RESURRECTING A TRUE AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION

Downplaying the role of organized religion in the form of Southern Evangelical Christianity will facilitate the Republican Party’s climb back to relevance. However, success in this endeavor will depend solely upon the Party’s ability to reunite its base around conservative principles. Learning from the eight years of the Bush administration is essential in generating the necessary level of unification. Regardless of one’s beliefs about the successes and /or failures of that administration, it is still possible to see that it was deeply effective in uniting the Southern Evangelical base for support. While there may be debate as to whether Bush was the dog that wagged the tail or vice versa, it is easy to see how religion can drive political support for a candidate or an elected official. However, and perhaps more importantly, it is also necessary to realize that limiting support to such a divisive and regional contingency is hardly an effective strategy for a party that intends to have a national reach.

Having distanced itself from said policies however, the Republican Party must find a way to generate equal or greater support to be successful in bringing conservatives to the forefront of the Party. To accomplish this objective, it may be necessary to examine how our Founding Fathers would have approached such a public relations dilemma.

Irregardless of the outcome of the debate over whether this is a Christian nation or simply a nation founded on Christian principles, it is clear that our Founders intended to establish a government that embraced aspects of religion. While they intended them to be subtle and barely noticed, they were certainly present in many aspects of our founding. Additionally, they viewed religion as an effective tool for control and manipulation from a practical standpoint. While they worked diligently to keep religion out of the realm of government directly, they repeatedly made biblical references and drew upon truisms that paralleled Christian dogma. While their religious views were certainly not that of contemporary or even 19^th century Christians, they were extremely versed in religious doctrine as well as the intellectual works of the Age of Enlightenment. Drawing upon parallels from each source was commonplace and is reflected throughout our founding documents.

The Founders were set on high ideals. They weren’t simply trying to create a newer version of that which had already been tried and failed. They envisioned themselves to be creators of a new nation which would set the standard for all that followed. They intended to form a nation that would send a clear message to the rest of the world, that this was a new nation founded on the notion that the ultimate power was vested in the people. This was unheard of and unimaginable at that time. It was to be a nation not guided by tyrants or priests, but simply by the people. However, in the absence of religion serving as a controlling force in government; where would this new nation turn for its unifying and moral motivations? All of their predecessors had used religion to serve these ends. Remembering that these were well-read men of the Enlightenment; they were well versed in the perils of pagan religious culture and the downfall of the Roman church. After much deliberation and much debate, they balanced the interests in favor of creating a nation that could exist on its own absent any religious affiliation. In the end, they turned to a uniquely American source; one that was just beginning to come to life; and one that continues to grow with each generation of Americans just as the Christian faith has grown and been added to the teachings of Judaism. It is one that is undoubtedly influenced by everything from paganism to Christianity. Many of our Founders Deist beliefs and tendencies are well reflected in this new creation as well. Emerging from the blending of historical and religious references was a sociological construct known as the American Civil Religion.

While they were likely unaware of the full impact of this driving force, it is likely that they understood its power even in its infant form. While the American Civil Religion has evolved immensely over the course of the last 200 years, it was already firmly entrenched by the time our Constitution was ratified. It began in colonial times and matured through the years of the Revolution. By the time of the Constitutional Convention it was all around the Founders. While the majority of that which is attributed to the American Civil Religion was not yet established, its core was firmly in place. At the heart of the ACR is an unwavering and unyielding American Spirit. It is what motivated those statesmen to create a nation unlike any the world had seen; it was that spirit that drove American colonies to unite in revolution; and it was that spirit that brought the puritans and pilgrims to this new nation and carried them through their hardships. Long before there was a United States of America…there was an American spirit. It is that spirit that is at the center of the True American Civil Religion.

