# The social contract and civil religion



## Christoffer (Sep 1, 2011)

Hello

I am trying to understand the necessity of civil religion under socialism. Rousseau for example states the necessity of the governed to confess loyalty and a set of beliefs that correspond to the will of the sovereign.

Why is this necessary? Once you grant omnipotence to the sovereign it does not seem relevant what people believe anymore - they can simply be coerced to comply anyway or just killed. The sovereign has a monopoly on violence. Why would it be in the interest of the state that the governed love the laws?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 1, 2011)

Governments need the governed. If you kill everyone, there's no one left to obey/adore you. In fact, its the _adoration_ part that is the most "godlike" fantasy of the absolutist. As Christians, we'd say this tendency is in perfect harmony with the first temptation, "you shall be as gods." Obviously, the secularist offers a completely different explanation for the basis of the human power-complex. But the goal is prestige. Terror is enjoyed only at significant expense; it can fuel expansion in the early-going, but has a tendency to self-consumption, functioning like a powerful and toxic drug. Detox is seldom successful (when it is attempted), and governments that use it are on the way down, fast or slow.

There's tremendous satisfaction in having one's way. Governmental power is (correctly) viewed as the apotheosis of man-centered organization for the purpose of accomplishing a "will." Sometimes a theorist is honest enough to admit that what's actually being talked about is the "will" of the few, the elite, or the solo ruler. These days the subterfuge (especially in lands which use plebiscite or broad franchise) alleges that the government is the embodiment of the "will of the people." Naturally, the people need as little "schizophrenia" as possible, so as not to be at variance to their own will. In this climate, religion or pseudo-religion (as in: mausoleums of the greats, pageantry, parades of firepower, sacraments and oaths) has as its _telos_ fostering of awe for, and belonging to, the State.

Religion in this case is self-worship. It is an admission by the participants that whatever its expression the will of the government is good. Irreconcilable disagreement leads to the conclusion that one is either a cancer or a pathogen on the body-politic; or the usurpers are on the throne, and thus a revolution is called for.

There's one other theory (that I'm aware of) that understands "religion" as that attempt by the individual or collective mind to exercise controls over the irrational, emotive, or subconscious aspects of personhood. This understanding isn't incompatible with the previous discussion; but it does involve some blending. Marx may have had this view of "religion" in mind when he called religion "the opiate of the masses."

And yet, no regime (or series of regimes) ever exhibited more of the impulse to pageantry in-service-to-the-state than the Russian communists (after a couple nearly-disastrous false-starts); and their example has been followed by nearly all the later communist/socialist nations (Cambodia/Khmer Rouge seems to me to be a notable exception--but here witness the apparent stark contrast: where even civil religion is ruthlessly suppressed, the result is an orgy of unparalleled violence).


----------



## Christoffer (Sep 2, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Governments need the governed. If you kill everyone, there's no one left to obey/adore you. In fact, its the _adoration_ part that is the most "godlike" fantasy of the absolutist. As Christians, we'd say this tendency is in perfect harmony with the first temptation, "you shall be as gods.").



Interesting!

Thanks for your answer


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 2, 2011)

Is there a neccessaty of religion under socialism? It seems to me that socialism, like hyper-capitalism, are just religous parodies of the christian faith anyway. Salvation is located in something other than Christ, like the state or the market of extreme consumerism. Rousseau did not believe in original sin anyway. He beleived that evil came as a result of humans interacting with the eachother, the liberal idea that it is the system who forces people to be bad not bad people being bad.


----------



## Christoffer (Sep 3, 2011)

It seems that a form of religion is necessary under socialism. Under socialism we have an elite that is constantly forcing its will on the governed. Then only threat here is that the governed start reasoning independently and concludes that what the elite is doing is wrong. No government can survive if the governed unites against it. Therefore it is important that the people have a religion that justifies the government no matter what it does.

I think this is what Rev. Buchanan was saying


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 9, 2011)

Christoffer said:


> It seems that a form of religion is necessary under socialism. Under socialism we have an elite that is constantly forcing its will on the governed. Then only threat here is that the governed start reasoning independently and concludes that what the elite is doing is wrong. No government can survive if the governed unites against it. Therefore it is important that the people have a religion that justifies the government no matter what it does.
> 
> I think this is what Rev. Buchanan was saying



I still don't see what the neccessary connection between religion and socialism? Think of secularism, they can be very socialist in nature but regect religion as having any authority in modern thinking. I mean why must they promote any religion when they can just regect it and remain socialist?


