We have seen that the framers of American democracy, for the most part, did not suffer any illusions so as to think it would possible to produce paradise on earth. Their views were highly utilitarian, but then again, so were the views of many of their critics. Most political theorists shared in common the belief that the best government is the one which produced the greatest happiness for the longest amount of time. Here John Adams and Joseph de Maistre did not disagree; moreover, they generally agreed that not one system would necessarily produce what was needed in every land. Each nation, it was believed, should decide its own fate, as the Declaration of Independence itself declared.
While the foundations for the American Revolution lay more with Enlightenment ideals than it did in religious beliefs, this did not mean religion was pushed aside. Most believed that some form of religious belief had to be practiced in order to guarantee the virtue of citizens within a democracy. Virtue, indeed, was paramount for the success of a democratic government; when it diminished, so did the benevolence of democracy. We have to admit that there were some, like Thomas Paine, who followed the beliefs of the French elites, but they were held in check by men like John Adams. “No man,” Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, “is more Sensible than I am, of the Service to Science and Letters, Humanity, Fraternity, and Liberty that would have been rendered by the Encyclopedists and Oeconomists, By Voltaire, Dalembert, Buffon Diderot, Rouseau La Lande, Frederick and Catherine, if they had possessed Common Sense. But they were all totally destitute of it” John Adams, “Letter to Thomas Jefferson. March 2.16” pages 514-17 in The Portable John Adams (New York: Penguin Classics, 2004), 514-15. What was the singular problem Adams had with them? Their philosophical outlook was one which he thought was a danger to humanity. “And what was their Phylosophy? Atheism; pure unadulterated Atheism. […] The Univer[s]e was Matter only and eternal; Spirit was a Word Without a meaning; Liberty was a Word Without a Meaning” (ibid, 515). The ultimate aim of this outlook, he understood, was dangerous: “This was their Creed and this was to perfect human Nature and convert the Earth into a Paradise of Pleasure” (ibid, 515).
This new vision for the world, this new vision for humanity, was at first put aside; yet it would not go away. The philosophical trappings behind the French Revolution were idealized. Those who followed the revolutionary spirit knew something went wrong in the execution of the revolution itself, but they did not think it was because the revolution was based upon faulty premises. If there is no God, or if God is so distant so as to leave humanity to itself, then we must, of ourselves, transform the world and create paradise on earth. Abuses, when encountered, had to have a perfectly human solution. We all desire to be free; we all desire to be liberated from suffering; there must be a way for this to be done. It must be had through a perfectly human solution. Theory after theory developed; Karl Marx was just one of many in this new, perfectly empirical tradition, but he offered one of the most revolutionary and insightful manifestations of it, explaining why it became so popular. He was rightfully aware of the pitiful circumstances many men and women found themselves in throughout their life, and he believed that he found the solution to their problems through his socio-economic theories. All could be made well; all could be put to right; humanity, through its natural benevolence, could be led to achieve the universal brotherhood and equality that was needed for the creation of this earthly paradise.
The twentieth century would bring a firestorm of change upon the face of the earth. The belief in the general benevolence of humanity would be challenged by the Great Wars. The United States, which had generally kept to itself to the Americas in the nineteenth century, was now drawn into the global scene. The luxury it had of remaining an isolationist state no longer remained. From its new global situation there emerged a new challenge: did the United States have anything to offer which could help produce world peace? Its longevity as a political state, while put under trial during the Civil War, allowed theorists to re-examine the objections once placed upon democracies: were they really doomed to decay? If not, was there something new which could be used to explain why earlier theorists were wrong? The answer to this question was found in the development of the sciences: did they not give the means to unite a people in a way which even the ancients could not have imagined? Did they not provide marvels which helped the nation sustain itself? Were they not, after all, the products of humanity?
Democratic principles, merged with the new scientific advances, allowed for the sustainability of the United States. While things were not perfect, did not the United States at least maintain a general level of peace and prosperity for itself? Could it not export what it has learned to other nations, creating more nations like itself throughout the world? Would they not be, like the United States, peace loving lands of liberty and freedom? Since the old monarchies of Europe ended in failure, was it not time to transform the world by the humanitarian ideals of the Enlightenment merged with modern technology?
To prove that this was possible, Japan was made into a test case. Its society was reconstructed to follow American ideals. When we saw it re-emerge in the world scene, we saw within it a fundamental change, and it became a great peace-loving ally of the West. This fact provided sufficient evidence to those who placed their hopes in democracies that political imposition based upon democratic principles was possible. With much work and effort on the parts of all, a state could be made that would make any political theorist proud.
Side by side with a new American dominance in the world scene, there emerged a challenger, another idealistic political theory which rivaled the United States in its claims: communism. Obviously those states which followed communist principles, be it the Soviet Union or China, were seen as the rivals for American hegemony in the world scene. The so-called “Cold War” was a war of political ideologies, one which, surprisingly enough, was played out with a relatively few number of military conflicts. Both sides played up the propaganda for their own ideologies; to do this, both sides understood that any criticism which could be offered to their general belief system had to be silenced. While the utopian vision of communism was ridiculed, in order to properly challenge it, Western democracies had to produce their own utopian vision. What was once seen as a relative good became an ultimate good. Slowly but surely, the new ideology turned democratic interpretations of freedom, liberty and equality into the foundations for a new, state-sponsored civil religion.
To state that we have created a civil religion does not mean this religion has to contain any belief in God. As Emile Durkheim points out, “A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices related to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.. […] In showing that the idea of religion is inseparable from the idea of a Church, it conveys the notion that religion must be an eminently collective thing” Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. trans. Karen Field (New York: Free Press, 1995), 44. A religion does not need a belief in gods, nor does a civil religion require one to be solely united to it without any other religious adherences. It only guarantees that within that civil religion, its adherents agree upon certain sacred principles, principles which unite them together and are held to be so special, that they provide the order needed to keep that group together. For the American civil religion, these principles seem to be the same principles of the French Revolution: Freedom, Liberty and Equality. They have become, as it were, the collective Totems which keep the civil religion together, and the United States, in its belief in these principles, believes it must spread its method of obtaining them throughout the world to provide for world peace.
“It is the responsibility of those who enjoy the blessings of Liberty to help those who are struggling to establish free societies.” So we are told by the White House. The sacred rite of election guarantees these freedoms. “In the last few months, we’ve witnessed successful elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian Territories; peaceful demonstrations on the streets of Beirut, and steps toward democratic reform in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The trend is clear: Freedom is on the march. Freedom is the birthright and deep desire of every human soul, and spreading freedom’s blessings is the calling of our time. And when freedom and democracy take root in the Middle East, America and the world will be safer and more peaceful” (George W. Bush, Speech, March 29, 2005). We are told that we are living at a special time, an eschatological time, because democracy is being spread throughout the world. Is it possible that the day will come that we will have peace on earth and good will to men?
But wait. Should not this new religious fervor cause Christian believers to pause? Is it permissible for a Christian to be a member of this new civil religion? Christians, after all, believe in freedom, liberty and equality. If democracy can offer them to us, why should we not say yes to democracy? Why is it that many, myself included, find the answer ultimately has to be no?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In