ORIGINS OF THE OLD AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION

The term American Civil Religion was originally made famous by Robert Bellah in the 1970’s. Bellah adapted traditional sociological and historical ideas on “civil religion” using works of many from Alexis de Tocqueville to Jean-Jacques Rousseau and applied them in an American context. The “American Civil Religion” is what emerged from this blending of historical and religious influences and it generated a great deal of commentary as it came on to the scene.[1] The Bellah version of the American Civil Religion is one that has been debated and criticized for some time. In fact, many of those who recognize the existence of the American Civil Religion are skeptical as to its usefulness and many more fear its powers in our political process. Critics from the right and left of the political spectrum have attacked Bellah’s work. Most have done so not from an academic standpoint but simply from the image that it creates. Whether it seen as a theory, a myth, or even an overanalyzed and over glorified comparison to Christianity without the institution; it has nonetheless been deliberated on by many. Part of the quandary that is the American Civil Religion as Bellah described it is that it resonates with many Americans even if they disagree with its impact or its usefulness.[2]

Bellah’s version of the ACR has generated a great deal of skepticism and concern for both the practicality of its application and the extent to which it permeates. Accordingly, many alternate viewpoints have emerged. However, before attempting to address criticisms, analytical opinions, or grievances that others have had with his version of the ACR as to its origin and purpose, we will simply address what the American Civil Religion is in its truest and most simple forms to demonstrate its prevalence in our society.[3]

AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION

One of the reasons that religion has served as such an iatrical part of nation-building is that it has the unique ability to unite. It brings believers closer to one another in a common bond and a shared relationship with “God.” While avoiding allegiances to any specific Gods, our Founding Fathers firmly entrenched an indelible “God” image of in nearly every aspect of the government they were creating. The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” When Americans say the Pledge of Allegiance, they recite that we are “One Nation Under God, Indivisible.” Our money states “In God we Trust.” The Deist roots of many of our Founders obviously facilitated the use of this universal God Figure as it was directly reflective of traditional characterizations of Deism. This “God” was to be a universal God – one that could appeal to all religions. The Founders wanted to unite Americans around their government, not their religious affiliations so they turned to a universal source and drew upon its unifying ability. They needed allusions to religion, but ultimately they wanted Americans to bow at the altar of a free and democratic government, not at those of organized religion.

So, what can be characterized as the altars of the American Civil Religion? While there are no structures specifically referred to as such, there are many that could serve in such a role. Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell that used to ring there, are two that thousands pay tribute to each year in Philadelphia. Our nation’s capital is home to a great deal of similar attractions of national importance. The most apparent of these may include the White House or the Capitol Building. These structures have been used as the centerpiece of many of the great ceremonies and celebrations of the ACR. Ceremonially speaking, our newly elected presidents traditionally swear an oath, to God, in the shadows of our Capitol every four years. Hundreds of thousands line the streets to witness the transition of power and the inauguration of our new leader. Then there is a grand parade as the new president makes his way to his new home – the White House. Both of the structures used scream symbolism. The pure nature of the color choice of our chief executive’s home and the fact that the home of our nation’s legislative body is known as Capitol Hill obviously parallels the Winthropian idea of “a Shining City Upon a Hill.”[4] While these two great structures are clearly cornerstones of the physical manifestations of the ACR, they were not created solely for the purpose of reverence or reflection. However, there are many that were erected entirely with that objective in mind.

We have paid tribute to our great leaders and our fallen soldiers with great monuments to their legacies. There are shrines to Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson that would rival any traditional religious structures. These public displays are not confined just to the capital city either. Perhaps the greatest of all these tributes is the creation that is Mt. Rushmore, which immortalized Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson in the side of a mountain. While these monuments inspire great national pride and remembrance, it is our nation’s symbols that are the bedrock of The American Civil Religion. Lady Liberty and all that she represents should not be overlooked either.

Any discussion of symbolism and its use with the ACR must begin and end with our nation’s flag. The stars and stripes are the embodiment of the unifying effect that the Founders intended. With the original 13 colonies and the 50 states represented under one common flag, this is the center point of national pride and the ACR, but it does not stand alone. There are many symbols that evoke a sense of Americanism or national pride. Some of these may include the Bald Eagle, the Presidential Seal, the Scales of Justice, or even Uncle Sam. These symbols reflect the truest ideas of what it is to be American.

