Religion As A Tool Of States Craft, Essay, Research Paper
As Outlined By
Jean-Jacques Rousseau ?You produce a deadly
paradox,? Jessica had written. ?Government cannot be religious and self assertive
at the same time. Religious experience needs a spontaneity, which laws
inevitably suppress. And you cannot govern without laws. Your laws eventually
must replace morality, replace conscience, and replace even the religion by
which you think to govern. Sacred ritual must spring from praise and holy
yearnings, which hammer out a significant morality. Government on the other
hand, is a cultural organism particularly attractive to doubts, questions and
contentions. I see the day coming when ceremony must take the place of faith
and symbolism replaces morality.? Letter from the Lady Jessica
Atredies Dune Messiah. P.252. Religion
occurs as a component in virtually every society. With this in mind, one should
then also look at what function the religious component serves in societies.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau examines religion and its place in society in the social
contract and comes up with some very interesting things to say. He also leaves
the door open for the reader to come up with some interpretations of religion?s
function in their own rite. ??????????? According
to Rousseau, religion, specifically civic religion is an instrument of politics
established by the sovereign, or the legislator, and it serves a motivating
function. When a society is in its infancy, citizens are often unable to
understand the purpose of the law and the purpose behind the law. Therefore,
civic religion motivates the citizen to obey the law because the law is backed
by the divine and thus, they fear divine retribution if they do not follow the
law. When it comes to a developed society, civic religion encourages and
motivates people to maintain the habits of obedience in part because they have
grown to understand and love the law. Plus citizens used to obeying the divine,
will have less trouble obeying the law, as they are already accustomed to the
act of obedience. ??????????? It
is necessary to first, to clarify Rousseau?s ideas on religion. This is of
course not a simple task and leaves a fair bit up to the reader, as Rousseau?s
views were complex and subtle. There is however, merit to the fact that
Rousseau?s subtlety leaves room to interpretations that are not necessarily his
own, but no less valuable. In chapter eight of the Social Contract, Rousseau
seems to come up with four different types of religion. The first of these
types is what Rousseau terms as the ?religion of man.? According to Rousseau,
this is a religion that is ?without temples, altars, or rites.? It is, ?limited
to the purely internal cult of the supreme God and to the eternal duties of
morality?is the pure and simple religion of the Gospel, the true theism, and
what can be called natural divine law.?[1]
Rousseau sums up the ?religion of man? as Christianity. He does however make a
distinction between the current forms of Christianity that are being practiced,
and the one that he is speaking of. It is different in the fact that it is
focused on the Gospels and ?through this holy, sublime, true religion, men, in
being the children of the same God, all acknowledge one another as brothers,
and the society that united them is not dissolved even in death?[2]
While this sounds like an exhortation of Christianity as the best religious
choice, Rousseau goes on to find fault with this religious system in a state.
As true Christianity of this type requires that every citizen ascribe to the
same type of Christianity equally, with a continuity and similarity of beliefs
so that the citizens are all equally Christian, in order for peace and harmony
to be maintained in the society. For if the beliefs are not even and continuous
amongst citizens it will not be long before the citizens stop seeing each other
as brothers that are children of the same God, for different beliefs leads to
discontentment between the sects, with each sect believing itself to be the
true Christianity. Along with this Rousseau suggests also that it would be next
to impossible, and indeed very unlikely that every man would be equally
concerned only with things of heavenly nature. He goes on further to suggest
that Christianity is bad for the state for a number of reasons. He explains,
that Christianity is otherworldly, and therefore takes away from a citizen?s
love for life on earth as it is exemplified by the state. ?Christianity is a
wholly spiritual religion, concerned solely with the things of heaven; the
Christian?s homeland is not of this world.?[3]
As a consequence of this Christians are too detached from the real world as
they are constantly preparing and considering things in light of the eternal
life to come after this life is over. Moreover, Christians make bad soldiers,
once again because they are otherworldly. They won?t fight with the passion and
patriotism that a deadly army requires, as often times the requirements to be
an effective and deadly soldier run contrary to the beliefs that Christianity
calls for. Rousseau also anticipates that ?a single ambitious man, a single
hypocrite, a Cataline, for example, or a Cromwell, he would undoubtedly gain an
upper hand on his pious compatriots.?[4]
It is for these reasons that Rousseau while espousing Christianity as the ?true
theism? suggests that it would be less then beneficial for the ideal state that
he is designing. ??????????? Rousseau
defines the second form of religion as the ?religion of the citizen.? This is
the religion of a single country, a national religion. This type of religion is
highly organized and hierarchical, it has formal dogmas, teaches love of
country, obedience to the state, and martial values. The association Rousseau
makes is to the religion of the ancient Romans. The Islamic religions of the
Middle East would also fit into this framework. Outside the nation that
practices this kind of religion, everything is infidel, alien and barbaric. It
extends the duties and rights given to man only as far as its own altars.[5]
This type of religion, in Rousseau?s estimation can be good for some states, as
it unites the state, and love of its laws, with the ?divine cult.?? The counter point to this is that this type
of religion has the potential to make men superstitious and intolerant.
