, as I just didn't have experiences that impacted me in an extremely negative way towards anyone of a different religion or race or whatever than myself.

Our family went to church every Sunday, then on to my Grandmother's house for Sunday dinner. I believe I am a better person for the experience, and am thankful my parents cared enough to teach (by example) that religion and family were important values.

As to controversy between various religions, I remember well the greatest religious conflict in the little community of Nebo, NC where we attended church in the late 1950's and early 1960's. The Methodist Church (where we were members) and the Baptist Church were directly across the road from each other. When I say directly, I mean directly - they were separated by what was once a one-lane road and was now a common parking area for both churches, the front doors of each building being not more than about 30 feet apart. The controversy came every summer, when it was so hot that all the windows and doors were open on both churches, and each congregation tried to out sing the other. I can still remember the Preacher shouting out, "Louder, louder - I can still hear the Baptist !"

 

[MudInYerEye]

Each persons personal religious affiliation has nothing to do with this thread. Let's stay objective on the subject; Religion in the '40s and '50s.
:cheers1:

That's awfully assumptive of you. For the record I was raised a Lutheran (I am originally from Minnesota), though I no longer particpate in organized religion. I just can't stand people unjustly slandering the folks who brought us all-time greats like Jesus, Freud, Einstein, Superman, and Koufax.

 

[Forrestal]

Jewish people have had their religious beliefs (and their very lives) under attack for thousands of years. Therefore it might be considered only natural for some of their members to be a little ?¢‚Ǩ?ìtouchy?¢‚Ǩ? about things.

Sam Clemens, a fellow Missourian, wrote this article which I think is appropriate to post here:

Written in 1899, when anti-Semitism was so widespread in the U.S. that the
likes of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were openly anti-Jewish.

MarkTwain's response:

"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the
human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze
of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly be heard of; but he is
heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as
any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of
proportion to the smallenss of his bulk. His contributions to the world's
list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine,
and obtuse learning are also way out of proportion to the weakness of his
numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world in all the ages, and
has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself
and be excused for it. The Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Persians
rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, and faded to dream stuff
and passed away. The Greeks and the Romans followed and made a vast noise
and they are gone. Other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high
for a time. But it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have
vanished. The Jew saw them all. Beat them all, and is now what he always
was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his
parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive
mind. All things are mortal but the Jew. All other forces pass, but he
remains. Amen".

 

[K.D. Lightner]

Amen...

Thanks for the post!

karol

 

[Wild Root]

We too were on the rise...

In the 30's and 40's there were "Later Day Saints" all over the US, Canada and most of the world. Missionary work seized during WWII but, picked right up again after that.

It's really crazy but, I'll dress up in my vintage and some people will say that I'm not 100% vintage because I'm not smoking or drinking... I reply that there were Mormons too in those days!

I've seen some great photos of Later Day Saint's in the 40's, really cool photos! Funny, I'll go to church and some will call me a pimp or a gangster... then I show them a photo of who was the President of the Church in the Depression or during WWII. They dressed in striped double breasted suits and wore hats! I always enjoy doing that!

=WR=

 

[Michaelson]

I was raised in the 50's in Ohio, and we had a pretty decent 'mix' of churches and the like in my home town. I was raised Methodist, and we had a regular schedule throughout the week of choir on Wednesday after school, and church service on Sunday mornings (no Wednesday or Sunday services). It was a regular and comfortable existance, as you knew what time of year was by the rhythms of the church calendar. When growing up, I always felt we had EARNED Christmas and Easter, as we worked SO hard at our choir and musical work, we should have presents under the tree, and baskets of goodies hidden at Easter after doing our best in our service performances.

What I also will always remember is that it was always a race to see whose services got out on time come Sunday mornings, as there was only one decent restaurant in our town (no such thing as 'fast food' of ANY kind until the mid 60's), and who ever got out first got first debs on the tables at that restaurant for Sunday lunch (if you were lucky to get to eat out. We didn't....but a lot did!)

There was no real thought of 'we're this particular faith, and you're of THAT particular belief'....at least not that I ever recall, nor do I ever remember my parents ever mentioning a difference. I knew there HAD to be....I mean, why were there so many churches in town if folks didn't believe differently?! But, thinking at the time with a kid's logic, I figured it was all muddled in the 'larger picture of things', and not requried to be understood. I had Jewish friends, Baptist friends, Catholic friends and neighbors....it never made any difference to me..to them...nor seemingly to my parents or THEIR parents. Life just went on....

The discussion of difference never even entered my world until I was in Jr. High School in the late 60's, and one of my best friends asked me where I went to church. When I told him, I thought he was going to have a heart attack, and almost had the same when he yelled at the top of his lungs "Are you SAVED and WASHED IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB!!!????"

Scared the stew out of me! It was about that time that I realized that folks apparently DID have different thoughts about religion, and some felt pretty strongly about it too! I'm still learning.....

I don't know if that factored into discussion, but it's what I experienced during those quiet days before everything so radically changed in the mid 60's....and that town I grew up in essentially began to die.

Regards! Michaelson

 

[Lincsong]

Your presumptions are assumptive

That's awfully assumptive of you. For the record I was raised a Lutheran (I am originally from Minnesota), though I no longer particpate in organized religion. I just can't stand people unjustly slandering the folks who brought us all-time greats like Jesus, Freud, Einstein, Superman, and Koufax.

We can be objective and Civil. Can't we?

