"Church and state - No Union upon any terms" by Thomas Nast in Harper's Weekly, Feb. 25, 1871. Source: Library of Congress

In God We Trust?

The History of Religious Identity in America

06.21.19

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment forms the basis for the separation of church and state: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Yet, throughout American history, this principle hasn’t stopped Americans from using religious differences to draw boundaries around who is and isn’t American. Joanne digs into the BackStory archives to bring you a selection of segments that look at religious identity in America and how faiths, cultures and rituals adapted to American life.

religion; religious identity

Open Episode Transcript as PDF

Segments

Old Time Religion

The Parliament of the World’s Religions, bringing together many of the world’s faiths, was held in conjunction with the 1893 World’s Fair. Scholar Matt Hedstrom tells Ed how two speakers unexpectedly became the stars of the show: Hindu Swami Vivekananda and Buddhist Anagarika Dharmapala.

Music:

Enrichment by Podington Bear
Logjam by Podington Bear
Toy Weapons II by Jahzzar
Releasing the Sculpture by Podington Bear

Buddhism; civil religion; faith; hinduism; religion

00:00:00 / 00:00:00

View Transcript

Brian: Major funding for Backstory’s provided by an anonymous donor, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Joseph and Robert Cornell Memorial Foundation.

Joanne Freeman: From Virginia Humanities, this is Backstory. Welcome to backstory, the show that explains the history behind the headlines. I’m Joanne Freeman. Each week, my colleagues, Nathan Connolly, Brian Balogh, Ed Ayers, and I explore a different aspect of American history. The free exercise clause of the first amendment forms the basis for the separation of church and state, and you probably know the line, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote that he contemplated this principle of separation with “sovereign reverence and sincere satisfaction” and yet, throughout American history, this principal hasn’t stopped Americans from using religious differences to draw boundaries around who is and isn’t American.

Joanne Freeman: For instance, Fox News host, Jeanine Pirro, recently suggested the congresswoman Ilhan Omar support Sharia law and opposes the constitution because she wears a hijab. Pirro isn’t alone in seeing Muslim Americans as somehow un-American. A 2018 democracy fund study found that “On average, Americans believe that only 51% of Muslim Americans respect American ideals and laws.” So today on the show, we’re digging into the backstory archives to bring you a selection of segments that look at religious identity in America, how faiths, cultures, and rituals adapted to American life.

Joanne Freeman: We start today’s show at the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair. The fair put American progress on view and alongside the cultural pavilions and technological feats on display, stood a meeting hall for a series of intellectual events called congresses. Last year, Ed spoke to scholar Matt Hedstrom about the congress dedicated to faith, the parliament of the world’s religions. Most attendees were English speaking Protestants, but Catholic and Jewish representatives made the trip as well.

Brian: But there were a significant number of Buddhists and Hindus, smaller numbers of Muslims, Jains, representatives of Shinto from Japan, sometimes they were called the Enlightened Heathens, those who were not Christians, but who had civilization, who had great ideas to contribute.

Speaker 3: The congress was the fulfillment of a dream articulated a year before by Chicago Minister John Henry Barrows, president of the parliament. In front of a huge crowd at New York’s Madison Square Garden, he had outlined his vision.

Speaker 4: For the time in history, the representatives of the leading historic faiths will meet in fraternal conference over the great things of human life and destiny. I mean, on the one hand, it was a progressive’s vision of bringing representatives, the great world religions, together to come to understand each other.

Speaker 3: I have no doubt that this phenomenal meeting will make apparent the fact that there is a certain unity in religion. That is that men not only have common desires and needs, but also have perceived more or less clearly certain common truths.

Matt Hedstrom: And yet, [Barrows 00:03:46] was also a Christian minister who had a very clear sense of a kind of hierarchy of culture, a hierarchy of civilizations. He was a Darwinist, and so had a sort of evolutionary understanding of the trajectory of history and very clearly understood Christianity is sort of standing at the apex of civilizations the way the white city was.