Further, when the boundary between church and state become clouded, citizens
may begin to ?believe that they are performing a bold action in killing anyone
who does not accept its gods.? They would see this action as having the backing
of the state, as in this case the state and the deity, or the religion of the
deity are fully intertwined, and having the blessing of God, as they are doing
his will. ??????????? Rousseau
points out a third kind of religion that he considers in his own terms to be
?more bizarre.?? He terms this religion
as the ?religion of the priest.? His example of this kind of bizarre religion
is the Roman Catholic faith. He calls it bizarre ?in giving men two sets of
legislation, two leaders, and two homelands, it subjects them to contradictory
duties and prevents them from being simultaneously devout men and citizens.?
Roman Catholic faith subjects citizens to both, the laws of the state and the
laws of the church. Not only are they subject to the authority that the head of
state has over them, but they are also subject to the authority of the pope,
via the church. In addition to this they are subject to the rule of the Vatican
as well as the rule of their homeland. For Rousseau the ?religion of the
priest? is ?so bad that it is a waste of time to amuse oneself by proving it.
Whatever breaks up social unity is worthless. All institutions that place man
in contradiction to himself are of no value.?[6]
There is also the possibility that Rousseau did not want to get into a full
critique of the Roman Catholic Church, as it was a fairly powerful entity in
that time, and not necessarily the best organization to be upsetting. ??????????? Since
Rousseau finds such serious faults with the first three types of religion that
he goes over, he puts forth a fourth type of religion as the most admirable and
for the proper citizen to adhere to in his society. He defines this as a ?civil
religion.? It is asserted that it is the duty of the Sovereign to require a
?purely civil profession of faith? and to establish the dogmas of a civil
religion. What he is pretty much saying without specifically saying it is that
the Sovereign needs to make up their own religion for their new state. The
Sovereign is to establish the dogmas of civil religion. Rousseau further
elaborates on this idea by stating that the dogmas of civil religion ought to
be simple, few in number, precisely worded, and without explanations or
commentaries. The dogmas should provide for a the existence of a omnipotent,
intelligent, omniscient, and benevolent divinity that foresees and provides;
the life to come; the happiness of the just; the punishment of the wicked; the
sanctity of the social contract, and of the laws of the state. These dogmas are
the positive dogmas that Rousseau instructs the Sovereign or the legislator to
incorporate into the new state. As for the negative dogmas I am limiting them
to just one, particularly intolerance.[7]
The power is then invested into the Sovereign to have the ability to banish
from the nation any citizen that does not follow these tenants. However, the
Sovereign does not banish one for being impious, rather, the Sovereign banishes
one for being unsocial. With this in mind we can then take a look at the
reasons why Rousseau feels that a civil religion is necessary, and it is through
looking at these reason that we come to understand how religion is a tool of
the state. ??????????? For
Rousseau a civil religion motivates the people of the state in two different
ways. In an emerging society religion is particularly useful as a tool of
states craft, because it creates an awe and fear of a power even larger then
the state, namely the divine. Rousseau characterizes people in these new
societies, as people who would be unable to understand the real purpose and
principals of the laws that the sovereign is laying out.[8]
By using this awe and fear of the divine as the backing for the state the
citizens will then also follow the laws of the state, for they have the backing
of the divine, and to disobey the divine is to risk great unpleasantness in the
afterlife. In turn he fears this lack of understanding, or ignorance of the
masses will interfere with their obedience to civil law. ??????????? Rousseau
understands the inherent difficulties that come with trying to institute a new
system of laws and the dilemmas that come with trying to impose them on a new
society. Rousseau places most of the responsibility for the implementation of
these laws on the Legislator.[9]
It is the Legislator?s duty to direct the people towards the common good, both
for the people and for the society. The people will not however simply follow
the Legislator simply because of the high intellect, or the sound reasoning
ability that the Legislator should possess, the people will follow the
Legislator because he has the backing of the divine, as the people are
accustomed to following, and will trust the will of the divine. Rousseau goes
on to assert that ?Since the Legislator is incapable of a using either force or
reasoning, he must of necessity have recourse to an authority of a different
order, which can compel without violence and persuade without convincing?[10]
It is in this passage in particular that Rousseau makes the closest allusion to
the specific use of religion as an instrument of politics. Religion then
becomes the means to convince the people to subject themselves to the laws of
the sate by borrowing the people?s inherent fear of God and using it, so that
they will follow the laws of the state because it is God?s will. Through this
instrument of states craft, the people will willingly submit themselves and
sign themselves over to the state. It appeals to man?s primitive instincts of
survival. Motivation arises out of fear and awe, and a desire not to anger the
divine. It is through this combination of the divine and the state that the people
will truly submit themselves, for not only will they fear retribution on earth
from the state if they disobey the law, but they also fear retribution from
heaven. Likewise, they see compliance with the law as a means for gaining favor
with the divine, and the way to blessings from God, in the same manner that
following the law of God brings blessing from heaven. One author, Zev Trachtenberg,
makes the following comment; ?religion remedies the effect of the cognitive
deficit the Legislator encounters with new people?[11] ??????????? The society doesn?t stay static
however, and neither does the use of religion within the society. The function
of civil religion will evolve along with the development of the society it has
been instituted in. Once the society reaches the point where it becomes
cognisant of the direction of the common good, the purpose behind the civil
religion shifts. The people no longer need the fear of the divine to lead them
to follow the law, for they see that the law is good and useful of itself, even
without the force of the divine behind it. As the laws have been implemented
and followed citizens learn this usefulness of the law through their
experiences with it, and see that it is too their advantage to live under the
law and the protections that it grants them.[12]
The citizens reach the point where they no longer need to be strong-armed into
obedience by the will of the divine. At this point however, the civil religion
does not become unnecessary and devalued. It shifts its purpose as to a manner
by which obedience is continually enforced. Citizens need to have a moral
background upon which to base their reasons for the morality of following the
law. For if there were no morality citizens would soon loose their sense of
duty to the state and their desire to follow the law and be moral citizens.
