I have benefited from other efforts to classify
civil religions, especially John A. Coleman, «Civil Religion,» Sociological Analysis, 31 (Summer1970), pp. 67 - 77, and Martin E. Marty, «Two Kinds of Two Kinds of Civil Religion,» in R. E. Richey and D. G. Jones, eds., American Civil Religion (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), although some of their distinctions are not incorporated in my typo
civil religions, especially John A. Coleman, «
Civil Religion,» Sociological Analysis, 31 (Summer1970), pp. 67 - 77, and Martin E. Marty, «Two Kinds of Two Kinds of Civil Religion,» in R. E. Richey and D. G. Jones, eds., American Civil Religion (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), although some of their distinctions are not incorporated in my typo
Civil Religion,» Sociological Analysis, 31 (Summer1970), pp. 67 - 77, and Martin E. Marty, «Two Kinds
of Two Kinds
of Civil Religion,» in R. E. Richey and D. G. Jones, eds., American Civil Religion (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), although some of their distinctions are not incorporated in my typo
Civil Religion,» in R. E. Richey and D. G. Jones, eds., American
Civil Religion (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), although some of their distinctions are not incorporated in my typo
Civil Religion (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), although some
of their distinctions are not incorporated in my
typology.
There is warrant for this broader usage in the origin
of the term itself, in that «
civil religion» is pretty clearly an outgrowth
of the term «
civil theology» that Augustine used to characterize the
religion of pre-Christian Rome.5 That
religion was, in terms
of my
typology, distinctly archaic.