Table of Contents

Outline

1. The importance of this subject.
2. What is religion and what are the types of religion according to this definition for the purposes of this discussion? General overview according to the stages of development.
3. Religious institutions and Religious Rituals, their Essence and their Importance
4. Religious Wars, Civil Religion and its hardships
5. The hypocrisy of US civil religion in its manipulation of the justice system: A comparative study with France, Canada and Japan.
6. The National and International Aspect of Civil Religion: Will all followers of civil religions unite?
7. Particular Aspects of Theistic religions, each religion on its own and the degree of mutual co-operation.
8. A Survey of Publications that deal directly with Civil Religion
9. Perspectives as to the essence of the State: as a Jewish State or as or a State of all its citizens as shown by the actions of the Israeli Government Authorities.
10. The contrast between associating oneself with Israeli "civil religion" and a worldview that sees Israel as a Jewish State.
11. Relevant Judicial policy in Israel.
12. Summary: The possible and desired future.

Outline
In this article, that which will be studied, is how the structural maladies and wide ranging activism of the Israeli Supreme Court has turned it into a submissive tool by those elements who seek to create a new nation in Israel, neither Arab nor Jewish, but Israeli. This nation is in the process of consolidating itself, a process of severing itself from both the Jewish and Arab Diaspora, a nation that merges Jew and Arab together to form one homogenous whole. This nation establishes a new religion, calling itself “Israeli Civil Religion”. The State of Israel undergoes this process while in the opposite direction a process of disengagement takes place between Jews and Arabs in Israel, as was demonstrated in the previous part of this book. The ambivalence of these trends is not only a phenomenon characterising the life of the individual and wrenching his soul, but also has the ability to wrench human society, causing inner schisms and internal struggle. This article will not directly deal with this inner schism. This schism is not an easy subject; it can be dealt with at the fringes of another discussion. This subject is worthy of special consideration, separate and in-depth, which, in my opinion, should be done within a different framework. Here it may be noted that the trend of creating a new nation by eliminating ethnic and national attributions and by living within the framework of a shared state is a widespread phenomenon that has occurred in other countries.[1] The success of this process bodes an end to the vision of a Jewish State.

Here, n this article, that process as a general phenomenon will be reviewed, and the process in Israel will be viewed as a special phenomenon within the framework of the more general phenomenon together with a deeper understanding of human nature, the deep and compulsive reasons for the formation of religions, the processes of the formation of ethics, the essential difference between religious mores and between behaviour enacted for the sake of self interest alone, and the advantages of religious mores over a self interested lifestyle will be reviewed, as well as the built-in weaknesses of Western mores in the last one hundred years ranging from Kant to postmodernism, and the division of Contemporary religions into three types (Theistic Monotheistic religion from the Jewish school of thought, the Far Eastern religions form the Hindu school of thought, and Civil Religion).[2] While analysing these, diagnosing a civic society according to the educational structure that is in place will be studied from the perspective “tell me how the education is organised in the state and I will tell you which elements are dominant in the regime and which are barred from entering the halls of power in it.” Through analysing the school structure in the USA, it will be discovered how civil religion has reigned in the USA and how Theistic religion has been banned from the Halls of Justice there. Similarly, the review will include how Canada moved from the Covenant of the Protestant and Catholic Religions whose adherents shared power between them to a state in which the process of Americanisation whose connotations are the spreading of Canadian civil religion by the power holders, as a result of the changes in the Canadian educational system. It will be seen that the situation in Israel is exactly the same because of the parallels between the different school networks of ‘governmental’, ‘religious governmental’, ‘Independent’, ’El-Hamayan’ ‘Arab-governmental’ on the one hand and the Zionist parties, the NRP, Agudath-Israel, 'Shas' and the Arab parties on the other.

These are just a number of the topics that will be raised in the course of analysing and proving these things, but the full picture will only be seen in the continuation, where the discussion unfolds, in all its length and details, as will be done now.

1. The importance of this subject
In 1999 half a million religious and ultra-Orthodox Jews demonstrated against the decisions of the Supreme Court. No speeches were made during the demonstration, rather chapters of psalms were chanted after which the crowd dispersed peacefully. This was a quiet but very powerful protest in which a tenth of Israel’s Jewish population participated, including children, the ailing and the aged. From the perspective of the percentage of Israel’s Jews participating in this demonstration, the numbers are impressive, generally speaking for any demonstration, but especially taking into account the fact that only one other demonstration in Israel was larger. The religious demonstrators’ main charge was that whenever the public were divided in a debate between the religious and irreligious population, the Supreme Court’ interfered on the side of the irreligious. They judged in their favour, and adopted an ideological standpoint in line with one of the sides in Israeli politics. There were also complaints from the religious side about the composition of the Supreme Court, which was composed of those representing the secular-liberal stance, whose influence on decisions involving Jewish religious values tended to be negative.

A counter-demonstration in support of the Supreme Court was set up opposite this demonstration, numbering 50,000 people, the majority of whom were irreligious, but it was a demonstration organised by the established organisations of the state.

The question may be asked: Is this not one of the signs of a religious war waiting to erupt? An additional and separate question may also be raised: Doesn’t the Israeli Supreme Court and its supporters comprise one type of political unit, and the ultra-Orthodox (Chareidi) another?

In the context of these questions, it seems appropriate to analyse the issue of ‘civil religion’ from a universal perspective while broadening our analysis when dealing with the Israeli-context. This analysis will enable us to shed some light on the issue.

Using as a backdrop the decisions of the Supreme Court on religious matters, as will become clearer in the course of this discussion[3], an important and honest question can be asked by those who see themselves as critics of the Supreme Court. This question is multifaceted and can be formulated thus: Whom does the Israeli Supreme Court represent and whom does it serve? What role does it play within the ever-widening ideological and political split in Israel? Is the religious protest legitimate when it not only criticises a specific decision but rallies against the political legitimacy of the Supreme Court in its present composition and world view that it embodies? Is there any basis to the claim that today’s Supreme Court acts as a political player?

The discussion on civil religion in Israel and in the Supreme Court will raise questions, from a broader perspective, similar questions, i.e.: To what extent is this Supreme Court a government institution that serves the aims of civil religion? An institution that tries to realisthe goal of impocivil religion as law in the State of Israel and to turn Israel into a “State of all its citizens” nullifying any of Israel’s inherent centrality to the basic interests of the Jewish People? To what extent does the court make it difficult for those whose lifestyles and voluntary organisations are intimately connected to the Jewish religion? To what extent does the court play a role as a political rival (willingly or inadvertently) to those who continue today to support Israel as the Jewish State?

Further on it will become clearer that the religious-ultra-Orthodox demonstration reflects a real problem that does not solely affect the ultra-Orthodox (Chareidi) community. It is a problem that goes to the heart of our discussion.

2. What is religion and what are the types of religion according to this definition for the purposes of this discussion? General overview according to the stages of development.

For the purposes of this discussion religion will be defined as “the framework of beliefs and social behaviours built on the belief in a thing that is impossible to prove, an ideological and organisational framework, that has its own rituals, and which usually has its own institutions.” In the course of analysing the evidence it will become clear to what extent this definition stands up to reality.

