Abstract:This article examines the implications of richard Steigmann-gall's recent revisionist representation of Nazism as a christian (Protestant) movement for the increasingly fashionable accounts of Nazism as a secular or political religion. contrary to Steigmanngall's contention that Protestant Nazism undermines these accounts, I suggest that his portrayal of Nazism as a variant of Protestant millennialism is not necessarily inconsistent with the secular religion approach. a closer look at the so-called löwith-Blum… Show more
“…By virtue of its explanatory heterogeneity, the advocates of a cultural–historical approach to fascist and Holocaust studies have therefore found in ‘political religion’ a useful supplement to ‘ideology’. Scholars approaching National Socialism from the field of religious studies, however, have raised concerns: The assumed difference between ‘political religion’ and ‘ideology’ was one thing, but it was another thing to address the relationship between ‘political religion’ and Christianity (Babík ). Richard Steigmann‐Gall therefore argued that the main problem with ‘political religion’ is that it ‘presumes a static “zero sum” model of identity formation’.…”
Section: IImentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With such a substitution comes the presumption that totalitarian politics in an era of secularisation and through the persecution of alternative belief systems (i.e. the Churches) was essentially anti‐religious (Babík ). This interpretative divide has led to a perceived incompatibility between traditional views of the Christian religion and the Nazi ‘political religion’ that Steigmann‐Gall finds so problematic: What exactly constitutes ‘religion’ such that both Christianity and Nazism can be considered two equally valid examples of it?…”
Section: IImentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bärsch's conclusion that ‘political religion’ must be studied in a way that makes room for Christian and anti‐Christian sentiments to mingle indicates that it is perhaps not ‘political religion’ as such that constitutes the greatest obstacle to studying ideological pluralities within Nazism. Instead, it might be in the way the concept is used and in which analytical frameworks it is placed (Babík ). Ultimately, if ‘political religion’, by virtue of having the broader more ‘cultural’ connotations that comes with the term ‘religion’, nevertheless assumes an overly narrow and coherent definition of both ‘religion’ and Nazism, then its separation from early discussions of ideology is rendered superfluous.…”
Holocaust studies have seen the rise of 'political religion' as part of a 'confessional turn'. To account for the fact that Nazism experienced widespread support from the German population, 'ideology' was replaced with the broader and culturally more inclusive term 'religion'. This article examines the mechanisms behind the rise of 'political religion' as well as the factors behind its subsequent decline. It argues that 'political religion', despite its culturally inclusive label, persists in connoting dogma and indoctrination. In this respect, the concept resembles rather than differs from the abandoned term 'ideology'. Finally, the article draws from research on the Nazi principle of transgression and presents this principle as a form of 'ideological incorrectness'. The concept of 'ideological incorrectness' should be seen as a move beyond belief simply understood as confession and, thus, a move beyond the conceptual constraints of 'political religion'.
“…By virtue of its explanatory heterogeneity, the advocates of a cultural–historical approach to fascist and Holocaust studies have therefore found in ‘political religion’ a useful supplement to ‘ideology’. Scholars approaching National Socialism from the field of religious studies, however, have raised concerns: The assumed difference between ‘political religion’ and ‘ideology’ was one thing, but it was another thing to address the relationship between ‘political religion’ and Christianity (Babík ). Richard Steigmann‐Gall therefore argued that the main problem with ‘political religion’ is that it ‘presumes a static “zero sum” model of identity formation’.…”
Section: IImentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With such a substitution comes the presumption that totalitarian politics in an era of secularisation and through the persecution of alternative belief systems (i.e. the Churches) was essentially anti‐religious (Babík ). This interpretative divide has led to a perceived incompatibility between traditional views of the Christian religion and the Nazi ‘political religion’ that Steigmann‐Gall finds so problematic: What exactly constitutes ‘religion’ such that both Christianity and Nazism can be considered two equally valid examples of it?…”
Section: IImentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bärsch's conclusion that ‘political religion’ must be studied in a way that makes room for Christian and anti‐Christian sentiments to mingle indicates that it is perhaps not ‘political religion’ as such that constitutes the greatest obstacle to studying ideological pluralities within Nazism. Instead, it might be in the way the concept is used and in which analytical frameworks it is placed (Babík ). Ultimately, if ‘political religion’, by virtue of having the broader more ‘cultural’ connotations that comes with the term ‘religion’, nevertheless assumes an overly narrow and coherent definition of both ‘religion’ and Nazism, then its separation from early discussions of ideology is rendered superfluous.…”
Holocaust studies have seen the rise of 'political religion' as part of a 'confessional turn'. To account for the fact that Nazism experienced widespread support from the German population, 'ideology' was replaced with the broader and culturally more inclusive term 'religion'. This article examines the mechanisms behind the rise of 'political religion' as well as the factors behind its subsequent decline. It argues that 'political religion', despite its culturally inclusive label, persists in connoting dogma and indoctrination. In this respect, the concept resembles rather than differs from the abandoned term 'ideology'. Finally, the article draws from research on the Nazi principle of transgression and presents this principle as a form of 'ideological incorrectness'. The concept of 'ideological incorrectness' should be seen as a move beyond belief simply understood as confession and, thus, a move beyond the conceptual constraints of 'political religion'.
“…Teachings, stories, rituals, and symbols are not the exclusive domain of traditional religions, nor are they confined to the private sphere (Babik, 2006;Bauer & Barreau, 2008;Cox, 1999;Kainz, 2006;Loy, 2003). Even though educating into religion, about religion, or from religion is in advance, use of the term religion excludes those who have no religious compulsions or inclinations.…”
Section: Challenges To Religious Educationmentioning
“…That same original must have a valid claim to ‘ownership’ of the particular substance of ideas. And a specific sort of process must (in principle) be identified, a process in which the substance is ‘removed’ from the original source before (re)occupying a place in the derivation (see Babík, 2006, pp. 383–94; Blumenberg, 1983 [1966]).…”
Section: Normative Explanatory and Interpretive Dimensionsmentioning
Recent work on the connection between religion and politics has often aligned itself with one of two intellectual traditions. On the one hand there is an expanding body of thought on the problem of the 'theological-political'. On the other, various discourses of 'political religion' amount to a different angle of approach to similar issues. The exact relation between the two orientations has seldom been spelled out. Nevertheless, it is intriguing for a number of reasons. The disjunction between the two is, in the foremost sense, disciplinary in character. The remit of the first is typically that of political philosophy, while the second body of work is largely historiographical. More prosaically, the two traditions are also readily identifiable with the 'big names' with whom they are invariably associated; Leo Strauss might just as well be a shorthand for political theology, and Eric Voegelin (albeit less well known) occupies a similar place in the tradition of political religion theory.To begin to establish that relation is therefore the primary intention of this short review article. The appearance, over the past few years, of a substantial set of monographs would seem an appropriate occasion on which to do so.The argument presented below is therefore intended as a clearing exercise, and it proceeds as follows. First of all, the intended meanings of the two principal terms are discussed, together with the conceptual architectures that support them.At the same time an attempt is made to indicate the kinds of story that the two approaches typically have to tell about modern political experience. In the second section, a brief dialogue is staged between them in order to bring into view an otherwise obscured, common intellectual source.That source is a curious one. European social and political thought in the mid-twentieth century produced a body of ideas which rooted totalitarian politics, in particular, in the relationship between modernity and the declining social importance of religious belief. Those ideas are the mainstay of the texts reviewed here (Burleigh
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