While symbols, monuments, and altars are all important aspects of the ACR, the spirit behind it is what makes it useful as a unifying force. Some have simply referred to this spirit as American pride or Americanism. It is reflected in notions like the American dream and manifest destiny. Some even argue that it reaches a level of passion that it takes on a quasi-religious fervor. While it is not a religion in a conventional sense, the guidance and the unifying force that it presents may give it a close relation. It should not be thought of as an alternative to religion for citizens of this nation, it should simply be thought of as a supplement to the government of this nation since its creation required actual religion to be absent at all levels. In fact the ACR may have been the driving forced that allowed religious freedom to survive throughout our nation’s history. It provided at least a glimpse of higher guidance or purpose that prevented actual religion from seeping into the fold. Historian Robert Mailer once said “In America, the country was the religion. And all the religions of the land were fed from that first religion.” The ACR is purely a result of subconscious and conscious feelings, emotions, and commonalities that unite Americans whether they realize them or not.

There are some that take the religious nature of the ACR a step further. They draw specific parallels to Christian dogma. This level of structure and organization was obviously not intended by the Founders, but it is worth mentioning to illustrate the wide range of opinions on what in fact makes up the ACR. It has been articulated that the center of the ACR is a version of the Christian Trinity, with Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson assuming the traditional roles. Washington was the “Father” figure as our nation’s first president. Jefferson is the “Spirit” as the creator of the Declaration of Independence which paved the way for the creation of an American nation. And lastly, Lincoln has been associated with the resurrected “Son” figure. His place as the leader of the nation at the time of the Civil War and his eventual assassination linked him to the effort of those who gave their lives so that the nation could be reborn causing many to place him in this role as the resurrected son.[5] Historian, Robert Linder supported such Christian parallels and summarized the wide range of such beliefs with the following:

“The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and later, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address became the sacred scriptures of the new public faith. Just as the colonists saw their own church covenants as vehicles of God’s participation in history, so these public documents became the covenants which bound the people of the nation together in a political and religious union…A leadership imaginary developed that paralleled the biblical account of Israel and led to the Founding Fathers mythology…Before long Washington had become the Moses-liberator figure, Jefferson the prophet.”[6]

In addition to the Trinity figures, there have also been attempts to formulate a list of saints and prophets. Some that could be included among these are: saints – Betsy Ross and Francis Scott Key; and prophets – Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, Benjamin Franklin, and Martin Luther King Jr. While recognition of these parallel roles to Christian dogma is important for seeing the full picture of the ACR, their importance is nominal to the importance or effectiveness of it as a unifying tool.

While directly using any reference to these parallels is not politically viable, recognizing and appreciating the value of the ACR is of fundamental importance.

It is not important or even necessary to embrace any of these notions as long as there is an acknowledgement that they are relevant and present in the American conscience. They do not have to be revered in the manner which Christian or any other religion’s deities are, they simply have to be acknowledged for the visceral feeling that they create; even if only symbolically. What is important and is fundamental to the Republican message is the importance of the scripture of the ACR. Three documents form the basis for all that is America and all that is the ACR.

The first is the Declaration of Independence. It was a message to the world that we not only were seeking our independence, but that we were doing it in a manner that was to be a guide for all nations seeking to find true liberty in the years to come. It was a declaration that there was a Creator – a God- but that it was only fundamental in declaring that the rights of men are defined by their relationship to their Creator and to one another; not by a government or religious institution. This made a significant step in removing religious affiliations from the equation and it is fundamental to the liberty that our Founders sought. If the Pledge of Allegiance – which has been compared to the Christian Profession of Faith – describes and reaffirms our collective unity under the ACR then the Declaration was the explanation of what that faith was.

The second is the Constitution of the United States. It is the doctrine; it is the bible; it is the all-inclusive document that defines what it is to be American. Careful in its drafting, the Founders created a document that would aim to balance the rights of men with need for a unified federal government. It was careful to not infringe upon the rights of men or the rights of states to govern, but was clear in the message that it was creating a nation rather than an association of states or simply a confederation. The Founders had learned how such attempts would lead to eventual failure as they had with the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution, and the reverence that should be afforded it, is the core of the ACR and should be the focus of Republican attention. Conservatives believe in the importance of this founding document because it preserves the true intent of those who created this nation. At times the Republican Party has championed this message but far too often they have let policies and issues detract them from this central focus. This is where the Republicans need to call home.

