Civil Religion; Nationalization of Religion

Suddenly, civil religion becomes hot issues in Indonesia since Bob Hefner published the book of “civil Islam” that analyzes the Islamic condition in Indonesia related to democracy. Hefner, of course, talks about the specific issue of religion in the society, while civic religion talks wider not only one religion but many. Civil here is more about political issue rather than about religion per se. The issue is; how religion or different religions are accommodated by the state and how they interacts each others is very important.
The development of civil religion and its encounter with the particular system in different states which already democratic states arise several understanding that civil religion is like common values which is overcome particular religions. In Indonesian context for example, Pancasila was believed as representation of civil religion. It’s because Pancasila is state ideology, and the most important is universally speaking about the belief in God, without specific referent to specific god in Islam or Christianity.
I see the understanding of Pancasila as civil religion should be scrutinized seriously. The founding father of Indonesia is not compelled Pancasila as civil religion, rather just state ideology. Like other ideology, Pancasila just emphasizes the philosophical view of the nation. Additionally, if people understand Pancasila ideology is as civil religion, how about other ideology? Is it democracy or capitalism is new kind of civil religion.
Questioning and debating the concept
For me civil religion is not easy to be understood because civil religion concept is still ambiguous. Is it civil religion is new religion? If it is a new religion who is the prophet, what is the scripture, what kind of devotion it needed? Civil religion cannot escape from the understanding of the word “civil” and “religion.” if civil religion refers to civil, it means the most important of it is not about the content of god and the holy text, rather the society itself. Religion will be understood in social context, that everyone believes it with different kind of expression.
Furthermore, the definition of civil religion is not the only. Genuinely it came from European and American tradition. As I know, One who consent in the civil religion issue has no similar points or agreement in defining what civil religion is. Two of those philosophers are Jean Jacques Rousseau and Robert Nelly Bellah. Originally the term “civil religion” was Rousseau word. He proposes the civil religion in contrary to religion of man. He says:
“There are two kinds of religion: Religion of man and religion of the citizen. The first is confined to the purely internal cult of the supreme god and the eternal obligation of morality, is the religion of the gospel, the true theism, and natural divine or law. The other is codified in single country, give its it gods, it own tutelary patron; its has its dogma, its rights, and its external cult prescribed by law; which my call as positive Devine right or law.”
It seem civil religion in Rousseau views is like national religion that is the only for all citizen. The supreme law is positive religion, not biblical text. People adoration is not intuitional religion, but state intuitional. Civil religion is part of social contract theories, where all citizens in the name of state should give their right to be maintained by state. He further said: “It god because it unites the devine culture with love of the laws, and making country the object of adoration. It’s a form of theocracy, in which there can be no pontiff save the prince,and pontiff save the magistrates. To die for ones’s country then become martyrdom; violation of laws, impiety.”
Andrew Sank argues that the Rousseau’s concept is like deistic adoration, it exclusively exists just for supporting and legitimizing political power. So the conception is always politics related. Thus, the tendency of civil religion is not just for religion per se, but for political interest. The concept of “civil religion” what Rousseau argues exemplified with ancient people where Babylon civilization, Egypt civilization have their god and religion exclusively and followed by the society in that countries. However, that national religion is just for the inhabitant under the specific role of sates. There is no need to be same for every nation and civilization.
In the other hand, Bellah, who is well-known by his article of civil religion in America, actually accepts the idea of civil religion from Rousseau. For him, civil religion has dogma, that is: The existence of God, the life to come, the reward of virtue and the punishment of vice, and the exclusion of religious intolerance. Further he says that all other religious opinions are outside the cognizance of the state and may be freely held by citizens. Thus, civil religion is to differ religious of common people and legitimized religion which is national religion.
Although Bellah and Rousseau have similar idea, but they came from various cultural backgrounds and different in conclusion what the civil religion is. Roseau lived in Europe in enlighten eras, while Bellah lives in modern America. But they came from the same problem; how to resolve the pluralistic religion in the democratic society which is impossible to identify with such group of religion states should be accompany. Bellah faced problem that there was a common sense in US that Christianity is the national faith, and others that church and synagogue celebrate only the generalized religion of "the American Way of Life. That view was danger for modern democracy in US, because state did not based on religion. America is not theocracy, although majority of citizen are protestant.
Civil religion in Bellah’s sense is supra ethic, where various religions are not need to be problem of the society because it is part of human rights and human freedom. For him, conventional religion which just stress to salvation and love is not enough. People should goes to related law and right who overcome all various people background. He says : “The God of the civil religion is not only rather ‘unitarian,’ he is also on the austere side, much more related to order, law, and right than to salvation and love. Even though he is somewhat deist in cast, he is by no means simply a watchmaker God. He is actively interested and involved in history, with a special concern for America.”
