American civil religion

American civil religion is a sociological theory that a nonsectarian quasi-religious faith exists within the
United States with sacred symbols drawn from national history. Scholars have portrayed it as a cohesive force,
a common set of values that foster social and cultural integration. The ritualistic elements of ceremonial deism
found in American ceremonies and presidential invocations of God can be seen as expressions of the
American civil religion. The very heavy emphasis on pan-Christian religious themes is quite distinctively
American and the theory is designed to explain this.

The concept goes back to the 19th century, but in current form, the theory was developed by sociologist
Robert Bellah in 1967 in his article, "Civil Religion in America". The topic soon became the major focus at
religious sociology conferences and numerous articles and books were written on the subject. The debate
reached its peak with the American Bicentennial celebration in 1976.[1][2][3][4][5] There is a viewpoint that
some Americans have come to see the document of the United States Constitution, along with the Declaration
of Independence and the Bill of Rights, as cornerstones of a type of civic or civil religion or political religion.
Political sociologist Anthony Squiers argues that these texts act as the sacred writ of the American civil
religion because they are used as authoritative symbols in what he calls the politics of the sacred. The politics
of the sacred, according to Squiers are "the attempt to define and dictate what is in accord with the civil
religious sacred and what is not. It is a battle to define what can and cannot be and what should and should not
be tolerated and accepted in the community, based on its relation to that which is sacred for that
community."[6]

According to Bellah, Americans embrace a common "civil religion" with certain fundamental beliefs, values,
holidays, and rituals, parallel to, or independent of, their chosen religion.[2] Presidents have often served in
central roles in civil religion, and the nation provides quasi-religious honors to its martyrs—such as Abraham
Lincoln and the soldiers killed in the American Civil War.[7] Historians have noted presidential level use of
civil religion rhetoric in profoundly moving episodes such as World War II,[8] the Civil Rights Movement,[9]
and the September 11th attacks.[10]

In a survey of more than fifty years of American civil religion scholarship, Squiers identifies fourteen principal
tenets of the American civil religion:

1. Filial piety
2. Reverence to certain sacred texts and symbols such as The Constitution, The Declaration of
Independence, and the flag
3. The sanctity of American institutions
4. The belief in God or a deity
5. The idea that rights are divinely given
6. The notion that freedom comes from God through government
7. Governmental authority comes from God or a higher transcendent authority
8. The conviction that God can be known through the American experience
9. God is the supreme judge
10. God is sovereign
11. America's prosperity results from God's providence
12. America is a "city on a hill" or a beacon of hope and righteousness
13. The principle of sacrificial death and rebirth
14. America serves a higher purpose than self-interests
In an examination of more than fifty years of political discourse, Squiers finds that filial piety, reference to
certain sacred texts and symbols of the American civil religion, the belief in God or a deity, America is a "city
on a hill" or a beacon of hope and righteousness, and America serves a higher purpose than self-interests are
the most frequently referenced. He further found that there are no statistically significant differences in the
amount of American civil religious language between Democrats and Republicans, incumbents and non-
incumbents nor Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.[11]

This belief system has historically been used to reject nonconformist ideas and groups.[1] Theorists such as
Bellah hold that American civil religion can perform the religious functions of integration, legitimation, and
prophecy, while other theorists, such as Richard Fenn, disagree.[12]

Contents
Development
The American case
Evidence supporting Bellah
In practice
American Revolution
Ceremonies in the early Republic
President as religious leader
Symbolism of the American flag
Soldiers and veterans
Pledge of Allegiance
School rituals
Ethnic minorities
White Southerners
Black and African Americans
Japanese Americans
Hispanic and Latino Americans
Enshrined texts
Seventh-Day Adventists
Making a nation
See also
References
Further reading
Historiography

Development
Alexis de Tocqueville believed that Christianity was the source of the basic principles of liberal democracy,
and the only religion capable of maintaining liberty in a democratic era. He was keenly aware of the mutual
hatred between Christians and liberals in 19th-century France, rooted in the Enlightenment and the French
Revolution. In France, Christianity was allied with the Old Regime before 1789 and the reactionary Bourbon
Restoration of 1815-30. However he said Christianity was not antagonistic to democracy in the United States,
where it was a bulwark against dangerous tendencies toward individualism and materialism, which would lead
to atheism and tyranny.[13]

Also important were the contributions of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) and French
sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917).

