Norman Vincent Peale

== Criticism and controversies ==


===General and psychological critique===
Peale's works were criticized by several mental health experts who denounced his writings as bad for mental health, and concluded that Peale was a "con man and a fraud,"<ref>Park, "Superstition"</ref> and a "Confidence Man."<ref name=meyer_conman>Donald Meyer, "Confidence Man", ''New Republic'', July 11, 1955, pp 8-10</ref> These critics appeared in the early 1950s after the publication of The Power of Positive Thinking.

One critique of The Power of Positive Thinking noted that the book contained anecdotes that are hard to substantiate. Critics noted many of the testimonials that Peale quoted as supporting his philosophy were unnamed, unknown and unsourced. Examples included a "famous psychologist,"<ref name=book>Power of Positive Thinking</ref>{{rp|52}}  a two-page letter from a "practicing physician",<ref name=book/>{{rp|150}}  another "famous psychologist",<ref name=book/>{{rp|169}} a "prominent citizen of New York City",<ref name=book/>{{rp|88}} and dozens, if not hundreds, more unverifiable quotations. Similar scientific studies of questionable validity are also cited. As psychiatrist R.C. Murphy wrote, "All this advertising is vindicated as it were, by a strict cleaving to the side of part truth," and referred to the work and the quoted material as "implausible and woodenly pious".<ref name="murphy">{{cite magazine|first=R.C.|last=Murphy|title=Think Right: Reverend Peale's Panacea|magazine=[[The Nation]]|date=May 7, 1955|pages=398–400}}</ref> Peale's works were criticized by several mental health experts who declared his writings were actually bad for mental health, concluding that Peale was a "con man and a fraud,"<ref>{{cite book|first=Robert L.|last=Park|author-link=Robert L. Park|date=2009|title=Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science|url=https://archive.org/details/superstitionbeli00park|url-access=limited|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]|location=Princeton, New Jersey|page=[https://archive.org/details/superstitionbeli00park/page/n139 127]|isbn=978-0-691-13355-3|quote=Peale's self-hypnosis technique was heavily criticized by mental health experts, who warned that it was dangerous. Critics denounced him as a con man and a fraud. As a minister, however, Peale was spared from any requirement to prove his assertions.}}</ref> with his being referred to as a confidence man in the popular press in 1955.<ref name=meyer_conman/>

Agreeing with Murphy is William Lee Miller, a professor at the University of Virginia, who wrote an extensive article called “Some Negative Thinking About Norman Vincent Peale.” After reviewing the entire Peale library, Miller concluded that the books “are hard on the truth,” and that “the later books are worse” than the earlier ones. Miller challenged the plausibility and truthfulness of Peale's testimonials with “Great Men” in his books, almost all of whom were unnamed, unknown and unverifiable. <blockquote>“In Dr. Peale’s books these men turn out to talk just like Dr. Peale…. There is a continuing recurring episode in his books that goes like this: Peale meets Great Man; Peale humbly asks Great Man for his secret (his formula, technique); Great Man tells Peale his strikingly Peale-like secret (formula, technique)….”</blockquote>Miller also mocks the success formulas these “great men” reveal, such as the unnamed newspaper editor who credits repeating a single phrase [a technique in [[Self-hypnosis|auto-hypnosis]]] as the reason for his success. The unnamed editor's “secret is card in wallet with words to the effect that successful man is successful.” Miller explains, “There is never the suggestion that hard work might be involved in achievement. There are no demands on the reader.” Miller wrote “All this is hard on the truth, but it is good for the preacher’s popularity. It enables him to say exactly what his hearers want to hear.” Miller further mocks Peale's claims that his methods of “religion” are scientifically proven. Miller quotes Peale: “The laws are so precise and have been so often demonstrated… that religion may be said to form an exact science.” Peale provides no scientific evidence in his books to support this claim. He provides no evidence that his methods and “techniques” have been scientifically tested or proven to work. Miller goes on to note that there are no scientific references supporting Peale, no footnotes, no index, no bibliography, no recommendations for further readings, almost no evidence of any kind presented in the Peale books. Miller concluded that the Peale claims were untruthful and unsupported by evidence. Miller wrote that in order to gain followers “He [Peale] is willing to use without flinching the most blatant appeals and to promise without stint.”<ref>{{cite journal | author = Miller, William Lee | date = January 13, 1955 | title = Some Negative Thinking About Norman Vincent Peale | journal = The Reporter | volume = | issue = | pages = 19–24 | url = | access-date = | quote = }}{{full citation needed|date = January 2022}}</ref>{{full citation needed | date = January 2022}}

