Interest thus shifts to the conditions that allow and / or encourage
an independent 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.
Not exact matches
In Panama, you're guaranteed social freedom, individual freedom, freedom of
religion... in fact, Freedom House, an
independent organization that issues an annual «Freedom in the World» report, gives Panama high marks for
civil rights, rating it one of the freest nations in Latin America.
But I am arguing
civil religion depends upon conditions
independent of particular individuals and events.
Yet having little in the way of any «theology»
independent of the state, they are not fully
civil religions in Rousseau's meaning of that term.
Rousseau seems to suggest the most fully developed
civil religion relies exclusively on neither the church nor the state but to a significant degree at least counts on
independent vehicles for its support.
Clearly, by calling it «
civil,» he intended it in some sense to be
independent of the church, and, by calling it «
religion» he likewise intended it to be
independent of the ruling regime.
The case of Mexico therefore redirects attention to the United States and how it is a
civil religion developed there, a
civil religion independent of both church and regime.
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.