Speaker 6: He even celebrate the attendance of the so-called Enlightened Heathens.

Matt Hedstrom: He talks about the full sun and the twilight and he sees basically the illumination of Christianity offering a visions of truth in its full light, standing in full daylight. The other great religions had truths to share, but they were sort of dimmed. So he described them as in the twilight, right? It’s not bad, it’s not wrong. It’s just not fully developed. So in that sense, like the other congresses, it’s like what’s the state of the art in finance? What’s the state of the art in engineering? Well, what’s the state of the art in religion? It’s progressive Protestant Christianity.

Speaker 3: America will be on exhibition the coming year, and especially American Christianity. You have an opportunity of influencing the whole world with the spirit of our common Christianity without parallel in ancient or modern times.

Speaker 7: That is the most modern, the most up to date, and the completest form of religion. And he thought the parliament would ultimately demonstrate that.

Matt Hedstrom: But it didn’t really pan out that way.

Speaker 7: Because some of the other participants didn’t quite play their assigned roles.

Matt Hedstrom: Two participants, in particular, Hindu, Swami Vivekananda from India, and Buddhist, Anagarika Dharmapala from Ceylon, now Sri Lanka. Both men had been educated by Westerners. They understood their audience far more than their audience understood them.

Speaker 3: Vivekananda was, by all accounts, a spectacular showman and many consider him to be the kind of star of the show, somebody who was just a spell binding speaker who had that kind of it factor as an order.

Brian: That if factor was on full display, the very first day of the parliament. Reportedly, Swami Vivekananda said just five words in greeting, “Sisters and brothers of America.” And the crowd burst into applause for several minutes. Audience members were enthralled by the Swami in his orange robes and yellow turban.

Speaker 3: He was playing the role of the monk from the east with the wisdom from an ancient culture in an ancient civilization. And he knew how to play to westerners’ expectations of what someone in that capacity should look like and sound like. And he played it perfectly.

Matt Hedstrom: So he could speak the language of the fair and the language of the parliament of religions, the language of progress, the language of maternity, the language of the compatibility of science and philosophy with religious wisdom. He simply thought that a kind of hierarchy of civilizations that said Christianity had the full illumination and others groped not in darkness, but in twilight, was inaccurate.

Brian: And that this particular Christian attitude had a negative impact on his people. Vivekananda was an outspoken Indian nationalist. In fact, today he’s considered a spiritual father of modern India.

Matt Hedstrom: And so he was deeply critical of the ways in which he sought that Christian theological claims to a kind of an exclusive hold on truth facilitated Christian, in his case, British imperialism.

Brian: So Vivekananda used his platform at the Congress to preach a message of spiritual equality. He believed that all religions were manifestations of the divine. That first day of the parliament, he told the assembled crowd…

Swami V.: The present convention, which is one of the most August assemblies ever held as in itself a vindication, a declaration to the world of the most wonderful doctrine preached in the Gita, “Whosoever comes to me through whatever form, I reach him.”

Matt Hedstrom: This is the way he can bring that message and subtly subvert that kind of hierarchies that were quite present from the Christian point of view at the parliament.

Brian: His message was well received as was on Anagarika DharmaPala’s. Dharmapala didn’t have the same star wattage if it is contemporary, but like Vivekananda, he understood what Fair goers were looking for.

Matt Hedstrom: He presented Buddhism in terms that I think are very familiar to those of us in the 21st century West. In a sense as the fulfillment of a dream that is simply a philosophy of mind, He said that theology is a way of thinking that represents the past and the future will be about philosophy and psychology. And if that’s the case, then Buddhism is better positioned to lead us into that future than Christianity is. Christianity requires belief in all kinds of supernatural historical events except we Buddhists, we don’t need that.

Brian: His message found a ready and immediate audience.

Matt Hedstrom: He very famously took a convert.