From the beginning of the existence of humankind, man has acted as a social creature; he has managed social organisations that are run in accordance with the rules of social behaviour. In order to counteract the insecurities that surround him and the lack of knowing what the forces of nature have in store for him, what unforeseeably great dangers lurk before him, man strengthened his spirit in the powers of his imagination, which provided him with justification for setting up rules that he constructed in his mind and that he sought to harness in order to help him. It was this setting that produced inter alia, for example, the Totem institution; this according to research gathered in Australia, Africa, America, South East Asia and other places that studied primitive societies, which research was conducted using scientific surveys combined with the teachings of Sigmund Freud and Durkheim.[4] It seems that what is discussed there is a wholly universal phenomenon in the origins of human nature. There is only one kind of human temperament, which invariable to man's the cultural setting or timeframe. Human nature acts within a universal phenomenon. This universality expresses itself inter alia in the following: (1) The prohibition of sexual intercourse and mating between a son and his mother, between brother and sister, though this prohibition does not extend to the father-daughter relationship (2) The prohibition of a son harming his father (3) Tribal affiliation obligating mutual aid between a man and his maternal relatives, but not his paternal relatives. Thus even if a man lived in the same place where a group of his father’s relatives dwelt, he is under no obligation to give them aid. At the same time he is obligated to help his mother’s family, even if they live far away from him. All these rules applied universally on all the continents and faraway lands where there was no contact between their respective human inhabitants since they lived under primitive conditions. For the sake of comparison- a Jew establishes his race through his mother- not through his father. What Freud does, is to explain how this uniform prototype of human lifestyle came into being amongst people who had no means of communicating with one another. Even if it were said that all primitive tribes originate from one progenitor or from a pair of progenitors, the question may still be asked as to the source of this prototypical lifestyle. This prototype was ingrained in man through his different tribes (or through the progenitor couple as the source of all the tribes- according to Freud’s understanding) in such a strong fashion until it took hold of man and determined his modes of behaviour right until contemporary times. In the words of Freud, this prototype exists today not only among savage and primitive tribes, but also amongst us, the bearers of modern culture. It therefore seems that what was said previously is correct, that the general common traits shared by all cultures and during all periods of time is connected to human nature and for the purposes of analogy, are “programmed” into man from the beginning of his existence.

It needs to be added that according to Freud’s analysis these mental prototypes that he speaks of, are not the only prototypes that are ingrained in man (as in Darwin’s approach) or that were ingrained in man (as in the traditional religious approach)Man is ingrained with other tendencies:

i. The inclination to help the weak by virtue of them being part of the human race.

ii. Thoughtful curiosity based not merely on physical feelings but also, and primarily on human reasoning.

iii. A human tendency to generalise personal matters.

iv. Constant wavering of man between “good” and “evil” as a basis for establishing his social behaviour. This wavering caused philosophers, moralists and religious sages to interminably argue the question whether man’s inclination is inherently good, or whether by nature man is evil. This last-mentioned dilemma found expression in the book of Genesis where it speaks of man choosing between good and evil.

This complex mental configuration of man led to the Totem institution, as it led him to other rules of behaviour connected with Totem. These components together with Totem are the progenitors of Theistic religion, that which is centred on the belief in any deity (and in our concept of belief, included for this purpose of our discussion the concept of idolatry). Religion is the most organised and sophisticated form of the Totem institution- and it should be added-the Totem institution predates the institution of idol worship, from which Theistic religion originated. (Theistic is used in the broadest sense of the word). It is patently obvious that as a result of the Totem institution and from the trends and rules of behaviour connected with Totem a social lifestyle was formed, which today has been formalised in the modern state. As will be demonstrated later on, civil religion was a later development of this process. Within the framework of the development of these social rules it is possible to encounter early on societies that lived according to moral values and Theistic statutes-morals and laws that are affiliated with all types of deities and with any ordinances that were received from that deity.

The connection between religion and fear is investigated by Casirer[5] who relies on Bergson,[6] whom he quotes approvingly, and who connects the phenomenon of fear with the phenomenon of religious adherence. This, not only in relation to the subject of Totem in which man tricked nature while at the same time communicating with the forces of nature, but also in the belief of eternal life and communicating with ancestors, whom, in their belief continue to exist even after they have died. Fear of death was alleviated from man by relying on the idea of a life after death, which belief was reinforced by reliance on myths. There what was discussed was the connection between special ceremonies connected with these mythological figures and the overcoming of fear. Casirer also speaks about the Dynamic Religion, which is driven by the forces of attraction and the Static religion, which is powered by various pressures. I suggest adding to this data, the question, how and why religion came into being amongst men. In Part 1 I elaborated upon it, but here I will deal with it briefly. I spoke there of the Static Religion which predated the Dynamic Religion. I described within that framework primitive man seeking to protect himself from his fears including his fear of death., his fears of forces that are beyond his control and that derive their power from a transcendental reality, and his communication, with the help of his vivid imagination, with a thing or force which is also from a transcendental reality, which force will come to hisaid. I also of the willingness of man to obey the commandments of this force, which is superior to man and to his reality. It is at this juncture that moral imperatives make their appearance; they are superior to reality and to base interests. In this way, rules of morality come into being, which are superior to, stronger than and inimitable to any base interest, and which impose duties (not rights) on man.

Theistic laws (laws which man assigns to any kind of deity) controlled society’s lifestyle in the religious era, which was an offshoot of the primitive era (before there was organised religion in the full sense of the word), and which ceased to affect our lives the moment a civil religion came into effect. The reigns of power have been handed to civil religion in most Modern Day States, excluding those states which subject themselves to any kind of Theistic Law, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, who have subjected themselves to the rules of the Islamic Religion as did the Ottoman Empire in its time.[7] An exception to this rule is Francist Spain, which is a subject in and of itself, and where civil religion reigned over a country whose state religion was Catholicism. As a matter of principle then, civil religion does not disapprove the existence of a Theistic religion within its borders, neither does it automatically seek to disenfranchise Theistic religions of their political status, nonetheless civil religion does have a strong tendency to seek exclusivity in the political realm.[8]

Civil religion as a concept is mentioned in the writings of Rousseau which he associated with the religion that predominated during the French Revolution, a time when the Catholic religion lost its control over the day to day life of the state and on the laws that had prevailed in France. One of the foreboding indications of this “religious revolution” (the crowning of civil religion over Catholicism) was the practice introducing the Sabbath on the tenth day in place of the seventh, as was the practice in Catholicism. (This innovation was short-lived’ but is useful as an indicator of the revolutionary spirit which shows the French revolution, from an ideological perspective, to be a “religious revolution”) French civil religion replaced belief in the Holy trinity into belief in the civil triad “liberté, égalité et fraternité.” [9]

The civil religion fashioned by the French Revolution believed itself from the start (and to a great extent continues in this belief today) to be superior to Theistic religion. In contrast, the American civil religion according to the First Amendment to the American Constitution, introduced two guiding principles meant to co-exist despite the possibility that they partially contradict each other:

i. Freedom of religious practice for all citizens

ii. Neutrality (non-interference) of the government in relation to religions (i.e. Theistic religions as defined above). [10]

This latter principle entrenched and encouraged the principle of separation of state and religion.

3. Religious institutions and Religious Rituals, their Essence and their Importance

Religious and pseudo-religious ceremonies and rituals that centre on Totem, from the primitive era- even before organised religion came on the scene- strengthened the spiritual and mental faculties of man as did too the very idea of forming a society. As society and its constituent individuals progressed to higher standards of culture, its lifestyle and rituals become better organised which resulting in a more fixed religious regimen. As will be seen further on, man is unable to live a life of security and inner strength without religion, including civil religion. Emanuel Kant’s crusade against Theistic religion could have come about as a result of his dismay with this religion because of his youthful disgust of having religious ceremonies and prayers forced down his throat.[11] It is logical to assume that many others like him underwent similar experiences in their attitude toward the Christian religion of their day. Nonetheless, the wider community only accepted Kant’s moral theories because of Darwin’s scientific discoveries that refuted the Judeo-Christian version of creation.[12] There was a need for a strong and alternative anchor with which one could substitute the moral anchor that kept the Christian religion in place and which held sway over the lifestyles of the European nations. This new anchor was provided by the scientific branch (especially Darwin’s theory) as well as civil religion per Rousseau. In France deep hatred for the Church which was seen as an ally to the monarchy was an additional factor in adding weight to this new anchor. For the ramifications of this look at the Soviet Communist regime (excluding Poland) as an example, it also forbade or generally limited Theistic religious ritual, in order to remove any competing and dangerous, in its assessment, political powerbase.[13]

In France the rebellion against Theistic-Christian –Catholic religion expressed itself in a number of practical innovations, including the enactment of civil marriages, the seizure of Church property and the establishment of a 10-day workweek.[14] But what of the institutional void left by the removal of the church’s role as lifestyle regulator as well as the diminishing centrality of the church based organisations and activities, which once controlled organised life of the State? It was Civil Religion then that filled this void.

