I think religion adapts and changes; religion was more mainstream, less toxic, and uniform than it is now. The median person is probably less religious (in terms of sticking to an established religion) but the upper 1/3 of the spectrum is more religious, in that they believe more extreme things, with less evidence, and are less likely to compromise. The past 40 years of the evangelical movement, which has been coopted by the conservative movement, has been extremely polarizing.
My mother clearly remembers being called out in front of her church for the unforgivable sin of attending a school dance, and that was in the mid-60s. Don't forget why the Southern Baptists broke away from the Baptists.
and 100 years ago, much less! at most 30% of the US regularly attended church services in the 1910s.
And i can think of ~three answers: post-war trauma, a population bubble, and a percieved need in the white middle class for social discrimination and "order" against internally, integration and externally, "the godless commies". (see: HUAC, adding "under god" to the pledge)
I figure that the 50s were an anomaly, not the other way around.
"build a church and school within reasonable walking distance" was rule 1 of new towns for a good long while.
I think that's because these things aren't from church, they're part of human nature.
One of the churches I went to as a child was toxic, the other wasn't. The religious community isn't immune to human nature.
50-60 years ago the country was much more religious and you’d encounter people saying they’d never let their child marry a democrat and vice-versa according to my grandparents. To them, things are mostly better and what we have is the appearance of greater division.