Rousseau’s views on religion are worth deep consideration, as he challenged the ideas of traditional Christianity and offered a completely different approach to practicing theology. The philosopher believed that it could significantly contribute to the unity and progress of any nation. He promoted the essentiality of the shift from a religious society to a secular one where the general will play the most important role.
Rousseau devoted much time and effort to outlining the criteria for an ideal state, and there certainly was no place for traditional religion in it. However, the philosopher emphasized the significance of civil religion, which means the adoption of common values by all citizens. It can bring lasting prosperity, encourage everyone to unite towards shared goals, and establish law and order within society. Even though his ideas appear to be incredibly appealing, it is evident that it is impossible to apply them in the real world, where multiple people strive to stick to their beliefs despite their flaws.
To begin with, it is essential to review the concept of the general will, which can be found in many works of Rousseau. It gives a better understanding of the place of religion in the philosopher’s system. He noted, “Each of us puts in common his person and all his power under the supreme direction of the general will, and in return each member becomes an indivisible part of the whole” (Rousseau 164). The general will can be described as the will of all people, aiming at the common good but not their private interests. Therefore, everyone can benefit from it almost equally, and it is extremely advantageous for the state whose citizens practice it.
The philosopher was convinced that the general will is always right and considered following it to be one of the most crucial elements of civil religion (276). If people hold shared values focusing on the common good and stick to them, they practice civil religion, which can positively impact a state and citizens themselves.
In contrast, traditional Christianity takes a different approach, which Rousseau viewed as destructive. Christians believe that God is the only one who can always be right, and they are more concerned about his guidelines than the common good. It contradicts the philosopher’s idea about the general will as the best tool to determine whether a certain action is moral or not. Rousseau stated that traditional religion misguides its followers and creates a multitude of threats to solidarity and progress. The problem is that “Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence” (Rousseau 254). This method cannot nurture any unity among citizens and contribute little to the development of society.
The philosopher blamed Christianity for making people slaves and preventing them from acting towards the common good. Without any doubt, this position was radical in the 18th century; hence, the thinker faced severe criticism. Nevertheless, nowadays, many people agree with him and his views on traditional religion. It proves that Rousseau’s philosophical system is powerful and worth full consideration.
The philosopher emphasized the importance of civil religion, as it can consolidate all citizens coming from different backgrounds. He noted that conventional religion divides nations instead of fostering collaboration and mutual respect. It happens because it is about spirituality and a certain place somewhere in heaven where humans can get after their death. It pushes people to forget about earthly matters and stay passive but not take the initiative.
According to Rousseau, “Jesus came to establish on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, separating the theological system from the political system, destroyed the unity of the State” (247). It is an extremely serious problem, as citizens have to follow both their God and ruler at the same time, and they often give preference to the former. Hence, they are not interested in the world around them and avoid working diligently to benefit society. Those citizens are not motivated enough, as they mostly concentrate on their religion and often ignore their state.
Even though many political leaders tried to control the church throughout history, they never were true sovereigns. Rousseau noted that the kings of England who regarded themselves as heads of the church were solely ministers but never rulers (248). Therefore, the problem is that conventional religion makes it more challenging to encourage citizens to practice the general will and ensure that everyone works towards the common good, which should be the number one priority according to Rousseau. Unfortunately, individual rulers are unable to demonstrate their superiority over God’s guidelines described in holy texts. Hence, people continue to live submissive lives without making even minor contributions to the development of society.
However, Rousseau did not undermine the importance of religion and believed it could effectively serve the interests of a state. It is essential to emphasize that philosopher firmly believed in the power of civil religion, which can be regarded as a tool to maintain ideological unity among citizens. This perspective was different from the one widely held by his contemporaries and might appear to be hypocritical at first sight. Nevertheless, the thinker sincerely relied on civil religion, which could establish law and order and help states progress (253). He was convinced that promoting sentiments of sociability and highlighting the significance of the appreciation of public duties are essential steps towards prosperity.
Furthermore, Rousseau offered to punish those who disagree with the principles of civil religion, as they are based on the general will and can benefit everyone. Hence, people who refuse to obey them harm themselves; thus, they can be regarded as foolish. Rousseau wrote, “the sovereign may banish him not as impious, but as unsociable, as incapable of sincerely loving the law, justice and of sacrificing, if need be, his life to his duty” (253). In general, individuals who do not accept the dogmas outlined by civil religion pose a number of threats to their fellow citizens and the sovereignty of a state.
In general, Rousseau wrote that religion is extremely important, though he approached it uniquely. He noted that traditional religion, such as Christianity, should be abandoned, as it prevents people from following the general will and taking the initiative. In contrast, he believed that civil religion is much more beneficial, as it encourages people to act towards the common good and consolidate. However, he perceived religion as a tool to increase ideological unity within society, which can contribute to its progress and prosperity. Undoubtedly, this perspective provides valuable ideas for political leaders who want to promote sovereignty in their states.
Despite its attractiveness, it also has a multitude of serious flaws. For example, Rousseau stated that it is essential to punish those who refuse to follow the principles of civil religion (253). Still, the application of his ideas seems to be impossible, especially in the modern world, which is incredibly complex.
Work Cited
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract: And, The First and Second Discourses, edited by Gita May, Yale University Press, 2002.