It is probably correct to assume that in this new regime the wedding ceremony would have been conducted by a state appointed marriage officer rather than a church ordained priest. The institution of marriage was conducted under the auspices of a government ministry connected to the civil religion, since the state government was the civil religion and the state was fully “in possession of” the civil religion. A similar changeover occurred with regard to religious law, whereas previously each law had to be approved by the papacy, which was then the legislative body of the state, the French National Assembly now became the organ of civil religion. Through this lens and by describing in detail the functionaries and institutions that ran political life – it is possible to view the state institutions, one by one as institutions of the civil religion.[15] That French national patriotism replaced religious faith is as an axiom that is impossible to prove but which every Frenchman believed in.[16] The French example became a paradigm for modern day Western countries as well as for most of the modern world.[17] Therefore, and owing to this fact, France turned the Church- run religious courts into obsolete institutions, which were replaced by State courts, and not just as representatives of the state governors but also as representatives of civil religion, whose precepts were the only ones acceptable in the halls of justice. This was the only way the authorities could ensure that Catholicism loses its hold on the French way of life. It was this process that similarly developed in the American version and in its different metamorphoses applied partially to a good number of other countries. The new hallowed slogan was separation of State and Religion. State organized (civilly religious) military parades became the ritual to replace religious processions, even if they did not manage to completely rid themselves of these religious processions. Sports games generally, and international sport fixtures in particular encouraged the ritual in which the modern socialized individual viewed his national team’s victory as his own. Educational institutions affiliated to the state became institutions that educated the young generation in the nationalist patriotic spirit encouraging loyalty to the state and its values- i.e. the values of civil religion. In this way the modern state education system, to the extent that it was run by the state, was turned into a religious institution, an instrument of civil religion. Independence Day or Bastille Day became ritualized by civil religion and given legitimacy politically by state administrators. Nevertheless it must be said that the above-described phenomenon symbolizes theimportof rituals to man, even in the Modern Era. It bears repeating that the tendency of man to fortify himself from situations of uncertainty (and these situations have been present from the beginning of the creation of the human race until our days) leads him to lean on religion- in all its forms-including civil religion. Testimony to the negative effects of civil religion may be found in fascist and authoritarian regimes that sprouted from civil religion, and which aided in changing the regime’s façade into that of a monster’s. Nationality and nationalism are stark expressions of civil religion. Cosmopolitanism- including the international communist, as well as multinational religions as seen in Radical Islam[18]- is the enemy of civil religion, since it subjugates man to a faith and an alternative loyalty which clashes with civil religion, which is a national religion, as will be elucidated later.

4. Religious Wars, Civil Religion and its hardships
The French Revolution, then, was among other things, also a religious war. The concept “war” from a more esoteric perspective, from the perspective of religious faith, is a much wider concept than the physical concept “war”, which describes a blood soaked armed struggle fought between two states. Nowadays war has become ever more sophisticated in all its forms and in every context, so that the concept of “war” has undergone a metamorphosis. In the field of international relations, in the last decades, the experts spoke of a “cold war” between countries joined to NATO and those affiliated with the Warsaw Pact, a war in which the militaries’ possession of weapons of mass destruction was decisive, even though neither side made any use of them, they were “static”. No shot was ever fired. Satellite surveillance and spy rings were the most active elements. Already at the time of British Imperialism, the term “imperialism” was expanded, and whereas before it was synonymous with the expansion of sovereignty over land conquered by military force, Prime Minister Disraeli viewed British imperialism as the extension of the Empire’s influence beyond areas under its political and military jurisdiction.[19] Nowadays they are referred to as “economic wars” as opposed to “economic treaties”. In the same vein when referring to the issue of “religious wars” it does not necessarily imply a war accompanied by bloodshed.[20] Religious wars are taking place in our days as they have been in the past, every day and every hour. And when at war one needs to act the part. The concept “with good advice conduct war,”[21] whose source is found in the book of religious insight, applies also to our situation of religious wars. A common strategy is the dissemination of misinformation and denial. It is possible to make gains in a war without even acknowledging that a war is taking place. It is possible to set up religious institutions without actually admitting that they are in fact institutions spreading religion. It is possible to set up institutions for the advancement of a certain sector in society while oppressing a different sector and simultaneously claiming that it was performed for the good of the whole. It is proposed that in this spirit the American Constitution be investigated as to what it has to say about religious affairs and how this is actually applied in the everyday American life. This investigation will not accept everything that is declared as the irrefutable truth. It will be seen whether it is not only the message of liberty and freedom that is spread by the Constitution, but also a declaration of war against any successful (Theistic) religious influence in the political arena by relegating such influence to the churches and other marginal institutions. Perhaps it is the message of war that is being spread by the constitution. In this way Theistic religious influence is minimised and their political freedoms are put down.

Suppressing Theistic religions in the USA follows a basic American interest.[22] Individuals of different faiths, who also were from different national ethnic backgrounds, founded this Federal political entity. The declared goal in forming this new entity was to strengthen its inhabitants by forging a new nation. Emphasising the difference amongst Americans themselves, in the context of their different religious and ethnic backgrounds was bound to endanger the formation of one grand nation. The drafters of the Constitution, then, cannot be condemned when they made the amendments; neither if they consciously intended to unite the People, and nor even if unity was not the stated purpose but rather to put a distance between (Theistic) religion and politics. Nevertheless it should be remembered that the Israeli example, which will be discussed below, is diametrically opposed to the American model. Here one People is discussed, the Jewish People, which was in exile dispersed around the globe for 1900 years, and which then regrouped and returned to their original land. In the Israeli case, of a Jewish State, the Jewish religion is not a dividing factor, but its polar opposite. Religion has a very unifying aspect to it. Without religion, the forces of separation would be on the rise, especially taking into account the fact that Jews dwelt in very different cultural milieu. How does the Jew coming from Yemen bond with the Jew coming from Romania? It is in this case scenario that Theistic religion (Judaism) alone plays the role of unifier.

At this stage it would be fitting to define what exactly constitutes civil religion. It seems improper to broaden the concept of civil religion into the same universal cosmopolitan terms, as usually defines Theistic religions. Theistic religions generally (with the notable exception of the Jewish religion) are not confined (by their definition and by their essence) to one entity, country or political society. Why, then is there a need to confine the structure of civil religion to one kind of political society? Why do we not claim it to be based on the same principles as democracy, for instance, so that this ungodly religion can be viewed at universally? This last-mentioned possibility is in fact the view of Charles Liebman and Eliezer Don-Yehhiya.[23] This broad definition should be rejected. There are three reasons for this- semantics, internal substantial factors and external substantial factors.

Semantic reason: “Civil religion” is closely related to the word “citizenship.” A citizen (or civilian) is such by virtue of his being a citizen of a specific country. There is (still) no legal concept of a “citizen of the world.” Though in legal and political literature “citizen’s rights” are oft though of as part of the greater concept of “human rights”, and this theme continues to develop in the definition of universal man- that is to say- every citizen in every state possesses according to Natural Law and according to the law of Nations, the same rights, even if they rights stem from the very fact that he is a citizen of that country. Notwithstanding, when a citizen of a specific country invokes his citizen’s rights, the address for doing so is the authorities of that country. When a citizen is charged with fulfilling his duties as a citizen, it is the state of which he is a citizen that has sole jurisdiction to make such a demand and not any other international organ. The political authorities of his country (specific and concrete) are the only address for him.