In some extent, civil religion America is to accommodate pluralism which the fact colored long history of America. America faced many problems since its freedom where segregation of people, slavery, and civil war happened. Civil religion historically formed in that time, ancient, where the tension of citizens was dangerous. What Bellah produce is returning back to the historical fact that nothing will be harmonious and strength without unification of word view which is managed by state. But state cannot emphasize in building new common or national religion, whereas accommodate all religion in new spirit of state by establishing new kind of pride as American, especially after American become leader of word after world war II.
I see the basis thought of Rousseau and Bellah is the centrality of human, or specifically society. Bellah seems to take the idea of social sacred from Durkheim where the society which unified by state is the only attempt of the society. Both Rousseau and Bellah idolize democracy as system which will cover the problem of religion in the society. In relation to the states, that there is no other sacred institution beside state because state is aim of society. Conventional religion free still, but the only private. Citizenship is being confined by super ethic which is constituted by states, namely positive law, human right, etc.
State accommodates religion just in such situation, for instance ceremony and oat of official. States interest is back to heart of religion, or even just come to the general meeting point of religion. Devotion to strict doctrine is fallacy, because when theology goes to social context that is various backgrounds will lose the significance. For that way, God in civil religion such as presented by Bellah did not need to refer to such religion, but to the primordial belief to god that all people acknowledge that concept either theist or atheist.
The leader of civil religion is not prophet, but the president, hero, and founding father. Bellah takes example how Abraham Lincoln, president US, become great theologian in sense that he speaks and acts as tolerance one to other difference religion. He never talks as Catholic people, although he was, but speak named as American. Bellah respects to the people who had bright view and moderate from different level of society and to the great experience of everyone who get it.
Actually, the common ground of the states ideology should come from the primordial belief of the people. Bellah in his article did not talk much about the basic belief of state or common ground used by society. He principally, however, just refers to the idea of social contract. In the other hand Hannah Arendt, as quotes by Sank refer to the idea pre-religion. I don’t know exactly does bellah have an idea refer to the pre-religions or no.
Return to the pre-religion will be an attempt to break the boundary of every religion. Sank argues civil religion should not hostile conventional but rather seep to all religion and break the loyalty to the conventional doctrine and escape to new solidarity created by the openness of mind in the current political situation. What sank argue seem to build new kind of theological doctrine which capable to civil religion to be based of belief of society.
Problem of escaping identity
Although civil religion seem clearly suitable for people in democratic society and closely appropriate to the new order of word it for me is to simplified the problem. Even, civil religion into some extent can diminish such civilization or ancient heritage of some people because of it freely ruined defense one in the social context. Religion in my mind is not only ritual, but also social critics toward hegemony. Unification and devotion of one to a new kind of ideology or belief can produce lack of critic traditions within generation. The function of conventional religion also will be un-useful to ask social problem because of lack of capacity.
Religion for colored men, as Malcom X has been struggled, was kind of religious protest toward dominant system which is legitimized by state. Religion always refers to historical situation where it was established and the ironic situation where devotee faced difficulties in the life.
I see, although Rousseau proposed the idea of civil religion for the first time, he also aware that it also have big problem for the society if it cannot be elaborated in right ways. he says:
“In the other hand, it is bad in that, being founded on lies and error, it deceives men, make them credulous and superstitious, and drowns the true cult of the divinity in empty ceremonial. It is become bad if become tyrannous and exclusive, and make a people bloodthirsty and intolerant, so that it breaths fire and slaughter, and regard as sacred act the killing of every one who doesnot believe in its gods. The place is to place such a people in a natural state of war with all others, so that is security is deeply endangered.”
Civil religion still has bad impact if it leads to strict obedience without critic manner. Bellah also talks about Vietnam War whose it danger for humankind because can diminish and kill many people. If civil religion understood by narrow minded will potent to bring destruction of human. Religious values will not be important thing again if it just an additional stuff of the state.
Last remark
Civil religion as political conception probably is a kind of political conception. It is the concept which is part of the democracy and democracy context. Although religion or exactly religious values was accommodated by civil religion concept, but the content was less because more focus how to maintenance citizen as whole and part of the social system.
Pancasila as ideology probably in some extent is civil religion, because there is verses who talks that belief to god is very essential for Indonesia people. Additionally, almost all states ceremony also use religious ritual as part of it. However, pancasila is just pancasila. It cannot changes conventional religion as well.