The last is the Bill of Rights. While technically part of the Constitution, it deserves special reverence because of the rights and freedoms which it aims to protect. It is particularly important for the standard that it set for all nations of the world as well. Much deliberated and much debated upon, this series of Amendments emerged in an antithetical role to what Christians would call their Ten Commandments. In doing so, it may actually exemplify the notion that this is a nation founded with ACR principles in mind rather than a Christian form. For this reason it has its most profound importance. The Ten Commandments pronounces the Ten things that Christians must not do, whereas the Bill of Rights proclaims the Ten things that Americans are guaranteed under our new nation – as inalienable. These were not granted by the nation. They were inherent upon creation. These were the universal rights; the promises that this new nation was making to the people it wished to serve. And for this reason alone, it is profoundly important to any discussion of the ACR or life in America as we know it.

In addition to these foundational documents, much can be learned about the ACR from its use by our nation’s presidents over the years. Beginning with the first administration, the American Presidency has been the focal point of the ACR as it has evolved throughout generations. Robert Bellah noted that each of the first three presidents set the tone for how their successors would refer to religion in the public forum. He believed that they derived many of their religious references from Christianity but that they were particularly selective in which they chose. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson all spoke of “God” but never mentioned Jesus. Bellah believed that this was a conscious choice and facilitated creating an impression of God in American life as being about order, laws, and right rather than love and salvation.

Bellah also believed that the idea of an American Civil Religion was not on the minds of our nation’s founders as they were creating our new government. It was simply a creation that arose as a byproduct of their actions. This assertion should not be ignored or completely discounted; but it may be more accurate to assume that the Founders did intend to create a government that drew upon religion and its most desirable qualities without going as far as believing that they were creating a “religious” entity. While both views don’t completely contradict one another, the latter may be more reflective of the Founders’ collective view on religion and its importance in society. It may also be worth noting that the absence of Jesus from public speeches by the early American presidents may simply be a result of their personal beliefs on religion generally. It is well documented that both Jefferson and Washington were likely Deists and were likely non-believers in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

That being said, the concept of an American Civil Religion in any form may have begun long before our first president took office. Many believe that the origin of “American Excpetionalism” has its roots at a much earlier time. If those who believe in American “arrogance” sight an earlier date, perhaps there is an earlier origin of national pride to call upon as well. This early American spirit, which some characterize in a negative light, was encapsulated in a speech given by John Winthrop as he and his community embarked upon a new voyage into the land that came to be the United States. In a sermon to the Massachusetts Bay colony in 1630 he stated,

“For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”[7]

With those words he described the new nation they were attempting to create in poetic and visionary terms that have been echoed throughout our nation’s history. President John F. Kennedy referenced Winthrop in his first inaugural address stating:

“But I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arabella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier…Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us – and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill – constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.”[8]

A generation later saw President Reagan reflecting upon his presidency in its final hours being drawn to that early American display of “exceptionalism” as well.

“The past few days when I’ve been at that window upstairs, I’ve thought a bit of the ‘shining city upon a hill.’ The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined…I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it and see it still.”[9]

Winthrop has been mentioned countless numbers of times by American presidents throughout our nation’s history. The profound ideas that sermon articulated resonate with Americans and their feelings toward this nation. Our earliest statesmen were committed to the cause of creating a nation that could serve as a model for the world to follow. They wanted to create a nation that would be the embodiment of freedom and liberty. Our first president shared in this spirit and recognized the responsibility that Americans were taking on. In his first Inaugural Address he stated,

“That Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every defect…The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment intrusted to the hands of the American people.”[10]

ORIGINS OF THIS UNITING INFLUENCE

While Robert Bellah is credited with coining the phrase American Civil Religion, he was not the first to speak in general terms about such an entity. Civil Religion was discussed and debated for generations in the sociological, historical, and religious communities; it was simply Bellah who was able to encapsulate an American construct of the idea. The American version was even discussed before him by Historians like Yehoshua Arieli, Daniel Boorstin, and Ralph Gabriel who assessed the religious dimension of ‘nationalism’, the ‘American creed’, ‘cultural religion’, and the democratic faith.’ Sociologist Seymour Lispet said Americanism and the American creed rose to quasi religious fervor because of the existence of a distinct set of American values. [11]

