It appears that my first reply to you post was deleted. I don't know what I said that caused may have warranted that...but I will try again with some more-moderate phrasing:
I think that you entirely missed my point…
What I’ve been saying is NOT that the US is any more (or less) religious today than it has been in the past, but instead that the religion practiced today (at whatever level) is a lot more OVERT in its actions and activities than it was previously. There is a big difference…
Additionally, you're drawing causations regarding society that are not necessarily valid.
I too grew up in Los Angeles—but in the 50s/60s/70s—so I can attest to much of what you are saying as far as the restrictions on various strata of society at that time. And, while Los Angeles may have always been a bit “different” from other places, I did spend time growing up in other parts of the country as well…and saw how they too lived within the same general American culture. In my comments, I have never denied that these restrictions were there, although in some places they were stronger than others. But instead, I’ve said that these things were not often “enforced”---or even much commented on in a media sense---by the mainline religions of the time. And certainly, many/most parts of society itself ignored much of it.
And, yes…many (if not most) of those legal restrictions were the results of hundreds, if not thousands, of years of Judeo/Christian thought. However, during much of the 20th century it was not the churches that were continuing to drive the restrictions. With the exception of the Catholic Church banging on about abortion, very few churches got politically involved in much of anything. Instead, their attitude was really pretty much laissez-faire outside of their own purview.
Homosexuality, while it may have been frowned up (and illegal, certainly) was not railed at from the pulpit. There were many gay and lesbian churchgoers (incognito, to be sure). And women, while they may have been confined to second-tier status by our government (again at the direction of Judeo-Christian moral beliefs), nevertheless held their own in the family structure. In fact, many women actually worked, and they often were the one’s managing the household budget.
In other words, the times weren’t quite as hideous as you are describing. If one was marginalized, one learned to work within that system to their own advantage (and safety). To assume that there were no happy and successful gay men and women (there were, I grew up knowing many), nor any successful and happy housewives (the women of my neighborhood would certainly tell you differently), is to deny the reality of life then. It may not have always been easy…but it could certainly be a fulfilling life.
So, what I am saying is that many marginalized people lived full lives. The government did not arbitrarily come sweeping in and arresting gay men and women, unless they themselves put themselves in compromising positions. In fact, I knew several gay men who STILL held government jobs. And if a woman got pregnant with an unwanted child, or as you quote, “because a guy knocked up a girl”, they actually DID very frequently get an abortion—even if abortion was illegal and they had to do it dangerously, and under-the-radar. I’m not making a value judgement here…but that is a FACT. And, yes, almost all of these people—gay or straight—were members of mainline religions, and many were regular churchgoers.
So, while the churches may have been very much against both situations in their dogma—and would certainly not condone either situation—they never vocally vilified it, either. Instead, most religions just turned a blind eye to it. They certainly didn’t excommunicate anyone for their “sins”.
Hypocrisy?!? Certainly…no doubt about it.
And, that’s why the laws changed–-NOT because people became “less religious”, but because the Courts realized the hypocrisy of trying to implement and maintain laws for a society that, while very much still spiritual, realized that some things are still just going to happen…as they have since the beginning of time…and that the decision of sexuality and abortion was a very personal one.
Of course, all of this was still happening with our money saying “in God we trust”; and with our government officials swearing “in God we trust”; and with all of us saying our Pledge of Allegiance. Those things have no relation to each other—it’s apples and oranges.
You do have a valid point, as I said in an earlier post, in that there are more people today that identify as atheist or agnostic than did back in the 50s/60s/70s. Additionally, as I mentioned previously, there has been a huge decline in mainline church attendance. I would say many of these people are still “spiritual”...but have subsequently decided that mainline religions didn’t meet their needs. HOWEVER, at the same time there has also been a huge rise in the Evangelical types of religions since then (look it up, it's been steadily growing for years) that almost negates the atheist/agnostic/mainline religion trend. And it is these new religious forms that have become far more virulent---and are today trying to drag the nation back to the very situations that you are listing in your note. And now, they are using the media and the government to do it.
In the 1950s/1960s1970s, the churches did not try to ban books that they felt were against “Christian” morality as they are doing now. Yes, the Catholic Church did have a list of books and films that were considered “mortal sins” for their parishioners...but many (if not most) Catholics had them on their shelves anyway. And, they were certainly in the public library no matter what the Church advised. Contrast that with today…
Nor, in the 1950s/1960s/1970s, did the churches rail against homosexuality the way they do today. Instead, it was one of those (many) things that they turned a blind eye toward. Perhaps they felt this was something more under the purview of the government to enforce…but whatever, the bulk of the mainline churches said very little publicly about homosexuality. The main driver against homosexuality wasn’t by the organized religions, but by the McCarthy faction of the US government in the 1950s using it to cleanse homosexuals from government positions due to their ability to be “compromised” since homosexuality was illegal. Their homophobia ran far deeper than just church teachings…and had a political opportunist component as well.
Nor, until recently, could a customer be denied service by a shopkeeper or service provider merely because the provider’s religious beliefs were against whatever lifestyle the customer may have. While I’m sure that it happened surreptitiously in the past, now it is entirely legal using “religion” as the cudgel. And, homosexuality and Trans identity seems to be their main very-public target. It has already happened to me twice…and it had never happened before, no matter where I lived.
Today, much of Religion has placed a target on several groups---particularly gay men since AIDS---where it wasn't in the past.
And, one final note…I WAS there during the Kennedy campaign for the Presidency. The reason Kennedy was deemed unfit by many for that office was specifically BECAUSE he was Catholic…and it was felt that he would be guided more by loyalty to his religion and to the Pope in Rome than by the Constitution of this country. Odd, now, that the same things are being said about several members of the Supreme Court who do seem to be putting their religion above the Constitution. And we’re “less religious” today?! I don’t think so…
So, no…I’m not “trolling” you, or being “incredible (sic) ignorant”. I’ve just had very different life experiences than you have…and over a longer period of time…and in different parts of the country. I think that what you might need to do is perhaps spend some time in other parts of this nation where religion now DOES have more of a hold on people than what you probably experience in your Los Angeles bubble…at least before you start throwing stones.
