Caleb J. D. Maskell Notes on Robert Putnams Tanner Lecture #210.28.10 // Princeton University

Americans are religiously devout and divided, yet tolerant. Why?

Fundamental problem: How can America be

eligiously devout

eligiously diverse/polarized

eligiously tolerant

Religiously Devout

America is the most devout developed country in the world. This is based a parallelset of statistics, based in the lecture on 30% weekly religious service attendanceslightly higher than Iran, and far higher than any other developed nation. (This is acurious measureit would be good to see the rest.)Herein lies the beginning of the story.

The Emergence of Diversity

In the 1950s, American church attendance was the highest evermost religiousdecade on record for the US. Then the 1960s happened, and we saw the most precipitous drop in religious adherence ever. This is a massively quick and most momentous changebrought on by political liberation movements, sex, drugs, rock and roll, and so on.Vast changes happened over just a couple of years. For example, belief in themorality of premarital sex shifted from 25% approval (1960) to 50% approval(1966)in six years. [These dates may be off.] The shifts are exponentiallyrepresented among young people.This massive shift in a fundamental moral category represented the best predictorof a parallel shift in church attendance. Large portions of the public (especiallyliberal Protestants and Anglo (non-Latino) Catholics) shot off in a seculardirection. [

Most people who were raised Catholic today are not Catholic. The growthin the Catholic church is a Spanish-speaking growth65% of people in Mass in 2010are Latino.

]This shift which seemed like liberation for many was seen as a massive collapse tosome othersparticularly by evangelicals / fundamentalists. So, theres a rallyingcry among those for whom the sexual revolution constitutes a massive problem.This precipitates the rise of the

eligious

ightwhich begins as a reactive

moral

issue

contra

the sexual revolution of 1960s, distills into a

political

movement in the1980s, but is

never

theological

movement. There is very limited correlationbetween biblical literalism and connection to the

eligious

ight.

Caleb J. D. Maskell Notes on Robert Putnams Tanner Lecture #210.28.10 // Princeton University

Big question:

What happens to those pushed to the margins of this polarmovement, namely the non-religious Conservative and the religious Progressive?Putnam argues that they changed their religion to fit their politics.

The emergence of the 

young nones



There is a new group of people, noneswho believe in God, pray, go to church sometimes, but are deeply alienated fromorganized religion. Nationwide these are about 14%. Among young people, they arealmost 30%. Their emergence is massively rapid and significant. They are rising at the same rate that the new, young evangelicals emerged in the 1970s and 1980s.They are going to begin their trajectory towards religious practice far later, andfrom a place of far less formation. This trend will have a massive impact upon themoral formation and political orientation of the nation if it continues. (Putnamthinks that it will not continue.) [

The salient charts in the book are the young nones and the chart on whether religion is good for America

The saying grace



indicator:

46% of America never says grace; 44% always does.10% does sometimes. Whether one does or does not say grace is a substantialindicator of a wide variety of ones politics, ethics, religion, disposition, etc. [

This isnot true of liberal Protestants

orI thinkof many of the younger, Third Way post-Protestant Christian crowd.

]

The relationship between religious belief and the claims to absolute truth:

8%of Americans say there is very little truth in any religion, 12% say there is only truthin one religion (presumably theirs), and 80% say there are basic truths in manyreligions.

This graph is very significantbecause the extremes represent the worst fears of each other, but the reality is that the 80% center represents a middle way

Thisdata is represented and reinforced by charts on belief in Heaven and Hell, salvationetc.

Putnam jokes that this data is important because it is the

wronganswer

!Predictably, the clergy give the correct answers, but the people simplyignore or disregard those answers becauseas will be discussed belowpeoplehave a diversity of LOVES that the theological grids of their formal religious systemsdo not hold in the sphere of salvation.[OKbut what are the determining factors within this data? Why do some peopleactually

adhere

to their religious communities? What is the attraction of identity-making in these social worlds? Putnam has not addressed this yet at all.]Putnam has shown that we are devout

and

diverse in our religiosity. How does thiswork?

The Emergence of Toleranceor the significance of Aunt Susan

We have deep, strong ties across religious perspectives. We LOVE people whobelieve things different from the things that our official religions teach.

30% of Americans have

changed

religions since their youth

Caleb J. D. Maskell Notes on Robert Putnams Tanner Lecture #210.28.10 // Princeton University

Interfaith marriage is on the risemost people getting married now have in-laws and/or close relatives in other religions.

These two factors combine to make a massive amount of diversity,

even if oneremains entirely faithful to ones own tradition.

Two out of five peoples go-to friends who they talk to if they have a majorproblem are of religions different from our own.

This is true across boundaries of social taboo as well, especially on the issueof homosexuality.

What about Muslim Aunt Susans?¶¶¶¶¶

arie Griffiths response

1. The indicator of premarital sex in the changing culture is very good and helpful.However, they do not consider that the shift in attitudes towards premarital sex isgenderedthe issue is a concern about a rise in out of control female sexualityamong the conservatives who become influential in constructing evangelicaldiscourse. Is this not some of the irony present in the sexy conservatism of SarahPalin and others?2. Putnams normative agenda is one of good religion (tolerant) vs. truebelievers. There is a tension heresome have argued that Putnam is advancing athrowaway religiosity (as per the reviews of Wilfred McClayandDavid Hollinger) in an attempt to counteract the true believers. How can interaction happen in

both

directions, between the good and the true?3. Liminals. This is a very important category in this book, because there isacknowledgment that context means a great deal. The assumptions of theinterlocutor matter a great deal in conversations about religion. Personalambivalence is a very important thing to acknowledge. Marie wants more emphasison the significance of the liminals.

ark Chavess response

1. The story of the rise of evangelical religiosity is actually the story of

liberal losses

.This is a major story that needs to be told and understood. [

Why did liberal religionfade so dramatically?

]2. The decline of liberal denominations does

not

mean the decline of theologicalliberalism. [

Chaves reads the move away from biblical literalism, the finding of good inother religions, etc. as a retrenchment of theological liberal ideas. This seems highly questionable to methis sounds like the early church, or twelfth century SorbonneCatholicism, or Miroslav Volf

or any number of Christians not weaned on thefundamentalist/modernist dialectic.

]