Teaching about Religious Phobia in the US

Author

By Joan Brodsky Schur, Village Community School

The vilification of the “religious other” is nothing new in America and in fact has a long history.  This lesson is designed to shed perspective on the sources and nature of today’s anti-Islam rhetoric by looking back to a period of virulent anti-Catholicism in United States history. ​

It rose to prominence in the 1850s as a response to the influx of huge numbers of Irish immigrants and was spearheaded by the No Nothing Party. The party’s anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant stance can be compared to other anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic movements in that they all share the belief that –– through religion –– foreign powers are trying by stealth to take over America.  All aspects of the “other” religion are seen as categorically inimical to American democracy, by the very nature of the religion itself.

To start the lesson, distribute the document below without giving students or eliciting from them any historical background.  Simply tell students that the document was written about some religion at some point in time in America.  Explain that in this version of the document the name of the religion is replaced by an “X.” (To avoid confusion the words Republic and Republican have been changed in various places to read nation, democracy and form of government.)

Directions

​The influx of greater and greater numbers of immigrants who practiced Religion X has caused great prejudice at various times in American history.  Read the following primary source document regarding Religion X and then answer the following questions as your teacher instructs you to.

Bound to Serve Their Religion Before The Country

We must not let this fact go by—members of Religion X are bound to serve their Religion before their Country.  What is the practical and inevitable result of such a system in this country?  Why that every member of Religion X stands committed as an enemy to the Nation.  In such a character, base as it is—reeking all over, soaked all through with a religion that countenances crime; with principles that are shocked at no extremity of corruption—their whole effect is to pull down democracy and bolster up Religion X.  This it does.  It is seen.  The thing is plain. It can’t be otherwise.  A man who is an adherent of Religion X is not a believer in democracy.  He can’t be.  Calling fish, flesh, don’t make it so.  Hence whatever is told you of Religion X as favorable to all that is American, put no faith in it.   [A leader] of Religion X says America must be crushed—and all political commentators of any note or weight, agree that if it is ever crushed, it will be by Religion X.

Let us remember these matters.   Let us regard every member of Religion X as an enemy to the country—and so treat him.  He is nothing else….

Things Which [Religious Leaders] and all True Followers of Religion X Hate:

They HATE our form of government, and are trying to overthrow it.
They HATE the American Flag, and it offends them beyond endurance.
They HATE liberty of conscience.
They HATE the liberty of the press.
They HATE the liberty of speech.
They HATE our Public School system.
They HATE the Bible, and would blot it out of existence if they could!

The full document in its original form can be found at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania at http://www.hsp.org/default.aspx?id=446.  It was published by the Know Nothing Party and American Crusader on July 29, 1854.

Questions to be answered in pairs or small groups

1. Name the religion that you think is being so avidly attacked in this newspaper?
2. What makes you think so?  Point to specific words and phrases to defend your answer.
3. Does the newspaper attack some, most, or all of the followers of Religion X?
4. In the article, what do we learn about Religion X, its practices and beliefs?
5. What is the reasoning behind the attack on this particular religion?
6. What factual evidence is presented to convince the reader that all members of Religion X are anti-American?
7. Do you find this piece of writing convincing?  Why or why not?

Debriefing Questions for Class Discussion:

After you disclose the actual name of Religion X (Catholicism) and the date of the primary source document (1854) pose the following questions:

1. What made some students think Religion X was Islam?
2. How would you feel if similar things were said about you on the basis of your faith?
3. Is it surprising today to discover that some Americans felt Catholics threatened America’s founding principles?  If so, why is it surprising? (Note: Today there are more Catholic members of Congress than there are members belonging to any other faith.)
4. What other organizations espoused anti-Catholic, as well as anti-Semitic views? (KKK, John Birch Society, etc.)
5. What organizations today espouse anti-Muslim viewpoints? (Stop Islamization of America, Anti-CAIR and others)
6. What was happening in U.S. history during the 1850s that made Protestant Americans fear the influx of Catholic immigrants? What was happening in the 1920s that made Americans fear the wave of Jewish immigration? Direct students to their textbooks or other sources for answers.

According to R. Scott Appleby and John T. McGreevy (New York Review of Books, September 30, 2010) the imam of the proposed Islamic center in downtown Manhattan, Feisal Abdul Rauf, “claims, correctly, that the vast majority of the nation’s Muslims abhor al-Qaeda.”  Why then are there Americans who fear Muslim Americans in general? What role does anti-Islamic rhetoric play?

How much do you think Americans know about the religion Muslims practice, the second largest world religion?

How would you feel if you were a Muslim in America today (or how do you feel if you are one)?
​
For a very good short comparison of religious intolerance in America towards Catholics and Muslims, see “Catholics, Muslims, and the Mosque” by R. Scott Appleby and John T. McGreevy (New York Review of Books, September 30, 2010 p.48).  In their article, the authors discuss the ways in which Catholicism as practiced in America has evolved over time as a result of Catholics’ experience in the United States: “the American acceptance and encouragement of Catholic parishes and schools, once seen as threatening, reshaped an international religious institution,” they write.

Extension Activities

Some students will grasp the power of imagery more readily than words.  Therefore distribute the anti-Catholic cartoon from 1875 entitled “The American River Ganges.”

Here Thomas Nast depicts the Roman Catholic clergy as crocodiles invading the shores of America to devour America’s students.  Catholicism is seen as a threat to the separation of church and state as the public school sends out a signal of distress.

To help students deconstruct the meaning of this cartoon for themselves, distribute the Cartoon Analysis Worksheet from the National Archives http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/worksheets/cartoon.html.  For more information about the cartoon go to HarpWeek http://www.harpweek.com/09cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Month=May&Date=8.

How can we learn to identify Islamophobia?  In Great Britain the Runnymede Trust, an independent think tank, generated this definition in 1997 which has been widely accepted in Europe.  It can be accessed at Islamophobia Watch  http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/

1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

2) Islam is seen as separate and ‘other’. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.

3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.

4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a ‘clash of civilizations’.

5) Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.

6) Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.

7) Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
​
8) ​Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

Distribute this document to students. Ask students which of these definitions could be applied to the anti-Catholic primary sources used in this lesson if you substituted the word Catholicism for Islam.

Now ask students to apply the Runnymede definition to various anti-Islamic comments made by commentators, much of it in response to the proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan.  Some of the biased and untruthful statements prevalent in the media can be found online at Media Watch http://www.mediawatch.com/, the Southern Poverty Law Center http://www.splcenter.org/, and Islamophobia Watch http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/. 

For information about Islam and how citizens are reacting to the rhetoric of hate, go to http://www.groundzerodialogue.org/