Note: Earlier today I denounced as a waste of time the attempt by Republicans in the House to reaffirm ‘In God We Trust’ as the national motto. A reader thoughtfully asked whether there is some value in reminding Americans that it is in God that we must trust. My answer is yes and no: Yes, it’s good to remind people to put their trust in God; no, it’s not good to ask them to put their trust in the deistic god of our civil religion. Is that what the House Republicans are doing? Yes, I think so. As a form of explanation I thought I’d dust off an old rant about civil religion.
Let us remember that it was the villain Jean Jacques Rousseau, who coined the phrase civil religion in his treatise, On the Social Contract (1762). Rousseau made the observation that in ancient times all governments were a form of theocracy with each nation serving their own god. States, therefore, never had religious wars since the governments “made no distinction between its gods and its laws.” Rousseau finds the genius of the Roman Empire was its ability to absorb both the nations and their gods and transform them into one pagan religion. This changed, he claims, with the appearance of Christ:
It was in these circumstances that Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, made the State no longer one, and brought about the internal divisions which have never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. As the new idea of a kingdom of the other world could never have occurred to pagans, they always looked on the Christians as really rebels, who, while feigning to submit, were only waiting for the chance to make themselves independent and their masters, and to usurp by guile the authority they pretended in their weakness to respect. This was the cause of the persecutions.
Rousseau claims that this division between religion and the state “made all good polity impossible in Christian States; and men have never succeeded in finding out whether they were bound to obey the master or the priest.” He believed that political leaders tried to restore this lost ideal but have been unsuccessful because of the influence of Christianity, which put devotion to God above that of the State. Since religious devotion is not only useful to the state but can become a hindrance to the state’s authority, a third way was needed—civil religion:
There is therefore a purely civil profession of faith of which the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as religious dogmas, but as social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen or a faithful subject. While it can compel no one to believe them, it can banish from the State whoever does not believe them—it can banish him, not for impiety, but as an anti-social being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice, and of sacrificing, at need, his life to his duty. If any one, after publicly recognizing these dogmas, behaves as if he does not believe them, let him be punished by death: he has committed the worst of all crimes, that of lying before the law.
The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary. The existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws: these are its positive dogmas. Its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance, which is a part of the cults we have rejected.
America has done a fine job of incorporating Rousseau’s “dogmas of civil religion,” keeping them “few, simple, and exactly worded.” We have restricted such sentiments to the most unobtrusive areas, allowing “In God We Trust’ to be printed on our coins and the phrase “under God” to slip in our Pledge of Allegiance (which, curiously, isn’t a pledge of allegiance to God but to a flag). We allow recognition for a “Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence” but what we don’t allow is the recognition of the Christian God. All of this should give Christians pause.
I think most Christians would agree that there is a vast and unbridgeable chasm between a deistic civil religion and orthodox Christianity. But the civil religion that our fellow citizens embrace is not the type Rousseau had in mind. It is very much a view that is rooted in the concept that America is a Christian nation (or at least a Judeo-Christian nation). For them, the “In God We Trust” on our coins might as well say “In Jesus We Trust.” The State is not only subordinate to the one true Sovereign (and don’t let the capitalized noun fool you—we’re still talking about Jesus here) but is expected to conform to his standards. Although this view can lead people to use Christianity to promote Americanism, more often it simply leads to criticism of the nation’s flaws. The fact that the country continually falls short of God’s standards is a constant annoyance for those who believe that the founding documents were wholly derived—at least in principle—from the Holy Scriptures. (Think I’m exaggerating? Talk to some of these folks and see if you don’t get the impression that they think the Constitution was inspired more by the Gospel of John than by John Locke.)
