Sentences with phrase «civil religion does»

Yet conservative civil religion does grant America a special place in the divine order.

Not exact matches

It's true we're Muslims and our religion is Islam, but we don't mix our religion with our politics and our economics and our social and civil activities — not any more We keep our religion in our mosque.

Funny thing is that many things Christians do (deny civil rights to women, ga • ys and minorities, preach intolerance towards other religions, etc) would seem like something Satan would be in favor of... go figure, a bit ironic.

If the American civil religion has a credo, it might be the remark that Dwight Eisenhower made to a group in New York's Waldorf - Astoria just before Christmas in 1952: «Our form of Government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is.»

«Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time.»

This also does not account for other recent wars such as WWII, WWI, Vietnam, Korea, U.S. Civil War, etc., though arguably religion played a significant role in affecting people's opinions about going to war.

In Habits of the Heart (1985) the term «civil religion» does not appear.

You defenders of religion keep some interesting company: Osama Bin LLaden, Iraninan Mullahs, Saudi Wahabists (who will cut your head off in public if you preach anything but Islam), Joe Smith who preached that black people did not have souls (the church changed it mind after the civil rights act and are now bigotted against gay people), the Taliban, the pope and his child rapists, ignorant & stupid evangelicals who think that revelations is a roadmap to the future.

due to some crazy religious beliefs out there in the world i.e. marrying off young children and marrying genetic kin, the government can't ever allow religion to dictate marriage policy, so have your ceremonies and deny same - gender couples to marry in your church but bluntly stated your crying and foot - stomping will accomplish nothing, marriage isn't a religious thing it is a civil rights and equality thing, thus if the religious win by denying same gender cuples their civil rights to equal treatment under the law, then don't be surprised when others use those same grounds to deny you your rights under the law.

It was as if those who would be quite shocked if the essence of Christianity were judged by the faith's most perverse historical expressions had no qualms in doing just that to American civil religion.

To call for religious warfare, as some of them do, is to recall the religious wars of earlier centuries that unraveled civil society and led thoughtful people to the conclusion that religion in public is inescapably divisive and destructive.

Your religion has nothing to do with my civil marriage to begin with.

I told them that Catholics used to be the only people in this country who did not practice Rousseau's «civil religion.»

«The trouble with this approach, of course, is that despite the veneer of civil religion, most people in America aren't worried about whether they break one of the Ten Commandments now and then, and they certainly don't see the logic behind the claim that infractions of that sort warrant everlasting damnation.

If you don't yet see it, go read up on the English Civil Wars where the powerful vied for control based on religion: the Protestants tortured the Catholics (and vice versa) for generations...

As far as living separately from Christians, I do not see a reason for that - however, I wish that they would just get religion out of civil society where it does not belong.

It would be more accurate to say certain ideas found institutional roots in the Protestant soil of America that they did not find in Catholic Mexico, and these institutions — not just the ideas — were also necessary for a civil religion.

Mexico, though it entertained some of the same ideas, failed to create comparable institutions; so it did not develop a civil religion.

But even this difference, while obvious and of enormous theological importance, does not by itself explain the appearance of an independent civil religion in the United States but not in Mexico.

Here's the REALITY: There will NEVER be a world without religion, so the best we can do is decide which religions have shown that they can live in relative peace with others in a civil society?

And develop it did in America, to a degree of independence perhaps not matched by the civil religion of any other society.

Having reviewed some of the features of Mexico that explain why no Rousseau - type civil religion is found there, one might be inclined to dismiss the finding with a «What did you expect?»

Of such, it is said, civil religion is made; America had those beliefs, and Mexico did not.

Republican religion did much to lay the historical groundwork for the tradition of religious liberty and limited separation of church and state, as it did to nurture creative minorities like the abolitionists, social gospelers, and civil - rights protesters.

A youthful member of the Athaeneum later had an opportunity to do something directly about Mexico's civil religion.

In regards to the use of force Ben Franklin said, «When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, â $ ˜tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

It does not include all possible indications of the formative power of civil religion in the values of a congregation.

Even if members have been deeply influenced by the values of civil religion, this does not mean that members don't want the pastor to function as their spiritual leader.

Most do not realize that the battle for the hearts and minds of church members is being waged against the power of a civil religion that forms the life commitments of most church members.

By holding that the statute did not have an impermissible purpose, that its primary effect was not the advancement of religion, and that it did not require «excessive entanglement» between church and state, the Court sent a signal to the political branches that more creative uses of the structures of civil society (including churches) may now be permissible in the American welfare state.