While many others attempted to accomplish this feat, Bellah was uniquely successful and generated a tremendous amount of controversy with his efforts in academia and with the general public. Much of the controversy in the public sphere emerged as a result of the negative aspects of Bellah’s ACR. It was characterized as dangerous and divisive and many believed that if such a civil religion existed it did so only to alienate non-believers. This alienation coupled with a negative perception of Excpetionalism, made the ACR a negative rather than a positive force. Two sociologists’ views on civil religion may help to illustrate the fears that many had for the ACR.[12]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a great deal to say about Civil Religion as well. He was of the belief that civil religion consisted of a generally accepted set of social norms or standards that citizens must abide by. If the citizen chose not to follow them, then they could not be a “good” citizen or a “faithful subject.” These were distinct from religious dogma. They were simply societal norms or mores.[13] In reference to specific dogmatic creations he was very clear as well.

“The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary. The existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws: these are its positive dogmas. Its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance, which is a part of the cults we have rejected.”[14]

“Now that there is and can be no longer an exclusive national religion, tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. But whoever dares to say: Outside the Church is no salvation, ought to be driven from the State, unless the State is the Church, and the prince the pontiff. Such a dogma is good only in a theocratic government; in any other, it is fatal. The reason for which Henry IV is said to have embraced the Roman religion ought to make every honest man leave it, and still more any prince who knows how to reason.”[15]

Bellah referenced Rousseau in his formulation of the ACR and characterized his view of civil religion as “a sensible thing for leaders to create or encourage.” Contrastingly, he also drew upon the works of Emile Durkheim who Bellah characterized as seeing civil religion as “an emergent property of social life itself.” While skeptical of both beliefs, Bellah went on to reference Durkheim’s theories of the creation of civil religion. He characterizes Durkheim as believing that civil religion arises out of unity rather than actual religion. It is essentially a chicken or egg scenario. Durkheim’s approach lends itself to the belief that religion emerges out of social integration rather than social integration emerging as a result of religion. Hence, religion emerges as an outward representation of this unity. While some of this message is lost in discussion of classical religion and the origins of civil religion altogether, it is of little importance to a discussion of a new concept of an American Civil Religion as it should be viewed in an entirely different light.[16]

TRUE AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION

This new version of ACR would draw simply upon Durkheim’s notion of how civil religions emerge in the first place. While an opposing view would lend itself to the belief that an ACR would only lead to alienation and divisiveness, it may be more accurate to describe the American version as having much more humble and noble origins. If the American Civil Religion emerged as a result of natural integration rather than as a tool to force integration, the natural order would be inclusive rather than divisive. This positive view of American Civil Religion was simply not shared by Bellah and many of his critics.[17] The new or true American Civil Religion should be thought of in a context more similar to what the Supreme Court has described as a product of rote repetition rather than compulsory participation. In the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 US 1(2004), Justice O’Connor concurring in the opinion referenced her analysis of the use of the word “God” in the dicta of her supplemental opinion stating,

“I believe that government can, in a discrete category of cases, acknowledge or refer to the divine without offending the Constitution. This category of “ceremonial deism” most clearly encompasses such things as the national motto (“In God We Trust”), religious references in traditional patriotic songs such as the Star-Spangled Banner, and the words with which the Marshal of this Court opens each of its sessions (“God save the United States and this honorable Court”). See Allegheny, 492 U.S., at 630 (opinion of O’Connor, J.). These references are not minor trespasses upon the Establishment Clause to which I turn a blind eye. Instead, their history, character, and context prevent them from being constitutional violations at all.”[18]

Presenting an argument that attempts to advocate the use and exoneration of the American Civil Religion is admittedly controversial and will likely generate much opposition. Critics will undoubtedly focus their attention on previous sociological debates concerning this issue and will lead them to believe the ACR is a divisive and exclusive concept that aims to alienate rather than to include. They will speak in terms of those within the ACR and those on the outside; in terms of believers and non-believers. However, this attempt to call upon the ACR for motivation and unification of Americans is not attended to promote either of those unfavorable qualities. Simply stating that ill effects are not intended is a rather empty promise; however, a closer look at what is being advocated demonstrates how claims of that sort are simply unfounded in a True ACR.

