While we Americans praise religious freedom, we have a long history of religious bigotry. The oldest is the anti-Catholicism the colonies inherited from the British that endured at least until the election of Kennedy.
The most American religious bigotry is anti-Mormonism which is bigotry by Americans against a religion originating in America. The most recent is anti-Muslim (or Islamophobia). Because of the work done by past bigots, there is a well-established anti-religion rhetorical playbook that is being used by those stoking anti-Muslim sentiments today.
As a philosopher I analyze this sort of playbook for a variety of reasons. One is from the standpoint of critical thinking, and the goal is to reveal the rhetorical tools in use. On the side of good, this allows you to understand the mechanics of the tools within a historical context so you can defend yourself against being swayed by mere rhetoric and appeals to bigotry. While I do worry that an evil person might learn this playbook from me, they can obviously just pick up the basics from bigots posting on, for example, Facebook or X.
Another reason is that I have not given up hope that I can help people overcome bigotry and bias by exposing how this playbook has been used. While I would like to think that showing that the same playbook used against American Muslims today was (and is) used against American Mormons and American Catholics would be especially effective with people who are not anti-Mormon or anti-Catholic, recent discussions have made me doubt this. It seems that some people have either embraced anti-Muslim bigotry based on what they think is an “inner truth” that cannot be disproven by facts and logic or they are happy to be opportunists exploiting a bigotry they know is unfounded. This is like my experience with trying to counter the racist playbooks by showing how they were used against Italian and Irish immigrants. In general, if someone is a racist, this is not going to sway them—even if they have Irish or Italian ancestry. But let us turn to a breakdown of the American anti-religion playbook.
The first rhetorical strategy is to claim that the targeted religion is not a real religion but an ideology or conspiracy. The goal is to strip members of the faith from the constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and protection from discrimination based on faith. In the case of anti-Catholicism, American Catholics were (are) accused of “Popery”, which is being loyal to a foreign monarch and hence Catholicism is not a true religion.
In the case of anti-Mormonism, the church was characterized as a commercial and political organization led by a military authoritarian. In the case of anti-Muslim, Islam is claimed to be not a religious faith but an ideology.
The second strategy is to claim that members of the target religion are engaged in a stealthy infiltration of the United States and that they are a demographic threat. This usually manifests as claims that “they” are using high birth rates, migration, and deception to replace “real” Americans and take over the country from within.
The main goal of this rhetoric is to cast peaceful participation in American society such as voting, seeking office, or simply moving to an area as attempts to subvert the United States and take over. When anti-Catholicism was at its peak, Americans were warned that the poor from Ireland were being sent to overwhelm “real” Americans at the ballot box. In the case of anti-Mormonism, Mormons were accused of voting in blocs as directed by the church. In the case of the current anti-Muslim view, Muslims are alleged to be using deception and demographic growth through reproduction and immigration to take over in a “jihad.”
The third rhetorical tactic is to claim that members of the targeted religion are a moral threat to Western civilization. This often manifests as claims that followers of the faith have domestic practices that degrade women, destroy the traditional American family and corrupt American/Western culture. Those making this claim present their faith, culture or party as the sole protector of women, children and “true” civilization against the “barbaric” customs of the target religion.
In the case of anti-Catholicism, there were works of anti-Catholic propaganda such as the fraudulent Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk in 1836 and claims of sexual abuse and imprisonment of women in convents. To be fair and balanced, the Catholic Church does have an abundance of real scandals that it should be criticized for. In the case of anti-Mormonism, there was a focus on polygamy and presenting Mormon women as captives that needed to be freed. To be fair and balanced, Mormonism does have a history of violence. As does Christianity in general.
In the case of anti-Islam, there are sensationalized claims of honor killings, claims about forced marriages, and claims of forced coverings that are aimed at “proving” Islamic culture is inherently oppressive to women. Ironically, these claims are sometime made by Christian misogynists who want to take away women’s right to vote.
Interestingly, there have been historical crossovers in bigotry. In the 19th century Joseph Smith was called an “American Mahomet” (Mohammad) allowing critics to use anti-Muslim bigotry against Mormons. During the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan lumped Catholics and Muslims together as “un-American non-Protestants” who owed their allegiance to foreign powers.
When you see the playbook of religious bigotry used against our fellow Americans who are Muslim, I hope you remember that this is an old playbook that uses the same tactics against any religion that is being targeted. The bigots were wrong before and they are likewise wrong now. We should, of course, guard against religious extremism of any form that truly endangers America, such as Christian Nationalism.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.