Substantive Reasons from an external perspective: As civil religions developed- they developed in each and every country- the central focus for those practising the civil religion was the specific state and its symbols which were thought to have intrinsic value and not the broader idea of building states, nor the humane idea behind the functioning of a state in general.

It is true: the idea of civil religion stemmed from a general idea, the fruits of Rousseau’s philosophical toil whose author did not intend to aim his words at the French alone. The political philosophy behind civil religion is a very broad idea, aimed at humanity in general unrestricted by geographical boundaries. Yet this idea was me to rules and principles. Architects, the world over, learn the principles of technical drawing, as well as the general rules of engineering. These principles and acquired knowledge are common to architects around the world. However the structure that is eventually built in line with these principles is a concrete structure, belonging to one very specific place. The building suits this one place and does not simultaneously feature in any other place. Every structure has its place, every building its special community destined for it, who in turn put it to local use as they see fit. Every structure has its own building laws that apply to it. So too is the case with civil religion. Every civil religion comes to regulate the relationship and loyalties that are very specific between the state and its citizens. Every state has its specific citizens’ community attached to it. It is possible that the relationship that exists in France between the state and its citizens is used as a role model in Senegal, Africa who copied the “model” of Civil Religion, French style. Yet the loyalties of the Senegalese citizens will be directed toward Senegal, not France. Their focus of loyalty will be exclusive. It is on this basis that the Senegalese civil religion is able to create a focal point for the special spiritual and emotional ties between the citizens of Senegal and their country. This focal point of loyalties competes with other foci of loyalties and emotion that are and were present amongst these citizens-whether it be between them (or a part of them) and a kind of idolatry, Catholicism, tribal affiliation, ideology (Communist or democratic) and similar ties of loyalties and emotions. It is very likely that the same Senegalese citizen will remain a Catholic, a tribal member and be waving the flag of democracy and the like. It is also possible that the Senegalese authorities will not prohibit these things and may even encourage them. It is also likely that conflict of interests will not exist. The whole problem of conflicts is a subject in and of itself that deserves separate discussion. But for the purposes of defining “civil religion” it should be noted that it relates to a specific country’s society, and therefore there is no such thing as an “international civil religion” but every civil religion in each and every country must be treated separately. So far the substantive aspects from an external perspective have been dealt with.

Now the substantive reasons from an internal perspective will be discussed.

Looking at it internally means looking at the internal mechanisms of religion, each country’s underlying reasons and intentions. The difference between internal and external aspects is similar to the difference between internal and external functions of a motor car. To the question why a motor car is a land vehicle unsuitable for air or sea travel, it is possible to answer on two levels. Speaking on the level of its external features it can be said that that the motorcar does not have any wings, is not lightweight and is not hermetically sealed and therefore it is impossible to fly in it or to use it to sail on water. Speaking on the level of its internal features it can be said that that the motorcar was not designed with wings, nor was it made lightweight and was not planned to be hermetically sealed since its manufacturers were looking to provide a solution for those consumers seeking land transportation exclusively. Had they been asked to provide something suitable for air travel or sea navigation they would have built it differently and then in addition to it transporting people across land it would also be able to transport air and sea travellers.

Likewise the answers will change when speaking of civil religion, only they will be much more complex than the motorcar example. As was described in section 2 above, the motivations for forming a religion (and before that Totem) lies in the fears that humans experience, the emotions and insecurities that he feels and the impossibility of dealing with these problems by tangible means alone. Because of his nature and makeup, and owing to his limited depth of understanding, man feels that there are things that exist beyond the reality that he can grasp with his physical senses, things that he will never be able to fully solve. Since it is human nature for man to use his powers of imagination he can create an imaginary world, an unreal world, and to cling to these imaginary things so that they serve as an aid for him. This idea is present in the Jewish Prayer books. Anyone who glances at the actual prayers that Jews recite will find requests for help, expressions of faith in redemption, care for the aching soul and healing for man’s soul. Everything is directed at the G-d of Israel, who that same Jew never sees with his human eyes, but the results of his supplications he knows well. It is not by chance that Jews are found praying to the Lord. It is not coincidence but an internal need, which internal need flows from internal motivations described above.

This need does not disappear the moment a Jew loses faith in the existence of a Master of the Universe. The need still persists in him, and therefore this same Jew needs to find an alternative to his G-d. This alternative might be offered to him by his state, the State of Israel. This is not to point to the physical state, or its delegated officials: the IDF, the police, the courts, the ministers, and the members of Parliament: they do not enable him to discover spheres beyond his reality, transcendental spheres. Nonetheless the State of Israel remains the focal point of his identity with the idea and the concept of ultimate loyalty, the recipient of his desire to help, as if it were something hallowed, as a vision which has a message attached to it, as something just, as an expression of solidarity with the state’s citizens, as something for which soldiers sacrifice their lives, something which will never pass from this world and will not be nullified, something which belongs to that Jew and many like him uniting everyone into one body where his friends feel the same feelings towards national holidays, where everyone in the state celebrates those things that the state has hallowed, a uniting factor, a spiritual factor- the special spirit that flows from this state, lifting up the spirit of the state’s citizens so that the latter are prepared to give above and beyond their legal obligations that have been enacted in State Laws. At this point what emerges is the concept of the “intrinsic citizen” and the “intrinsic people” that was analysed in depth in my book on the Jewish State.[24]

Therefore, as a result of fear and out of a desire to free oneself from it and because it is the state that provides its citizens these with these intangible ways out, man must inevitably lose his faith in his G-d in order to establish this civil religion. Had civil religion not existed man would urgently need to invent it.

Since the entity to which the civil religious practitioner relates is his specific state, there cannot be an international or supranational civil religion. There can only be each country’s specific brand of civil religion.

Going back to the American example and to its brand of civil religion, defensive things will certainly be sounded off about American civil religion and about its attitude towards Theistic religions. At a scientific symposium, snippets of which will be presented later, things of this nature were said, regarding the attitude towards minority groups within the Anglo-American legal tradition.[25] This was at a seminar that centred on the opening and closing statements of Professor Aviam Sofer with the added participation of Professors Alan Aids, Milner S. Bull, Carol Weisbrod, and Sir Geoffrey Palmer, the last-mentioned being the former longstanding Prime Minister of New Zealand. Sofer noted the abandonment, by today’s American Supreme Court, of its protections over minorities, which it had previously enforced prior to its present tenure. In his reply to harsh criticism sounded off by Aides, Sofer prefaced his defensremarks abthe American Supreme Court and his claim that the Supreme Court does in fact protect minorities, including religious minorities as follows: “Have faith in the secular religion.” In his view, so it would seem protection over minority groups and over Theistic religions is a central tenet of the American secular religion and of the beliefs which this religion upholds.[26] It seems from his words, even if he does not express them in such a way, that the principles of the American secular religion are one and the same with those of the American Constitution, and that this secular religion is not especially anti Theistic religions rather it acts in defence of its majority, lest this majority be discriminated against by these other religions.

Weisbrod, one of the seminar’s participants, describes modern American society as a society in which the individual can create his environment at will. Included in this is the individual’s family status (as is expressed in the possibility of divorce or adoption) determined by the individual concerned. The Court does not interest itself in merely investigating the legal status or jurisdiction of this or that, it rather deals with judicial discretion which is the formation of a new social reality in the United States. This it does through judicial fiat and through the creation of a new (judicial) lexicon. As to the repeal of laws by judicial censure, as Sofer remarks, the question- according to Weisbrod- is complex and conflict ridden- since it is just as important to protect the minority from the majority as it is to protect the majority’s fundamental principles which are at times impaired by the minority. An example of this latter protection is when a minority group discriminates in its membership requirements on grounds of gender.

