I think the idea of "civil religion" is a contradiction in terms.

[MineralMan]

Religion is generally accepted to be based on belief in a supreme being or deity, which is worshiped, propitiated, or feared by adherents to that religion.

Government, on the other hand, is a civil authority, lacking deities, at least in the case of the United States, where state-sponsored religion is prohibited by our founding documents.

Religion is not just celebrations, ceremonies, and participation in activities. The reason for those things in religion centers around that deity or supreme being. All of them have, at their core, recognition, honoring, and praying to that deity.

Civil events are not about that. They are about a common social structure, regardless of belief in supernatural entities. I do not attend my city council meetings to worship anything at all. I attend to make my opinions known to my elected officials. I do not write letter sto my legislators, state and federal, with the intent of praying to any deity. Instead, I remind those legislators that I have opinions regarding laws they are considering.

I do not attend fourth of July celebrations or any other such patriotic assemblies to worship at any altar. I attend them because I am part of this society, which supposedly welcomes people of all faiths and of no faith at all.

Robert Bellah, in his writings, attempted to define what a "civil religion" was, but failed, because there is no supreme being necessarily involved in systems of government, especially here in the United States, where such deities are excluded by our founding documents. All US citizens, of all faiths, and even of no faith, are participants in our system of government.

We do not have a civil religion in this country. We have a nation. It is quite a different thing than a religion. Religions have worship. Nations have participation in its actions by its citizens. Religions have deities. Nations have laws.

There is no "civil religion" in the United States. There cannot be.

[trotsky]

1. It's just another attempt at equivocation.

Blurring the meanings of words, sliding them together, and saying that because some blurred areas overlap and look similar, they're the same thing. Then they pull the words apart, put them back into focus, and act as if it's proven they are the same.

It's often done with different definitions of the word "belief," for instance.

But in this case, those who wish to exploit equivocation to make patriotism the same as Christianity or Islam, are unwittingly doing a great disservice to their religion. They are neglecting the core part of the religion - the belief in a supernatural god who has (allegedly) dictated the set of rules and rituals and beliefs.

I mean, if someone wants to argue that both "religions" have absolutely no supernatural component, they are free to do so and I wouldn't dispute that point - but again, that's clearly not a point that a believer wants to make.

[MineralMan]

2. Yes, exactly.

In a very real way, such claims act as secularization of religious belief, rather than the way they were intended. If Christians want to say that our system of government is the same as religion, then so be it. If their focus is not on their deity, but on ceremonies and behavior, then perhaps they're right. But then, their religion has lost its core beliefs, it seems to me.

Robert Bellah's "civil religion" was simply a poorly argued, sub-logical attempt at establishing a sort of equivalency. But, he's dead now, so can no longer defend his writings.

[Major Nikon]

3. Deism has more to do with the foundation of this country than theism

This was by design as in 1776 the populace would have never accepted a godless state. Instead a god that didn't care about them was inserted so a secular union could be created.

Those who point to references to a higher power in the foundation documents tend to ignore this reality and most do so in order to further the false idea we are a "Christian nation".

It's important to remember the founders of this country saw the marriage of organized religion and government as the antithesis to power by and for the people. Those who seek to get those two things back together again aren't doing anyone any favors, including theists.

[MineralMan]

4. Only very weak statements referring to any sort of deity

exist in our founding documents. That was by design, as well. The "creator" mentioned is a featureless, meaningless deity, if it is a deity at all. "Nature" is as likely that "creator" as some supernatural entity of some sort.

Specifically, no mention of Christianity occurs in any of our founding documents. If this nation was meant to be a "Christian nation," the clever fellows who came up with our founding documents would have at least hinted at that, you'd think. They were very bright men.

[Major Nikon]

9. Out of the 7 most influential founding fathers...

only one identified as a Christian.

[Firestorm49]

5. To the point.

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. I'm not so sure.

