Civic Nationalism as religion (or replacement thereof)

[SwordoftheVistula]

Given the recent discussions about religion and what could/should replace them, what about a sort of nationalism as a replacement?

In the US, we have had a form of this since the founding, with a Holy Scripture of sorts (The Constitution), a sort of clergy to interpret this (courts, especially the Supreme Court), 'Holy-days' such as Independence Day, Veterans' Day, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving, birthdays of past 'god-kings' like Washington and Lincoln. A variety of ceremonies, especially ones associated with the 'holi-days'.

Germany in the 30s and 40s is also cited as an example of this, with the elaborate ceremonies held by the state/ruling party.

Japan has had a nationalist religion (Shinto) along with a more 'modern' universal religion (Buddhism).

To some extent, the monarchies of Europe and the ceremonies and feudal system around them were a form of this.

[Freomæg]

As far as our European ancestors concerned, religion, politics and ethnicity were all part of the same whole - you either believed in the entirety of it, or none of it. At least that's how I view it. It's only in recent times that people have chosen whether to adhere primarily to one ideal over another.

America does seem to have a strong brand of civic nationalism, with passionate patriotism (though not blind, or state-sponsored - but rather, based on liberty and the constitution). This is something we severely lack in Britain but attempt to make up for with a vague pride in our history and civilisation.

[Psychonaut]

I don't know about the rest of the Heathens here, but my family certainly incorporates our nation's founding myths into our religious practice. For us, President's Day and Independence Day are as much religious holidays as they are civic. We see it as more of a return to the kind of integral culture that prevailed before Christianity, where the social, religious, political and ethnic spheres were all intrinsically linked.

[Equinox]

We see it as more of a return to the kind of integral culture that prevailed before Christianity, where the social, religious, political and ethnic spheres were all intrinsically linked.


As far as our European ancestors concerned, religion, politics and ethnicity were all part of the same whole - you either believed in the entirety of it, or none of it. At least that's how I view it. It's only in recent times that people have chosen whether to adhere primarily to one ideal over another.


I am attempting to see how we can reconcile both opinions, yet it appears they are polar opposites. Would you two elaborate on how both opinions are true, or why one holds to be more true than the other?

[SwordoftheVistula]

We see it as more of a return to the kind of integral culture that prevailed before Christianity, where the social, religious, political and ethnic spheres were all intrinsically linked.

It was that way in Christianity until the past few centuries as well, I think it was the Enlightenment that first produced the concept of 'separation of church and state'. The state monarch was considered the protector of the church, and was coronated by a bishop from the church.

Even into the late 20th century in this country, there were Irish, Italian, and other churches where 'social, religious, political and ethnic spheres were all intrinsically linked', black churches as well as many hispanic and asian ones still maintain this today.

I think on the whole the concept of 'separation of church and state' was a good thing at the time, and still is, considering the nature of the religions which the majority of the populace follows.

Just throwing ideas out here, trying to figure out what attracts people to these religions, and trying to find a way to replicate the positive aspects of religion minus the superstitious and globalist nonsense and other BS.

One other model which I didn't think of when writing the initial post:

Creating a fraternal organization which proclaimed the religion of the majority but held ethnic interests as their primary goal, while operating a seperate organization with it's own ceremonies and rituals. In many cases they 'took over' congregations of existing churches and incorporated them into their organization, which maintained a secular (non-ordained clergy) leadership. In addition to the rituals and ceremonies, the organization focuses on political activism, endorsing political candidates, and sometimes engages in vigilante activities, often after gaining the support and even membership of local clergy, law enforcement, and political authorities. This was the model followed by the early 20th century Ku Klux Klan, and not dissimilar to that of the Irish Republican Army.