A second critique of Peale was that he attempted to conceal that his techniques for giving the reader absolute self-confidence and deliverance from suffering are a well known form of hypnosis, and that he persuaded his readers to follow his beliefs through a combination of false evidence and self-hypnosis ([[autosuggestion]]), disguised by the use of terms which may sound more benign from the reader's point of view ("techniques", "formulas", "methods", "prayers", and "prescriptions").<ref>Murphy, "Think Right"</ref><ref>Miller, "Some Negative"</ref> One author called Peale's book "The Bible of American autohypnotism".<ref name=meyer_positive/>{{rp|264}} While his techniques have been debated by [[psychologists]], Peale said his theological practice and strategy was directed more at self-analysis, forgiveness, character development, and growth<ref>{{cite book | author = Peale, Norman Vincent | date = 1976 | title = The Positive Principle Today: How to Renew and Sustain the Power of Positive | page = 183 | location = | publisher = | isbn = | url = | access-date = | quote = }}{{full citation needed|date = January 2022}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date = January 2022}} which has been suggested by some{{who|date = January 2022}} to be much like the teachings of the [[Jesuits]] of the Catholic Church.<ref>{{cite book|first=Henry Vincent|last=Gill|title=Jesuit Spirituality: Leading Ideas of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius|publisher=[[Gill (publisher)|M.H. Gill & Sons]]|location=Dublin, Ireland|asin=B0006ANI58|date=1935}}{{page needed|date=January 2022}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date = January 2022}}{{Original research inline|date = January 2022}}

Psychiatrist R. C. Murphy wrote "Self knowledge, in Mr. Peale's understanding is unequivocally bad: self hypnosis is good." Murphy added that repeated hypnosis defeats an individual's self-motivation, self-knowledge, unique sense of self, sense of reality, and ability to think critically. Murphy describes Peale's understanding of the mind as inaccurate, "without depth", and his description of the workings of the mind and the [[unconscious mind|unconscious]] as deceptively simplistic and false: "It is the very shallowness of his concept of 'person' that makes his rules appear easy&nbsp;... If the unconscious of man&nbsp;... can be conceptualized as a container for a small number of psychic fragments, then ideas like 'mind-drainage' follow. So does the reliance on self-hypnosis, which is the cornerstone of Mr. Peale's philosophy.'"<ref name="murphy"/>

Psychologist [[Albert Ellis (psychologist)|Albert Ellis]],<ref name=opplll>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2007/aug/11/guardianobituaries.usa|title=Albert Ellis|first=Oliver|last=Burkeman|date=August 10, 2007|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref> founder of the branch of psychology known as [[cognitive psychology]], compared the Peale techniques with those of French psychologist, hypnotherapist and pharmacist [[Émile Coué]], and Ellis said that the repeated use of these hypnotic techniques could lead to significant mental health problems. Ellis, ranked by the [[American Psychological Association]] as the second most influential psychologist of the 20th century (behind [[Carl Rogers]], but ahead of [[Sigmund Freud]]),<ref>ibid</ref> documented in several of his books the many individuals he has treated who suffered mental breakdowns from following Peale's teachings. Ellis described one of his case studies: <blockquote>"One of my 50-year-old clients, Sidney, read everything that Norman Vincent Peale ever wrote, went to many of his sermons at Marble Collegiate Church, and turned many of his friends onto trusting completely in God and in the Reverend Peale to cure them of all their ills. When some of these friends, in spite of their vigorous positive thinking, wound up in the mental hospital, and when Sidney had to turn to massive doses of tranquilizers to keep himself going, he became disillusioned..." </blockquote>Fortunately, Ellis' client began attending therapy and workshop groups at his clinic (The Albert Ellis Institute), and through [[cognitive behavioral therapy]] (at that time, known as [[Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy]], or REBT), he was able to improve his mental health and reduce his medications.<ref>How to Make Yourself Happy and Remarkably Less Disturbable, Impact Publishers, Copyright by the Albert Ellis Institute, 1999, p. 89.</ref> Ellis' writings repeatedly warn the public not to follow the Peale message. Ellis contends the Peale approach is dangerous, distorted, unrealistic. He compares the black or white view of life that Peale teaches to a psychological disorder ([[borderline personality disorder]]), perhaps implying that dangerous mental habits which he sees in the disorder may be brought on by following the teaching. "In the long run [Peale's teachings] lead to failure and disillusionment, and not only boomerang back against people, but often prejudice them against effective therapy."<ref>{{cite book|first=Albert|last=Ellis|author-link=Albert Ellis|title=Overcoming Resistance: Rational Emotive Therapy With Difficult Clients|url=https://archive.org/details/overcomingresist0000elli|url-access=registration|publisher=[[Springer (publisher)|Springer Publishing]]|location=New York City|date=1985|isbn=978-0826149107|page=[https://archive.org/details/overcomingresist0000elli/page/147 147]}}</ref>

