Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Civil religion?

Mar 16, 2004 10:58AM PST

I've long been concerned that secular institutions (like government) sometimes co-opt elements of religious practice. Why in the world should a high school graduation have an invocation? Why should witnesses in court be sworn in with one hand on a Bible? This kind of stuff strikes me as incongruent with the notion of separation of church and state, and I think it inevitably tends to suggest that the state can and should be treated with reverence that is appropriately directed to God alone.

George Will has a different take on it: MSNBC - Paradoxes of Public Piety.

Personally I find the prospects of a 'civil religion' unappealing. The article does, however raise an interesting question. How strongly linked are Christianity and democracy? It is obvious that Christians did not invent democracy, but it does appear that most of the successful democracies to date have sprung up in countries that have been heavily influenced by Christian churches of one form or another. Is there a connection? Will's claim is that President Bush does not think there is a connection.

I do not know how long the link will be 'live' so I quoted a bit more of the article than I normally might have:

Paradoxes of Public Piety
An evangelical president is severing a connection some evangelicals fervently believe in, that between Christianity and democracy
...
McClay says a civil religion is practical because the state is "more than just a secular institution." The state "must sometimes call upon its citizens for acts of sacrifice and self-overcoming" and so "must be able to draw on spiritual resources" and "visions of the direction of history."
...
Orwin says the mainline Protestant churches, which seem to regard Christianity "primarily as a buttress for progressive morality," have responded to secularism by capitulating to it and the discourse of psychotherapy and personal fulfillment. Today's mainline Christians are quasi-relativists, nonjudgmental?militantly so?regarding everything except departures from progressivism.
...
"By its deeds, not merely its words, this administration has exceeded all previous ones in rejecting the dependence of democracy on Christianity."

By promoting civil religion, conservatives are investing the state with dignity, duties and pretensions?something "more than just a secular institution"?beyond the dreams of the most statist liberals. But Bush, the most evangelical of presidents, is severing a connection some evangelicals fervently believe in. It is the connection between Christianity and democracy, and especially American democracy.
...

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re: Civil religion?
Mar 16, 2004 11:51AM PST

Hi, Dr. Bill.

I'm sure you know that being sworn in wih one's hand on the Bible is not mandated in the Constitution -- it was added by George Washington at the First Inaugural, and every President since has followed the tradition.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Skimming again?
Mar 16, 2004 12:07PM PST

Bill wrote:
Why should witnesses in court be sworn in with one hand on a Bible?

Dave replied:
I'm sure you know that being sworn in wih one's hand on the Bible is not mandated in the Constitution -- it was added by George Washington at the First Inaugural, and every President since has followed the tradition.

- Collapse -
Re: Skimming again?
Mar 16, 2004 9:39PM PST

Hi, Clay.

Not skimming, just a brain cramp by the time I got to the end. But swearing with one's hand on the Bible is NOT required -- you can also "solemnly affirm."

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Some Christians use the 'affirm' approach because Jesus said
Mar 16, 2004 11:12PM PST

not to swear on anything. He said let your yes be yes and your no be no. The problem in his day was that oaths were being used to avoid certain duties and responsibilities.

- Collapse -
Christian dominance - consider this
Mar 16, 2004 2:24PM PST
- Collapse -
Those are fairly unimpressive examples ...
Mar 17, 2004 10:26AM PST

Your examples are interesting, but I don't think they are terribly effective as counter-examples. Let's see now:

(1) How did democracy in India and Pakistan come to pass? Surely you are not trying to imply they had any democratic leanings prior to the colonial period? It seems to me that whatever democracy they enjoy is a direct result of British colonial influence and thus an indirect product of a Christian heritage.

(2) Just how strong do you think democratic ideals are in those societies? I'm not convinced that democracy will survive in Pakistan. India may be stable enough. Time will tell.

Personally I'm not really a 'true believer' regarding the notion that strong democracies and Christian heritage are strongly linked. It will be interesting to see whether the West really can successfully export democracy to the rest of the world.

- Collapse -
A more interesting question perhaps.
Mar 17, 2004 11:19AM PST

Can 'democracy' survive in a post Christian society. If so, how long can it survive?

- Collapse -
Re:Civil religion?
Mar 16, 2004 9:47PM PST

I too find some of these practices wrong. Why can't we swear with our hand on a copy of rhe CONSTITUTION or THE DECLARATION. And so many other secular practices to question.

- Collapse -
The founding fathers apparently did not share our view
Mar 16, 2004 11:51PM PST

of the separation of church and state. While forbidding a state church (civil religion?), and prohiting government interference in the affairs of the church, they did not see a problem with incorporating aspects of Christianity into the government. In fact, some doubted that the American experiment would work in the absence of religiously committed people. The fear was that the necessary virtue would be missing.

Historically, the rise of our form of government was supported, in large measure, by the protestant reformation and resulting churches. The emphasis on reading the scripture in these churches made universal education necessary. This, in turn, fostered the development of science and technology. Also, church government fostered democracy by placing the power in the hands of the congregation rather than in a church hierarchy. It also fostered the concept of God given individual rights rather than rights granted by the state. Thus, there was a strong connection between the churches and our democratic republic.

Should there be a connection between churches and government today? Probably not, although I wish the courts would not take such an extreme approach straining to find a knat of religion in such things as the Pledge of Allegiance. There is too much difference of opinion regarding religion today, and, therefore, there is little consensus on what is appropriate.

- Collapse -
Re: The founding fathers apparently did not share our view
Mar 17, 2004 12:25PM PST

Hi, KP.

Guess what, the pigs are warming up!

>>Should there be a connection between churches and government today? Probably not, although I wish the courts would not take such an extreme approach straining to find a knat of religion in such things as the Pledge of Allegiance. There is too much difference of opinion regarding religion today, and, therefore, there is little consensus on what is appropriate.<<
OTOH, I think routine organized prayer, whether student or teacher-led, is inappropriate. I don't personally see any problem with a truly non-denominational invocation before a banquet or graduation -- but that means it can't end with "in jesus' name we pray," as did the "non-demominational, student-led prayer" at Santa Fe Texas football games, which was banned by the SCOTUS (5-4).

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: The founding fathers apparently did not share our view
Mar 17, 2004 1:44PM PST
but that means it can't end with "in jesus' name we pray,"

But in that case, it can't invoke any diety name. Not even God, Muslims will not recognize God and Allah as the same. Jews may dispute which God you mean, the Christian version or the singular God of the Hebrews.

I guess you could say something about supreme power, uncapitalized. But how many are there that still recognize a multiple diety set? I'm not sure how many if any still do.

And of course, any of that offends the atheists, or the PC correct that don't want to possibly leave out or offend anyone.

Shrug, where you going to draw the line? In GOD WE TRUST? under God? no god.

And I'm rather lacking in religious fever myself, but I can see you'll never please everyone, so you might as well please yourself.


RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com