Those of us who champion a role for religion in the public square, however, cannot fully embrace this Christianized concept of civil religion. If we claim, as our friends and neighbors believe, that “under God” refers only to the Christian conception of God then we are either being unduly intolerant or, more likely, simply kidding ourselves. Do we truly think that our fellow Hindu, Wiccan, or Buddhist patriots are claiming to be under the same deity as we are? We can’t claim, as the Apostle Paul did on Mars Hill, that the “unknown god” they are worshiping is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Pledge is, after all, a secular document and the “under god” is referring to the Divinity of our country’s civil religion. Just as the pagan religion of the Roman Empire was able to incorporate other gods and give them familiar names, the civil religion provides an umbrella for all beliefs to submit under one nondescript, fill-in-the-blank term.
While we should be as tolerant of civil religion as we are of other beliefs, we can’t justify submitting to it ourselves. That is not to say that we can’t say the Pledge and think of the one true God. But the god of America’s civil religion is not the God who died on the Cross. I can only speak for myself but I think this is why those of us atFirst Things are not fans of civil religion. I would say that what we we favor is what John Meacham—by way of Ben Franklin—calls “public religion.” As Michael Novak notes:
By “public religion” [Meacham] means the public’s belief in the sacredness of conscience, the importance of religious liberty, the link between religion and republican virtues, and the necessity of these virtues for the faithful and steady workings of our Constitution. Furthermore, religion—or at least Judaism and Christianity—limits the state (“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”) and is a barrier against totalitarian government (as mere secularism has proved not to be). Such religions also inculcate an almost religious sense of obligation to defend liberty at home and, at times, around the world.
What we advocate for is religiously informed public philosophy, a form of public religion, not a baptized Rousseauean alternative.
November 2nd, 2011 | 4:03 pm
Common values bind people together.
Many people feel that we need more cohesion right now. The only point left to question is what values ought to be “common”.
November 2nd, 2011 | 5:58 pm
I’ve just read your article and I’m just sorry our politicians and public wan’t. I live in Croatia and we have won our independence 20 years ago and since then live in a weird transitional times where all moral values are mixed up and religion is lost in whether to play their real role or to be friend with the goverment in order to gain more power. We are in a desperate need of what you mention public religion to regain the common positive values and finally move forward.
November 2nd, 2011 | 7:29 pm
For very similar reasons, I find most such movements as this “In God we trust” motto thing a distraction.
Does anyone really think that such actions by politicians (or even opposition) is really motivated by some theological move, or a more cynical political ploy?
As such, I think the civil religion vs. First Things position vs. cynical use of religion to motivate masses is more in play.
November 2nd, 2011 | 8:37 pm
On p.22 of Franklin’s pamphlet _Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania_ (1749), we find the following concerning “Publick Religion”:
“[the reading of] History will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a Publick Religion, from its Usefulness to the Publick; the Advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons; the Mischiefs of Superstition, &c. and the Excellency of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION above all others antient or modern.”
In the footnote which follows, Franklin suggests that readers “See Turnbull on this Head, from p. 386 to 390. very much to the Purpose, but too long to be transcribed here.”
The “Turnbull” Franklin refers to is George Turnbull, a theologian (Anglican) and philosopher of the Scottish Enlightenment (d. 1748). “ p. 386 to 390” are to be found in Turnbull’s _Observations upon Liberal Education_ (1742), which can be easily found and downloaded at the Liberty Fund’s fine website. Here’s an excerpt (p.354 in my .pdf copy):
“In fine, the rational instruction of children in the genuine principles of Christianity, cannot be neglected by Christian parents or preceptors, without sinning against what they know and believe to be their indispensible duty: But certainly sound instruction in the principles of natural religion is a necessary preparation for it. And history will at least afford frequent proper occasions of shewing the utility, the absolute necessity of a public religion, and of evincing the excellence of true Christianity above all other religions that have ever been heard of in the world. That the persuasion of a divine providence, and a future state of rewards and punishments, is one of the strongest incitements to virtue, and one of the most forcible restraints from vice, can hardly be doubted of: And that public worship is necessary to support a general