The American case

Most students of American civil religion follow the basic Bellah/Durkheimian interpretation.[14] Other sources
of this idea include philosopher John Dewey who spoke of "common faith" (1934); sociologist Robin Murphy
Williams' American Society: A Sociological Interpretation (1951) which stated there was a "common religion"
in America; sociologist Lloyd Warner's analysis of the Memorial Day celebrations in "Yankee City" (1953
[1974]); historian Martin Marty's "religion in general" (1959); theologian Will Herberg who spoke of "the
American Way of Life" (1960, 1974); historian Sidney Mead's "religion of the Republic" (1963); and British
writer G. K. Chesterton, who said that the United States was "the only nation ... founded on a creed" and also
coined the phrase "a nation with a soul of a church".[4][5]

In the same period, several distinguished historians such as Yehoshua Arieli, Daniel Boorstin, and Ralph
Gabriel "assessed the religious dimension of 'nationalism', the 'American creed', 'cultural religion' and the
'democratic faith'".[4]

Premier sociologist Seymour Lipset (1963) referred to "Americanism" and the "American Creed" to
characterize a distinct set of values that Americans hold with a quasi-religious fervor.[4]

Today, according to social scientist Ronald Wimberley and William Swatos, there seems to be a firm consensus
among social scientists that there is a part of Americanism that is especially religious in nature, which may be
termed civil religion. But this religious nature is less significant than the "transcendent universal religion of the
nation" which late eighteenth century French intellectuals such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Alexis de
Tocqueville wrote about.[5]

Evidence supporting Bellah

Ronald Wimberley (1976) and other researchers collected large surveys and factor analytic studies which gave
support to Bellah's argument that civil religion is a distinct cultural phenomenon within American society
which is not embodied in American politics or denominational religion.[5]

Examples of civil religious beliefs are reflected in statements used in the research such as the following:

"America is God's chosen nation today."

"A president's authority ... is from God."
"Social justice cannot only be based on laws; it must also come from religion."
"God can be known through the experiences of the American people."
"Holidays like the Fourth of July are religious as well as patriotic."[5]
"God Bless America"

Later research sought to determine who is civil religious. In a 1978 study by James Christenson and Ronald
Wimberley, the researchers found that a wide cross section of American citizens have civil religious beliefs. In
general though, college graduates and political or religious liberals appear to be somewhat less civil religious.
Protestants and Catholics have the same level of civil religiosity. Religions that were created in the United
States, the Latter Day Saints movement, Adventists, and Pentecostals, have the highest civil religiosity. Jews,
Unitarians and those with no religious preference have the lowest civil religion. Even though there is variation
in the scores, the "great majority" of Americans are found to share the types of civil religious beliefs which
Bellah wrote about.[5]

Further research found that civil religion plays a role in people's preferences for political candidates and policy
positions. In 1980 Ronald Wimberley found that civil religious beliefs were more important than loyalties to a
political party in predicting support for Nixon over McGovern with a sample of Sunday morning church goers
who were surveyed near the election date and a general group of residents in the same community. In 1982
James Christenson and Ronald Wimberley found that civil religion was second only to occupation in
predicting a person's political policy views.[5]

Coleman has argued that civil religion is a widespread theme in history. He says it typically evolves in three
phases: undifferentiation, state sponsorship in the period of modernization, differentiation. He supports his
argument with comparative historical data from Japan, Imperial Rome, the Soviet Union, Turkey, France and
The United States.[15]

In practice

American Revolution

The American Revolution is the main source of civil religion. The book Sons of the Fathers: The Civil
Religion of the American Revolution says it produced these religious properties: a Moses-like leader in George
Washington; prophets such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine; apostles such as John Adams and
Benjamin Franklin; martyrs such as at the Boston Massacre and in Nathan Hale; devils such as Benedict
Arnold; sacred places such as Independence Hall and Valley Forge; rituals such as raising the Liberty Tree;
symbols such as the Betsy Ross flag; sacred holidays such as Independence Day; and a holy scripture based
on The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.[16]

Ceremonies in the early Republic

The elitists who ran the Federalist Party were conscious of

the need to boost voter identification with their party.[17]
Elections remained of central importance but for the rest of
the political year celebrations, parades, festivals, and visual
sensationalism were used. They employed multiple
festivities, exciting parades, and even quasi-religious
pilgrimages and "sacred" days that became incorporated
into the American civil religion. George Washington was
always its hero, and after his death he became a sort of
demigod looking down from heaven to instill his blessings
on the party.[18]
The Apotheosis of Washington, as seen looking
At first the Federalists focused on commemoration of the up from the capitol rotunda
ratification of the Constitution; they organized parades to
demonstrate widespread popular support for the new
Federalist Party. The parade organizers, incorporated secular versions of traditional religious themes and
rituals, thereby fostering a highly visible celebration of the nation's new civil religion.[19]
The Fourth of July became a semi-sacred day—a status it maintains in the 21st century. Its celebration in
Boston proclaimed national over local patriotism, and included orations, dinners, militia musters, parades,
marching bands, floats and fireworks. By 1800, the Fourth was closely identified with the Federalist party.
Republicans were annoyed, and stage their own celebrations on the fourth—with rival parades sometimes
clashing with each other. That generated even more excitement and larger crowds. After the collapse of the
Federalists starting in 1815, the Fourth became a nonpartisan holiday.[20][21]

President as religious leader

Since the days of George Washington presidents have assumed one of several roles in American civil religion,
and that role has helped shape the presidency.[22][23] Linder argues that:

Throughout American history, the president has provided the leadership in the public faith.
Sometimes he has functioned primarily as a national prophet, as did Abraham Lincoln.
Occasionally he has served primarily as the nation's pastor, as did Dwight Eisenhower. At other
times he has performed primarily as the high priest of the civil religion, as did Ronald Reagan. In
prophetic civil religion, the president assesses the nation's actions in relation to transcendent
values and calls upon the people to make sacrifices in times of crisis and to repent of their
corporate sins when their behavior falls short of the national ideals. As the national pastor, he
provides spiritual inspiration to the people by affirming American core values and urging them to
appropriate those values, and by comforting them in their afflictions. In the priestly role, the
president makes America itself the ultimate reference point. He leads the citizenry in affirming
and celebrating the nation, and reminds them of the national mission, while at the same time
glorifying and praising his political flock.[24]

Charles W. Calhoun argues that in the 1880s the speeches of Benjamin Harrison display a rhetorical style that
embraced American civic religion; indeed, Harrison was one of the credo's most adept presidential
practitioners. Harrison was a leader whose application of Christian ethics to social and economic matters paved
the way for the Social Gospel, the Progressive Movement and a national climate of acceptance regarding
government action to resolve social problems.[25]

Linder argues that President Bill Clinton's sense of civil religion was based on his Baptist background in
Arkansas. Commentator William Safire noted of the 1992 presidential campaign that, "Never has the name of
God been so frequently invoked, and never has this or any nation been so thoroughly and systematically
blessed."[26] Clinton speeches incorporated religious terminology that suggests the role of pastor rather than
prophet or priest. With a universalistic outlook, he made no sharp distinction between the domestic and the
foreign in presenting his vision of a world community of civil faith.[24]

Brocker argues that Europeans have often mischaracterized the politics of President George W. Bush (2001–
2009) as directly inspired by Protestant fundamentalism. However, in his speeches Bush mostly actually used
civil religious metaphors and images and rarely used language specific to any Christian denomination. His
foreign policy, says Bocker, was based on American security interests and not on any fundamentalist
teachings.[27]

Hammer says that in his 2008 campaign speeches candidate Barack Obama portrays the American nation as a
people unified by a shared belief in the American Creed and sanctified by the symbolism of an American civil
religion.[28]
Would-be presidents likewise contributed to the rhetorical history of civil religion. The speeches of Daniel
Webster were often memorized by student debaters, and his 1830 endorsement of "Liberty and Union, now
and forever, one and inseparable" was iconic.[29]

Symbolism of the American flag

According to Adam Goodheart, the modern meaning of the American flag, and the reverence of many
Americans towards it, was forged by Major Robert Anderson's fight in defense of the flag at the Battle of Fort
Sumter, which opened the American Civil War in April 1861. During the war the flag was used throughout
the Union to symbolize American nationalism and rejection of secessionism. Goodheart explains the flag was
transformed into a sacred symbol of patriotism:

Before that day, the flag had served mostly as a military ensign or a convenient marking of
American territory ... and displayed on special occasions like the Fourth of July. But in the weeks
after Major Anderson's surprising stand, it became something different. Suddenly the Stars and
Stripes flew ... from houses, from storefronts, from churches; above the village greens and college
quads. ... [T]hat old flag meant something new. The abstraction of the Union cause was
transfigured into a physical thing: strips of cloth that millions of people would fight for, and many
thousands die for.[30]

Soldiers and veterans

An important dimension is the role of the soldiers, ready to sacrifice their lives to preserve the nation. They are
memorialized in many monuments and semi-sacred days, such as Veterans Day and Memorial Day. Historian
Jonathan Ebel argues that the "soldier-savior" is a sort of Messiah, who embodies the synthesis of civil
religion, and the Christian ideals of sacrifice and redemption.[31] In Europe, there are numerous cemeteries
exclusively for American soldiers who fought in world wars. They have become American sacred spaces.[32]

Pacifists have made some sharp criticisms. For example, Kelly Denton-Borhaug, writing from the Moravian
peace tradition,[33] argues that the theme of "sacrifice" has fueled the rise of what she calls "U.S. war culture."
The result is a diversion of attention from what she considers the militarism and the immoral, oppressive,
sometimes barbaric conduct in the global American war on terror.[34] However, some Protestant
denominations such as the Churches of Christ, have largely turned away from pacifism to give greater support
to patriotism and civil religion.[35]

Pledge of Allegiance

Kao and Copulsky argue the concept of civil religion illuminates the popular constitutional debate over the
Pledge of Allegiance. The function of the pledge has four aspects: preservationist, pluralist, priestly, and
prophetic. The debate is not between those who believe in God and those who do not, but it is a dispute on the
meaning and place of civil religion in America.[36]

