Totalitarianism vs. Religion

Totalitarianism vs. Religion April 24, 2017

Mussolini_cropSome atheists accuse religion of being inherently “totalitarian.”  But, as sociologist Chandler Rosenberger, points out, this isn’t true.

The word “totalitarian,” coined by Italian fascists, was defined by Mussolini as “everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”  (Limited government conservatives:  Memorize this definition.)

Prof. Rosenberger explains how religion is usually a check against totalitarianism, which is why totalitarians try so hard to stamp it out.

From Chandler Rosenberger,  Learn Liberty | Religion and Totalitarianism:

The term “totalitarian” was created and endorsed by Italian fascists; it was defined approvingly by Benito Mussolini as a doctrine that required “everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

Human beings have had governments of various forms for 9,000 years, but for most of that history, authority within governments has been divided between worldly rulers and religious authorities, who proscribed the limits of secular leaders’ rule. Some ancient rulers, such as the Egyptian Pharaohs and Mohammed, combined religious and political leadership. But most sovereigns have ceded theological concerns to others.

Among peoples of faith, kings and princes could not afford to ignore completely the edicts of clergy. A Hindu prince who ran rampant and defied the restrictions of dharma, or religious duty, would be easily unseated by any rival who demonstrated greater piety, and thus closer adherence to the principles of the cosmos.

But religious leaders also depended on worldly powers for security and withdrew support from them only in extreme circumstances. In medieval Europe, authority was divided between the pope and secular kings; both sides of the religious-secular divide maintained a careful balance between legitimacy and power that gave absolute authority to neither.

Losing Balance

Because religious authority has traditionally been paired with the worldly power in a system of checks and balances, we only see totalitarianism itself arise in cases where one of the two sides has been swept away.

Occasionally, religious authority has appeared to prevail over secular power. Saudi Arabia could fairly be described as a totalitarian state: since striking a pact in the 18th century, the Wahhabi clergy and the House of Saud have essentially fused into one religiously-inspired political force.

But in our age, the balance has usually tipped the other way, as secular states drain religious institutions of their influence. The self-proclaimed “totalitarians” of fascist Italy, like the Nazis in Germany and the Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union, either destroyed religions or pushed them aside. These dictators rightly understood that if a people believed in a source of moral authority outside the state, that authority could be cited in challenges to the state’s control over them.

[Keep reading. . .]

Photo of Mussolini from Wikipedia Commons, Public Domain.

"The same spirit? The very worst way to understand much of scripture is with a ..."

Sasse’s “This Is My Body”
"No it's not. First of all the framework approach goes back to Augustine as I ..."

Sasse’s “This Is My Body”
"I think Tom overstates Dr. Maye's analysis a tad bit. Mayes points out that Sasse ..."

Sasse’s “This Is My Body”
"Of course. The program's guests have been right about some things and wrong about others. ..."

Sasse’s “This Is My Body”

Browse Our Archives