Brian: A man named CT Strauss became the first public convert to Buddhism on American soil. His conversion reportedly left his Jewish family at a loss. As a newspaper put it, they could not understand his move toward the effete religious mysticism of the east.

Matt Hedstrom: This is not the way things were supposed to work. Asians don’t come to the United States as missionaries and here was Dharmapala taking in American convert on the streets of Chicago in 1893.

Brian: Hedstrom says, “It’s not as if thousands of Americans immediately followed in Strauss’s footsteps.” But he argues that it does mark a shift in American religious consciousness. Vivekananda and Dharmapala found a spiritually hungry audience at the World’s Fair. When it was over, they both set up learning centers for their face in cities across the United States.

Matt Hedstrom: So for the first time, if you were an American, what we might today call a seeker, there was a place to go, there were people to talk to, there was literature, but even more on this most public of stages, it did make this case for those who are interested in a kind of progressive story of religion that one might need to look outside of Christianity. And so the appeal, I think, for religious liberals across the 20th century for sort of looking east is the story that Vivekananda and Dharmapala told best.

Brian: And in doing so, they countered the message that men such as Barrows had envisioned for the fair.

Matt Hedstrom: And in a sense that’s what Vivekananda and Dharmapala were doing, saying, “Hey, you want to tell a story about the progress of civilizations and the coming of a kind of fulfillment of a religious dream? Great. Let me tell you that story.”

Joanne Freeman: Matt Hedstrom is a religious studies professor at the University of Virginia. He’s the author of The Rise of the Liberal Religion book culture and American spirituality in the 20th century.

The Thirteenth Rail

In the 1870s, a prominent Boston synagogue stopped holding bar mitzvah ceremonies for thirteen-year-old boys. Brian spoke to historian Meaghan Dwyer-Ryan to explore the reasons behind the decision — and why decades later, the ceremonies started again.

Music:

Little Strut Surprise by Podington Bear
Little Chance by Jahzzar
Pong Delight by Podington Bear
Ducky by Podington Bear

Boston; Massachusetts; celebrations; judaism; tradition

00:00:00 / 00:00:00

View Transcript

Joanne Freeman: I have a question for you. How did you sleep last night? Did you spend the night tossing and turning? Because I bet a lot of you did and certainly I do that often enough. And I’m one of those people who tosses and turns, and feels uncomfortable, and wishes might pillows into 5,000 formations trying to do whatever magical thing it is that’s going to enable me to fall asleep.

Joanne Freeman: If you are struggling to get a good night’s sleep, you might want to think about trying the purple mattress. The purple mattress will probably feel different than anything you’ve ever experienced because it uses this brand new material that was developed by an actual rocket scientist. It’s not like the memory foam that you’re used to. The purple material feels very unique because it’s both firm and soft at the same time, so it keeps everything supported while still feeling really comfortable. Plus it’s breathable, so it sleeps cool.

Joanne Freeman: Purple offers a 100 nights risk free trial. If you’re not fully satisfied, you can return your mattress for a full refund with free shipping and returns. Purple mattresses are backed by a 10 year warranty. You’re going to love Purple and right now listeners will get a free Purple pillow with the purchase of a mattress, that’s in addition to the great free gifts they’re offering site wide. Just text backstory to 84-888. The only way to get this free pillow is to text backstory 84-888, that’s B-A-C-K-S-T-O-R-Y to 84-888. Message and data rates may apply.

Joanne Freeman: Many religious Jewish boys and girls know what the number 13 means. It means they become an adult in the eyes of a Jewish congregation. The main event at a Bar Mitzvah for boys or a Bat Mitzvah for girls is a reading from the Torah chanted in Hebrew. Brian previously spoke to Megan [Dwyer 00:13:51] Ryan, the archivist for nearly a decade at historic Boston Synagogue Temple Israel. It’s the largest reform congregation in New England founded in 1854 by German speaking Jews. Dwyer Ryan started by telling Brian about the challenges of preparing for a Bar Mitzvah in the mid 19th century,

Megan Dwyer: Boys would have Bar Mitzvah training in the home of the [Hassan 00:14:14] at the time or the reader. And both boys and girls attended religious school classes at the synagogue itself about three days a week. And they learned everything from Hebrew and scripture, Jewish history, and various other kinds of topics. And they learned those topics both in German and in English.

