- 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 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 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 God 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 communities' often
blatant racist ideology. In France, the birthplace of civil
religion, and the initiator of the idea of separation of
religion and State, Muslim women were for many years forbidden
to wear headscarves even though their religious convictions
demanded that they be attired in such. This Constitutional
government's policy was for long regarded as progressive
and enlightened- despite the fact that it contained clear
elements of religious coercion- until a compromise solution
was found and the restrictions were eased. In Canada, where
religious education was the first issue to be constitutionally
challenged, secularism proved itself victorious. Even in
Quebec, where the regime was mainly Catholic, the secular
trend crept in causing the Catholic legislature to change
its criterion for educational institutions from one based
on religion to one based on language. The war cry for the
Quebecois Catholics changed into a battle over the ascendancy
of the French language and not the Catholic religion. Canada's
Federal Government's institutions have not come out directly
against religion per se,, rather it has merely shown a preference
for a State based education (which nowadays is becoming
increasingly more civilly religious) over Catholic- run
educational institutions. In this way theistic religions
are receding from power especially in the educational sphere.
Also as a general belief system, religion has been overtaken
by a growing liberal democratic secularism which reigns
supreme in Canada, owing to the quiet, gradual and unremitting
cultural revolution ,which is disconnected from the regime.
In Japan the Americans succeeded, during the military occupation
of that country at the end of the Second World War, to set
in place a new Constitution, ratified in 1952, on the eve
of their departure. In this new Constitution, in contradistinction
to the Imperial Constitution, its predecessor, the Shinto
religion ceased to be the State religion and the principle
of separation of state and religion was enshrined. Shinto,
which many doubt its authenticity as a theistic religion
and which has a direct link with Japanese nationalism (especially
that aspect of Shinto, which played the role of State Religion
during the Imperial period) has in the minds of many parallels
with the more well known western theistic religions. Its
cultural characteristics are typical of the Far East societies.
Shinto deals with higher forces of nature that link man
with deceased spirits (similar to the primitive religious
tribes in Africa) and with other natural phenomena. Shinto
adopted Confucian philosophy, which was the philosophy used
to dominate society and culture in China and its environs,
including Japan. Because of this and because of its cultural
and historical ties to Japanese village life, it managed
to create a Japanese status quo that demanded absolute compliance
with all duties imposed upon the individual. Consequently
Shinto is not interested in the procurement of human rights.
From this perspective Japanese culture is at variance with
modern western cultures that are an outgrowth of the rebellion
against the past Christian hegemony over the West. Official
Shinto also received the emperor's stamp of approval, turning
it into a State Religion spiritually binding the People
of Japan with the State of Japan. The Americans viewed Shinto
as no different to any of the other well-known western religions.
Outof a desire to weaken the position of Japan's emperor-
who traditionally symbolised theistic religion and was not
merely considered a political ruler- and out of ideological
motivations (inspired perhaps by civil religion?) they instituted
separation of State and religion in the new Constitution
which was forced upon Japan. This Constitution was imposed
by force, until the Japanese voluntarily agreed to accept
it, in the course of compromise agreements between them
and their American occupiers. Nonetheless the Japanese never
really came to terms with the fact that America had dictated
its terms to Japan. The Japanese courts ratified, despite
the constitutional amendment of enforcing separation of
state and religion, the granting of municipal funds to Shinto
priests, who oversaw events that the local authorities designated
as promoting the general public interest, but which were
not exclusively Shinto. Religion has also infiltrated the
political process so that nowadays it is so powerful and
influential, to the extent that Japan's Prime Minister (apparently
because of religious influence)slipped up by referring to
Japan in the characteristically religious, and culturally
entrenched term as "holy ground." An utterance
such as this from the mouth of the premier shocked Japanese
political circles. It also aroused fierce opposition among
anti-religious circles (practitioners of civil religion)
in Japan who view religion as a hindrance and stumbling
block to progress. The background to this eruption is the
fact that in Japan a battle is being brewing between those
who practice this new civil religion, a product of generally
western and especially American influence and between those
who observe traditional Shinto. Owing to the fact that state
institutions were never fully taken over by practitioners
of civil religion, the state has never taken a side in the
conflict. This has always been the tradition of Japan, never
to adopt an unambiguous stance, but rather to always accord
some respect to traditional faith