sense of religion, or of God’s providence, and a future state of rewards and punishments is very evident: Nor is it less so, that there can be no public worship without some received form and some established external rites: ’Tis as absurd to talk of public religious service without some settled manner and method of expressing or performing it, as to talk of languages without words. But what cult that ever obtained in the world under the notion of religion, except the Christian institution, when kept free or reformed from all the abominable corruptions with which it hath been and still is in some countries depraved, was not rather hurtful to society, than suited to the ends for which public religion is requisite to society? Or what can be pointed out on the one hand as wanting in true Christianity to make it a useful, a perfect public belief and worship; or on the other, as burdensom, superfluous, or liable to superstitious perversion? Christianity abounds with motives to encourage to virtue, and to deter from vice; nay none stronger can be added to them. And as its positive rites or ordinances are but few, so none can be imagined that are less liable to superstitious abuse? History will furnish frequent opportunities of illustrating and confirming these important observations to young students. And from the truths of natural religion and true morality, which it is the chief design of education to teach and inculcate, the transition to the doctrines and precepts of Christianity is very easy and natural…”
I can’t see how Franklin’s and Turnbull’s notion of “public religion,” as presented in their writing, can be easily reconciled with Meacham’s version of the notion as presented by Novak. It’s quite a leap to get from a “public religion” (with public religious services!) which functions so as to evince “the excellence of true Christianity above all other religions that have ever been heard of in the world” – i.e., either a de facto or de jure state religion – to a “public religion” that is informed by “the public’s belief in the sacredness of conscience, the importance of religious liberty, the link between religion and republican virtues, and the necessity of these virtues for the faithful and steady workings of our Constitution.”
That Franklin’s 1749 “publick religion” would be extremely difficult to reconcile with the Establishment Clause goes without saying.
November 3rd, 2011 | 12:11 am
There is also a “vast and unbridgeable chasm between a deistic civil religion” and atheism. That is, the atheism trumpeted by Dawkins, Hitchens et al. I doubt the atheists will ever be content with the phrase In God We Trust, even if they agree with the sort of civil behaviour you are claiming this phrase points to.
November 3rd, 2011 | 1:22 am
Hindus do have an Unknown God. Their daily language commonly uses a word meaning God (unspecified) such that name of no Hindu deity can be substituted there.
Thus Hindus refer to an God that is unknown to them and they do it pretty frequently too.
November 3rd, 2011 | 4:49 am
Rousseau spoke of a religion “which has neither temples, nor altars, nor rites, and is confined to the purely internal worship of the supreme God and the eternal obligations of morality, is the religion of the Gospel pure and simple, the true theism, what may be called natural divine right or law,” in contrast to civil religion
He contrasted this with “ a third sort of religion of a more singular kind, which gives men two codes of legislation, two rulers, and two countries, renders them subject to contradictory duties, and makes it impossible for them to be faithful both to religion and to citizenship. Such are the religions of the Lamas and of the Japanese, and such is Roman Christianity, which may be called the religion of the priest. It leads to a sort of mixed and anti-social code which has no name.”
In other words, his position is primarily anti-clerical. That is why, in France, not coincidentally, secularism or “separation of church and state” is called “laïcité,” and its supporters are known as “bouffeurs de curé.”
November 3rd, 2011 | 8:28 am
Should they be?
As Benighted Savage points out, if the ‘civil religion’ is, in fact, a religion, then what of the whole “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” thing?
November 3rd, 2011 | 8:58 am
“In God We Trust”, is our National motto. Our Founding Fathers recognized that our unalienable Rights come from God and trusted that the purpose of our unalienable Rights are what God intended.
November 3rd, 2011 | 11:11 am
[...] “A Civil Rant Against Civil Religion.” I think most Christians would agree that there is a vast and unbridgeable chasm between a deistic [...]
November 3rd, 2011 | 12:00 pm
Nancy D. –
“In God We Trust” was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956… The phrase has appeared on U.S. coins since 1864 and on paper currency since 1957… The phrase was conceived by Salmon P. Chase, the U.S. Treasury Secretary under President Abraham Lincoln.
November 3rd, 2011 | 12:25 pm
If there is a God Who insists that we render unto Him what is His alone, and that we render unto Caesar what is his, then those who obey that God cannot do so under a government that acknowledges no authority above itself.