Palmer, another participant of this seminar, relates his New Zealand experiences. In New Zealand there is no judicial discretion. He argues that the only way to protect minorities as has been shown in New Zealand in its attitude towards its Maori minority which makes up 12% of the population, is through the court system which works very well in New Zealand, even if the judges do not have judicial discretion which is not practised there. He gives examples showing how the courts avoid basing their decision on judicial discretion both in New Zealand and in Britain where the legislature are encouraged to enact legislation safeguarding minority rights. He argues further that the American system of judicial discretion hampers the legislature in taking steps to protect minorities. He also sees a link [from both directions of the scales- upwards and downwards- Y.C.] between judge made law that uproots a parliamentary initiative and a parliamentary initiative that renders judicial legislation superfluous. From what he says, it appears that the secular religions in Britain and New Zealand are no worse off in their protections of minorities than is the American system (which Sofer has qualms against, especially when he reports about the changes in approach recently adopted by the US Supreme Court). He (Palmer) argues that there are two possible bodies safeguarding minorities, the courts and the electorate, and the courts are not the sole defenders of minority rights. The courts, for their part, have two options open to them, the first does not include judicial discretion, and the second does. As to the system that prevails in Britain and New Zealand (no judicial discretion) Palmer explains that they act in accordance with the rule of law. The rule of law in turn is a strong supporter of the both minority- and human rights.

Weisbrod’s words, mentioned above, it should be noted, echoed those of one of today’s most important thinkers in political philosophy, Richard Rorty, who presents the battle between American civil religion and Theistic religion , as will be demonstrated below, as one fought at all costs, and one which goes against any grain of logic. In this way he exemplifies the extent to which this war waged by American civil religion against Theistic religion is fought out of obstinacy and desperation. Rorty, in the footsteps of Kant and Nietzsche continues this war of civil religion against Theistic religion in the ideological plane. If Theistic religion used G-d’s words to act as the criteria for human behaviour, Kant and Nietzsche together with Rorty come to free man and society from Theistic religion, as will be elaborated upon below.

Rorty speaks of human language as forming reality. This he argues accords with Nietzsche’s view that it is within man’s powers to create for himself his own image, his environment and even his world. Rorty relates this power to language, and does not accept that a language is merely a means of expression or form of communication. Rorty bases his views on the argument that one cannot search for objective truth and that subjectivity is no more inferior to absolute objectivity. Going even further along this line of thought he argues that there is no such thing as objective or absolute. He argues that men invent truth, they do not reveal it. Truth is only relative and depends upon man’s inventive powers, whether in the scientific field, in the artistic world, or issues dealing with morality and social behaviour. In matters of truth he makes no distinction between science (which quite clearly discusses what is truth) and art and morality [and as I have remarked concerning Rorty- when relating to art and morality Rorty does a disservice when illogically connecting it to truth, since art is a matter of aesthetics and emotions while morality is a value judgement of social behaviour, mixed with aspects of emotion and logic- Y.C.] Rorty[27] does not offer a logical explanation for his stated position. He does not explain why the objective approach needs to be rejected. The only justification he provides is that the liberal behavioural values have furthered the causes of those ascribing to liberal society. This is the reasoning he employs when giving preference to liberal positions over national ones (the latter of which he describes using radical Nazi imagery in presenting it to his liberal readers) and over religious standpoints (which are those that were used in religious wars). Rorty debates with Michel Sandal, a person who, although liberal, preferred (like those holding religious or national views) the objective approach as truthful to the subjective approach held dear by Rorty. Since there is common ground between Sandal and those holding religious or national views, that objectivity must come up trumps against relative truth, Rorty combines all three approaches into one, presenting them all as Nazis or religious warriors (i.e. disgraceful in the eyes of his liberal readers). In this way, by confusing different standpoints, by meshing natural science together with arts and human mores, he explains why he favours the liberal approach of relative truth over any other viewpoint that supports objectivity. Thus, Rorty prefers liberal values and language to any other approach, with the reasoning that they are better and more appropriate for liberal society. He makes the case that what is good for man or society is also the truth for them. In this way he identifies truth with interest. Whatever serves me is the truth.

What links Rorty’s outlook with that of Weisbrod’s is a whole moral perspective that bases itself on the interests and on the “good” of the society that they describe. This is a view which hooks up well with Kant, who, although believing in and favouring objectivity while discarding the personal interests and biases of man, nonetheless placed man at the centre, because of man’s pure consciousness and his ability to create objective truth through this faculty.[28] Kant’s innovation sought to replace the religious and naturalist notions that both centred on something superior to man. They placed before man the challenge of reaching a higher plane, an ambition to improve oneself. The challenge of self-improvement does not stem from utilitarianism or from a chief desire to better man’s predicament, as is the objective of Western cthat was headed by Kant.

Instead of man upholding the tenets of natural- or any kind of religious morality, he lifts his eyes heavenward searching for truth, the attribute of objectivity, which (from his perspective) is the Supreme Being. Thus, the liberal man according to Rorty (like the reasonable man in Kantian thought) becomes (in his own eyes) the replacement for G-d. That is why Weisbrod puts the liberal community’s interests and guiding principles on a holy pedestal. This line of thinking arises from her supposedly balanced thinking, which is informed by the interests of the community she represents. She will only consider the interests of the minority as long as they do not clash with the interests and principles of the majority.

Therefore, Sofer’s qualm with the US Supreme Court’s present composition is not based on principle, but deals with the factual question: Do Theistic religions harm the cornerstones of American civil religion? It is a debate that is conducted within the confines of the liberal community and relates to the role civil religion’s interests play. The supremacy of civil religion over Theistic religions is never in question.

Another position, more methodical, and also more explicit, pertaining to America’s religious war, can be seen in the theory of John Dewey. This theory exemplifies the hardening of positions in the political wars (in the area of governmental influence) waged by American civil religion against Theistic religions, over American national interests. This war is fought while showing a modicum of respect towards theistic religions. Most Americans, in addition to being practitioners of American civil religion are also affiliated with theistic religious communities. The religious belief in a Deity- as a central theme- regardless of the theistic religion- is entrenched in the United States more than in almost any other country.

During the 1950s Dewey developed a moral code that disposed of religion and its absolute values both which predominated during the era just prior to modern science’s appearance (hereafter “the pre-scientific era”), and which had guided social behaviour (morality). His system introduced in their place a stable and controlled resource, trustworthy and safe, through which norms and mores would be eked out, ensuring that religion’s status (Theistic) as spiritual guide would come to an end- either directly (through the cessation of religious commandments) or indirectly (through it no longer being a reference for moral values.)

His most fundamental writings on this topic are found in Reconstruction in Philosophy, published in 1920. A second edition was released in 1948 and by 1950, two years before Dewey passed away, The New American Library of World Literature Inc. republished his book with an expanded introduction wherein Dewey explains his core ideas.[29] It is possible to find in this introduction Dewey’s last will and testament and an overall summary of his lifework.

