The first is by treating as sacred the trappings of
civil religion rather than its principles, as in the case of superpatriots, for example.
Not exact matches
This is not to dismiss or marginalize the importance of
civil and political rights such as freedom of expression and
religion, but
rather to adopt an integrated approach recognizing that all internationally recognized human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.
If «morality is a
civil matter
rather than an ecclesiastical one», then why refer to the spiritual /
religion / bible at all in moral matters?
Such a revitalization of biblical
religion in America would find, I believe, an ally
rather than an enemy in the highest aspect of the
civil tradition.
Rather than drawing attention to the distinctiveness of the Judeo - Christian tradition, liberal
civil religion is much more likely to include arguments about basic human rights and common human problems.
The mere fact that this law is applicable also to Jams, Buddhists and Sikhs clearly shows that from the beginning it should have been called
Civil Code
rather than Hindu Code» He adds, that it is not based on any Hindu Scriptures but on «modern concepts and progressive values and is applicable to all citizens irrespective of
religion».
The point is not to be arbitrary about definitions, however, but
rather to reveal the following theoretical issue: All three kinds of ideologies in Table have been called
civil religions, but there are obvious differences among them.
Mainstream
religion scholars viewed King as a
civil rights activist who happened to be a preacher
rather than a creative theologian in his own right.
I would disagree with Marty — I think Senator Hatfield's remarks were not an expression of prophetic
civil religion but
rather a criticism of
civil religion from the standpoint of a vigorous evangelical Protestant witness.
In that influential article Bellah argued «that there actually exists alongside of and
rather clearly differentiated from the churches an elaborate and well institutionalized
civil religion in America.»
Some say there is such a thing but it should be called by another name, «public piety,» for example,
rather than
civil religion.
My initial essay on
civil religion in America opened a debate that has continued to this day.1 Much of that debate has been
rather sterile, focusing more on form than content, definition than substance.
The analysis of modern
civil religion gives evidence of one
rather direct application of Durkheim's thesis — expecting in any society a reasonably close analogue to totemism.
In dealing with the religious dimension of American political life I borrowed the notion of «
civil religion» from Rousseau and showed the extent to which a
rather articulated set of religious beliefs and practices had grown up in the American polity that was independent from though not necessarily hostile to the various church
religions that flourish in America.9 In applying the notion to Italy it becomes important to realize that all five
religions are
civil religions.
It is this
rather special case for which Phillip Hammond wishes to reserve the designation «
civil religion.
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.
On this
rather simple difference hangs a conceptual issue obscuring almost all contemporary analyses of modern - day
civil religion.
Because the mode of that engagement heretofore has been dictated by imperatives from the general culture
rather than Jewish tradition, Judaism has acquired the cast of a
civil religion.
The 17 - year - old, who has been charged with possession of stolen property, says he would
rather be reading about world
religions or the
Civil War.