Cloud explores political oaths since 1787 and traces the tension between a need for national unity and a desire
to affirm religious faith. He reviews major Supreme Court decisions involving the Pledge of Allegiance,
including the contradictory Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) and West Virginia v. Barnette (1943)
decisions. He argues that the Pledge was changed in 1954 during the Cold War to encourage school children
to reject communism's atheistic philosophy by affirming belief in God.[37]
School rituals

Adam Gamoran (1990) argues that civil religion in public schools can be seen in such daily rituals as the
pledge of allegiance; in holiday observances, with activities such as music and art; and in the social studies,
history and English curricula. Civil religion in schools plays a dual role: it socializes youth to a common set of
understandings, but it also sets off subgroups of Americans whose backgrounds or beliefs prevent them from
participating fully in civil religious ceremonies.[38]

Ethnic minorities

The Bellah argument deals with mainstream beliefs, but other scholars have looked at minorities outside the
mainstream, and typically distrusted or disparaged by the mainstream, which have developed their own version
of U.S. civil religion.

White Southerners

Wilson, noting the historic centrality of religion in Southern identity, argues that when the White South was
outside the national mainstream in the late 19th century, it created its own pervasive common civil religion
heavy with mythology, ritual, and organization. Wilson says the "Lost Cause"—that is, defeat in a holy war—
has left some southerners to face guilt, doubt, and the triumph of what they perceive as evil: in other words, to
form a tragic sense of life.[39][40]

Black and African Americans

Woodrum and Bell argue that black people demonstrate less civil religiosity than white people and that
different predictors of civil religion operate among black and white people. For example, conventional religion
positively influences white people's civil religion but negatively influences black peoples' civil religion.
Woodrum and Bell interpret these results as a product of black American religious ethnogenesis and
separatism.[41]

Japanese Americans

Iwamura argues that the pilgrimages made by Japanese Americans to the sites of World War II-era internment
camps have formed a Japanese American version of civil religion. Starting in 1969 the Reverend Sentoku
Maeda and Reverend Soichi Wakahiro began pilgrimages to Manzanar National Historic Site in California.
These pilgrimages included poetry readings, music, cultural events, a roll call of former internees, and a
nondenominational ceremony with Protestant and Buddhist ministers and Catholic and Shinto priests. The
event is designed to reinforce Japanese American cultural ties and to ensure that such injustices will never
occur again.[42]

Hispanic and Latino Americans

Mexican-American labor leader César Chávez, by virtue of having holidays, stamps, and other
commemorations of his actions, has practically become a "saint" in American civil religion, according to León.
He was raised in the Catholic tradition and using Catholic rhetoric. His "sacred acts," his political practices
couched in Christian teachings, became influential to the burgeoning Chicano movement and strengthened his
appeal. By acting on his moral convictions through nonviolent means, Chávez became sanctified in the
national consciousness, says León.[43]
Enshrined texts
Christian language, rhetoric, and values helped colonists to perceive
their political system as superior to the corrupt British monarchy.
Ministers' sermons were instrumental in promoting patriotism and in
motivating the colonists to take action against the evils and corruption
of the British government. Together with the semi-religious tone
sometimes adopted by preachers and such leaders as George
Washington,[44] and the notion that God favored the patriot cause, this
made the documents of the Founding Fathers suitable as almost-
sacred texts.[45] The National Archives Building in
Washington, DC.
The National Archives Building in Washington preserves and
displays the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights. Pauline Maier describes these texts as enshrined in massive, bronze-framed display cases.[46]
While political scientists, sociologists, and legal scholars study the Constitution and how it is used in American
society, on the other hand, historians are concerned with putting themselves back into a time and place, in
context. It would be anachronistic for them to look at the documents of the "Charters of Freedom" and see
America's modern "civic religion" because of "how much Americans have transformed very secular and
temporal documents into sacred scriptures".[46] The whole business of erecting a shrine for the worship of the
Declaration of Independence strikes some academic critics looking from point of view of the 1776 or 1789
America as "idolatrous, and also curiously at odds with the values of the Revolution." It was suspicious of
religious iconographic practices. At the beginning, in 1776, it was not meant to be that at all.[47]

On the 1782 Great Seal of the United States, the date of the Declaration of Independence and the words under
it signify the beginning of the "new American Era" on earth. Though the inscription, Novus ordo seclorum,
does not translate from the Latin as "secular", it also does not refer to a new order of heaven. It is a reference
to generations of society in the western hemisphere, the millions of generations to come.[48]

Even from the vantage point of a new nation only ten to twenty years after the drafting of the Constitution, the
Framers themselves differed in their assessments of its significance. Washington in his Farewell Address
pleaded that "the Constitution be sacredly maintained."' He echoed Madison in "Federalist No. 49" that citizen
"veneration" of the Constitution might generate the intellectual stability needed to maintain even the "wisest
and freest governments" amidst conflicting loyalties. But there is also a rich tradition of dissent from
"Constitution worship". By 1816, Jefferson could write that "some men look at constitutions with
sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched." But he saw
imperfections and imagined that potentially, there could be others, believing as he did that "institutions must
advance also".[49]