Dewey’s contribution to his generation's notions of morality cannot be underestimated, and even today his theory remains important. Dewey engraved his signature on American causes for more than sixty years, and his sphere of influence spread beyond the confines of American soil. Contemporary post-modernist thinking can also be considered entrenched in Dewey’s theory and flowing from it. Both schools of thought argue that just as science has proved that there are no unshakeable truths, and that everything is relative even in the exact sciences, human morality too must be relative.[30]

Dewey makes mention in his introduction about the doubts and wavering that have gnawed away at the notion of American morality,[31] and for the need then to destroy it and rebuild an American (and also western) morality. He admits the fact that those who believe in religious values and its trustworthy normative source (i.e. moral code) do not face any dilemmas. For the secular individual this dilemma is left unsolved so long as moral virtues rely upon the old morality, of the pre-scientific period.[32] He then proposes that by using science and his system, not as a supporter of the prevailing morality and not even to partially amend it but rather as a total alternative to the prevailing standard and as a resource from which a new and faithful moral code can be drawn. Dewey believed, even if he did not explicitly say so, that if he succeeded in his mission, civil religion, which already then had been adopted by the political regimes of western states would be cured of fault. This would in turn relegate the position of theistic religions (the first being Christianity), which continued to attract the lion’s share of adherents and which were the effective alternative for the ruling elite’s civil religion.[33]

Dewey attempts to structure his theory on logical analysis. He goes about doing this in stages, common to each is the fact that they are so completely ungrounded in logic, so that it has to be asked why so many thinkers were duped (and still are) into following him.[34] Dewey begins with the premise that morality and science are in fact very closely related. This he shows by the fact that both science and politics underwent revolutions in the last few centuries. He asserts that moral values are created by the human intellect (just as any scientific endeavour-Y.C.) but at the same time disagrees with Kant that this is the same as pure consciousness. Morality is empirical [as is science-Y.C.] and does not presume to contain absolute truth [like in modern science-Y.C.] Politics like science and industry dismiss the effect of old theories to assist in creating new ones. It is true that philosophy deals with the human condition, but it does not confine itself to this study. While humans interest themselves in science, the universe, reality, truth- things of permanence, unconstrained by time, that are eternal- it is philosophy [which also deals partly with morality] that is responsible for the development of the natural sciences. A situation then arises where it is not quite certain whether a certain subject is of a scientific nature or a philosophical one. Darwin’s theory then may be considered philosophy, since as a theory it does not have application to anything concrete, and by definition philosophy too does not relate to concrete facts. Works that are philosophical by nature and cannot fit under the rubric of science play an important role in facilitating the study of certain new disciplines.

Dewey explains that from these new disciplines “scientific” theories were formulated that philosophically challenged religious values and moral codes that were prevalent until then in Western Europe. In the past it was science that had led the war against religion, but those events that in the past were called wars were in fact fought by a science in the narrowest sense of the word. They ignored all the other lifestyle issues-- whose origin is in the world of science- including family status, the status of women and children,[35] education, the arts, political and economic relations –whether they originated then or whether they only affect modern life,

When relating to the “war” (in his opinion and by his definition) between religion and science that took place in the west, Dewey concludes that the war ended with an unfair compromise. State employment was divided into higher domains - issues of spirituality (which science surrendered) and lower physical domain that were handed over to science. This according to Dewey’s narrative represented the partition between materialism and spirituality. Whoever was forced to accept this partition soon realised that science rises above its assigned realm redrawing the boundaries between the physical and spiritual. This caused a feeling of disarray and insecurity, which in turn sparked off and continues to inflame feuds and emotions. While relating this worldview Dewey makes the claim that he does not want to express an opinion on which side is right. Nonetheless he agrees that there is disarray, insecurity and confusion, and in an attempt to diffuse these issues he proposes reconstructing the whole moracode network instead of the olstructure that is in place. Science will then come to his aid to supervise this simultaneous destruction and reconstruction. In this way, at least according to Dewey, science will repay to philosophy that which philosophy thus far had endowed it with.

In his telling description Dewey locates for us the formation of secularism. He says that the separation of powers between morality and the old religion, which continues to deal with the spiritual sphere, and science, which deals with more material matters, and which - aided by certain philosophical disciplines- crossed the boundaries in its criticism of religious supervision over spiritual matters, caused confusion. This whole episode brought about the phenomenon of secularism, which, because of its inherent bleak outlook on the future of humankind caused many to lose direction in life. Those able to look upon the old morality as absolutely rooted in firm ground [Dewey means by this, the religious person- Y.C.] are also able to resolve any of their doubts. Others however need to embark on a more intensive search in order to pave for themselves a new way. It is Dewey himself who can offer this new solution [for the secularists- Y.C.], one that is based on scientific empirical evidence, and one that would provide a new and wider foundation for morality than the one it has stood on prior to this discovery.

In addition to the last edition’s introduction by Dewey- the book’s body[36] details how it is that science can create a new moral code. He sees the construction of this endeavour having the same application as it has in other fields of scientific research. He opines that morality and ordinary scientific research share very similar characteristics. In his detailed analysis he enumerates certain shared features: the basis for investigation and discovery in both fields; experimentation through processes of elimination; axiomatic reasoning in logical thought; different laws and criteria for what qualifies as a springboard for arriving at a result, all these apply equally to the exact sciences as they do to morality. He also states that they share a common phenomenon; after analysing a certain matter they may conclude, on the one hand that they are bound by its findings, while realising on the other, that a past practice or long-held principle is no longer relevant. These common features according to Deweyan logic make it possible to draft a moral code in the same way as one would a scientific thesis, i.e. through theoretical and practical research. When speaking about democracy and the link between it and his system[37], he sees the role democracy plays in his new morality as creating an exclusively liberal climate. Within this climate, democratic regimes are vested with the authority and rights to institute and to choose political appointees to educate the masses to be more productive, to be more ambitious and to create wider room for manoeuvre. Within this newly created atmosphere Dewey’s system can be put to better use.[38] Dewey does not suggest that his new code of morality be based on democratic decisions. It is obvious why he does not recommend this, especially since he favours destroying the old and rebuilding anew. If he was to rely on designing a moral code of binding norms underwritten by the democratic process, it would be in conflict with his central idea of a new way. Since already by the time Dewey hit the scene there was nothing new about democracy- and Dewey wanted something completely innovative. Nevertheless by harbouring these reservations toward democratic decision making (though he professed to be a sworn democrat) Dewey weakened the foundations of his theory, as will be demonstrated below.

Viewed in its entirety, Dewey’s narrative portrays a known truth; those who do not feel bound by religiously ordained moral constraints-because of their secularism- are perplexed by the problem of defining for themselves a moral code. It is quite clear that Dewey’s solution is inappropriate for those who have a close connection to religion and as a result thereof feel compelled to fulfil their moral commitments, which historically are entrenched in their religion. It is quite evident from the analysis portrayed by Dewey that the chain of events that induced western society to undergo mental change went hand in hand with the widening impact that civil religion was to have on their collective mental consciousness.

In contradistinction- if morality by its very essence is not merely a matter of consciousness and intellectual comprehension- i.e. empirical, but rather a set of values and emotions, science- neither intrinsically valuable nor very moving - is unqualified to formulate ethical norms ab initio.

From reading Dewey’s words the question left begging is whether the logic of a scientist can substitute for a debate of values traditionally held between scholars of the humanities. What about the values that morality demands its adherents to live by? From where are these carved out? And if what is discussed has been empirically proven, is it possible or even proper to set moral rules based on an empirical statistical report on the social behaviour of a specific society, without even holding a debate on the values of that society? Without knowing how the weltaunshaung of the members of that society and of its thinkers determines the correct social behaviour? Dewey fails to explain how he can hope to make a connection between scientific research and value systems. What about the emotional aspect that plays such a large role in laying out the foundations for a moral system (whether as a positivist innovation within the framework of parliamentary institutions or as a means of communicating with G-d and of emotionally performing his commandments)? How are emotions measured in the Deweyan laboratory for moral research? What kind of remedy does dry scientific justice offer man’s soul and how will a body of cold scientific thought alleviate man from his depressions and fears? It should not be forgotten: morality was always intimately connected with religion, and religion always came to relieve man from his oppressed state. Just like man’s torment stemmed from an unreal place where logic has no meaning, so too morality, coming as it does from religion, always distanced itself from reality and from self interest. Science, in contradistinction, works within the bounds of reality, the tangible, existential interest (materialism).

An additional question begs to be asked, concerning the invalidation of the existing morality. The whole idea of absolutes that run at the core of morality is an Achilles heel to Dewey’s system. He himself admits that modern science does not support objective truth and so is forced to deduce that the morality that comes as an outgrowth of his scientific system will also not be objective and will be subject to amendment. If this is what Dewy is offering us (and indeed that is what he is offering) the question left begging is what good tidings has Dewy imparted? In what way is this new morality, relative and variable better than the old morality, whose source is G-d and faith in Him? What is the special message and advantage in the Deweyan system? Where does the system ultimately lead? Is the main purpose of the system to destroy existing systems, to rebuild them anew and then to destroy them once again when they become established so that an ongoing process of destruction is formed ensuring dynamic change?