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 9, 2011)

jwright82 said:


> I still don't see what the neccessary connection between religion and socialism? Think of secularism, they can be very socialist in nature but regect religion as having any authority in modern thinking. I mean why must they promote any religion when they can just regect it and remain socialist?



Socialism itself is a religion. That's the point. It puts the object of faith somewhere in man or the institutions of men and demands obedience to that view. It even has blasphemy laws, etc.

Even in denying religion, the socialist is religious.


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 9, 2011)

VictorBravo said:


> Socialism itself is a religion. That's the point. It puts the object of faith somewhere in man or the institutions of men and demands obedience to that view. It even has blasphemy laws, etc.
> 
> Even in denying religion, the socialist is religious.



Well I would argue that every point of view is religous but I think here what is being discussed is a formal religion. In which case there seems to be no neccessary connection between that and the state. I agree with you that socialism is itself a religous point of view but I am unsure as to how that realates to a formal religion?


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 9, 2011)

I thought what was being discussed is this thought:



Christoffer said:


> Rousseau for example states the necessity of the governed to confess loyalty and a set of beliefs that correspond to the will of the sovereign.



Socialism demands the same thing as what Rousseau identified: a confession of loyalty to the beliefs of (and in) the state. That is the civil religion of the socialist state. As Bruce pointed out, the formality of the religion is expressed in the pageantry, etc.


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 9, 2011)

Christoffer said:


> I am trying to understand the necessity of civil religion under socialism. Rousseau for example states the necessity of the governed to confess loyalty and a set of beliefs that correspond to the will of the sovereign.



I see now, I mistook civil religion for a more formal religion.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 10, 2011)

I think it's a bit narrow to limit the idea of civil religion or incipient civil religion or "civil spirituality" to "socialism".

Rousseau predates what came to be known as socialism, which is a slippery term that can be looked upon as anything from Communism to having a national health service. 

Most British people wouldn't regard the NHS as "socialist", whereas a lot of Americans would. I agree we could have a better system from a practical point of view.

The most significant immediate manifestation of civil religion post Rousseau, if we discount the French monarchy's relationship to Romanism, was in the French Revolution, and that is not usually called socialism.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 10, 2011)

True enough, Richard. Socialism is too fuzzy a term, and you are right that Americans tend to use it in a pretty broad sense.

I do think the French Revolution is an example of civil religion, as was the Soviet Union. North Korea has a form of state worship as well.

But I think it is more intriguing to look at the subtle forms of "worship" that have crept into our (USA) civil government. Take the Pledge of Allegiance: it is a form of ritual that seeks to promote a particular devotion to the state. I don't say it at public gatherings, and I haven't for a number of years. I try not to be conspicuous about it, but often someone will approach me and ask what my problem is. My response might derail the thread, but the fact I'm questioned indicates its importance in our society.

And even more interesting is the phrase "by the grace of Congress." It is commonly used in court opinions ranging from tax law to draft evasion. It basically reveals a point of view that Congress dispenses unmerited favor upon its subjects. Pretty theological terminology, I think.


----------



## SRoper (Sep 11, 2011)

In the American context if walk around DC you can see the devices of civil religion all around. The Washington Monument is patterned after Egyptian obelisks. The Lincoln Memorial is specifically called a temple and is modeled after the temples in Greece. At the eye of the rotunda in the US Capitol, one can see _the Apotheosis of Washington_ where Washington is raised to the highest heaven. As Richard said, it's not just socialism that leads to civil religion.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 11, 2011)

Political correctness is a particularly subtle/not so subtle form of civic religion/ethics that uses the opinions of the media and political elites disseminated and presented as the only correct way of thinking, to get people to conform.

This is why I used the term "civil (or civic?) spirituality", though there is probably a better expression out there, for this more subtle nudging, bullying and coercion into the ways of the dominant culture. Things can be a lot more subtle than banner waving and political rallies.

Some pc can be relatively innocuous e.g. being encouraged to be nice to disabled people, which the Bible teaches although with a different motive. Then you've got the whole homosexual. This is from a column by Peter Hitchens, brother of Christopher:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ITCHENS-We-tolerance-gays-tyranny-return.html

Even a homosexual atheist historian spoke out on major political panel show here in Britain about "a gay tyranny" having developed in this country.


----------

