Civil Religion

http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2007/09/fifty-years-of-in-god-we-trust.php

Heres a link related to what I was discussing before regarding attempts to establish a Christian nation. I think this article brings us close to a hair the courts split when examining this issue and which I think is appropriate. This is the issue of "Civil Religion." One of the reasons Mr. Newdow's suits have failed in the past is that even the liberal 9th circuit court feels that there is a place for a non denominational God in the daily actions of governance. Basically the God that is referred to on the money and appealed to at the beginning of each legislative session is not the Christian God but a generic diety that has agency to which we can appeal. Of course the theological properties of this diety are not laid out by the court. Is it monotheistic? Gendered or genderless? Beneveolent, omnecient, omnipotent, the Creator? Some of these would conflict with the conceptions held by people in society, and even a nonspecific diety would conflict with most theologies. I think. however, that the courts point is that the government may appeal to God as long as it is not specfic about which God it is appealing to, and this is the way most of the courts have been deciding cases where issues of government endorcement of religion comes up. I refer to a case which I believe was in North Carolina where a Wiccan priestess was denied the opportunity to lead the traditional prayer before the local legislative session.

All of these alternatives are of course offensive to Atheists who believe there is no diety regardless of its theological parameters. (Which is diferent from but inclusive of not believing in God.) Mr. Newdow would rightly argue that all of the above misses the whole point of his suit. That the government is more than prevented from establishing a specific religion as the endorced faith of the state, it is prohibited from endorcing the very idea of religion. The article indicates that this conclusion can be drawn from language in the constitution stating that there shall be no religious test to hold ofice and that individuals of any religion or no religion at all can serve in the government. Its a strech but I may be making the argument into a straw man. I admit I have not read any of the court documents.

Personally I think the idea of a civil religion is appealing, but in practice every extremist group or religious nut with an agenda will use it as an excuse to say their beliefs are endorced by the deified figures of the founding fathers.

The concept of deifying the founding fathers also brings up the notion of the daily rituals of governance being a religon in themselves. With magic passwords, secret texts, sacred texts, ritual costumes, enormous temples and shrines, and art. Which also brings to my mind the concept of the cargo cult. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

Just because your cargo cult rituals occasionally seems to produce the desired result doesnt mean it actually works. You cultists.