A regularly quoted exemplar of such expression is some variation on the words of the Declaration of
Independence in what amounts to a prayerful repetition of core beliefs embodied in what really is part of
our 'sacred' scripture. Of less overt 'religious'  content, though still highly ideological and in a real sense
'theological,' would be the not infrequent reverently uttered Preamble to the Constitution, but probably the
most revered such enunciation of this general type in our culture must be the Pledge of Allegiance. Even
without the rather recently added reference to 'under God,' the words are a worshipful dedication as
specifically to the Republic as to the flag itself, the expressed symbol "for which it stands."

     We actually have a great many such utterances which convey some aspects of our core beliefs, often,
perhaps fittingly for a republic, addressed to ourselves, although not infrequently making some appeal or
at least mention of some divine presence or providence. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address would number
among the most well-known and frequently heard of these, as well might certain of the more familiar
phrases or passages from the Constitution and its amendments, such as the guarantees of speech and
associated rights in the First Amendment and at least the latter half of the Second as to the 'right to keep
and bear arms.' It may be that the most often repeated such avocation is the paraphrased hybrid of several
of the amendments encompassed under what have come to collectively known as the Miranda rights.

     Central to this interpretation of American civil religion is an assertion that the terminology which
perhaps began in usage as metaphor really represents a rather broad or open interpretation of the several
categories of Wallace's units. From that, it can be taken that there are also two subcategories of this prayer
behavior classification. The second utilization revolves around its use in the law, the practitioners of
which, attorneys, may in some fashion approximate a 'ministering' group or strata in the construct. It is
common language in such proactive to hear or read of petitions that 'pray' before the bar of justice, once
again probably making a 'loose' use of what may seem to be metaphorical language. However, beseeching
justice would have to be understood as prayer in such cases, legal 'ministerial' representative carrying such
pleadings before the court. In addition, combining the allusion just made to prayer-like treatment of
constitutional language with this prayerful petitioning amounts to what is arguably the most common
citation of many such renderings to the Fourteenth Amendment. The entire extension known as the
'nationalization of the Bill of Rights' has been in large measure dependent on such premises. But then,
every witness before the bar swears on the bible to tell the truth -- praying again.

     And, if petitioning the judiciary can be interpreted in this manner as prayer in this sense, the whole
practice of petitioning government for 'the redress of grievances, ranging from letters from constituent
groups to elected representatives or bureaucracy and reaching to formalized petition processes at some
levels of government, conducted by the 'laity' citizenry or through 'ministerial' representative forces such
as interests and lobbies may be similarly viewed.
 
     Even media presentations of a great variety might be so construed, from any of the sundry formats. In
this view, the nightly news, no less than Rush Limbaugh, may be properly termed daily evangelical
programs, although it is likely that the latter would be more quickly inclined to agree with that assessment
than the former. Further, this same line of argumentation could extend this reasoning in that to all levels
of political pleading which animate the process, from campaign appearances and speeches by candidates
or their surrogates or their workers to official addresses in the halls of government and out, and including
those plyings of Presidents whether they be Inaugural Addresses, State of the Union, and the like or
special, perhaps televised pleas to the country (from FDR's fireside chats to JFK's news conferences to
Ronald Reagan's Saturday morning radio messages). And all of this takes the form  inevitably of a
constant praying to each other, if at times to Providential authority, as we beseech all of the many facets of
the population which the 'public' in republic could be construed to include (even C-Span). And, lest we be
too restrictive, much of this reasoning should be understood to reach as well into the private sector, as
well.

     There may be at least one danger inherent in all of this inasmuch as we 'pray' to protection or
extension of governmental, or even collective, largess through any of the almost innumerable variations of
entitlement, remedy, and recourse. The danger thus arises as we plea, or even whine, for the doling out of
provisions in our prayer which ultimately strip us of much of our character as we slip into codependency
and impotence. The result of that could very well be the burgeoning of government and bureaucracy as
well as the litigious  society we seen to be saddling ourselves under.

     It clearly looks as if we 'pray' all the time, but the second of Wallace's minimal units of religious
behavior is in many respects a variation, set to music, of the first category. Not so long ago, when
television stations 'signed off ' late and came on early, before most of them remained on the air all night,
there was always a ritual enacted of the playing or singing of the  Star Spangled Banner. Since the Second
World War when the custom was started as part of the effort to rally the nation's spirit, before every major
league baseball game, the national anthem is played, joined in with the voices of the crowd, lifting its
appeal to the heavens. Many other spectator sports, and other events, have joined in the custom, and the
tradition will probably continue as long as it continues to bring a lump to the throats of those participating
or watching the spectacle. Such performance may bring to mind for some Mark Twain's complaint of the
terrible din of  Heaven with all those vocalizations of all those who cannot carry a tune singing the same
song for eternity. Mr. Twain never had the pleasure, so far as I know, of witnessing such an event, but if
he did, if he still held the same view, it could not be without bearing witness to the spirit that exudes from
the assembled multitude. This is only the most striking such hymn that the American faith possesses, and
probably the only real problem with it is that it is not easy to sing, even for those who possess such
abilities. While few may be able to do it quite the way Kate Smith was renowned for having done it, God
Bless America would be another such musical prayer, but one that incorporates the appeal to higher
authority. We could conceivably put together a rather substantial Hymnal of such 'psalms,' but any such
compilation would have to include, in addition to these, America the Beautiful, Grand Old Flag, Yankee
Doodle, Yankee Doodle Dandy, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, perhaps Dixie, and a more recent entry
contributed by the Reagan Presidential campaign and Lee Greenwood, God Bless the USA, among
innumerable others.* The several military theme songs, which serve their own special ends for each
service, would have to also be included. (Wallace's separate category of 'inspiration' is not dealt with here
as a separate unit inasmuch as it is so greatly subsumed in any number of the others).


________________________________________________________________________________
*A typical Memorial Day commemoration by a local radio station featured not only such recordings, but
as well The Ballad of the Green Berets, Born In The USA, Johnny Willow, PT 109, The Battle of New
Orleans, Sink the Bismarck, Over There, Star and Stripes Forever, Hail to the Chief, and This Land is
Your Land, This Land is My Land as illustrative of this point, if it, if fact, needs any elaboration at all.







      If there are differences between this collection of religious hymns for the faithful and the diverse
examples of dancing, singing, and playing instruments which characterized hundreds of religions around
the globe, that scarcely detracts from role as inspirational devices. And, in addition to these, there are not
a small number of particularly 'Christian' hymns and spirituals which serve a dual role to a great extent as
songs of America, as would a vast array of parochial folk songs and dances. It might even be appropriate
to include in this  phenomenon the entire scope of dancing and singing and playing of instruments in such
celebrations as Mardi Gras as part and parcel of at least localized variations of the civil religion,  as it
might also be to include, if perhaps in somewhat different category, the many unique forms of musical
expression that have sprung up in the country over the years -- jazz, rhythm and blues, country western,
'folk', rock and roll, and more contemporary manifestations of popular culture. They must be considered
part of the folkways of America. To the extent that 'America' has been 'exported' or 'globalized,' and that
is considerable, such obviously carry something of this people beyond our shores. One could possibly
argue that the 'international' flavor of the American Revolution brought among its supporters -- if they
were not compatriots -- the likes of Mozart and Beethoven, and on that,  it might be surmised that their
work carries something of the country's spirit within it. Certainly, the works of Charles Ives, Aaron
Copeland, Leonard Bernstein, Rogers and Hammerstein, and others echo America. West Side Story and
Showboat are exemplary of 'America,' too, as would be Porgy and Bess and the great scope and span of  a
host of motions pictures not only through the years but over the last decade or two perhaps especially. And
then there's TV! A rather divergent category of this behavior took traditional 'Negro' spirituals, some
aspects of which have been traced to African roots (Michel Sobel, i.e.), and transformed them into
'freedom songs,' every bit as inspiring as   We Shall Overcome or Lift Every Voice And Sing.  We're
Marching On to Freedom Land, This Little Light of Mine, We're Taking a Ride on the Freedom Bus Line,
and probably  Precious Lord, Take My Hand are probably the best examples. And no accounting of the
hymns of America's faith would be complete without the inclusion of Amazing Grace. Importantly, such
mechanisms have been crucial in the transmission of philosophy.

     Although it may not be mandatory that any religious specimen have examples of each of Wallace's
units of behavior to fit his prescription of a 'religion,' it does not take a great deal of stretching to identify             
representative cases of all of his minimal units of religious behavior for the American civil religion. Even
the physical manipulation of psychological states through his category of physiological exercise has
manifestations. It should be remembered that just as all the categories need not be represented necessarily
in any religion, there is some degree of overlapping among many of the units. In fact, an additional  stage
of Wallace's methodology is the bringing together of numbers of these categories into cults, and often
competing ones, the totality of which constitutes a society's religion. The physiological manipulation
category runs the gambit from boot camp to merely the act of standing for the national anthem, 'saluting'
in one way of another 'Old Glory,' rising with the entrance of a judge into the courtroom, and the emense
level of  exertion that typify political campaigns. And including the kind of sacrifice that has
accompanied, at the civilian level, some of the periods of national mobilization, and in particular that of
World War II, probably fit the specifications of this category and represent 'religious' behavior in very
concrete terms(The Arsenal of Democracy!). The importance placed upon 'sport' in our culture certainly
connotes a level of physiological manipulation, as well.
     Exhortations in Anthony Wallace's model  are acts in which people are 'addressing another human
person,' and there are a number of items already identified with other categories which also exemplify this
one. Aside from considering certain types of what otherwise would be called prayer, principally by 'laity,'
there are two distinct groups of individuals which in some more 'formal' or 'official' sense address others
in 'religious' matters, shamans and priests. Practitioners of ritual and ceremony through or at which they
do that are commonly of the priest type, while shaman obtain, usually through some peculiar and unique
religious or mystical experience, sometimes self-induced, special powers or authority, although the Sioux
term 'medicine' for such acquired traits perhaps best identifies it. Some sort of official mantle generally  is
associated with the idea of priesthood so that officialdom probably fits best into this classification,
although to the degree they may also possess special attributes of 'charisma,' priests may also sometimes
hold special 'medicine.' In fact, one of the qualifications for, or at least paths to, the priesthood, may be
attainment of shaman status through a 'vision quest.'
                                                                                                                                                                             
     From that, we might well include as 'priests'  most elected and non-elected officials, judges as well as
the lawyering class generally, and especially teachers in the task they perform of transferring the faith to
upcoming generations. Politicians may be a prime case of the shaman, but so, too, would Billy Graham,
and Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and years ago, Billy Sunday and Oral Roberts more recently, among
numerous others. The fact that this group is made up of ministers is important for an understanding of the
character of our civil religion. We would undoubtedly rank Martin Luther King as a shaman, as well, in
this sense. At least prior to his candidacy for President, Jesse Jackson might be peripherally so. Much
more of a claim to such standing could have been laid by Malcolm X and probably Louis Farakhan and
Wallace D. Muhammed, and a few years ago, at least, Muhammed Ali, obviously lending some
'expansiveness' to the acknowledged Judeo-Christian character of the faith. Indeed, our nation's history
has been frequently visited by such personalities. Charles Finney certainly comes to mind, as would
probably the quite in contrast Father Coughlin and Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, although they, like many such
exemplars held official ministerial credential.  But such personages need not necessarily be clergy; Rush
Limbaugh certainly is such a personality today, and in a somewhat different manner, his nemesis Ross
Perot may fit the pattern.  A most important position in the scheme must be seen as being held by the
media. They by and large 'decide' who has 'good medicine' or exhortation, and thus play a primary role in
deciding upon whom the mantle of priesthood or character of shaman is bestowed or recognized. Differing
elements of the media will have different levels of influence, but there is a modern phenomenon which
makes this a necessary role to have, and to watch. Many people tend to believe what they see on television
and not to put stock in much that is not seen on TV. Congressional hearings on television have on
occasion, been accorded a position of eminence, such as those around Watergate or Whitewater or those
that elevated Oliver North , Robert Bork, or Clarence Thomas in the public mind. But there is widespread
suspicion toward the media in the general population.





     In American civil religion, the attainment of great levels of success often appears to create quasi-
shaman stature in our culture. Perot and Iaoccoa, Trump and Joe Kennedy are such instances (whatever
the current numbers are is probably irrelevant -- generally 2/3 of the membership of the U.S. Senate are
millionaires, a good many, self-made), though the basis for such status need not be exclusively monetarily
grounded. Both Ronald Reagan and John Glenn rose to high political office at least in part on the wind of
their renown. There have been some news commentators whose status accorded them some considerable
level of esteem, such as Walter Cronkite and before him, Edgar R. Murrow.  Entertainers, and especially
athletes have had an inside track to such attainment -- Jack Kemp is a good example, but so would be such
disparate fellows as Jim Bunning, Bill Bradley, and perhaps Charles Barkley. In fact, the special
circumstances of sports in America commands comment, transcending as it does nearly all of these
categories. That undoubtedly helps account for its central place in American culture -- in monetary terms
as well as the attention it commands on television, both during prime time and during the news.