Regarding the United States Constitution, the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(LDS Church) is that it is a divinely inspired document.[50][51]

Seventh-Day Adventists

While the civil religion has been widely accepted by practically all denominations, one group has always stood
against it. Seventh-Day Adventists deliberately pose as "heretics", so to speak, and refuse to treat Sundays as
special, due to their adherence to the Ten Commandments dictating that Saturday is the holy day. Indeed, says
Bull, the denomination has defined its identity in contradistinction to precisely those elements of the host
culture that have constituted civil religion.[52]
Making a nation
The American identity has an ideological connection to these "Charters of Freedom". Samuel P. Huntington
discusses common connections for most peoples in nation-states, a national identity as product of common
ethnicity, ancestry and experience, common language, culture and religion. Levinson argues:

It is the fate of the United States, however, to be different from "most peoples," for here national
identity is based not on shared Proustian remembrances, but rather on the willed affirmation of
what Huntington refers to as the "American creed," a set of overt political commitments that
includes an emphasis on individual rights, majority rule, and a constitutional order limiting
governmental power.[53]

The creed, according to Huntington, is made up of (a) individual rights, (b) majority rule, and (c) a
constitutional order of limited government power. American independence from Britain was not based on
cultural difference, but on the adoption of principles found in the Declaration. Whittle Johnson in The Yale
Review sees a sort of "covenanting community" of freedom under law, which, "transcending the 'natural'
bonds of race, religion and class, itself takes on transcendent importance".[54]

Becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States requires passing a test covering a basic understanding of
the Declaration, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and taking an oath to support the U.S.
Constitution. Hans Kohn described the United States Constitution as "unlike any other: it represents the
lifeblood of the American nation, its supreme symbol and manifestation. It is so intimately welded with the
national existence itself that the two have become inseparable." Indeed, abolishing the Constitution in
Huntington's view would abolish the United States, it would "destroy the basis of community, eliminating the
nation, [effecting] ... a return to nature."[55]

As if to emphasize the lack of any alternative "faith" to the American nation, Thomas Grey in his article "The
Constitution as scripture", contrasted those traditional societies with divinely appointed rulers enjoying
heavenly mandates for social cohesion with that of the United States. He pointed out that Article VI, third
clause, requires all political figures, both federal and state, "be bound by oath or affirmation to support this
Constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required ..." This was a major break not only with past British
practice commingling authority of state and religion, but also with that of most American states when the
Constitution was written.[56]

Escape clause. Whatever the oversights and evils the modern reader may see in the original Constitution, the
Declaration that "all men are created equal"—in their rights—informed the Constitution in such a way that
Frederick Douglass in 1860 could label the Constitution, if properly understood, as an antislavery
document.[57] He held that "the constitutionality of slavery can be made out only by disregarding the plain and
common-sense reading to the Constitution itself. [T]he Constitution will afford slavery no protection when it
shall cease to be administered by slaveholders," a reference to the Supreme Court majority at the time.[58] With
a change of that majority, there was American precedent for judicial activism in Constitutional interpretation,
including the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which had ended slavery there in 1783.[57]

Accumulations of Amendments under Article V of the Constitution and judicial review of Congressional and
state law have fundamentally altered the relationship between U.S. citizens and their governments. Some
scholars refer to the coming of a "second Constitution": with the Thirteenth Amendment, we are all free; the
Fourteenth, we are all citizens; the Fifteenth, men vote; and the Nineteenth, women vote. The Fourteenth
Amendment has been interpreted so as to require States to respect citizen rights in the same way that the
Constitution has required the Federal government to respect them. So much so, that in 1972, the U.S.
Representative from Texas, Barbara Jordan, could affirm, "My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is
complete, it is total ...".[58]

After discussion of the Article V provision for change in the Constitution as a political stimulus to serious
national consensus building, Sanford Levinson performed a thought experiment which was suggested at the
bicentennial celebration of the Constitution in Philadelphia. If one were to sign the Constitution today,[59]
whatever our reservations might be, knowing what we do now, and transported back in time to its original
shortcomings, great and small, "signing the Constitution commits one not to closure but only to a process of
becoming, and to taking responsibility for the political vision toward which I, joined I hope, with others,
strive".[60]

See also
American exceptionalism
American's Creed
"And I don't care what it is," Dwight Eisenhower quote from 1952
Arlington National Cemetery
Ceremonial deism
Commemoration of the American Revolution
Constitutionalism
Gettysburg Address
Independence Hall
Judeo-Christian ethics
Liberty Bell
Republicanism in the United States
Statolatry

