I learned as a matter of theology that civil religion was bad, and I get the idea that especially to monotheistic religions, it is by definition — toleration of many faiths, and if closest to one, not close enough. I see how it is easily manipulated and subverted for state aims.
But I think your use of it as perhaps a solution, or a bridge is going in the right direction. Civil religion in the US is based largely on Judeo-Christian beliefs, it might well (and does) include basic truths shared among many faiths — or assemblies. This need not necessarily threaten other or additional faiths. It could be useful (and not blasphemous) even if disagreements remain about
nature of revelation and the role of good works, for example.
How to achieve this — less wariness and scrutiny of religious language used publicly, greater use of religious ballads (America the Beautiful) , . . ?
Thank you, John, for your wise voice on this crucial issue. Press on.
Thank you, John.
I learned as a matter of theology that civil religion was bad, and I get the idea that especially to monotheistic religions, it is by definition — toleration of many faiths, and if closest to one, not close enough. I see how it is easily manipulated and subverted for state aims.
But I think your use of it as perhaps a solution, or a bridge is going in the right direction. Civil religion in the US is based largely on Judeo-Christian beliefs, it might well (and does) include basic truths shared among many faiths — or assemblies. This need not necessarily threaten other or additional faiths. It could be useful (and not blasphemous) even if disagreements remain about
nature of revelation and the role of good works, for example.
How to achieve this — less wariness and scrutiny of religious language used publicly, greater use of religious ballads (America the Beautiful) , . . ?