The last question that emerges relates to Dewey’s take on civil-secular religion[39] and his war on theistic religion and call for the removal of theistic religion from the state’s administrative affairs. Dewey points out that his recommendations are there to help the secular population. If so, the question is why does Dewey relate to the American people, most of whom stand firm in their beliefs in G-d, as if they were a secular nation waiting and ready to wage war on theistic religion? And how is it that this nation accepted Dewey’s theory that was meant for a secular audience? Was it in the interests of American unity, which obligates allAmericans to display common purpose bpolitically severing themselves from any divisive factors like the various religious factors?

An answer- at least partial- to this question- can be found in Dewey’s system as it relates to the educational sphere. He promoted the idea of having an American public school system where all the students, no matter their religious or ethnic background would intermingle with one another, in order that they develop a common belief system. By preaching such co-existence he hoped that these students when they eventually enter adulthood would join together harmoniously in their pursuit of common happiness. The trend was, then, to turn the schools, which were religious- on the level that they had features that were common to all western religions- into schools that were predominantly secular. Although the trend had already started by the end of the nineteenth century and it continues until our day, in 1950 an attempt to stem the tide of secularism was quickly repealed by the Supreme Court. A brief episode[40] erupted in the 1950s and 1960s with a failed experiment of conducting Bible reading classes in the public school system following the Protestant custom. The court ruled against this custom rejecting the claim that Christianity was the law of the land in the USA. Previously they rejected an appeal to allow the promotion of a general faith in G-d, even though the appeal did not ask for the recognition of any specific theistic religion.[41] This approach of the American Supreme Court is a part of the trend to turn America into a country where religion will be totally crushed, because of its divisive effects toward internal American life. This is a trend that promotes secularisation. The trend to seal off theistic religion had its precedent in America more than a century before, when the public schools and most academic institutions promoted this action. This could only be done with the active promotion of Dewey’s ideological thought. If despite all, most Americans stubbornly attend church services; this is a sign of the vitality of theistic religions and the powerlessness of civil religion, although it does not mean that the latter has totally lost their way. Still at some level civil religion does contain transcendental elements, which bind Americans together offering them some type of spiritual solace.

Generally speaking it is true that the political trend of any country is reflected by what is relayed in primary and secondary schools. In Israel too schools reflect politics, which can be seen when comparing the educational institutions with the prevailing party/political ideology. American civil religion likewise fits into what has been said. From an historical perspective the same is true of Canada, a nation that originally based its formation on a theistically religious covenant, but has since developed a secular religion, similar to that of the older member of this sorority, the USA.

Contrary to what has been said by those favouring the American system of judicial discretion, the following needs to be stated. In the USA a limited war rages between civil religion and theistic religion- a war that has been confined specifically to the field of political influence, though, considering our cautionary note above, and looking at it from a long term historical angle, this limited war has much wider repercussions. Entering the debate as representative of civil religion is the US Supreme Court. Within the framework of legislative interpretation, the US Supreme Court goes out of its way to unnecessarily impose hardship on theistic religion via its decisions relating to the educational system.[42] It is possible to view this topic by comparing the situation with that of Canada. In Canada the ruling party has been associated with the interests of the Protestant majority in the federal parliament, interests that are in opposition to those of the Canadian Catholic minority, a minority which in the province of Quebec is actually a majority. It is possible to pinpoint the struggle between these two religions, which has turned a religious battle into a cultural and linguistic war involving in an intimate manner these two religions. In the Canadian experience, the French culture and language is taken up by the Canadian minority which is in fact a Quebecois majority, while the Anglo-American language and culture is taken up by Federal Canada’s majority and Quebec’s minority.

In the United States the situation is different. American justices conduct themselves as representatives of the American civil religion, which is not a Protestant-Catholic, battle, or vice versa. The American civil religion in the United States competes politically with all historically theistic religions, fighting against any hint of a connection between religion and the state government. Theistic religion in the USA may only be practised on condition that it confines itself to the church and synagogue. Accordingly the main practitioners of civil religion are the courts themselves particularly the US Supreme Court. The latter allows theistic religions to thrive on condition that it plays no role in the halls of power. In this capacity, the Supreme Court does not play the role of a judicial organisation concerned with all religions. Rather it represents the civil religion of the government, zealously fending off the political ascendancy of any other religion (theistic) to the extent that that religion is viewed as dangerous in its ability to exert any kind of political influence.[43]

In this spirit it is possible to understand the strange judgement in the Kirias Joel Satmar Chasidim case.[44] Here the justices showed no pity over thirty mentally disabled children whose special arrangement by the authorities to alleviate their suffering was discussed and struck down by the learned justices. The arrangement reached by the authorities had no other practical consequences yet it was criticised by the court and accordingly struck down. The Supreme Court Justices placed before them the hallowed principle of complete separation between religion (theistic) and state, and for reasons of demonstrating their longstanding ruling authority invalidated a humane and pragmatic solution. The American justices reached a similar decision when discussing raising the salary of Catholic schoolteachers in the Lemon case.[45] In contradistinction to these two cases the willingness of the justices to excuse the Indians[46] and Amish cult members[47] is rather striking. In both these last instances the justices saw no inkling of a threat over their authority or any seed of competition that would sprout in the future.

