A New Civil Religion

The following is an excerpt from "A New Civil Religion" delivered in 1992 by James Faust, formerly of President John F. Kennedy's Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights.

"There seems to be developing a new civil religion. The civil religion I refer to is a secular religion. It has no moral absolutes. It is nondenominational. It is nontheistic. It is politically focused. It is antagonistic to religion. It rejects the historic religious traditions of America. It feels strange. If this trend continues, nonbelief will be more honored than belief. While all beliefs must be protected, are atheism, agnosticism, cynicism, and moral relativism to be more safeguarded and valued than Christianity, Judaism, and the tenets of Islam, which hold that there is a Supreme Being and that mortals are accountable to him? If so, this would, in my opinion, place America in great moral jeopardy.

For those who believe in God, this new civil religion fosters some of the same concerns as the state religions that prompted our forefathers to escape to the New World. Nonbelief is becoming more sponsored in the body politic than belief. History teaches well the lesson that there must be a unity in some moral absolutes in all societies for them to endure and progress. Indeed, without a national morality they disintegrate. In Proverbs, we are reminded that “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” (Prov. 14:34.) The long history and tradition of America, which had its roots in petitions for divine guidance, is being challenged.

The new civil religion is different from that envisioned by Benjamin Franklin, who seems to have first used the term “civil religion.” (M. Marty, Pilgrims in Their Own Land, 1984, pp. 155–66.) Franklin’s “civil religion,” as I understand it, was envisioned to replace the state religions of Europe, with their forced taxation and oppression. Franklin no doubt envisioned that this vacuum would be filled with a patriotism reflected by national symbolism, pride, ethics, values, and purpose. His eloquent statement concerning divine intervention in the Constitutional Convention clearly indicated he was not opposed to religiosity.

The new civil religion isn’t really a religion as you and I would use that term to describe a faith or a church or a synagogue of people that worship Almighty God and espouse a code of moral conduct. This new civil religion teaches a sectarian philosophy that is hostile to traditional religion. It has its own orthodoxy. It could even end up in an ironic violation of the U.S. Constitution that says that there shall be no religious basis for office. (Article IV, U.S. Constitution.) Will irreligion become a test for office?"

What are your thoughts?

Faust graduated from the University of Utah in 1948 with a B.A. and Jurist Doctor. In 1962, he was elected president of the Utah Bar Association, in which office he served for one year. The same association awarded him its Distinguished Lawyer Emeritus Award in 1996. During the 1960s, Faust was named to the Utah Legislative Study Committee and later to the Utah Constitutional Revision Commission. Faust served in the House of Representatives for the 28th Utah State Legislature (1949) as a Democrat for Utah's eighth district. Faust also served as chairperson of the Utah State Democratic Party and helped manage a campaign for Senator Frank Moss. In 1996, he was awarded with the Minuteman Award by the Utah National Guard.

Faust was appointed by President John F. Kennedy to the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights. He was also an adviser to the American Bar Journal.