- 22 Sep 2014 19:23
#14467832
Pod - That Europeans can practice any religion they wish does not make the question of what religion they should practice any less interesting. There's a huge difference between the freedom to make a choice and making the right choice. Arguably the latter is more important than the former.
It also needs to be said that, in fact, individuals are not free to practice any civil religion (at least not in any well-functioning society). The State, and if the people are loyal, the society, force individuals to practice the reigning civil religion. In the past, civil religion and spiritual religion were typically the same, with the government forcing subjects to practice the State religion or, if not that, to submit to its hegemony (hence the Roman Empire's crushing of the Jews or Islam's dhimmitude concept). With the Reformation (in some places) and especially the bourgeois Enlightenment, spiritual religion retreated to the private sphere, and instead "secularism" and "human rights" progressively became the new hegemonic civil religion.
Anyone who deviates from the civil religion of the day will be ostracized and suffer varying degrees of persecution for not following "the rules" society broadly agrees need to be abided by to function. For example, before the 1960s, Bolsheviks and Stalinists in the United States suffered for their political beliefs and activities, as this was not compatible with the reigning Americanism. Since the 1960s, a new civil religion has been put in place throughout the West, leading to similar consequences for ethno-nationalists and Islamists. Practically the new civil religion of secularism-multiculturalism entails relegation of spirituality to the private sphere (hence why Islamists get in trouble), rejection of ethnic identity on the part of the majority (hence the troubles European ethno-nationalists face), and condoning of ethnic identity on the part of minorities (hence the apology for Israeli nationalism and multiculturalism). An interesting question is: Why how and why did this new civil religion emerge?
Americanism is (was?) quite obviously a civil religion with its apostle-like and deified Founding Fathers and sacred texts (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Gettysburg Address..).
Further reading:
* Robert N. Bellah, "Civil religion in America," 1967. (The classic text on the topic.)
*Greg Johnson, "Racial Civil Religion," 2013. (A contemporary far-right perspective on Christianity.)
My God we have a holodomor-denier. Why do you hate so much PoD? Freud says it has to do with unresolved psychosocial issues as opposed to any legitimate grievances..
It also needs to be said that, in fact, individuals are not free to practice any civil religion (at least not in any well-functioning society). The State, and if the people are loyal, the society, force individuals to practice the reigning civil religion. In the past, civil religion and spiritual religion were typically the same, with the government forcing subjects to practice the State religion or, if not that, to submit to its hegemony (hence the Roman Empire's crushing of the Jews or Islam's dhimmitude concept). With the Reformation (in some places) and especially the bourgeois Enlightenment, spiritual religion retreated to the private sphere, and instead "secularism" and "human rights" progressively became the new hegemonic civil religion.
Anyone who deviates from the civil religion of the day will be ostracized and suffer varying degrees of persecution for not following "the rules" society broadly agrees need to be abided by to function. For example, before the 1960s, Bolsheviks and Stalinists in the United States suffered for their political beliefs and activities, as this was not compatible with the reigning Americanism. Since the 1960s, a new civil religion has been put in place throughout the West, leading to similar consequences for ethno-nationalists and Islamists. Practically the new civil religion of secularism-multiculturalism entails relegation of spirituality to the private sphere (hence why Islamists get in trouble), rejection of ethnic identity on the part of the majority (hence the troubles European ethno-nationalists face), and condoning of ethnic identity on the part of minorities (hence the apology for Israeli nationalism and multiculturalism). An interesting question is: Why how and why did this new civil religion emerge?
Americanism is (was?) quite obviously a civil religion with its apostle-like and deified Founding Fathers and sacred texts (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Gettysburg Address..).
Further reading:
* Robert N. Bellah, "Civil religion in America," 1967. (The classic text on the topic.)
*Greg Johnson, "Racial Civil Religion," 2013. (A contemporary far-right perspective on Christianity.)
PoD wrote:No. If socialists had shoveled Jews into ovens by the millions, you might have a point.
But you don't.
My God we have a holodomor-denier. Why do you hate so much PoD? Freud says it has to do with unresolved psychosocial issues as opposed to any legitimate grievances..
A stubborn porcupine: heredity & nationhood. Meditate, brother!
« Artists are the antennae of the race. »
« Artists are the antennae of the race. »