The TRUE American Civil Religion should encapsulate all that is purely American. It should be characterized as simply an effort to unite Americans around all of those entities and similarities which have made this nation so uniquely historic and exceptional. Those who believe that the ACR is a divisive tool rather than a uniting force should realize that the TRUE ACR champions all that is American. This includes diversity. This includes the old adage that this nation was and always will be a “melting pot” for all races and nationalities of immigrants. This includes acceptance of our cultural differences because in those differences we have formed an American culture which is absolutely distinct from any that exists elsewhere. The TRUE ACR is one that appreciates the differences and dissimilarities that exist between all Americans but focuses on their commonalities and similarities rather than taking a negative approach and focusing on that which divides us.

Some will argue that this is merely an outgrowth of “American Exceptionalism” and argue that such a movement or effort will have a negative influence with its impact and perception in a global community. As for those “scholars;” we will acknowledge their point of view and remind them that this great nation is what has allowed them the freedom to share it; and we will simply accept what they have to say and move forward all the same. While the United States must recognize its relationship to a global community, it is far more important to recognize its responsibility to Americans. This does not mean that the US should take an isolationist posture. It simply means that creating a new generation of American apologists is not simply an option. As a nation, we are not without flaws. As a citizenry, we are not without arrogance, contempt, and resentment. However, as a nation we should be proud of what our country stands for and the role it has played in the global community. While our detractors may only focus on our missteps, we should focus our attention on our successes; our compassion; our charity; and our continued pursuit of liberty for all God’s children. It is without question that those who believe that the United States should take a more humble and reverent approach to self perception will be highly critical of this rhetoric. For those citizens of that belief we must offer our support and accept them as our brothers, but we must not let their ill feelings toward this great nation detract us from the ultimate realization and celebration of our nation’s greatness. American pride should be more than a bumper sticker or theory whispered for fear of being heard. It should be promoted and felt within the hearts of all Americans without guilt or apology.

The idea of American exceptionalism arose from the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville who believed that the new nation that our Founders created was like no other the world had ever seen. It was a nation of immigrants who united to form the world’s first modern democracy. He saw this as quite a feat. He referred to the new nation and the spirit that drove it as “exceptional.” While he used the term in his depiction of a young America, it wasn’t made famous until a much later time and in a very different context.[19]

Those who have followed with the use of the term American Exceptionalism have taken a slightly more negative tone with its use. They believe that this spirit or attitude casts Americans in a negative light. Believing that this mindset began with Winthrop and his sermon in Massachusetts Bay, they believe the ACR and the commonly shared beliefs of Americans are a negative force. Much of this sentiment is what has caused the ACR to be seen in such an unfavorable light. For the most part, this criticism emerged in the post world war II era and in the Cold War years. During each of these times American pride was particularly high and some were of the belief that such fervor takes on an arrogant tone. Actions of the Bush administration have caused many who share in this ideology to begin throwing the term around again in recent years. While these concerns are genuine, they should not be mistaken for truisms. Those who are of this negative mindset are also those who believe that our nation must apologize for all that it has been and all that it has stood for in the last 200 years. For those misguided individuals, we must simply remind them what it feels like to be proud of something rather than insecure about the perception that pride may create.

In formulating his version of the ACR, Robert Bellah was of the belief that the Founders would not have been mindful of such a creation. He extended this naivety to all with the exception of Thomas Paine who he believed would have certainly advocated such a framework.[20] In Paine’s book, Common Sense he refers to his vision of America in stating,

“… have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months.”[21]

In the same spirit and optimism that Paine conveys, a True American Civil Religion would embrace the triumphs of our founders. It would celebrate America’s legacy. It would be proud to be called exceptionalist in the interest of promoting nationalism and generating a common sense of pride for all Americans. While nationalism often invokes images of the German form that led to WWII, it doesn’t have to be seen in such a negative light. Americans can be united in their national pride and such unity can be used as a defense against increasing diversity dividing us from within. Removing actual religion from the political conversation as our Founders intended will do wonders for creating a more open and accepting culture. The focus must be on the Constitution not religious dogma or beliefs. What better place to unite a nation than around a document that gives us the freedom to do so.