A third critique was that Peale's philosophy was based on exaggerating the fears of his readers and followers, and that this exaggerated fear inevitably leads to aggression and the destruction of those considered "negative". Peale's views were critically reviewed in a 1955 article by psychiatrist R. C. Murphy, published in ''The Nation,'' titled "Think Right: Reverend Peale's Panacea".

{{blockquote|With saccharine terrorism, Mr. Peale refuses to allow his followers to hear, speak or see any evil. For him real human suffering does not exist; there is no such thing as murderous rage, suicidal despair, cruelty, lust, greed, mass poverty, or illiteracy. All these things he would dismiss as trivial mental processes which will evaporate if thoughts are simply turned into more cheerful channels. This attitude is so unpleasant it bears some search for its real meaning. It is clearly not a genuine denial of evil but rather a horror of it. A person turns his eyes away from human bestiality and the suffering it evokes only if he cannot stand to look at it. By doing so he affirms the evil to be absolute, he looks away only when he feels that nothing can be done about it&nbsp;... The belief in pure evil, an area of experience beyond the possibility of help or redemption, is automatically a summons to action: 'evil' means 'that which must be attacked&nbsp;... ' Between races for instance, this belief leads to prejudice. In child-rearing it drives parents into trying to obliterate rather than trying to nurture one or another area of the child's emerging personality&nbsp;... In international relationships it leads to war. As soon as a religious authority endorses our capacity for hatred, either by refusing to recognize unpleasantness in the style of Mr Peale or in the more classical style of setting up a nice comfortable [[Satan]] to hate, it lulls our struggles for growth to a standstill&nbsp;... Thus Mr Peale's book is not only inadequate for our needs but even undertakes to drown out the fragile inner voice which is the spur to inner growth.<ref name="murphy"/>}}

Donald B. Meyer seemed to agree with this assessment, presenting similar warnings of a religious nature. In his article "Confidence Man", Meyer wrote, "In more classic literature, this sort of pretension to mastery has often been thought to indicate an alliance with a Lower rather than a Higher power."<ref>{{cite magazine|first=Donald B.|last=Meyer|title=The Confidence Man|magazine=[[The New Republic|New Republic]]|volume=133|issue=11|date=1955|pages=8–10}}</ref> The mastery Peale speaks of is not the mastery of skills or tasks, but the mastery of fleeing and avoiding one's own "negative thoughts". Meyer wrote, exaggerated fear inevitably leads to aggression: "Battle it is; Peale, in sublime betrayal of the aggression within his philosophy of peace, talks of 'shooting' prayers at people."<ref name=meyer_conman/>

Psychologist [[Martin Seligman]], former APA president and the founder of the branch of psychology known as [[Positive Psychology]], differentiated Peale's positive thinking from his own positive psychology, while acknowledging their common roots.

{{blockquote|It is important to see the difference: Is Positive Psychology just positive thinking warmed over? 
Positive Psychology has a philosophical connection to positive thinking, but not an empirical one. The [[Arminianism|Arminian]] Heresy (discussed at length in the notes for Chapter 5) is at the foundations of Methodism, and Norman Vincent Peale's positive thinking grows out of it. Positive Psychology is also tied at its foundations to the individual freely choosing, and in this sense both endeavors have common roots.

But Positive Psychology is also different in significant ways from positive thinking, in that Positive Psychology is based on scientific accuracy while positive thinking is not, and that positive thinking could even be fatal in the wrong circumstances.