 

[mysterygal]

what I've heard was that in the church it was more of a feel of hellfire and brmstone or turn or burn (which would turn lots of people away!)....unfortunately, today it's very seeker friendly, gone way off from the word and turned it into more of a get together

 

[Briscoeteque]

That's awfully assumptive of you. For the record I was raised a Lutheran (I am originally from Minnesota), though I no longer particpate in organized religion. I just can't stand people unjustly slandering the folks who brought us all-time greats like Jesus, Freud, Einstein, Superman, and Koufax.

We can be objective and Civil. Can't we?

That's not civil enough? What part isn't, the part where he says he wasn't raised Jewish, but Lutheran, the part where he says he no longer particpates in organized religon, or the part where he defends Jews against anti semites?

To stay more on topic, I'm very glad religon today is moving in a personal direction instead of the social one in the past.

 

[Lincsong]

No one said he wasn't civil

[

QUOTE=Briscoeteque]That's not civil enough? What part isn't, the part where he says he wasn't raised Jewish, but Lutheran, the part where he says he no longer particpates in organized religon, or the part where he defends Jews against anti semites?

I said objective and civil. I never said he wasn't civil.

To stay more on topic, I'm very glad religon today is moving in a personal direction instead of the social one in the past.

[/QUOTE]
What's the distinction? Give examples of past and present.

 

[Pilgrim]

I think the way one answers the original question also depends on where they grew up.

My dad was born near Pittsburgh in 1919. I recall that some of the old jokes he would tell poked fun at Jews. Although he was never given to mean or overtly racist humor, I have reflected that if one tells jokes involving ethnicity, those jokes will probably involve the ethnic group most visible around you. In Pennsylvania back then, it was probably Jews.

But I was born in Iowa and grew up in the Western US (Washington State), and have also lived in Oregon, Texas and now in Colorado. There simply isn't much Jewish population in the west, and other than Texas, there's little Black population. But there are plenty of folks from the LDS Church (Mormons). So I heard a lot of Mormon jokes when I was growing up.

So to some degree, how you perceive this issue may be a result of where you grew up and what religious groups you were exposed to. I am nominally a Presbyterian, but my wife is Catholic and I haven't been to any church service (and that infrequently) except Catholic ones in ages.

As one born in 1950, I do have the sense that people of all religions were a bit more "observant" on Sundays (or other worship days) back then. And I'm sure that depending on the town or place where you lived, there were dominant church groups that had a heavy influence on local society. Living in Texas was my first chance to spend any amount of time around Baptists, as they're really in short supply in the Pacific NW.

But I'm not at all sure that people weren't more civil then, and less insistent on having their viewpoints (religious in general, specifically sectarian or atheist) enacted as public policy. It seems to me that the active connection between religion and public policy has become a very big, important issue in today's society. I never saw that in the 50's or 60's.

Perhaps the major changes in society during the 60's made religiously observant people feel that their basic values (whatever that word means - it's such a vague term) were being challenged and set aside. I suspect they reacted by deciding they needed to take a more active role in society. In response, those who do NOT want religion to have a strong influence on public policy felt that they needed to take action as well to provide a counterbalance.

I also suspect that part of the doctrine-centered, politically active (and often shrill) stuff we see going on with various groups is a result of improved communications technology and access to information. It's easy for groups to communicate and organize; to create web pages; to set up email and mail campaigns.

Consider the group MoveOn.org, which arose mainly because of issues and contoversies around a President. This group didn't even need a religion or other group to form around - they were people of similar opinions who were able to contact others nationwide using email and the web, and form a lobbying organization. This was just about impossible to do 40 years ago, or it would have take years. They did it in months, and the group is still going strong. That's not the way social or religious groups could act in the 40's and 50's.

I have taken a neutral viewpoint in this post, because I think that's the appropriate one. I personally have strong feelings on the appropriateness of religious groups becoming actively involved in lobbying and shaping public policy, but I think that's where the action is and will be for some time to come.

The single thing I like LEAST about the changes in society over the past 25 years (and that's a carefully chosen time period - think about it) is the increasing polarization in U.S. society and unwillingness to recognize any virtue in different viewpoints. That's not serving us well at all.

 

[K.D. Lightner]

Well said, Pilgrim.

karol

 

[Mycroft]

Jewish people have had their religious beliefs (and their very lives) under attack for thousands of years. Therefore it might be considered only natural for some of their members to be a little ?¢‚Ǩ?ìtouchy?¢‚Ǩ? about things.

Sam Clemens, a fellow Missourian, wrote this article which I think is appropriate to post here:

Written in 1899, when anti-Semitism was so widespread in the U.S. that the
likes of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were openly anti-Jewish.

MarkTwain's response:

"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the
human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze
of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly be heard of; but he is
heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as
any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of
proportion to the smallenss of his bulk. His contributions to the world's
list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine,
and obtuse learning are also way out of proportion to the weakness of his
numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world in all the ages, and
has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself
and be excused for it. The Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Persians
rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, and faded to dream stuff
and passed away. The Greeks and the Romans followed and made a vast noise
and they are gone. Other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high
for a time. But it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have
vanished. The Jew saw them all. Beat them all, and is now what he always
was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his
parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive
mind. All things are mortal but the Jew. All other forces pass, but he
remains. Amen".

Great quote, by the way Charles Lingberg was very anti-semetic as well.

 

[Lincsong]

'30's and '40s

I was asking my parents about how and when they went to church in the 1930's and 1940's. Surprisingly, both sets of grandparents really weren't that religious. On Sunday, they'd get the children ready for Mass and send them to the local parish and they'd stay home. If it was raining then my grandfather would drop them off and come back an hour later to pick them up. My father lived on the same road as the Parish so walking in the rain was no big deal. It wasn't until the 1950's that my grandparents attended Mass each Sunday. And together; all 13 uncles and aunts and my parents ended up and still do attend Mass each Sunday.