the point was that we were a lot closer in those days to the “theocracy” of which people like Phillips and Gold say they are so frightened . Besides, feralcat made the real argument; if that level of “theocratic” control was that threatening, why didn’t Goldwater make it the focus of his efforts to roll back tyrrany?
First, even though there have always been certain parts of the country where you couldn't buy liquor on Sundays, for example, the nation was not under threat of becoming one big church in 1964. As I wrote in reply to boop in #48, there was quite a bit of concern in the 1960s about what the kids were reading, in school and in the library. For as much heat that produced, I didn't see much in the way of book-banning going on. If anything, the objectors painted themselves as some kind of kooks, especially when they went after Mark Twain's stories of life on the Mississippi.
Goldwater didn't make an issue of the blue laws and such because there were many, many more important things to talk about at the national level. And his "efforts to roll back tyranny" were concentrated more on the ever-expanding federal government than matters at the local level. He was in the Senate, don't forget.