Civil religion -- sometimes calleed "civic religion" -- is a term that is defined many ways. Most broadly, civil religion refers to the symbols and rituals that express patriotism, such as singing national anthems, and which work to bond the people of a nation together. In a way, civil religion sanctifies the values, aspirations, and spirit of a nation.

In the U.S. we don't talk about civil religion much, but it's certainly part of our lives, especially when an important election is imminent. Campaign rallies can feel very like religious revivals. And national symbols can have as strong a potency as religious ones. Indeed, sometimes symbols retain their potency long after the nations they represented have fallen. Consider the Confederate flag or the Nazi Swastika, which itself was adapted from an ancient religious symbol.

Civil religions can have the equivalent of scriptures, such as the American Declaration of Independence or the British Magna Carta. Civil religions can also include myths or narratives. For the U.S., an example of a national myth is the heartwarming First Thanksgiving story (which historians and Native Americans say is a very cleaned-up version of what really happened). And there are saints -- George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, for example. I'd say Lincoln also qualifies as a national martyr. The stories a nation tells about itself, historically accurate or not, play a large role in forging a national identify.

The Swiss-born philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1788) is credited with coining the term "civil religion" in his book The Social Contract, first published 1762. Very briefly, in The Social Contract Rousseau argued that legitimate political authority comes from the collective will of the people. who are bound together through an unwritten social contract. This contract sets the responsibilities and rights of citizens and the peaceful processes through which collective decisions are made. Today Rousseau's ideas are part of the founcation of all democratic governments.

To appreciate what Rousseau is saying about civil religtion (in the linked text, see Chapter 8 beginning on page 103), it's helpful to put yourself in his time. The Reformation was long over. The Enlightenment, or "Age of Reason," had been going on for a while. The American and French Revolutions hadn't happened yet. Europe was still ruled by monarchs who assumed their authority came from "divine right" given by God. This was an idea Rousseau rejected. But through nearly all of human history, a nation's dominant religion and its national government and identity were inextricably fused together. (For more background on this, see "Why It's Hard to Separate Church and State.")

Rousseau lived at the dawn of a time in which sectarian religion, political authority, and national identity would no longer be fused. Indeed, the Dutch Republic had already been something of a multi-sectarian (but mostly Calvinist) nation for a couple of centuries. But how could a people form a national identity without a shared religion? Western civilization provided no clear examples of such a nation. This was the problem Rousseau addressed in The Social Contract. What he proposed is something like a very basic monotheism. He wrote,

The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary. The existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws: these are its positive dogmas.

This provision was most important:

Now that there is and can be no longer an exclusive national religion, tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship.

Americans in particular have struggled with how much religious religion has to do with their civil religion. By the 1970s some sociologists had proposed that American civil religion needed to avoid religious nationalism, or the belief that the U.S. is an exceptional and Christian nation that cannot do wrong. But it also needed to avoid a "radical secularism" that banished all religious expression from the public square. By steering a course between those two extremes, civil religion could remain a cohesive and positive fource in American life.

A frequently cited book on this subject is Varieties of Civil Religion (1980) by sociologists Robert Neely Bellah and Phillip E. Hammond. This is from the Introduction:

While the exact application of the term civil religion can be debated, the ubiquity of what can be called "the religio-political problem" can hardly be doubted. In no society can religion and politics ignore each other. Faith and power must always, however uneasily, take a stance toward one another. The polity, more than most realms of human action, deals obviously with ultimate things. With respect to both internal deviants and external enemies, political authority has claimed the right to make life-and-death decisions. Religion, on the other hand, claims to derive from an authority that transcends all earthly powers. The possibility of conflict between these potentially conflicting claims is always present, yet collisions are not necessarily constant. At various times and places politics may be little more than the pragmatic art of getting things done and religion may confine itself to "spiritual" matters. Or religion and politics may simply be two different pragmatics concerned with distinct spheres of existence.

In the U.S. this relationship between church and state has always been a struggle. The hisstorical record is clear that the Founders were determined to establish a secular nation. Yet through the years many citizens have worked hard to revise history and sweep the historcial record under a very thick rug. Religion can thrive in a secular nation that is accepting and tolerant of religion. But it seems to me theocraccy and democracy are mutually exclusive. If the authority of government is from God, and not the People, then in effect priests will always have the last word.