The Republican Party needs a unifying and motivating force; a spirit to support its philosophies. It has tried rallying around organized religion and has failed miserably in the effort. It must now turn to the uniting force that is the True American Civil Religion. How can the ACR aid the party in this objective? If the Republican Party is truly the party of conservatives, then it is fundamental for the Party to return to its roots; and at the heart of that notion is embracing the Constitution as our guiding light. Recent attempts at protecting and rallying around the Constitution have come only in the form of protecting certain issues or policies that over time the Republican Party has called its own – abortion, gay rights, separation of church and state. While these are all important issues – they are hardly the basis of a platform for resurrecting the Party to prominence. They are issues and unfortunately, they are the issues with which the Party has become defined. It is time to once again be a Party that is about fundamental beliefs and core values not divisive issues and policies.

The notion of adopting and embracing the True American Civil Religion by the Party is not a talking point or a subject of a stump speech; it is simply embracing the things that make this nation great and focusing on the most fundamental ideals of our Founders. First and foremost on their mind in creating the United States was to form a federal government that would UNITE citizens from the several states under one common government. We were a nation of colonies. This seems like an unusual notion in contemporary American society, but for the Founders it was a daunting task.

That being said, it is not contended that the Republican Party has quite the monumental the task ahead of it. The groundwork for this movement has already been laid. The Founders, in all their infinite wisdom, already began this process by never loosing focus of the need to UNITE. Republicans need not wear the badges of this movement upon their lapels or cast great posters upon the wall as they champion this message. The banners are already there; when Republicans give speeches and make appearances, the American Flag is proudly flying behind them. They must simply remember that the cause that they are supporting is that which is symbolized by our nation’s flag. It is the American Spirit.

So how does the Party put these core values to work in the context of the ACR? They must use the rationale that the Founders used in creating this great nation. They have given us the tools; we must simply choose to apply them. Americans are united under one common principle – they are American. As this nation becomes increasingly diverse, it will become even more profoundly important that the Republican Party become the party that is the protector of the American way and American values. When people stand for the Star Spangled Banner at ballgames and they see the Flag waving in the outfield, they are all uniquely united even if for that moment. When the nation has faced times of crisis like those that followed in the days after the attacks of 911, they were united as Americans. The great national pride that is generated in those moments of tragedy is precisely what the Republican Party needs to embrace in times of triumph as well. People want to be proud of their nation and they want to be proud of their government; they want to be reminded of the greatness of those Americans who came before them; and what better way to generate this pride than to remind them of the bonds that uniquely unite them? A True American Civil Religion encapsulates everything that makes us uniquely American. President Reagan understood the power of the ACR. In his First Inaugural Address he stated,

Standing here, one faces a magnificent vista, opening up on this city’s special beauty and history. At the end of this open mall are those shrines to the giants on whose shoulders we stand. Directly in front of me, the monument to a monumental man. George Washington, father of our country. A man of humility who came to greatness reluctantly. He led America out of revolutionary victory into infant nationhood. Off to one side, the stately memorial to Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence flames with his eloquence. And then beyond the Reflecting Pool, the dignified columns of the Lincoln Memorial. Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln.

There will be many that will criticize such a movement as simply “rallying around the flag.” This has to be much more than that. It must be coupled with a renewed commitment by the Party to focus on individual liberties, state’s rights, smaller federal government, and a commitment to conservative values. The Party cannot go half the way on this. They cannot champion the cause of protecting the Constitution but be willing to ignore it when it is expedient to do so. Because to do so would be to trample on the intent of the Founders and it would do little to advance the notion of uniting Americans around an American Civil Religion or any entity for that matter. The Party must proceed with caution in regards to their religious evangelical base; and while protecting their liberties and interests, they must not lose sight that the Founders intended this to be a Nation Under God, not a nation under religion. There should be no mistaking the order of this allegiance, it should be to God then country, but in no way, shape, or form did the Founders intend to choose that God for our citizens.