First, positive thinking is an armchair activity. Positive Psychology, on the other hand, is tied to a program of empirical and replicable scientific activity. Second, Positive Psychology does not hold a brief for positivity. There is a balance sheet, and in spite of the many advantages of positive thinking, there are times when negative thinking is to be preferred. Although there are many studies that correlate positivity with later health, longevity, sociability, and success, the balance of the evidence suggests that in some situations negative thinking leads to more accuracy. Where accuracy is tied to potentially catastrophic outcomes (for example, when an airplane pilot is deciding whether to de-ice the wings of her airplane), we should all be pessimists. With these benefits in mind, Positive Psychology aims for the optimal balance between positive and negative thinking. Third, many leaders in the Positive Psychology movement have spent decades working on the "negative" side of things. Positive Psychology is a supplement to negative psychology, not a substitute.<ref>{{cite book|first=Martin|last=Seligman|author-link=Martin Seligman|title=Authentic Happiness|url=https://archive.org/details/authentichappine00seli_0|url-access=registration|publisher=[[Free Press (publisher)|Free Press]]|location=New York City|date=2002|page=[https://archive.org/details/authentichappine00seli_0/page/288 288]|isbn=9780743222976}}</ref>}}

Seligman went on to say "Positive thinking often involves trying to believe upbeat statements such as 'Every day, in every way, I am getting better and better,' in the absence of evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence. ... Learned optimism, in contrast, is about accuracy".<ref>Ibid, page 98</ref>

Another difference experts noted was that though Seligman describes his positive psychology as a self-empowering program completely within the ability of the individual to achieve on his or her own, experts described positive thinking as disempowering to the individual and a religion of weakness, where individuals are told by Peale they cannot overcome their negative circumstances without his autosuggestive "techniques," which he claims will give them the power of God. As Meyer quotes Peale as saying, "No man, however resourceful or pugnacious, is a match for so great an adversary as a hostile world. He is at best a puny and impotent creature quite at the mercy of the cosmic and social forces in the midst of which he dwells." Meyer noted that Peale always "reacted to the image of harshness with flight rather than competitive fight",<ref>Meyer, 1965, 261</ref> and the only solution Peale offers out of this state of helplessness are his autosuggestive "techniques", which he claims will give people the power of God. Meyer adds that the proof that positive thinking cannot work is that according to Peale, even with God's power on one's side, one still cannot face negative reality, which is always stronger.

Meyer, like Seligman, noted that such unrealistic thinking by a positive thinker could easily be fatal.

<blockquote>Faith that you could defeat an opponent who could run faster than you would be contemptible since it could only mean you expected God to lend you power He refused to lend your opponent or that you hoped your opponent lacked self-knowledge, lacked faith, and hence failed to use his real powers. Such faith could be fatal if it led you into competitions it would be fatal to lose. As for those competitions where luck or accident or providence might decide, certainly the faith which looked to luck or accident or providence would be contemptible, and also possibly fatal.<ref>Ibid, p.&nbsp;284</ref></blockquote>

=== Theological critique ===
[[Episcopal Church (United States)|Episcopal Church]] theologian and future bishop, [[John McGill Krumm|John M. Krumm]], criticized Peale and the "heretical character" of his teaching on positive thinking. Krumm cites "the emphasis upon techniques such as the repetition of confident phrases... or the manipulation of certain mechanical devices", which he says "gives the impression of a thoroughly depersonalized religion. Very little is said about the sovereign mind and purpose of God; much is made of the things men can say to themselves and can do to bring about their ambitions and purposes." Krumm cautions that "The predominant use of impersonal symbols for God is a serious and dangerous invitation to regard man as the center of reality and the Divine Reality as an impersonal power, the use and purpose of which is determined by the man who takes hold of it and employs it as he thinks best."<ref>{{cite book|first=John M.|last=Krumm|author-link=John McGill Krumm|title=Modern Heresies|publisher=Seabury Press|location=San Francisco, California|date=1961|asin=B009NNUHOY|page=35}}</ref>

Theologian [[Reinhold Niebuhr]], professor of applied Christianity at the Union Theological Seminary, reported similar concerns about positive thinking. "This new cult is dangerous. Anything which corrupts the gospel hurts Christianity. And it hurts people too. It helps them to feel good while they are evading the real issues of life."<ref name=Peters>{{cite magazine|first=William|last=Peters|title=The Case against Easy Religion|magazine=[[Redbook]]|date=September 1955|pages=22–23, 92–94}}</ref>

