Question about "ceremonial deism"

[TechBear_Seattle]

The phrase "ceremonial deism" was coined in 1962 by the Dean of Yale Law School, Eugene Rostow, to describe nominally religious statements and practices deemed to be merely ritual and non-religious through long customary usage, such as the use of the motto "In God We Trust" on US currency, the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegance and the use of "So help me God" at the end of legal oaths. It has since been latched on to by wanna-be theocrats, who seem delighted to demean the import of their religious beliefs if it lets them to get government sponsorship and endorsement of those beliefs.

So, my question: Was the cult of the Emperor in ancient Rome also "ceremonial deism"? The ceremony of this state "religion" had nothing at all to do with currying divine favor and everything to do with showing oneself to be a good citizen. Loyalty to the state was demonstrated by making an offering of incense to the genius (i.e. the spirit that guided and directed) of the current Emperor and asking that the spirits of certain past emperors guide and protect him.

The reason I ask is quite simple: the very theocrats who insist on pushing modern ceremonial deism are the very same people who, two thousand years ago, would have gone to prison and a martyr's death for refusing to participate in the ceremonial deism of the day.

Is it legitimate to raise this cognitive disjoin when Talibangelicals start off about "ceremonial deism"?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. It may be legitimate to raise this point

but how many of those who want to turn our country into a theocracy pay attention to history? I mean, they seem to already have the quaint notion that the Founding Fathers were fundamentalist Christians instead of Deists, Episcopalians, and Unitarians.

[JerseygirlCT]

5. True. And that their particular brand of Christianity didn't arise

out of some of those earlier and often despised (by them) denominations...

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Actually, the very theocrats who insist on pushing modern ceremonial deismn today are

the people who were feeding christians to the lions in the name of the emperor, back in the day.

And two thousand years from now, christianity will be reviled by the enlightened having been primitive barbarism, just as the pantheists and emperor cult are reviled today.

[rrneck]

3. Absolutely. Call them on their shit.

They're after money and power just like all the rest throughout history.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. So, a follow up question

Can I legitimately point out that atheists who fight to remove all forms of state sponsored religion, including ceremonial deism, are closer to the spirit of the early Christian martyrs than the modern Christians pushing ceremonial deism?

[rrneck]

7. It's been a long time

since I was in Sunday school, but I would say yes.

I think we may be approaching another Axial Age.

[skepticscott]

8. Well, I wouldn't say that

any modern Christians "push" ceremonial deism. Some cling to what's already there because they don't want to be seen as giving any ground at all to secularists but it certainly isn't a goal of theirs. Most Xstians who get worked up over such things want much, much more in the end, and ceremonial deism is just a way of getting, or keeping, a foot in the door.

And what exactly are you referring to as the "spirit of the early Christian martyrs"?

[skepticscott]

11. Also don't forget that

unlike modern atheists, the early Christians had their own versions of supernaturalism to replace the ones more widely practiced in the Roman Empire, but they were not trying to remove ceremonial deism for everyone else. They faced torture and a nasty death in many cases because they felt that an even more unpleasant fate would await them if they turned their back on the "true" god to pay even token homage to the state gods or to the emperor. So I would say that the answer to your question is no.

[JerseygirlCT]

4. I think you're correct. nt

[Boojatta]

9. "the very same people who, two thousand years ago, would have gone to prison and a martyr's death"

Do you really believe that?

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. If they are really Christians, then yes

If they were real Christians, they would not have participated in the ceremonial deism of the Roman Empire. Therefore under the law, they would be guilty of treason. At best, they would be publicly flogged and then sold into slavery for the rest of their lives. At worst, they would have been handed over to the gladiatorial organizers for use as lion fodder.

I am assuming, of course, that they would have genuine Christians and would not have lied about their religious beliefs to save their own skins. Yeah, yeah, big assumption.

[Igel]

12. You're making some assumptions about what a "real Xian" is,

and how consistent they have to be to maintain that status.

I think there's also a hair to be split here. If you're atheist, then you don't believe the outward trappings even if the deism or theism isn't primarily ceremonial in nature; they're falderol, blather, a waste of time. Then it doesn't matter if the ceremonies involve Caesar, Dionysus, Buddha, or Jesus, does it? They're all vapid superstitions.

How much you care about them depends upon your commitment to something else. My brother-in-law is a rabid atheist: He objects to any public display of religion. He gets upset if people at a nearby table in a restaurant quietly say grace, but either do so loudly enough for him to hear or bow their heads and fold their hands in a manner he can observe. There is no ceremonial deism that is not also deism. Ritual and ceremony are, most of the time, a waste of time.

My wife is the opposite kind of atheist. She doesn't believe in any god, but thinks that in many respects religions aren't all that bad--they've produced hospitals, universities, formed the basis of many a public school district, yielded stable communities, and help their members. She has no object to public displays of religion that don't compel her to believe or waste too much of her time. There is much deism that is, regardless of what the religionists believe, is simply ceremonial deism. Much ritual and ceremony, even of a religious nature, has a useful social purpose.

Now, if you're a believer, whether in Caesar, Dionysus, Buddha, or Jesus, then even ceremonial deism is never purely ceremonial. There's always a mental hat-tip to the object of the ceremony, even if it's in taking time that could be going towards ceremony involving the "proper" object of our attention. You may deny what you consider to be falsehood, but it's the "do you still beat your wife?" effect--to deny the embedded presupposition is less than trivial (since it's not deniable through a simple yes/no), while even understanding the question or the rite involves accepting the embedded proposition.

Moreover, participating in ceremonial deism while you profess faith in another deity looks like rank hypocrisy, and in many religions (and even among some atheists) hypocrisy is considered a bad thing. The same argument that says 'if you're a Xian you don't sacrifice to caesar' also covers 'if you don't respect the US, you don't say the Pledge of Allegiance'. However, for many people the hypocrisy only covers positive actions: Using a coin is not the same as spinning a prayer wheel, being present for a flag-raising ceremony is not the same as organizing it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. I should have said "openly Christian" n/t

[Silent3]

14. I'd love to see the reaction to "ceremonial satanism".

Don't worry, being expected to swear an oath to Satan in court, the "In Satan We Trust" stamped on our coins, "one nation under Satan"... doesn't mean thing. Don't let yourself get worked up over it, it's just ceremonial.