In a time of increasing cultural and religious diversity; and an increasing number of those Americans who consider themselves to be “god-fearing” but not religious, what better time for the Republican Party to be the party that is open minded; and the party that can have deeply religious roots but also pay homage to the greatness of this nation and the principles it represents. At the end of the day, the Founding Fathers believed, Deists or not, in the importance of moral guidance that stemmed from a commitment to self improvement and an individualized morally principled framework. What could be more important to uniting both religious and non-religious Americans under one common goal than a party that aims to protect the best interests of both groups? If the party of Christians truly follows the Christian way of life, they should be just the party to make this gesture to their fellow Americans. Why can’t the party of Christians be the party that embraces those from every walk of life and appreciates the uniting force of religion in any form? If this is the Party that is committed to protecting the American way of life and preserving its founding documents, is there any cause that could be more important?

So yes, rally around the flag, sing “The Star Spangled Banner” and “God Bless America,” and say to hell with those who will call this American Exceptionalism. Revere the great Americans that paved the way for our freedoms and protect the documents that created this great nation. Unite Americans around the notion of what it means to be American. Remind them in times of triumph and console them in times of peril with the idea that this nation will persevere and will continue to stand for the highest ideals of liberty and freedom for all of its citizens. Remind them that this nation is that “City upon a Hill” for the world to see. It is time for the Republican Party to remember the greatness of this nation and to remind Americans from all walks of life how to preserve those liberties and that greatness; to bring Americans together around things that unite them rather than focusing on that which divides them; to remind them of the American Spirit which has paved the way for this nation’s successes; to restore this nation to a place where all its citizens can openly rejoice that they are Proud to be an American; that is the power of the True American Civil Religion.

---

[1] Bellah, Robert. “Civil Religion in America.” Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. “Religion in America.” Winter 1967, Vol. 96, No. 1, pp. 1-21.

[2] Bellah, Robert

[3] Bellah, Robert

[4] Winthrop, John. “Models of Christian Charity.” Sermon to Massachusetts Bay Colony.

[5]Bellah, Robert. “Civil Religion in America.” Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. “Religion in America.” Winter 1967, Vol. 96, No. 1, pp. 1-21. see; Robert Lowell, “On the Gettysburg Address.” pp. 88-89.

[6] Pierard, Richard, and Robert Linder. Civil Religion and the Presidency. Academie Books. Grand Rapids. 1987.

[7] Winthrop, John. “Models of Christian Charity.” Sermon to Massachusetts Bay Colony.

[8] Kennedy, John F. Speech to a “‘Joint Convention of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’”. January 9, 1961.

[9] Reagan, Ronald. “Farewell Speech to the Nation”. January 11, 1989.

[10] George Washington. 1^st Inaugural Address. April 30, 1989.

[11] Cristi, Marcela. From Civil to Political Religion: The Intersection of Culture, Religion and Politics. University Press. 2001

[12] P. L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann. “Secularization and Pluralism.” Yearbook for the Sociology of Religion. 1966, pp. 73-85, refer to “sacred comprehensive meanings for everyday life.” See also; Bellah, Robert and Phillip E. Hammond. Varieties of Civil Religion. Harper Rowe. NY, 1980.

[13] Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract: or Principles of Political Right. 1762. Constitution.org. Retrieved May 1, 2009.

[14] Rousseau, Jean-Jacques.

[15] Rousseau, Jean-Jacques.

[16] Durkheim, Emile. Elementary Forms of Religious Life trans. Joseph Swain New York: Collier, 1961 pp. 62 and 432

[17] Varieties of Civil Religion..

[18] Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. 542 U.S. 1 (2004) 328 F.3d 466, reversed.

[19] De Tocqueville, Alexis. De la démocratie en Amérique (Democracy in America). Penguin Classics. 1835.

[20] Varieties of Civil Religion..

[21] Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. January 10, 1776. (Published Anonymously: “Written by an Englishman.”)