[[Liston Pope]], Dean of Yale Divinity School, agreed with Neibuhr. "There is nothing humble or pious in the view this cult takes of God. God becomes sort of a master psychiatrist who will help you get out of your difficulties. The formulas and the constant reiteration of such themes as "You and God can do anything" are very nearly blasphemous."<ref>Ibid</ref>

[[Garfield Bromley Oxnam|G. Bromley Oxnam]], a Methodist bishop in Washington D.C., also weighed in with his concerns. "When you are told that if you follow seven easy rules you will become president of your company, you are being kidded. There just aren't that many openings. This kind of preaching is making Christianity a cult of success."<ref>Ibid</ref>

A. Powell Davies, pastor of All Souls' Unitarian Church, Washington D.C., added his view:

<blockquote>It has sort of a drug effect on people to be told they need not worry. They keep coming back for more. It keeps their minds on a superficial level and encourages emotional dependency. It is an escape from reality. People under stress do one of two things; seek shelter or respond to harsh reality by a deeper recognition of what they are up against. The people who flock to the 'peace of mind' preachers are seeking shelter. They don't want to face reality.<ref>Ibid, p.&nbsp;94</ref></blockquote>

[[William Lee Miller]], professor in religious studies at the University of Virginia, expressed similar concerns: "The absolute power that Dr. Peale's followers insist on granting to their Positive Thinking may betray, however, a note of desperation. The optimism is no longer the healthy-minded kind, looking at life whole and seeing it good, but an optimism arranged by a very careful and very anxious selection of the particular bits and pieces of reality one is willing to acknowledge. It is not the response of an expanding epoch when failure, loneliness, death, war, taxes, and the limitations and fragmentariness of all human striving are naturally far from consciousness, but of an anxious time when they are all too present in consciousness and must be thrust aside with slogans and "formulas," assaulted with clenched fists and gritted teeth, and battered down with the insistence on the power of Positive Thinking. The success striving is different, too. The Horatio Alger type seems to have had a simple, clear confidence in getting ahead by mastering a craft, by inventing something out in the barn, or by doing an outstanding job as office boy. The Peale fan has no such confidence and trusts less in such solid realities as ability and work and talent than in the ritual repetition of spirit lifters and thought conditioners written on cards and on the determined refusal to think gloomy thoughts.<ref>Miller, "Some Negative Thinking About Norman Vincent Peale."</ref>

In spite of the attacks, Peale did not resign from his church, though he threatened that he would repeatedly. He also never challenged or rebutted his critics directly. Meanwhile, his book ''The Power of Positive Thinking'' had stopped selling by 1958.<ref name="Fuller">{{cite magazine|first=Edmund|last=Fuller|author-link=Edmund Fuller|title=Pitchmen in the Pulpit|magazine=[[Saturday Review (U.S. magazine)|Saturday Review]]|date=March 19, 1957|pages=28–30}}</ref> As Donald Meyer noted,

{{blockquote|It was evident that Peale had managed to tap wide audiences formed by prolonged changes in the tone and morale of American society, for whom the coherence of [[Protestantism]] even as late as the early twentieth century was not enough. His attackers did not fall short of declaring his Protestantism non-existent. Peale survived. As he himself recounted it, he found himself stunned by the attacks. Troubled, even considering the virtues of resigning his post, he entered his season of withdrawal. There he found his answer. His father assured him he must go on. Was he not, after all, helping millions? Besides, it was unheard of in a democratic society for a man to believe his lonely critics when millions had approved. And so he returned. How to Stay Alive Your Whole Life, Peale entitled his next book; what else was George Beard's neurasthenia but a form of half-living? Finally, in consistent exemplification of the logic of the new religion, Peale proved he was right as well by publishing the testimonies of those declaring that for them positive thinking had indeed worked. There was no particular reason to doubt them.<ref>Meyer, 1965, p. 265</ref>}}