Brian: But congregants at Temple Israel worried that the American born kids would resent and even reject these old world traditions. They were even more afraid that kids would Judaism altogether. So like other reformed synagogues in the US, they decided to Americanize some of their religious practices. They had sermons in English, they installed in Oregon gasp, created a choir, and let men and women sit side by side rather than in separate sections. In 1874, Temple Israel hired a rabbi named [Salomon Schindler 00:15:15] who made even more changes.

Megan Dwyer: And one of those measures was the discontinuation of Bar Mitzvah for boys and instead…

Brian: Hold on. I thought the Bar Mitzvah was such a big deal.Isn’t that touching the 13th rail?

Megan Dwyer: It is too. For many Jews at the time it was a very controversial issue, and in fac the board of trustees was not too happy with Schindler when he made this executive decision to discontinue Bar Mitzvah, but they went along with it. They sort of voiced their objections and then just kind of said, “Okay, well go on. Continue.” So it’s not that-

Brian: So wait. Wait. Megan.

Megan Dwyer: Yes.

Brian: Megan, who was first kid that got denied a Bar Mitzvah?

Megan Dwyer: I’m not sure really. What they did instead was they adopted a confirmation service and-

Brian: I see.

Megan Dwyer: … this was a practice that was open to both boys and girls. And it was kind of in line with other reform measures. At the time, many Jews decided that the way to Americanize was to adopt some, I guess you could call them, Protestant kind of practices, and confirmation was one of those practices.

Brian: And I just have to ask a little bit about this confirmation because I was Bar Mitzvah’d and I had to do the Haftarah and it was really hard to learn how to chant that passage from the Torah in Hebrew with all of those very seriously observing Jewish people around me. Was there anything like that in the confirmation? I just want to make sure that these kids weren’t getting off easy.

Megan Dwyer: Yeah. To disappoint you, yes, they were getting off easy, particularly in the late 19th and early 20th century. One of the reasons why the congregation adopted confirmation was that they realized fewer children were learning Hebrew. It wasn’t considered as important, particularly for reformed Jews. In fact, in the classical reform period, which had its height again, late 19th, early 20th century, many other branches of Judaism considered reformed Jews to be Jews in name only. And Temple Israel kind of adopted some of those practices that were questionable, to say the least, such as having services on Sundays as opposed to a Saturdays.

Brian: Yes. That sounds somewhat questionable.

Megan Dwyer: Yeah.

Brian: So when did they get back to doing Bar Mitzvahs and why did that come about?

Megan Dwyer: Well, in many ways, they were among the wealthiest Jews in the city, the most Americanized Jews. They were the leaders in many ways. They were the German Jewish synagogue, but into the 20s, 30s and into the 40s, the membership was changing slightly. You had Jews of eastern European descent and more traditional backgrounds joining the synagogue. And in fact, one of the things that made Temple Israel sort of change back, sort of the pendulum swinging back the other way, was the hiring of rabbi Joshua [Loth Liebman 00:18:42]. And so he brought back a lot of sort of traditions that were considered more conservative in nature. So things like having an a Friday evening Shabbat service, he got rid of the Sunday service, having candles at services, and bringing back the Bar Mitzvah.

Megan Dwyer: So in 1941, Bar Mitzvah was again celebrated at Temple Israel. And he also, the previous year, made it mandatory for all students to learn Hebrew again. So those practices were back and again, it was sort of in keeping with trends in reformed Judaism. And what was interesting too was they continued to perform the confirmation service. They kind of saw it as Bar Mitzvah would happen at age 13. Kids would keep going to school. It was a way to sort of keep them going to learn more about their faith. And then at age 16, they would have their confirmation service.

Brian: Now this is a period, if I understand correctly, that girls started having Bat Mitzvahs in greater numbers. How does that square with the rabbis’ emphasis on tradition?

Megan Dwyer: Yes.

Brian: Or was it not the case at Temple Israel?

Megan Dwyer: Temple Israel is actually fairly late in adopting the Bat Mitzvah ceremony. The first Bat Mitzvah wasn’t… or it didn’t happen until 1956, and they were three that year, whereas the first Bat Mitzvah in the United States occurred in 1922. So for Temple Israel-

Brian: So quite a long time.

Megan Dwyer: And by that point it was just kind of seen as time. It wasn’t necessarily that it was controversial by that point. Girls just kind of… they started doing it and there really wasn’t that much controversy by that point.

Brian: I’m guessing the 13 year olds and adults have a different definition of what it means to be 13.

Megan Dwyer: Very much so. Yeah, for kids, I think, they kind of go throughout their religious education, preparing for and thinking about the Bat Mitzvah and thinking, “Oh, great, now I’m done.” But for the rabbis, for the religious educators, they’re thinking, “Nope, nope, this is just the beginning.”

Brian: So Bar Mitzvah, at least today, is less about becoming an adult and more about marking a very important transition.

Megan Dwyer: Yes, I’d say so. Yeah, I mean it’s certainly. I don’t think anybody would call a 13 year old an adult.

Brian: They would.

Megan Dwyer: They would. Yes, they would. And I think these are kids and for them, I think it’s an important milestone, but it also means a really great party.

Brian: Megan, I have to tell you that when I was Bar Mitzvah’d, for a boy, the pen and pencil set was very much the thing. What is the quintessential Bar or Bat Mitzvah gift these days?

Megan Dwyer: I’d have to say money, at this point.

Brian: Always in style. I’m sure they rush out and buy a pen and pencil set.

Megan Dwyer: Oh, of course, yes. Or maybe a computer or an iPad.

Joanne Freeman: Megan Dwyer Ryan is coauthor with Susan Porter and Lisa [Fagan 00:22:15] Davis of Becoming American Jews, Temple Israel of Boston.

A Spiritual Home

Writer John Loughery told Joanne about the history behind New York City’s stunning St. Patrick’s Cathedral. To the man behind its construction, Archbishop “Dagger” John Hughes, the cathedral wasn’t just a house of worship. It was the culmination of his vision of what Irish America should be.

Music:

Flute Fleet by Podington Bear
Roads that burned our boots by Jahzzar
JS Bach Cello Suite in C major

Catholic Church; Catholicism; Irish-Americans; New York; New York (City); architecture

00:00:00 / 00:00:00

View Transcript

Joanne Freeman: If you walk down 51st street in New York City on August 15th, 1858, you would not see anything resembling the bustling midtown Manhattan that we all know today with its hotels, and banks, and glitzy shops. At this point, the city is still largely woodsy and unpopulated. And on this August day, the Archbishop of New York, John Hughes, is about to lay the cornerstone for his dream project, the construction of the greatest church in the United States.

John Loughery: So, on this hot Sunday in the summer of 1858, he has a platform erected on the empty lot that is now Saint Patrick’s cathedral.

Joanne Freeman: This is writer John Lowe Curry. He says that an enormous number of people packed into the open space, 40, 60, or maybe even a hundred thousand people.

John Loughery: The on the buses and trains that are heading uptown had been packed for three, four hours before to get everybody from the populated part of the city. Some newspapers said entire neighborhoods downtown are empty that Sunday.