References
1. Bellah, Robert Neelly (Winter 1967). "Civil Religion in America" (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0050306124338/http://www.robertbellah.com/articles_5.htm). Journal of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences. 96 (1): 1–21. Archived from the original (http://www.robertbella
h.com/articles_5.htm) on 2005-03-06. From the issue entitled "Religion in America".
2. Kaplan, Dana Evan (Aug 15, 2005). The Cambridge Companion to American Judaism.
Cambridge University Press. p. 118. ISBN 978-0-521-82204-6.
3. Meštrović, Stjepan G (1993). The Road from Paradise (https://archive.org/details/roadfrompara
dise0000mest/page/129). University Press of Kentucky. p. 129 (https://archive.org/details/roadfr
omparadise0000mest/page/129). ISBN 978-0-8131-1827-7.
4. Cristi, Marcela (2001). From Civil to Political Religion: The Intersection of Culture, Religion and
Politics. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. ISBN 978-0-88920-368-6.
5. Swatos, William H. (1998). Encyclopedia of Religion and Society (http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/a
merican.htm). Rowman Altamira. p. 94. ISBN 978-0-7619-8956-1. "The article caused an
almost unprecedented burst of excitement among sociologists and other scholars of religion."
6. Squiers, A. (2018). The Politics of the Sacred in America: The Role of Civil Religion in Political
Practice. New York: Springer. p. 20. ISBN 978-3-319-68870-1.
7. Harry S. Stout, Upon the Altar of the Nation: A Moral History of the Civil War (2006)
8. Michael A. Genovese (2010). Encyclopedia of the American Presidency (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=BaVozO5RyNwC&pg=PA89). Infobase Publishing. p. 89. ISBN 9781438126388.
 9. Andrew Michael Manis (2002). Southern Civil Religions in Conflict: Civil Rights and the Culture
Wars (https://books.google.com/books?id=oq2d_TFALAEC&pg=PA184). Mercer University
Press. p. 184. ISBN 9780865547858.
10. George C. Edwards; Desmond S. King (2007). The Polarized Presidency of George W. Bush (h
ttps://books.google.com/books?id=3ahH0DRaFw0C&pg=PA152). Oxford University Press.
p. 152. ISBN 9780199217977.
11. Squiers, A. (2018). The Politics of the Sacred in America: The Role of Civil Religion in Political
Practice. New York: Springer. p. 51-74. ISBN 978-3-319-68870-1.
12. Gail Gehrig, "The American Civil Religion Debate: A Source for Theory Construction," Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, (March 1981) 20#1 pp. 51–63 in JSTOR (https://www.jstor.or
g/pss/1385338)
13. Sanford Kessler, "Tocqueville on Civil Religion and Liberal Democracy," Journal of Politics,
39#1 (1977), pp. 119–46 in JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2129689)
14. Marcela Cristi, From civil to political religion: the intersection of culture, religion and politics
(2001) p. 7
15. John A. Coleman, "Civil Religion," Sociological Analysis, Summer 1970, 31#2 pp. 67–77
doi:10.2307/3710057 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3710057)
16. Albanese, Catherine L. (1976). Sons of the Fathers: The Civil Religion of the American
Revolution (https://books.google.com/books?id=d5R2AAAAMAAJ). Martin E. Marty.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 9780877220732. OCLC 1192523797 (https://ww
w.worldcat.org/oclc/1192523797). Retrieved September 5, 2020.
17. Waldstreicher, David (1997). In the midst of perpetual fetes : the making of American
nationalism, 1776-1820. Chapel Hill: Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American
History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia, by the University of North Carolina Press.
ISBN 978-0-8078-4691-9. OCLC 36900832 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/36900832).
18. John Ferling, The ascent of George Washington: The hidden political genius of an American
Icon (2010).
19. Jürgen Heideking, "The federal processions of 1788 and the origins of American civil religion."
Soundings (1994): 367–87. in JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41178897)
20. Len Travers, "Hurrah for the Fourth: Patriotism, Politics, and Independence Day in Federalist
Boston, 1783–1818." Essex Institute Historical Collections 125: 129–61.
21. Kevin Coe, et al. The Rhetoric of American Civil Religion: Symbols, Sinners, and Saints
(Lexington Books, 2016).
22. Richard G., Hutcheson, Jr., God in the White House: How Religion Has Changed the Modern
Presidency (1988)
23. James David Fairbanks, "The Priestly Functions of the Presidency: A Discussion of the
Literature on Civil Religion and Its Implications for the Study of Presidential Leadership,"
Presidential Studies Quarterly (1981) 11:214–32.
24. Robert D. Linder, "Universal pastor: President Bill Clinton's civil religion," Journal of Church
and State, Autumn 1996, 38#4 pp 733–49
25. Charles W. Calhoun, "Civil religion and the gilded age presidency: The case of Benjamin
Harrison," Presidential Studies Quarterly, Fall 1993, 23#4 pp. 651–67
