tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post2980259334643704191..comments2024-03-01T11:17:49.152-07:00Comments on Religion in American History: Religion in Animatronic HistoryPaul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-7583713976627836632013-02-19T09:07:08.261-07:002013-02-19T09:07:08.261-07:00Good question, Mark. To introduce a scholarly fram...Good question, Mark. To introduce a scholarly framework, the Hall of Presidents show might track most closely with Hatch's (now challenged) argument in _The Democratization of American Christianity_ and its vision of straight-talking, highly energetic men rousing enthusiastic crowds to action. I didn't see as much of a Puritan bent, at least not if you associate Puritans with Calvinism, jeremiads, the "City on a Hill" idea, and being really suspicious of grieving. You could plausibly argue that the Hall of Presidents/Hatch model is uniquely Protestant, though in terms of leadership style, there have been American Catholic priests (and football coaches!) who were also adept at rallying their troops. But whether uniquely Protestant or not, the Hall of Presidents vision, while rhetorically stressing equality and dignity for all, was certainly exclusive. It had no room for dissent of any kind. I actually wondered if tapping Morgan Freeman for the voiceover was in some way an effort to counteract this hegemonic narrative. Like, if a white man were telling the triumphal story, it might come across as disingenuous and self-serving, but if an African American is telling it, it must be true. Eleshahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03764991021577652939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-80522797033040070872013-02-19T07:56:02.450-07:002013-02-19T07:56:02.450-07:00Thanks Elesha for these insightful reflections.
...Thanks Elesha for these insightful reflections. <br /><br />I'm currently reading through Christopher Chapp's Religious Rhetoric and American Politics (Cornell, 2012) and it's amazing how your observations dovetailed with his central arguments. I'm finding it a good, empirical updating of the subject of civil religion, especially as it challenges the idea of a normative culture war. At the same time, Chapp realizes that what he calls "civil religious identity" is largely a Puritan/Protestant construct and, thus, potentially as exclusive as inclusive. Did you find the Hall of Presidents likewise reliant on Protestant preconceptions of personal autonomy or other?Mark T. Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13687874101232569510noreply@blogger.com