For example, God, using all small words so even Supreme Court justices could understand them, solemnly commanded “Thou shalt not kill,” referring to the fact that it is He Who calls life into being and it is He who calls it back to Himself when He is good and ready to do so — mere mortals have no authority to take innocent human life or to rule that others may do so.
A problem is presented to those who believe in God, and the vast majority of Americans do so, when Caesar declares that a vast segment of the human family — the child in the womb — may be killed. If those who believe in God just silently accept that they are rendering unto Caesar authority over human life that belongs only to God.
Obviously, atheistic government that acknowledges no authority above its own brings about an entirely different situation than a government that acknowledges a moral authority above that of mere mortals. For example, the “atheocracy” shows no tolerance at all for, say, the parents of a minor daughter when it authorizes others to arrange an abortion for that minor daughter without their consent or knowledge — even though the parents consider that the murder of their grandchild. Sometimes these covertly arranged abortions are botched, resulting in the death of the minor daughter. If the parents are upset upon finding out about the deaths of their daughter and grandchild — well, they obviously aren’t being tolerant of others according to the atheocracy.
Those who believe in God do not want a theocracy for obvious reasons, but they shouldn’t accept an atheocracy either. Enforcing simple things like a prohibition against taking innocent human life is not imposing a theocracy. Caesar declaring we can indeed kill innocent human beings IS imposing an atheocracy upon everyone.
If it isn’t an atheocracy, why is there so much hostility to theism — you can’t even mention God in school — but open promotion of atheism in publicly funded educational institutions is common? Atheism is definitely faith-based as one cannot prove there is no God, that belief must be taken on faith. Theism is faith-based. The faith-based atheocracy is hostile to theistic faith, but promotes atheistic faith. The authorizing of the covert abortion of a minor mentioned above clearly demonstrates that the atheocracy is way beyond being “intolerant” — it is aggressively, lethally hostile to others.
Whether there are problems with “civil religion” or not, we need to rid ourselves of the atheocracy and what amounts to the establishment of a state religion – again, atheism is faith-based — that is hostile to other faith-based belief systems, in particular the one embraced by the vast majority of Americans.
November 3rd, 2011 | 1:24 pm
The idea of linking In God We Trust to Rousseauean civil religion is convoluted, bordering on weird.
The general acknowledgment of the traits of God common to all citizens’ beliefs (the deistic traits) is not a rejection of the particular traits of any particular belief. Joe Carter is off on one of his poorly reasoned campaigns of contrarian assertion again.
November 3rd, 2011 | 2:25 pm
harry –
Students can. Churches can even rent space in schools after hours. The school administration can’t tell students when to pray or lead prayers.
Examples?
November 4th, 2011 | 1:33 am
Ray, the fact that the motto, “In God We Trust”, did not become official until 1956, doesn’t change the fact that from the beginning of the founding of this nation, we have trusted in God’s Divine Providence.
November 4th, 2011 | 2:24 am
[...] you, for the rest, there’s a layperson’s outline.— 4 —I really appreciated Joe Carter’s post castigating Congress for passing a resolution reaffirming “In God We Trust” as a national motto. [...]
November 4th, 2011 | 2:41 am
[...] The origins and sins of Civil Religion. [...]
November 4th, 2011 | 10:48 am
Benighted Savage:
Thanks for the link on George Turnbull; I’ll add that to my collection. To try and answer your question I think you need to look more systematically at the quotations of Franklin and the other key Founders and you’ll see he (they) did arguably mean what Meacham says.
“Religion” was something that produced good virtuous citizens and Christianity was a better religion in a comparative sense because of the superiority of Jesus’ moral teachings, NOT because of any claims Jesus makes as the only way to God or because of His Atonement.
Here is another quotation of Franklin (from his autobiography) where he was involved in the building of a public church (meeting house) for any religion the people may choose.
“Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.”
I’ve got other quotes if interested. The bottom line is if they produced good works all religions were valid ways to God. That’s the civil religion of the American Founding that Franklin preached.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact