Who is Civil Religious Reconsidered

Flavio Hickel Jr.

Abstract

Civil religious rhetoric has been utilized throughout American history to integrate and unify a diverse society by drawing upon broadly shared religious beliefs regarding the nations identity, meaning, and purpose in the world. However, the sizable growth of atheists, agnostics, and religiously unaffiliated Americans over the last decade has raised questions about whether these beliefs remain relevant today. I argue that while alterations to the tenets of civil religion are unnecessary it is advisable to rely on implicit rather than explicit religious language in our civil religious rhetoric. This study reports the results of a survey administered to a nationally representative online sample. The results demonstrate that while agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated were significantly less likely to support civil religious statements that included the word God they were no less likely to agree with similar statements that featured the word Sacred. Acceptance of civil religious beliefs among Christians, and opposition from Atheists, were unaffected by these rhetorical shifts.

IntroductionIn an age of rapid change and colliding cultures, what we share as human beings can sometimes be lostBut I believe that the history of both America and Indonesia should give us hope. It is a story written into our national mottos. In the United States, our motto is E pluribus unum - out of many, one. Bhinneka Tunggal Ika - unity in diversity. We are two nations, which have traveled different paths. Yet our nations show that hundreds of millions who hold different beliefs can be united in freedom under one flag. (Obama, 2010)

Our Founders embraced the enduring truth that we are stronger together. America is once again at a moment of reckoning. Powerful forces are threatening to pull us apart. Bonds of trust and respect are fraying. And just as with our founders, there are no guarantees. It truly is up to us. We have to decide whether we all will work together so we all can rise together. Our country's motto is E Pluribus Unum: out of many, we are one. Will we stay true to that motto? (Clinton, 2016)

Despite the message of unity in both of these speech excerpts, they were met with condemnation by significant segments of the population. In 2010, forty-two members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus wrote a letter demanding that President Obama issue a correction to his speech. They argued by misrepresenting things as foundational as the Declaration of Independence[footnoteRef:1] and our national motto[footnoteRef:2], you are not only doing a disservice to the people you represent, you are casting aside an integral part of American society. (Congressional Prayer Caucus, 2010) They concluded their letter by quoting President Reagan: If we ever forget that were one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under. (Congressional Prayer Caucus, 2010) While Hillary Clinton did not receive the same rebuke from members of Congress, Reverend Creech of the Christian Action League characterized her speech as emblematic of a significant movementtrying to remove God from every part of public life with the same implications for the nations future as expressed by President Reagan. (Creech, 2016) [1: The letter also reflected complaints about inaccuracies in President Obamas description of the Declaration of Independence: Additionally, during three separate events this fall, when quoting from the Declaration of Independence, you mentioned that we have inalienable rights, but consistently failed to mention the source of the rights. The Declaration of Independence definitively recognized God, our Creator, as the source of our rights. Omitting the word Creator once was a mistake; but twice establishes a pattern. (Congressional Prayer Caucus, 2010)] [2: Although for most of our history E Pluribus Unum was the unofficial motto of the United States, in 1956, President Eisenhower signed into law a joint congressional resolution establishing In God We Trust as the official national motto. ]

Although these episodes may appear to be another in a long list of petty partisan squabbles, I submit that they are best understood as a conflict over American Civil Religion: a set of broadly shared beliefs, myths, and symbols, derived from the United States founding and history, which reflect ideas about the nations identity, meaning, and purpose in the world. Furthermore, civil religion (implicitly or explicitly) incorporates notions of American Exceptionalism and a Covenantal relationship with a non-denominationally specific God such that our success and leadership in the world is understood to be contingent upon faithful adherence to the traditions and values of our founding.

While scholars have traditionally assumed that civil religion would serve to integrate and unify a population divided on religion, ethnicity, geography, and politics (Bellah, 1967; Chapp, 2012), these incidents suggests that how we talk about civil religion can preclude the realization of those effects. Given that approximately 56 million Americans or just over 22% of the population now claim no religious affiliation (Pew, 2015a) it is not surprising that Democratic leaders have sought the benefits of civil religion through less explicit religious language. However, the reaction of many Christian Americans suggests that they interpret this rhetorical shift as an existential threat to the national identity. To turn our backs on the central role of God in our republic is understood to initiate a fall from grace and all the benefits associated with being Gods chosen nation.

Was this backlash simply a reflection of partisan opportunism or genuine concern about deeply held civil religious beliefs? Were Democrats correct to assume that one could achieve the promise of civil religion without explicit religious language or does this render the concept meaningless? Perhaps most importantly, is civil religion still relevant in the contemporary religious landscape with the rise of atheists, agnostics, and those with no religious affiliation? In the pages that follow I will argue that while these religious Nones may be less comfortable with civil religious beliefs that rely upon explicit religious language (God), they are no less likely than other Americans to accept the tenets of this faith when it is couched in implicit religious language (Sacred). Although such individuals may disagree with the notion that America is Gods chosen nation, they agree that there is something sacred about America. The results from the survey presented in this article demonstrate that reliance on more implicit religious language provides a means by which civil religious beliefs can remain relevant in the new religious landscape and thereby continue to provide a cultural source of unity and integration in American society.

This article begins by elaborating on the nature of civil religion and its applicability to the religious and irreligious alike. After presenting a series of hypotheses I will describe the nationally representative online survey which produced that data used to evaluate my theory. After presenting my findings, I will provide some concluding remarks about their broader implications for civil religion in America and its role in the contemporary political environment.

Civil Religion and Religious Nones

Bellahs Civil Religion in America (1967) asserted the existence of a public religious dimensionexpressed in a set of beliefs, symbols, and rituals that could unify and integrate a diverse nation by attributing religious significance to American history. In theory, the salience of divisions based on class, ethnicity, geography, and partisanship could be reduced through shared beliefs about our national identity, meaning, and purpose in the world. Bellah argues that these shared beliefs collectively defines the norms of which the common good is conceived and calls the nation and its people to adhere to that abstract faith, those abstract propositions to which we are dedicated. (Bellah, 1976) These norms are manifested through a variety of myths (e.g. America as a Pure Eden and its colonization as an Exodus story), symbols (e.g. American Flag, George Washington as a Moses figure, Abraham Lincoln as Christ) and rituals (e.g. Presidential Inauguration, 4th of July, Memorial Day, Presidents Day, Thanksgiving). However, the cultural power of civil religion primarily derives from our sacred texts which articulate the nations transcendental identity, meaning, and purpose in the world (e.g. Declaration of Independence, Constitution). (Bellah, 1967 and 1992; Angrosino, 2002) Bellah interpreted the Declaration of Independence as containing an implicit covenantal relationship between the nation and a non-denominationally specific God. In forming the country, we appealed to the supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions and with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence. Our obligations in this endeavor were to constitute ourselves according to the principle that all men are created equal with god-given unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We further promise to establish and maintain a democratic government in order to ensure the full realization of those divine gifts.

This latter point is often cited as an implicit recognition of American Exceptionalism; the notion that America serves as the primary agent of Gods meaningful activity in history. (Bellah 1992; Skousen, 2009) The origins of these beliefs are most often attributed to John Winthrops Model of Christian Charity sermon[footnoteRef:3] (Winthrop, 1630) where he described New Englanders colonizing endeavor to his Puritan brethren as the forging of a new covenant with Go