Joanne Freeman: Hughes put together a ceremony worthy of the monumental crowd. Around 200 priests attended and 100 choir boys sang throughout the precession, plus the archbishop adorned the area with flags representing the congregation, banners for France, Spain, Russia, and the Netherlands. But one flag held a place of honor above the rest.

John Loughery: by the spot where the altar of the cathedral would be, he placed in Irish flag, a flag with a harp on it and then he placed across above it. That was a kind of statement saying, “We the Irish are building this cathedral.”

Joanne Freeman: John Hughes became archbishop of the New York diocese in 1850, an era of intense anti Irish and anti Catholic feeling in the United States. In the decades prior, nativist backlash had erupted as waves of Irish immigrants came to the United States. Many Americans saw the Irish as dirty and ignorant. In some cities, rioters had destroyed Catholic churches and convents. Hughes, an Irishman himself wouldn’t take it.

John Loughery: Rather than turn the other cheek, he was not a turn the other cheek sort of person really, he takes on all of these people in a polemical way in his own speeches and writings. He insists that if anything happens to the churches of New York, the Protestants had better look to their own churches. Of course, the Irish Catholics love that. He was constantly trying to explain to the Vatican, this is what Americans respect. They respect confidence, and clarity, and strength.

Joanne Freeman: His position and his rhetoric made Hughes the most famous Catholic in the country. And his militancy earned him a rather unpriestly nickname, Daggered John.

John Loughery: He would put a cross by his name as bishops and archbishops do more nowadays especially. Enemies at the time said that wasn’t the cross, it was a dagger. And I think there were times when he almost took a strange pride in it. Let them be wary of me, yes. Let them not think because I’m a man of the cloth, a man of God, that I’m not also someone to be reckoned with. I think he liked that aspect of his persona.

Joanne Freeman: Other Catholic officials didn’t really appreciate his style.

John Loughery: But there was no doubt that without him there would have been a void. There wouldn’t have been a person saying, “We will feel a bond if we understand we are under attack. And you, the Irish, are not what the Protestant nativists of this country say you are. They say you’re uneducated, they say you’re hopeless, they say you don’t understand American values. They say you’re all vassals of the pope, you’ll never be true American citizens will bring anything to this country.” And he constantly was saying to the Irish, “Don’t believe that. You are a great people in many ways, maybe greater even than you know, and I’m here to tell you that, and I’m here to lead you to a proper place in the society.”

Joanne Freeman: He encouraged his flock to adopt a threefold identity, be loyal Catholics, good Americans, and also be proud of their Irish heritage.

John Loughery: In some ways, he could be seen as one of the originators of the idea of the hyphenated identity. So in that sense, he really is a kind of galvanizing force for an ethnic as well as a religious community.

Joanne Freeman: And Hughes had a vision for the construction of a building, which would symbolize faith, community, and religious devotion. He was inspired by a trip to Europe.

John Loughery: He went to Paris, and Rome, Florence, Vienna soliciting funds and meeting figures of the Vatican. But he also worshiped in those great cathedrals in Paris, and Florence, Venice, and Rome, and came back feeling, “If we are to come together as a Catholic community, we need our own cathedral here.”

Joanne Freeman: Lowe Curry says that the construction of Saint Patrick’s cathedral was the culmination of this goal.

John Loughery: It was going to be more Irish Catholics who contributed the funds. They were going to be Irish Catholic workers who built it. The majority of his parishioners were Irish Catholic. That this was going to make them feel very good about themselves as Catholics and as Irish people, as Irish Americans. He thought the cathedral would be a wonderful symbol reinforcing those different parts of an identity that he was trying to cultivate.

Joanne Freeman: Daggered John Hughes didn’t live to see the completion of the Cathedral. He died in 1864 and Saint Patrick’s wasn’t finished until 1878. But the great church survives as a testament to Hughes vision.

John Loughery: It is an awesome building, still. I mean, when one goes today, it’s full of both worshipers and tourists who are in awe of the beauty and complexity of this building and that would have been deeply satisfying to him, definitely.

Joanne Freeman: John Loughery Curry is the author of Daggered John, Archbishop John Hughes on the making of Irish America.

So, A Man Breaks Into A Mosque…

Anthropologist Nabeel Abraham told Brian about the fight between two Muslim communities over the future of a Dearborn, Mich., mosque in the 1960s and ’70s.

Music:

African Hip Hop

Islam; Michigan; Muslim; community

00:00:00 / 00:00:00

View Transcript

Joanne Freeman: One Friday in 1976 a group of men broke into a mosque in Dearborn, Michigan. They didn’t want to vandalize it. All they wanted to do was pray. For the mosques members, it was a regular work day, but Friday is a holy day in Islam and these men, recent immigrants from Yemen and Palestine, were shocked that the mosque was closed. It was the opening salvo in a struggle to control not only the building, but how Islam would be practiced there.

Joanne Freeman: The mosque in Dearborn was called the Dix mosque and was one of just a couple in the area. It had been built in the 1930s by Lebanese immigrants who came to work at the local Ford Factory. Like many Muslim communities in Michigan, the Dearborn congregation had developed a religious practice that was, well, rather different from the Islam practiced in other parts of the world. So you can understand why the newcomers were confused. [Nabeel 00:29:58] Abraham grew up attending the Dix mosque in the 1950s and 60s. And a few years ago, he told Brian what it was like attending the mosque when he was a kid.

Nabeel Abraham: Well, it was really an evolving mosque. I didn’t realize it at the time, but we were really like a Protestant church. Nobody wore a headscarf. Instead of Friday prayers, which is the thing that Muslims do around the world, we had Sunday prayers, we had Sunday school. The basement floor, you might say, that was where all the socializing occurred. There were weddings there, and I remember them. And these were Palestinian weddings. These were people from my father’s village. And there would be a fellow with the sword that always caught my attention. There’s this sword comes out of nowhere and he’s brandishing it and doing you like a Zorba, the Greek dance. There’d be a lot of sweat, people moving, and gyrating, and dancing.

Brian: But did you have any sense that that was unusual or you might be violating the religious mores of other worshipers?

Nabeel Abraham: Oh, no, no. To us, it completely seemed normal because as a community, we didn’t have any other places. And it was the life, the center of life, or a small group of mostly Lebanese, and some Palestinian, and a few other miscellanea Muslims, the mosque was accommodated itself to life in America and had been doing so for a while. There was a women’s auxiliary that seemed to be a little bit more modern or progressive.

Brian: And did those women have much of a say in the mosque?

Nabeel Abraham: They did because they were raising funds and they were pushing for Arabic language instruction, religious instruction. And they were the ones that I found out later through my research were the ones who were saying, “Hey, we’re losing our young people to out marriages, who are moving away, who aren’t keeping in the community.

Brian: But the whole time as I understand that even before the new immigrants came in the ’70s, there are these older directors kind of lurking in the background and they already had a lot of issues with those more progressive women. Is that right?

Nabeel Abraham: Yes. Now there were the old men. The old men had a hand in building this mosque and steering it. And they were right wing or let’s put it a crusty, okay? But the guys who were coming in from Yemen, the new immigrants, were looking at the whole picture and saying, “This is not authentic.” In the old country where we just came from mosques didn’t look like this, they were open on Fridays, a lot of men there praying, and what’s with the women running around without headscarves? What’s with them raising their voices and dictating policy or attempting to? What’s with these parties going on? And the old men were looking at these new guys and saying, “Well, we can use them. We can use them to block the women and put them back in their place.”

Brian: So this new blood comes in and it in some ways serves the purposes of these old timers.

Nabeel Abraham: Of the older guys, yeah.

Brian: How does that work out?

Nabeel Abraham: Well, it worked out very badly for them and they were told that by the woman. They said, “You think these guys are your allies, they’re going to have your lunch in the future.” And they said, “Well, we’re in charge and we have the legal documents.” Et cetera. But they had one, let’s call it, weakness. They had elections.

Brian: So was there one key election where the new guys took over?

Nabeel Abraham: Yes, there was. What happened is they out voted the old timers, took over the board, and took possession of the bank account of the mosque, and they started making policy. And they brought in Imam or a Shi’a from Yemen, a real hard, rigid fellow, a puritanical guy.

Nabeel Abraham: And the first thing that guy did is told the women that you’re not welcome here doing what you used to do. You’re going to use a side entrance, we’re going to put up a curtain, there’s going to be gender segregation, and you’re not going to raise your voices in here. Well, it didn’t take very long for the women to feel they weren’t welcome. That’s when they went in, and started their own group, and the old men followed them eventually, and they started a new-

Brian: Hold on. Why did those old man follow the women that they had just tried to get rid of?

Nabeel Abraham: They realized that they would have to sit in the back bench, so to speak, or leave. And eventually they left and joined with the women to form a-

Brian: How did the women treat them when they arrived with their tail between their legs?

Nabeel Abraham: They humiliated and they said, “We told you so.” This is an important point. The women put together this new Islamic center. They put up the money, because their purse, their treasury remained in their hands whereas the men came penniless. They made a falsey bargain and lost.

Brian: What’s the scene today in Dearborn? What is the nature of the Islamic community? If you could make a big generalization.

Nabeel Abraham: Well, there’s an enormous diversity first off, to answer part of that question. What has happened is there’s been this enormous mushrooming of mosques, banquet halls, schools, Arabic parochial schools, Muslim schools with this enormous influx of more Yemenis, more Iraqis who weren’t present at that time, more Lebanese. In the suburbs you would find among the Pakistani professional class of Arabs, say Syrians, Palestinians, you will find less traditional Islam. Although, I mean, they may start shouting, “No, no, we are traditional too.” And I would say, “Yes.”

Brian: We love when people write into our website.

Nabeel Abraham: Well, there’s an enormous diversity. So today Muslims and Islam are part of the norm. And people who don’t agree with the philosophical line think, “We could go to another mosque.”

Brian: And how is that different? The [inaudible 00:36:36] than the standard story of religion throughout American history of congregations fighting over differences of practice, and finally part of the congregation is sent packing. They form their own church, in this case. I’m talking about Protestant in 19th century, and eventually there’s just this proliferation of churches.

Nabeel Abraham: You really hit the nail on the head. It’s part of that trend. It is the Americanization of Islam in America. They’re following in the same steps virtually as the Christian churches and you could probably add the Judaic institutions.

Brian: Nabeel, I want to thank you for joining us on Backstory.

Nabeel Abraham: My pleasure.

Joanne Freeman: Nabeel Abraham is professor emeritus of anthropology at Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn.

Joanne Freeman: That’s going to do it for us today. Thanks for joining me on this dip into the Backstory archive. There are thousands of other shows available at backstoryradio.org and you can keep the conversation going online. Let us know what you thought of the episode or ask us your questions about history. Send an email to backstory@virginia.edu and we’re also on Facebook and Twitter at Backstory radio. Whatever you do, don’t be a stranger.

Joanne Freeman: Backstory is produced at Virginia humanities, major support is provided by an anonymous donor, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Joseph and Robert Cornell Memorial Foundation, the Johns Hopkins University, and the Arthur Vining Davis Foundation. Additional support is provided by the Tomato Fund, cultivating fresh ideas in the arts, the humanities, and the environment.

Speaker 12: Brian Balogh is professor of history at the University of Virginia. And Ed Ayers is professor of the humanities and president emeritus of the University of Richmond. Joanne Freeman is professor of history and American studies at Yale University. Nathan Connolly is the Herbert Baxter Adams associate professor of history at the Johns Hopkins University. Backstory was created by Andrew Wyndham for Virginia Humanities.