The United States: A "theodemocracy"? The ambiguous relationship between religion and politics

Résumé du document

As Julia Gronnevet said, "comparing the United States to the Roman Empire is a popular pastime" . For instance, in his book entitled Are we Rome?: the Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America (2007), Cullen Murphy established some parallels between these two political entities both perceived, in their days, as the leading world economic power and the principle military power. He wrote that "Americans have been casting eyes back to ancient Rome since before the Revolution" . In effect, like Rome, the United States of America are a vast multicultural state burdened with an expansive and overstretched military which dominate the world with a messianic sense of global mission. Moreover, many historians emphasized the complex relationship between Rome and religion. First of all, the prosperity of this empire was based on the pax deorum. At the time of the foundation of this city by Romulus, gods gave their agreement to the first king of Rome showing that they were in favor of this new human power and that they would provide this people with an indestructible support. Therefore, each event unfavorable to Rome was perceived as resulting from an offense to the gods which should be repaired.

Extraits

[...] In effect, the imperial cult progressively became a very important part of religion in the Roman Empire and the emperors were revered as gods in order to enhance political loyalty. This process could then be linked to the concept of theocracy. This political model was first evoked by Josephus Flavius in the 1st Century to describe the Jewish system of government which could not be defined as a monarchy, as an aristocracy or as anarchy. According to him, in this regime, only God and his law were sovereign. [...]

[...] The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. P 218 Ibid. P218 Ibid. Preface viii et ix WALLIS Dangerous Religion : George W. Bush's Theology of Empire, in Sojourners, September 2003 Cited in LACORNE (Denis), De la religion aux Etats-Unis, Gallimard Ibid. Ibid FROIDEVAUX (Camille), Le puritain n'est pas républicain, in Raisons politiques, février 2001 Presse de Sciences Po. WEBER The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904- 1905) LOCKE (John), A letter concerning tolerance Ibid. Ibid. [...]

[...] Since the beginning of the presidency of George W. Bush, this debate around the separation between Church and State in the United States has become more and more controversial and some internal and external actors began to be afraid of a potential establishment of a “theodemocracy” in the most powerful country of the world sometimes called “American Empire”. In effect, some alarming documentaries were produced such as Jesus Camp in 2007 which described some evangelical indoctrination camps especially for children and their possible electoral impact. [...]

[...] In order to comprehend this topical debate around the relationship between religion and politics in the United States, we should analyse this from the foundation of the country to the civil religion of George W. Bush and his “theology of Empire”[8]. First of all, this complex relationship between religion and politics in the United States of America takes its roots in the religious conception of the Pilgrim Fathers which has largely influenced the future American nation. In effect, from the end of the 16th Century, with the new religious doctrine of John Calvin and Martin Luther, a group of Separatist Puritans grew up in the United Kingdom around the ideas promoted by Richard Clyfton, parson at All Saints' Parish Church in Babworth between 1586 and 1605. [...]

[...] The “religion clause” of the First Amendment is commonly divided into two clauses: the “Establishment clause” which prohibit the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose and the “Freedom of religion clause” which guarantee religious liberty and pluralism. However, the Supreme Court had to issue two decisions until the federated states apply these two clauses: in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) for the “Establishment clause” and in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) for the second one. [...]