The Non-Optional Basis of Religion
This article discusses the theoretical differences between civil religion, political religion and religion and their relationship based on the non-optional. While Emilio Gentile has provided a foundation to explore civil and political religions, he has not provided a definition for his understanding...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis
2002
|
| In: |
Totalitarian movements and political religions
Year: 2002, Volume: 3, Issue: 3, Pages: 75-98 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | This article discusses the theoretical differences between civil religion, political religion and religion and their relationship based on the non-optional. While Emilio Gentile has provided a foundation to explore civil and political religions, he has not provided a definition for his understanding of what a religion is and the possible antithesis to religious organisation. In order to define the civil and political variants of religion accurately, a solid understanding of religion, its place in history and how it has changed needs to be addressed. This article explores a definition of religion that understands the civil and political variants by situating them within the non-optional element of religion. Crucial to the non-optional element is the idea of 'choice'. It is, therefore, the conclusion of this article that choice, the non-optional basis of religion, is the core difference between what is a civil religion, a political religion and a religion. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1743-9647 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Totalitarian movements and political religions
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/714005488 |