We don't want your religion or any other being forced into our civil discourse and our private lives.

John, civil rights do in fact matter to me... and once again, civil marriage has nothing to do with anyone's religion.

Moreover the preacher and the congregation do this in the midst of many other acts of mediation in which they also participate, as they attend to civil religion, propaganda, ideology, and mass media.

To raise the question of obedience in the midst of American civil religion is a hazardous enterprise, but that is precisely what the Deuteronomist has done in the midst of temple ideology.

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, «tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

In the Second Inaugural Address Lincoln incorporated biblical symbolism more centrally into the civil religion than had ever been done before or would ever be done again in his great somber tragic vision of an unfaithful nation in need above all of charity and justice.

More neutral terms such as «political religion» or «religion of the republic» or «public piety» would not have churned up the profound empirical ambiguities «civil religion,» with its two thousand years of historical resonance, inevitably did.

Christianity was never our state religion, nor did we have in Rousseau's strict sense a civil religion, a simple set of religious dogmas to which every citizen must subscribe on pain of exile.

The founders of this republic had read most of those theorists and were concerned with the problem, even though they did not use the term.2 The difficult arises because for most of those two thousand years there has been a profound antipathy, indeed an utter incompatibility, between civil religion and Christianity.

Whether he did this out of conviction, or for prudential reasons (after all, the civil religion he advocated had to be made palatable to Christian Europe), or out of odium for his original community is a matter of scholarly controversy.

Others are suffering simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, being caught up in civil wars that use religion to define nationalism — much like our favorite Godwin's law reference did.

In so doing I am attempting to apply Durkheim's thesis to religiously plural societies and thereby show how a civil religion can develop.

It does seem, however, from Chapters 3 and 4, that we take the differentiated civil religion as at least a hypothetical norm for modern society and seek to explain the conditions that may block its emergence in the case of such societies as Mexico and Italy.

Then, after a few months, at best only three years, of a public career in which He was hailed by a crowd which proved fickle and had won the adherence of a coterie of men and women who did not fully understand Him, He ran afoul of the leaders of the organized religion of His people, was accused by them of fomenting rebellion against the civil government, that of Rome, and was crucified by the order of the local representative of that government.

Gramsci does not mention that in the Discourses Machiavelli expresses an admiration for the religion of the ancient Romans, a truly «civil religion» relative to which he found Christianity largely impotent politically.

In the face of such a powerful attack from the point of view of modern egalitarian ideology it is a thankless task to defend the hierarchical aspect of Japanese civil religion, and I will not attempt to do so.

You rejected your church because they are filled with intolerance and hate of those who do not follow their dogma but you should further reject religion all together because it has no place in civil modern society.

If such a solution to the civil religion problem does eventually emerge, a solution based on the common acceptance of certain political values rather than a struggle to the death between different religiopolitical ideologies, it will depend on changes in both the church and the socialist left.

«Liberty» is as close as we get to an ethical norm, and that term is deeply ambiguous, depending on whether it is, in John Winthrop's words, freedom to do the just and the good (Christian freedom) or freedom to do what you list (the freedom of natural man).10 While American civil religion remained extremely vague with respect to particular values and virtues, the public theology that fleshed it out and made it convincing to ordinary people used it with more explicitly Christian, particularly Protestant, values.

Among them were pantheism and the positions that human reason is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood and good and evil; that Christian faith contradicts reason; that Christ is a myth; that philosophy must be treated without reference to supernatural revelation; that every man is free to embrace the religion which, guided by the light of reason, he believes to be true; that Protestantism is another form of the Christian religion in which it is possible to be as pleasing to God as in the Catholic Church; that the civil power can determine the limits within which the Catholic Church may exercise authority; that Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have erred in defining matters of faith and morals; that the Church does not have direct or indirect temporal power or the right to invoke force; that in a conflict between Church and State the civil law should prevail; that the civil power has the right to appoint and depose bishops; that the entire direction of public schools in which the youth of Christian states are educated must be by the civil power; that the Church should be separated from the State and the State from the Church; that moral laws do not need divine sanction; that it is permissible to rebel against legitimate princes; that a civil contract may among Christians constitute true marriage; that the Catholic religion should no longer be the religion of the State to the exclusion of all other forms of worship; and «that the Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile himself to and agree with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.»