Religious scholars, however, warned the public not to believe Peale just because he was a minister. They said the Peale message was not only false factually but also misrepresented Christianity. Reinhold Niebuhr told the public the Peale message was "a partial picture of Christianity, a sort of half-truth", and added "The basic sin of this cult is its egocentricity. It puts 'self' instead of the cross at the center of the picture".<ref name=Peters/> [[Edmund Fuller]], novelist, book critic, and book review editor of the Episcopal Churchnews took it a step further. "The Peale products and their like are equated blatantly with Christian teaching and preaching. They are represented as a revival or response in Christianity with which they have no valid connection. They influence, mislead and often disillusion sick, maladjusted, unhappy or ill-constructed people, obscuring for them the Christian realities. They offer easy comforts, easy solutions to problems and mysteries that sometimes perhaps, have no comforts or solutions at all, in glib, worldly terms. They offer a cheap 'happiness' in lieu of the joy Christianity can offer, sometimes in the midst of suffering. The panacea of positive thinking has been called by qualified people a positive hazard to the delicate marginal areas of mental health".<ref name="Fuller"/>

Meyer noted Peale's influence over his followers began when "Peale had 'discovered' the power of suggestion over the human mind, and therewith, had caught up with [[Henry Wood]], [[Charles Fillmore (Unity Church)|Charles Fillmore]], and [[Emmett Fox]], sixty forty and twenty years before him. He was teaching Mental Photography all over again. Thoughts were things".<ref>Ibid. p.&nbsp;264</ref> Meyer described Peale's religion: "Peale's aim in preaching positive thinking was not that of inducing contemplative states of Oneness nor of advancing self-insight nor of strengthening conscious will, let alone sensitizing people to their world. The clue lay here in Peale's reiterated concern that the operation of his positive thoughts and thought conditioners become 'automatic', that the individual truly become 'conditioned ...' But was the automated power of positive thinking liberty or just one more form of mind-cure hypnotism? Was this new power really health or simply further weakness disguised?"<ref>Ibid. p.&nbsp;268</ref> After considering all points of view, Meyer answered his own questions, and concluded positive thinking was a religion of "weakness". "Peale's phenomenal popularity represented a culture in impasse. The psychology for which the cult was also religion culminated the treatment of weakness by weakness".<ref>Ibid., p.&nbsp;258</ref>

===Political controversies===
====Peale and rightist/anti-semitic claims====
{{more citations needed section|date = January 2022}}
For a time,{{when|date = January 2022}} Peale was acting Chairman and Secretary of the [[National Committee to Uphold Constitutional Government]] (NCUCG),<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/rbml/lehman/pdfs/0719/ldpd_leh_0719_0027.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=July 19, 2020 |archive-date=December 5, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201205170936/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/rbml/lehman/pdfs/0719/ldpd_leh_0719_0027.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>{{verification needed|date = January 2022}} a pressure group opposed to Franklin Roosevelt's policies.{{citation needed|date = January 2022}}<!--put "right-wing" back in when you can quote it from a source.--> In 1938, he was summoned by a Senate Committee Investigating Lobbying Activities, to answer questions concerning the NCUCG's activities.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Beito, D., & Witcher, M. | date = 2016 | title = "New Deal Witch Hunt": The Buchanan Committee Investigation of the Committee for Constitutional Government | journal = The Independent Review | volume = 21 | issue = 1 | pages = 47–71 | jstor = 43999676 | url = https://www.jstor.org/stable/43999676 | access-date = July 19, 2020}}</ref>{{verification needed|date = January 2022}}

Also. late in 1938, Peale appeared with [[Elizabeth Dilling]], the Reverend [[Edward Lodge Curran]], [[Francisco Franco]], and other <!--MORE "right wing"-using EDITORIALZING REMOVED-->figures at a "Mass Meeting and Pro-American Rally" (on October 30),<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1938/10/30/99568668.pdf|title=Events Today|work=The New York Times }}</ref> at the [[Grand Hyatt New York|Commodore Hotel]] in New York; this event was later described by [[Arthur Derounian]] (John Roy Carlson) in his 1943 book ''[[Arthur Derounian#"Under Cover"|Under Cover]]''.{{citation needed|date = January 2022}} Rev. Curran was a known supporter of Franco and other right-wing causes,<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Not stated--> | date = February 16, 1974 | title = Obituary: Edward Curran, Right-Wing Priest | work = The New York Times| url = https://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/16/archives/edward-curran-rightwing-priest-anticommunist-supporter-of-coughlin.html | access-date = January 26, 2022 }}</ref> as well as being "an anti‐communist and... an advocate of the, 'social justice' credo of [[Charles Coughlin|Father [Charles] Coughlin]], who was eventually ordered, off the air by his superiors" (and who Peale had earlier called out and harshly criticized for his "bizarre demogogy" in 1935).<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Not stated--> | date = May 13, 1935 | title = Dr. Peal Attacks Father Coughlin | work= The New York Times | url = https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1935/05/13/94607620.html | access-date = January 26, 2022 }}</ref> Peale claimed to have been distressed by Derounian's book, that he had been badgered into giving the convocation (a pre-meeting prayer) by a parishioner, and that he had no idea of the nature of the rally.{{citation needed|date=January 2022}} He further claimed to be particularly distressed at the association with Dilling.{{citation needed|date=January 2022}} He considered but as was advised against filing a defamation case against the publisher, [[G P Putnam's Sons|Putnam's]], as it was not feasible given the fact that he had in fact delivered the convocation as described.<ref>{{cite book | author = George, Carol V. R. | year=1993 | title = God's Salesman: Norman Vincent Peale and the Power of Positive Thinking | pages = 170f | location = New York, New York | publisher = Oxford University Press | isbn = 9780195074635 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=JobZAAAAMAAJ | access-date = January 26, 2022 | quote = }}</ref>{{verification needed|date = January 2022}}

In 1943, after the U.S. entry into [[World War II]], Peale preached a sermon denouncing antisemitism and demanding that the government and church take steps to "stamp it out."<ref>[https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1943/11/08/85131928.pdf Peale Urges Action To End Anti-Semitism], New York Times November 8, 1943.</ref> As late as 1944, Peale was still described as the Chairman of the Committee for Constitutional Government, and had his signature appended to its publications.{{citation needed|date=October 2021}}

====Peale and Adlai Stevenson====
Peale is also remembered in politics because of the [[Adlai Stevenson II|Adlai Stevenson]] quote: "I find [[Paul of Tarsus|Saint Paul]] appealing and Saint Peale appalling." The origin of the quote can be traced back to the 1952 election, when Stevenson was informed by a reporter that Peale was accusing him of being unfit for the presidency because he was divorced. Later during his 1956 campaign for president against [[Dwight Eisenhower]], Stevenson was introduced at a speech with: "Gov. Stevenson, we want to make it clear you are here as a courtesy because Dr. Norman Vincent Peale has instructed us to vote for your opponent." Stevenson stepped to the podium and quipped, "Speaking as a Christian, I find the Apostle [[Paul of Tarsus|Paul]] appealing and the Apostle Peale appalling."<ref name=gagorder>{{cite news|first=Dave|last=Hoekstra|title=A former president's gag order; Ford's symposium examines humor in the Oval Office|newspaper=[[Chicago Sun-Times]]|date=September 28, 1986|page=22}}</ref> In 1960, a reporter asked Stevenson about a comment in which he denounced Peale for accusing [[John F. Kennedy]] of being unfit for the presidency because he was [[Catholic Church|Catholic]], to which Stevenson responded: "Yes, you can say that I find Paul appealing and Peale appalling."

Stevenson continued to lampoon Peale on the campaign trail in speeches for Kennedy. Though [[Richard Nixon]] and other Republicans tried to distance themselves from the furor which was caused by Peale's [[Anti-Catholicism|anti-Catholic]] stance, Democrats did not let voters forget it. President [[Harry Truman]], for one, accused Nixon of tacitly approving Peale's anti-Catholic sentiment, and it remained a hot issue on the campaign trail.<ref name="Newsweek"/> Regarding Peale's intrusion into Republican politics, Stevenson said in this transcript of a speech given in San Francisco: "Richard Nixon has tried to step aside in favor of Norman Vincent Peale (APPLAUSE, LAUGHTER)&nbsp;... We can only surmise that Mr. Nixon has been reading 'The Power of Positive Thinking.' (APPLAUSE). America was not built by wishful thinking. It was built by realists, and it will not be saved by guess work and self-deception. It will only be saved by hard work and facing the facts."<ref>{{cite web|title=Transcript of Adlai Stevenson speech in San Francisco, 1960|website=Pacific Radio Archives|url=http://www.pacificaradioarchives.org/projects/transcripts/pdf/adlai_jfk.pdf | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101127095208/http://www.pacificaradioarchives.org/projects/transcripts/pdf/adlai_jfk.pdf |archive-date=November 27, 2010 }}</ref>