As to Canada, the religious issue relating to the Protestant and Catholic power struggle reared its head after cases involving legislative amendments to the Quebec Education Act and constitutional amendments to the Newfoundland educational system were decided in the Canadian courts.[48] These decisions reflect a struggle over control of power. This struggle was carried out there, unlike the USA, by politicians rather than by the courts. In Newfoundland there were two constitutional amendments which for obvious reasons were supported by both Houses of Assembly, the provincial and federal. These amendments were also supported by the Protestant majority both of the province- Newfoundland’s- and of Canada’s federal parliament, allowing them (the amendments) to be applied to the (provincial) constitutions. It should be clarified at this point that each of Canada’s Province’s constitutions requires the approval of both the Provincial House and Federal parliament for an amendment to be effected. In the province of Quebec its majority also requested amendments to the religious education system. But the situation in Quebec was different to that of Newfoundland: Quebec’s majority was Catholic and the amendments affected the rights of Protestants, while all along as mentioned above, the federal parliament was dominated by Protestants. Therefore the amendment in Quebec could not be passed as a constitutional amendment but had to be done in the framework of legislation which could be passedexclusively by the province and did nothen require approval from Federal Parliament. The constitutional background to the educational problems was the same in these two provinces (Quebec and Newfoundland). According to the Canadian Constitution and according to Canadian custom both before and immediately after the Federation came into being the educational system was religious. There were mainly Protestant and Catholic schools. The Catholic schools focused primarily on the religious instruction element and the Catholic school was chiefly a doctrinal institution. The Protestant schools, on the other hand, placed a greater stress on studying content and less on indoctrination. These two approaches, doctrine versus scholarship squared up against each other. In both Quebec and Newfoundland a certain degree of secularisation had taken place, nonetheless, on the eve of these amendments the educational bases for both these provinces remained religious. The Newfoundland Protestants, who were the majority sought to make the study- oriented approach more efficient, in light of the technological and scientific progress, which rendered the acquisition of knowledge so vital. They strove then to amalgamate the smaller schools and to create larger schools, which could then develop and accommodate a wide-ranging curriculum. The request was out of a need to make the object of acquiring more knowledge more effective. In the beginning they were willing to reach some type of compromise solution with the Catholics. They sought ways of making the change not too drastic in advancing the study and knowledge acquisition approach at the expense of the (religious) indoctrination approach. This solution has and had always suited the Protestant approach. The Protestants who were in the majority claimed that both the Catholic and Protestant religious education were being affected since the dominance of both these religions had already been undermined. They claimed that the Protestant religious education system would be equally affected. This claim was disingenuous in light of the fact that Protestants had never stressed religious instruction in the same way as the Catholics had. The (provincial) government held a referendum on this first amendment and after the idea was approved (by a slight majority and with the participation of a very small amount of those eligible to vote) the Protestants passed this amendment in the Provincial House of assembly, after which ratification from the Federal Parliament was a mere formality. Following this the Catholics took legal action claiming that the procedure was unconstitutional. The Protestants met this with a thorny and radical reaction. An additional referendum was called in which the Protestants increased their margin of support (though also in this referendum –as before- a minority of eligible voters took part) and again both legislative houses, the provincial and federal, ratified the results. The second amendment was significantly more radical than the first and it deeply harmed Catholic education in the province. In the broadest sense of the word the struggle between these two population groups who preached very different ideologies may be viewed as a religious war. In this war the majority ended up overreacting towards the minority disrespecting its worldview in the process. Pushing ahead with the materialist agenda of the (Protestant) majority resulted in the spiritual lifestyle of the (Catholic) minority being crushed underfoot. In Quebec the struggle was centred more on cultural differences than on religious ones. The protagonists in this battle were the province’s Catholic majority and its Protestant minority. The clashes made it to the headlines in the press. They centred on signboards that were placed in public places and places of business and which were written exclusively in French. The French cultured elite intended on taking on their Protestant English-speaking minority, who were supported by the majority of Canada’s Federal parliament (which was majority Protestant). As has already been explained, because of the predominance of Protestants in the Federal Parliament Quebec’s Catholics were unable to change the educational system by means of constitutional amendment. They were then forced to opt for the legislation route, which would not require ratification on the federal level. Since Quebec, like its fellow province Newfoundland, was undergoing a process of secularisation, the only way for the Quebecois to unite under one banner was to exploit the language barrier. Language was a more effective tool in uniting the Catholic French cultural elite than was religion. Therefore, the new Quebec Education Act replaced the clause prescribing a religious standard for Provincial educational institutions with a clause demanding a language requirement. It would be pointless at this juncture to enter into a detailed chronology of how both these provinces enacted their respective amendments. What will be discussed are the motives behind forcing through separate education systems in Canada. The background of the struggle over a separate education system, like in the USA, is entrenched in the political/ regime struggle over religion or over issues that are rife with religious connotations. [49] Over the course of time, the infighting that has taken place within these two great countries has resulted in the interests, worldviews and emotions of the minority groups being crushed underfoot and being disrespectfully treated. This kind of attitude toward minorities prevalent even in liberal countries can be explained by the fact that the religious motive plays a very powerful emotional role. Religion is so strong a factor because of has been said already about its ability to deal with emotional elements of fear and insecurity of the supernatural by claiming itself to possess supernatural elements that alleviate that fear. Therefore it inevitably propagates a tough stance. Knowing this to be true, it is difficult to accept without any reservation Rorty’s claim, as stated above, that dirty play is the exclusive domain of theistic religious wars, and that the contemporary liberal American record opposes these tactics.[50]

Regarding the United States the question may be posed as to why the parents of a child who attends Catholic school receives less financial support for their offspring’s tuition than the they would if their child attended a state- run public school. In what way would equal treatment of both these educational systems (in both cases religion is taught- in the Catholic school it is Catholicism and in Public school it is [American] civil religion) impinge upon some or other important principle? How can those professing the American civil religion justify this budgetary discrimination between Catholic and civilly religious schools in a country whose courts strive to uphold equality before the law? Those wishing to explain away this conundrum point to the fact that it is not only the Catholic and religious schools that do not receive state aid but also private irreligious schools. This however fails to satisfactorily deal with the question. It is too easy to make do with the formal excuse that says that all private schools be they Catholic or otherwise are treated equally and thereby absolve the inherent inequity between Catholic and civil religious schools. This reasoning is not a strong enough alibi to the charge that the true aim of this inequality is to marginalise Catholic education. If the issue of Catholic education is being discussed (and likewise Jewish Orthodox education in the US) it is appropriate to speak of the Canadian model, where the state does provide assistance for Catholic education. American (like Canadian) Catholics devote a central part of their education on inculcating values. These values are at variance with those held by the liberal democratic state, while for Protestants the values they hold are not that much different to those which are acquired through state education. Therefore a special religious education system is more important for Catholic adherents than it is for Protestants. special classification system for schoothat are not state- run does great harm to Catholics, but doubtfully causes any trouble to Protestants. In practice what is being conveyed is a form of religious coercion. The very fact that Catholics require their children to be inculcated with a special value system, part of which is not taught by the state is the key to the whole debate. It is a source of contention between civil religion and Catholicism, more intense than that between civil religion and the Protestants[51] (who have no need for a separate educational system within the US).

The constitutional basis upon which America draws its lifeblood, as recorded in the American Constitution (not in its draft form but as interpreted by the courts from the end of the 19th century) is the result of a bitter political battle between the state and theistic religions[52], differing from Canada’s constitutional history. Canada’s unification of its provinces kept in place the existing religious education systems, which the Canadian Constitution preserved intact. Though the prevailing spirit in both Canada and the US are very similar, and the liberal democratic tradition is the most viable ideology in both countries, Canada differs in its handling of religious affairs. It proves that a modern state does not need to be by definition anti-religious (theistically speaking) to the extent that it infringes upon the space of religious activity, especially in respect of education, as has been shown above.

For the sake of balance it would be well advised to take heed of Ernest Koenker’s[53] narrative of how both democratic governments (including that of the US[54]) and Hitler’s regime exploited Christian obedience, viewing Christians as politically tools for strengthening the government’s grasp over the population. He quotes there a minister from the period of the French Revolution who claimed that when heavy taxes were imposed, the ranting of the masses against the government could be quelled by increasing the amount of religious study classes. His reasoning was that the more learned in religious subjects the masses were the more malleable they were towards the regime.

5. The hypocrisy of US civil religion in its manipulation of the justice system: A comparative study with France, Canada and Japan.

The court system in the United States refuses to accept any blame for consistently interpreting the constitution in a way that severely prejudices the theistic religions. In essence there is no one who dares point the finger in its direction, apart from the writer of this book. That said, it is a fact that when the abortion debate in the US raged on, there were books written, discussions held and angry demonstrations led against the harm caused to religious morality which is opposed to abortion. This sense of morality managed to infiltrate the political spectrum and succeeded in causing legislation to be passed forbidding abortion or at least in toughening the conditions. The central claim against the court’s judicial activism that they were engaging in “constitutional revision” or “writing a new constitution” (without in any way mentioning the religious issues involved) can be found in Lusky’s[55] treatise on the subject. This book, though like other polemical works, fails to single out civil religion as the chief opponent against theistic religion. The US Supreme Court is not attributed with discriminating against theistic religion due to the latter’s adversarial position towards secular religion. Apparently this fact goes against the claims made during the debate. Nonetheless it is advisable to be aware of the “blurring campaign” taking place in American politics by its cynical exploitation of religious symbols painting civil religion with the same paintbrush as theistic religion. In a list compiled by Robert Bellah[56] he analyses the political style of the United States presidents and traces certain phrases used in the public discourse to the Bible. Examples of this include referring to America as the “Promised Land”, professions of trust in G-d by each president, and similar expressions, especially when taking the oath of office. Though that is really what American civil religion is all about, unaffiliated to any one specific theistic religion. That may be the reason why in the United States more religious communities have blossomed than in most of the other Western countries. Generally speaking however these communities tacitly accept the premise of separation of religion and State. Only a minority of churches tries to influence the internal American political system, but this minority is itself attacked for being reactionary, a charge easily made in light of these com