Well, when progressives entirely dominate academia, colleges, and the history therein, that's what happens. They'll blame you for what it is that they did. And why not? Do you know where to look for answers? And even if you wanted to look, would you know where to start? While blaming it on Christians isn't a lie, it certainly isn't the whole truth. These people were fairly honest about their goals. They intentionally set their sight on liberty, at least, those who were involved in the upper levels of the movement. Just like progressives do today. Example 1 Example 2 The average OWS person on the streets today actually does hate wall street and wants to do something about it, just like the average person during those days would've only been interested in doing something about the problem of alcohol. They're probably not looking for tyranny, but they've been whipped up into a frenzy. And as you probably know, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
Josiah Strong, who was one of the founding members of the "Social Gospel" movement, wrote this in the magazine 'Homiletic review', which claimed to be all about religion, theology, and philosophy - directly under the banner of "Studies in Social Christianity": (Page 44, "Prophetic Courage")
By common consent the civilized world, backed by moral conviction and scientific knowledge, has abandoned these worn-out experiments, and is settling down upon the basis of common sense, announced by that greatest of leaders, Lyman Beecher: "Temperance in the use of all harmless things, total abstinence from all hurtful things." That alcohol, outside of its well-defined, legitimate uses, is the most destructive foe of human life and welfare, need no longer be argued. He who would question that statement would need the stupidity of ignorance or the triple hardihood of hopeless conservatism. In all countries we find that public opinion is steadily converging upon this perfectly clear, rational judgment—total abstinence for the individual, prohibition for the State. Religion, science, political economy, education, business, are coming into a closer, more consistent solidarity upon that simple basis. The most encouraging indication is that this union of the great interests of humanity against the common enemy is founded in the awakening sense of democracy, and in the new and broader scope of its interpretation. "Personal liberty" is at last an uncrowned, dethroned king, with no one to do him reverence. The social consciousness is so far developed, and is becoming so autocratic, that institutions and governments must give heed to its mandates and shape their life accordingly. We are no longer frightened by that ancient bogy - " paternalism in government." We affirm boldly, it is the business of government to be just that—paternal. As the father of a household must administer its affairs for the equal good of all, and for the equal protection of all, so the government must devote itself to every interest of the people. So Prohibitionists are pushing for an amendment to the national constitution, forbidding the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors.
What a triumph for progressivism! However, most prohibitionists didn't openly talk this way. For them, they truely wanted to solve a problem in a way that they were being told was the right way. This is totalitarianism, take note of how many things I emphasized, there's a lot in this. First, note his attack on hopeless conservatism. So much for blaming it all on those EXTREMIST CHRISTIANS and their awful conservative views, just trying to "legislate morality". Note the two words I underlined: "autocratic" and "administer". Philip Dru, Administrator? Anybody? That book is such a potent blueprint for progressivism. It's all there, and it's not even that long of a book. And you can get it for free online. Either in print or in audio. Both versions are 100% free. Please read it.
But Josiah Strong was not the only one. In his book "Why Prohibition!", progressive labor leader and reverend Charles Stelzle wrote the following: (Page 71)
The doctrine of "personal liberty" as applied to the use of liquor has been over-worked by the liquor men. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as an absolute individual right to do any particular thing, or to eat or drink any particular thing, or to enjoy the association of one's own family, or even to live, if that thing is in conflict with "the law of public necessity."
Of course, below this paragraph Stelzle makes some fairly good observations(and I hope people will click the link and look) regarding any number of things, but any one of these observations or all of them combined is no excuse to further the problem. He makes an abusive, bastardized case for 'the common good'. If state power and the abuse of it is such a problem, then taking the next step to create yet another layer of federal bureaucracy is clearly not the solution. Say what you want about the ills of alcohol, tyranny is a bigger problem. Besides mother nature, isn't tyranny the number one killer of humans throughout history? So don't let any progressive wannabe administrator prattle on about prohibition and Christianity, they're standing in the quicksand of their own history.