26. Barry A. Kosmin and Seymour Lachman, One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary
American Society (1994) p. 158
27. Manfred Brocker, "Civil Religion, Fundamentalism, and the Politics and Policies of George W.
Bush," Journal of Political Science, Jan 2004, Vol. 32, pp. 95–124
28. Stefanie. Hammer, "The role of narrative in political campaigning: An analysis of speeches by
Barack Obama," National Identities, Sept 2010, 12#3, pp. 269–90
29. Craig R. Smith, Daniel Webster and the Oratory of Civil Religion (2005) p. 117
30. Adam Goodheart (2011). 1861: The Civil War Awakening (https://books.google.com/books?id=
bCPbnsUPhB0C&pg=PA22). Vintage Books. p. 22. ISBN 9781400032198.
31. Jonathan H. Ebel, G.I. Messiahs: Soldiering, War, and American Civil Religion (2015) p. 7
32. Jonathan H. Ebel, "Overseas military cemeteries As american sacred space: mine eyes have
seen la gloire." Material Religion 8#2 (2012): 183–214.
33. Kelly Denton-Borhaug, "Sharing Peace: Mennonites and Catholics in Conversation eds. by
Gerald W. Schlabach and Margaret Pfeil," American Catholic Studies 125#2 (2014): 82–83.
34. Kelly Denton-Borhaug, U.S. War-Culture, Sacrifice and Salvation (2011) pp. 1–4.
35. Michael W. Casey, "From Pacifism to Patriotism: The Emergence of Civil Religion in the
Churches of Christ During World War I." Mennonite Quarterly Review 66#3 (1992): 376–90.
36. Grace Y. Kao and Jerome E. Copulsky, "The Pledge of Allegiance and the Meanings and
Limits of Civil Religion," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, March 2007, 75#1, pp.
121–49 doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfl065 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fjaarel%2Flfl065)
37. Matthew W. Cloud, "'One Nation, Under God': Tolerable Acknowledgement of Religion or
Unconstitutional Cold War Propaganda Cloaked in American Civil Religion?" Journal of
Church and State, Spring 2004, 46#2 pp. 311–40, online (http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa
ge?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jchs46&div=27&id=&page=)
38. Adam Gamoran, "Civil Religion in American Schools," SA: Sociological Analysis, Fall 1990,
51#3 pp. 235–56
39. Charles Reagan Wilson, "The Religion of the Lost Cause: Ritual and the Organization of the
Southern Civil Religion, 1865–1920," Journal of Southern History, May 1980, 46#2 pp. 219–38
40. Charles Reagan Wilson, Baptized in Blood: The Religion of the Lost Cause, 1865–1920 (1980)
41. Eric Woodrum, and Arnold Bell, "Race, Politics, and Religion in Civil Religion Among Blacks,"
SA: Sociological Analysis, Winter 1989, 49#4 pp. 353–67
42. Jane Naomi Iwamura, "Critical Faith: Japanese Americans and the Birth of a New Civil
Religion," American Quarterly, Sept 2007, 59#3, pp. 937–968, in Project MUSE (http://muse.jh
u.edu/journals/aq/summary/v059/59.3iwamura.html)
43. Luis D. León, "Cesar Chavez in American Religious Politics: Mapping the New Global Spiritual
Line." American Quarterly, Sep 2007, 59#3 pp. 857–81, doi:10.1353/aq.2007.0060 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1353%2Faq.2007.0060)
44. Gary Scott Smith, "The American Moses," Christian History and Biography, Summer 2008,
Issue 99, pp. 8–13
45. Thomas S. Kidd, God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution (2010) pp. 4,
37, 59, 112, 115,
46. Gordon S. Wood, "Dusting off the Declaration (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/
aug/14/dusting-off-the-declaration/)," The New York Review of Books, Aug 14, 1997
47. Wood, Gordon S., op.cit., Aug 14, 1997
48. Great Seal (http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/seclorum.html) webpage. Viewed August 19,
2011.
49. Levinson 1987, p. 115.
50. Dallin H. Oaks (Feb 1992). "The Divinely Inspired Constitution" (https://www.churchofjesuschri
st.org/study/ensign/1992/02/the-divinely-inspired-constitution?lang=eng). Ensign.
51. See D&C 101:77–80 (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/10
1.77-80)
52. Malcolm Bull, "The Seventh-Day Adventists: Heretics of American Civil Religion Sociological
Analysis, April 1989, 50#2, pp. 177–87
53. Sanford Levinson (2011). Constitutional Faith (https://archive.org/details/constitutionalfa0000le
vi). Princeton UP. p. 95 (https://archive.org/details/constitutionalfa0000levi/page/95). ISBN 978-
0691152400.
54. Levinson 1987, p. 118.
55. Levinson 1987, p. 119.
56. Levinson 1987, p. 120.
57. Harper, Douglas (January 2004). "Emancipation in Massachusetts" (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20040128112051/http://www.slavenorth.com/massemancip.htm). Slavery in the North.
Archived from the original (http://www.slavenorth.com/massemancip.htm) on January 28, 2004.
Retrieved January 28, 2004.
58. Levinson 1987, pp. 129–30, 133.
59. The visitor to the National Archives website today is invited to sign the Constitution online.
Viewed September 11, 2011.
60. Levinson 1987, p. 144.