     " ... [S]ports," Cornish Rogers wrote in 1972, "are rapidly becoming the dominant ritualistic
expression of the reification of established religion in America," (1) and "the public festivals of America's
civil                    religion are often held in the midst of massive sporting events."(2) There is an
'unmistakable link' between religion and sports that is "by no means limited to the fact that the lessons of
sports lend themselves readily to analogies concerning godly living."(3) (One has to look no further than
Roger Staubach or Tom Landry). Whatever the rivalry involved, there is an element of the great cosmic
battle    between Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman (or was it Obie Wuan Canobie and Darth Vader?), a more
fundamental drama in which the victor "is somehow more virtuous ... or at least more pleasing to the
gods."(4) There is a sense, now ancient, that it is in the struggle that we are free, and sports  certainly
carries with it that kind of inference. A more positive side of 'there's always next year' resides in the fact
that there is always another game -- tomorrow. And for the participant who does not produce, even if a
superstar, it quickly becomes a matter for spectators of 'what have you done for me lately?' Coaches are
often the most venerated on campus and society, although they can be fired too, if they don't win (or
royally foul up), and, on Lombardi, 'winning is everything.' There is a never-say-uncle psychology that is
cultivated, as for instance, on Berra, who asserts that 'it's never over 'til it's over.' It is all about beating the
competition, and therein may lie the secret, for therein may rest a seed of 'America.' A people reared in
sports competition can easily translate those values to the business world and into politics.

     In the old Soviet Union, 'the egalitarian principle was left at the ice's edge' and Soviet athletes,
conditioned to the former principle had to excel and prove themselves the best (read least equal) on the ice
or court. This is no less true for team sports than for individual ones, for in spite of the team spirit 'esprit
d'corps' mentality, it is individual effort that makes the game. A team can 'pull together,' but not if any of
them are 'slackers.' Only excellence in all produces an excellent effort for all. The intense Soviet
competitive spirit may have helped to condemn the system they wanted to propagate to ultimate failure,
although it was often couched in nationalistic terms as a shallow cover. Nereyev and Barisnakov knew the
sentiment, too. And we should probably not worry quite so much about the future of any current
generation of youth so long as they keep bouncing or tossing that ball. Indeed, one might wonder what
John Rawls' (or Bellah's) ball game, restructured for 'fairness' and 'justice' would look like. (In February,
1995, the story circulated the wires from Brick Township, New Jersey of an outcry from parents over the
decision of the little league there to quit keeping score to protect the 'self-esteem' of participating
youngsters!).

     The convention of recognition of championship teams by a phone call from the White House to the
locker room of the victors after the game and/or invitation to visit the Executive Mansion has "become a
valued political device for political leaders to use in consolidating -- and even sacralizing -- their
power."(5) Rogers claims that Nixon was consciously  "courting for himself the mystique of a 'divine
king.'"(6) He says that "America's 'civil religion' is a vital force to be reckoned with," and that:



	" ... Nixon, by holding 'non-denominational' Sunday services in the White House, 
	has tried to co-opt for himself the symbolic embodiment of the undefined but persuasive
	religious consciousness that has characterized our public life since the founding of the
	nation. He has sought to make more explicit the 'American Shinto' by giving it a more 
	pronounced shape and by according it an honored place in his presidency. Billy Graham,
	the foremost apostle of American evangelical nondenominationalism, has been
	installed as high priest."(7)

     There was a similar report in Charles Henderson's THE NIXON THEOLOGY, but all the "Presidents
of this century have expressed the national religion with a conviction equal to that of their predecessors."
(8) Henderson is, however, not very optimistic as to the substance of this, or Nixon's in particular. In
tracing Nixon's familial background, he finds basis for its complementary association with our "evolved ...
politics of revival,"(9) but he consistently exhibits his political bias when he approaches it, seeing
governmental policy as the only way to deal with problems and anything that doesn't involve governance
as flawed. Henderson cannot comprehend any notion of capitalism as complementary to a equality or
generosity or charity. He insists on an inherent human propensity to evil and violence and the 'American
mythology' of an ability to find solutions as tragic.(10) Presidents "have traditionally performed the
pastoral function of sanctifying the nation's values and institutions, [but] they have neglected the prophetic
function."(11) Since he cannot understand how strength begets peace, how Nixon cannot 'feel the pain' of
the people (almost as the victims of the evils of capitalism), and since the Judeo-Christian tradition
militates directly contrary faith, not only will 'the superficiality of political rhetoric' like Nixon's fail, but
that 'God' is dead.' Henderson would make himself the Nieztsche of the American civil religion! What
Henderson would seek is a new vision of America's faith built upon the state as "the primary instrument of
social justice," "an agent of social change," in order to deal with "persistent poverty, over-population, and
pollution issues [which] dictate against facile classics of American righteousness."(12) For him, it is
political leaders that set values and not any 'family-centered approach.'(13) For him, the "tragedy of Nixon
is that ... he is the political manifestation of the death of a national god."(14) So, the death of this 'god' is
due to its lack of 'liberal' (in contemporary meaning) character. And the religious coup he would see
would replace that god of achievement and competitiveness with  the real 'Christian ' theology of justice
and equality through state engineering.



Continue