The concept of civil religion typically includes aspects of civic life being treated as sacrosanct, e.g. George Washington being revered in an almost saintlike way, or our refusal to speak ill of our founding fathers when they most assuredly deserved it. So, I think it is valid to say that Americans treat their civil symbols, texts, and figures in almost religious fashion.

What our mutual friend doesn't seem to realize is this doesn't speak well of religion at all. Or that most of us, as humanists and freethinkers, would oppose it all the same.

[MineralMan]

7. While some minority of people might treat those things in those ways,

I don't think it is prevalent or a majority opinion. Many people give lip service to patriotism, but scarcely even know anything about our system of government. We don't study the Constitution, for example, like scripture. Many of our elected officials appear to have no familiarity with that document at all. We're poor worshipers, if we worship at all at the civil altar.

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. I think it is more pervasive, actually.

People don't know anything about the government in the same way most Christians don't really know anything about the Bible. It isn't necessary. Christians still regard their faith as true, and I think most Americans still regard their government as teh bestest government evar.

As for whether or not this sort of thing is broad in its acceptance, I think I have a pretty effective way of testing it out: Just walk into any crowded public place and scream "George Washington was an asshole!" at the top of your lungs.

[Major Nikon]

10. That was one of the critiques of the idea immediately after it was presented

Instead of imagining some kind of pseudo religion that props up society, it's probably more accurate to say that is what's holding us back. Whenever you hold something in such high esteem that it's immune from criticism, all you have really done is take one of the worst aspects of religion and applied it to a secular purpose. All it really does is paves the way for all sorts of narrow minded thinking like American exceptionalism and "love it or leave it".

[guillaumeb]

11. Thus speaks the official definer.

I understand your insistence, and the rationale behind it.

[MineralMan]

12. What are the first two words in my title, Guy?

What does my signature line say, Guy?

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Not a contradiction in terms, just something the US doesn't have

The words 'civil' and 'religion' are both derived from Latin. The Romans had a civil religion. It was woven into how the city/empire ran. The Roman Catholic pope uses the title 'pontifex' because that indicated the official position of being the head of the priests in Rome. Julius Caesar held it.

[Voltaire2]

14. Religion does not have to be theistic.

It certainly doesn’t require a supreme being. I get what Bellah was describing with the term. There is in fact in our culture a set of nationalistic beliefs rituals and ceremonies- and ‘civil religion’ seems an appropriate label. The US version is also heavily infused with Christian tropes. Recall all the “god bless America” sing alongs after 9-11. Our politicians have to work god into every speech.

[MineralMan]

16. While that's true, the word, religion, has theistic connotations

for most people. For that reason, I dislike its use in referring to political realities. Words matter.

[Voltaire2]

20. Oh absolutely and it was clear that is why

it was the subject of that other thread.

[MineralMan]

21. Yup.

[trotsky]

17. You bring up a good point though I think the "religious" elements of this "civil religion" stuff...

are piggybacking on top of a real religion - Christianity, of course. When "God Bless America" is sung, there's a specific god they are singing about. Ask the super-patriotic people about the USA, and they will invariably mention that we are god's favorite country or specially blessed by god or facing danger if we don't follow god's rules. The religious extremism in patriotism has its roots in ACTUAL religion.

[Voltaire2]

18. Yes the US version is clearly christian.

But other nations have similar national rituals and those need not be.

[marylandblue]

15. I think religion is more about the symbols and ceremonies than the beliefs

Most people don't know much about the theology of their religion. If religion were just about theology, it would be as boring as any other academic subject. But people do enjoy ceremonies, music and social events and celebrating in a common purpose. The stated purpose is less important than the fact it is a shared event that brings them together.

So I view the term "civil religion" as more of an analogy than an actual religion. It's an American ritual to watch fireworks on Independence Day, because it something enjoyable we do with other Americans. It's a bit similar to a religious ritual, but it's entire secular

[uriel1972]

19. I understood "Civil Religion"

to be "State Religion" like the C of E in the UK.

The separation of Church and State would make that difficult, I presume.

Although there could be an argument that Christianity is the defacto State Religion of the USA.