Further reading
Bellah, Robert Neelly (Winter 1967). "Civil Religion in America" (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0050306124338/http://www.robertbellah.com/articles_5.htm). Journal of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences. 96 (1): 1–21. Archived from the original (http://www.robertbella
h.com/articles_5.htm) on 2005-03-06. From the issue entitled Religion in America.
Bellah, Robert Neelly (August 15, 1992). The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in
Time of Trial (https://archive.org/details/brokenc_bel_1992_00_9815). University of Chicago
Press. ISBN 978-0-226-04199-5.
Bortolini, Matteo (2012). "The trap of intellectual success. Robert N. Bellah, the American civil
religion debate, and the sociology of knowledge". Theory & Society. 41 (2): 187–210.
doi:10.1007/s11186-012-9166-8 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11186-012-9166-8).
Canipe, Lee (March 2003). "Under God and anti-communist: how the Pledge of Allegiance got
religion in Cold-War America" (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:106474489/Under+God+an
d+anti-communist~C~+how+the+Pledge+of+Allegiance+got+religion+in+Cold-War+America.ht
ml?refid=SEO). Journal of Church and State.
Cloud, Matthew W (March 22, 2004). " "One nation, under God": tolerable acknowledgement of
religion or unconstitutional cold war propaganda cloaked in American civil religion?" (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20061020020714/http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/94810.html). Journal of
Church and State. 46 (2): 311–340. doi:10.1093/jcs/46.2.311 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fjcs%2
F46.2.311). Archived from the original (http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/94810.html) on
October 20, 2006.
Gehrig, Gail (June 1981). American Civil Religion: An Assessment. Society for the Scientific
Study of Religion. ISBN 978-0-932566-02-7.
Gardella, Peter, American Civil Religion: What Americans Hold Sacred (Oxford University
Press, 2014), 368 pp.
Gorski, Philip. American Covenant: A History of Civil Religion from the Puritans to the Present
(Princeton University Press, 2017) excerpt (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10976.html)
Hughes, Richard T. (July 6, 2004). Myths America Lives By. University of Illinois Press.
ISBN 978-0-252-07220-8.
Jewett, Robert; John Shelton Lawrence (2004). Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil:
The Dilemma of Zealous Nationalism. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-2859-0.
Page 328 specifically talks about American civil religion, referencing Jones's book, American
Civil Religion.
Jones, Donald G.; Russell E. Richey (November 1990) [1st pub. 1974 by Harper]. American
Civil Religion. Edwin Mellen Press. ISBN 978-0-7734-9997-3.
Levinson, Sanford (1979). " "The Constitution" in American Civil Religion". The Supreme Court
Review. 1979: 123–151. doi:10.1086/scr.1979.3109568 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2Fscr.1979.3
109568). JSTOR 3109568 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3109568).
 McCarthy, Rockne. "Civil Religion in Early America," Fides et Historia, Summer 1975, 8#1 pp
20–40, covers 1800-1900
Pierard, Richard V. and Robert D. Linder, "The President and Civil Religion," in Encyclopedia
of the American Presidency ed. by Leonard W. Levy and Louis Fisher, (1994), I: 203-06.
Richey, Russell E., and Donald G. Jones, eds. American Civil Religion (1974), articles by
scholars
Rouner, Leroy S. ed. Civil Religion and Political Theology (1986).
Sassi, Jonathan D. A Republic of Righteousness: The Public Christianity of the Post-
Revolutionary New England Clergy (Oxford University Press, 2001). online (https://www.questi
a.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=114982078)
Swatos, William H. "Civil Religion," in Encyclopedia of Religion and Society (1998) online (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20060901214226/http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/civilrel.htm) ISBN 0-
7619-8956-0
SpearIt (2013). "Legal Punishment as Civil Ritual". SSRN 2232897 (https://ssrn.com/abstract=2
232897).

Historiography
Fenn, Richard K. "The Relevance of Bellah's 'Civil Religion' Thesis to a Theory of
Secularization," Social Science History, Fall 1977, 1#4 pp 502–517
Gedicks, Frederick. "American Civil Religion: an Idea Whose Time Is Past," The George
Washington International Law Review Volume: 41. Issue: 4. 2010. pp 891+. online (https://ww
w.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5048269380)
Lindner, Robert D. "Civil Religion in Historical Perspective: The Reality that Underlies the
Concept," Journal of Church and State, Summer 1975, 17#3 pp 399–421, focus on European
theorists
McDermott, Gerald Robert. "Civil Religion in the American Revolutionary Period: An
Historiographic Analysis," Christian Scholar's Review, April 1989, 18#4 pp 346–362
Mathisen, James A.; Bellah, Robert N. "Twenty Years after Bellah: Whatever Happened to
American Civil Religion?," Sociological Analysis, April 1989, 50#2, pp 129–146 online (https://
www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97821251)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_civil_religion&oldid=982166844"

This page was last edited on 6 October 2020, at 15:05 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.