At a later date, according to one report, Stevenson and Peale met, and Stevenson apologized to Peale for any personal pain which his comments might have caused Peale, though Stevenson never publicly recanted the substance of his statements. There is no record of Peale apologizing to Stevenson for his attacks on Stevenson.<ref>{{cite news |id={{ProQuest|176106898}} |last1=Buursma |first1=Bruce |title=Religion: Peale's still a positive power |newspaper=Chicago Tribune |date=27 October 1984 |page=8 }}</ref> It has been argued{{by whom|date=March 2022}} that even Peale's "positive thinking" message was by implication politically conservative: "The underlying assumption of Peale's teaching was that nearly all basic problems were personal."<ref>[http://www.answers.com/library/Britannica%20Concise%20Encyclopedia-cid-1792895319 Answers.com] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119170903/http://www.answers.com/library/Britannica%20Concise%20Encyclopedia-cid-1792895319 |date=January 19, 2012 }}, from ''Britannica Concise Encyclopedia'' starting with ''In 1960&nbsp;... ''</ref>

====Peale and John F. Kennedy====
Peale was invited to attend a strategy conference of about 30 [[Evangelicalism|Evangelicals]] in [[Montreux, Switzerland]], by its host, the well-known evangelist [[Billy Graham]], in mid-August 1960. There they agreed to kick off a group called The National Conference of Citizens for Religious Freedom in Washington the following month. On September 7, Peale served as its chairman and spoke for 150 [[Protestant]] clergymen, opposing the election of [[John F. Kennedy]] as president.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=V5aZBgAAQBAJ |first=H. Larry |last=Ingle |title=Nixon's First Cover-up: The Religious Life of a Quaker President |pages=101–06 |publisher=[[University of Missouri Press]] |location=Columbia, Missouri|isbn=9780826273352 |date=July 7, 2015 }}</ref> "Faced with the election of a Catholic," Peale declared, "our culture is at stake."<ref name="Newsweek">{{cite magazine|title=The Religious Issue: Hot and Getting Hotter|magazine=[[Newsweek]]|date=September 19, 1960}}</ref>

In a written manifesto, Peale and his group also declared that Kennedy would serve the interests of the Catholic Church before he would serve the interests of the United States: "It is inconceivable that a Roman Catholic president would not be under extreme pressure by the hierarchy of his church to accede to its policies with respect to foreign interests," and the election of a Catholic might even end free speech in America.<ref name="Newsweek"/>

Protestant theologian [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] responded, "Dr. Peale and his associates&nbsp;... show blind [[prejudice]]."<ref name="Newsweek"/> Protestant Episcopal Bishop [[James Pike]] echoed Niebuhr: "Any argument which would rule out a Roman Catholic just because he is Roman Catholic is both bigotry and a violation of the [[First Amendment|constitutional guarantee of no religious test for public office]]."<ref name="Time">{{cite magazine|title=The Power Of Negative Thinking|magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]|date=September 19, 1960}}</ref> Peale's statement was also condemned by former President [[Harry Truman]], the Board of Rabbis, and other leading Protestants such as [[Paul Tillich]] and [[John C. Bennett]].<ref name="Time"/> Peale recanted his statements and he was later fired by his own committee. As conservative [[William F. Buckley]] described the fallout: "When&nbsp;... The Norman Vincent Peale Committee was organized, on the program that a vote for Kennedy was a vote to repeal the First Amendment to the Constitution, the [[Society of Jesus|Jesuits]] fired their Big Bertha, and Dr. Peale fled from the field, mortally wounded."<ref name="NatRev">{{cite magazine|first=William F.|last=Buckley|author-link=William F. Buckley|title=We Hold These Truths|magazine=[[National Review]]|date=January 28, 1961}}</ref> Peale subsequently went into hiding and threatened to resign from his church.<ref name="NYT">{{cite news|title=Beliefs|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=October 31, 1992}}</ref> The fallout continued as Peale was condemned in a statement by one hundred religious leaders and dropped as a syndicated columnist by a dozen newspapers.<ref name="NYT"/>