Rousseau writes, ?For it is of great importance to the state that each citizen
have a religion that causes him to love his duties. But the dogmas of that
religion are of no interest either to the state or its members, except to the
extent that these dogmas relate to morality and to the duties which, the one
who professes them is bound to fulfil towards others.?[13]
How exactly Rousseau plans for his society to move from a single state oriented
religion to a diversity of religions is unclear, though he may be thinking of
the fragmentation process that has occurred through time, causing different
denominations to spring out of common roots. The passage describes the kind of
society that Rousseau wishes to create. He wishes for civil religion to create
a bond between the people and the law. Rousseau notes, correctly however that
the law on its own has force, and that the divine, on its own has force;
however when the two are linked, the force of both is increased. [14]
It is clear that with or without religion a citizen will have duties in a
society whether or not there is the added force of religion to encourage the
citizens to follow the rule of law. To put it simply, in order to be associated
with a state, following the rule of law is a requirement, otherwise the citizen
will be banished or sequestered. It is not however, a requirement of
association with the state that citizens love these duties to the law, and to
their fellow citizen. ??????????? This is where Rousseau?s evolved civil
religion fits into the picture. It is the tool by which the state continues to
instil in its citizens a love for their civic duties and their moral
responsibilities, for the civil religion continues to preach a love for one?s
fellow citizen, and the moral responsibilities inherent to the doctrine. This
love of the law that Rousseau is calling for is different then the ?religion of
the citizen? outlined earlier in our discussion, which calls for the love of
the country and the intolerance of anything alien.? While each of these types would provide a strong link to kinsman
and country, a civil religion in Rousseau?s eyes should not turn the state into
the object of adoration. It also does not emphasis intolerance in the manner
that the ?religion of the citizen? does. Rather the civil religion should
emphasise the opposite, Rousseau states, ?tolerance should be shown to all
those that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to
the duties of a citizen.? Once again one wonders how exactly the religious
difference has crept into Rousseau?s state, however the stressing of tolerance
within the limits of the society is an important point to note. At this point
the Sovereign is not concerned with the question as to whether or not the dogmas
of the various civil religions are right or wrong, thus eliminating the need to
declare a ?church of the state? which would push the society back towards a
religion of the citizen. The Sovereign should instead be concerned with the
moral, social, and political consequences that the religion brings forth into
the society.[15] ??????????? In the light of this discussion of
Rousseau?s view on religion as a tool of states craft, one is lead to wonder
whether or not Rousseau truly saw his own religion, or profession of Calvinism
as truly a faith based in a spiritual connection that he had, or if it was
simply a profession of convenience. It is hard to see how he could have had
such a clear and in some respects, cynical view of religion, and its uses to
mould a society, and also believe in his own religion. If he speaks of it as a
tool, one must wonder if he saw his own religion in the same light. It is clear
to see that Rousseau takes very seriously the function that the institution of
religion plays in a society. He outlines four very different – yet similar in
some respects, types of religion. He only calls for the adherence to one type
of religion, the civil religion. The civil religion is viewed as a motivating
function of society, for citizens in countries that are in their infancy
religion motivates them to follow the law and obey out of fear. In developed
countries or societies the motivation to obey the law comes both from a love of
the law and the order that it brings, and a moral code that is instilled by the
civil religion. Bibliography & Reference Dent, N.J.H. ?Rousseau : an introduction to his
psychological, social, and political theory.? B Blackwell. New York, NY, USA.
1989Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. ?The Social Contract? Translated by
G. D. H. Cole. www.constitution.org/ Lemos, Ramon M. ?Rousseau’s political philosophy: an
exposition and Interpretation? Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1977. Trachtenberg, Zev M. ?Making citizens: Rousseau’s political
theory of culture.? London; New York: Routledge, 1993. ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? [1] SC, Book IV,
Chapter 8. [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid. [5] Ibid. [6] Ibid. [7] Ibid. [8] Ibid. [9] S.C. Book II
Chapter 7. [10] Ibid. [11]
Trachtenberg.? 1993. [12] Ibid. [13] S.C. Book
IV. Chapter 8. [14]
Trachtenberg. 1993. [15] Ibid.