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. 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. 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," 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. 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. 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 meto establish 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 God 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 God. 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. 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 God 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.