On Wether or Not Bellah Has an Argument

What we have with Bellah is an interesting and insightful spin on the status of our nation, and the problems that we face. What we don’t have, is what the article purports to be at the beginning, which is an argument “not only that there is such a thing [as civil religion] but that this religion. . . has its own seriousness and integrity.” Bellah, does successfully, I think build a nice comparison between the ideals of our nation, and the problems it faces with that of a religious setting. However, in no way does he show convincing evidence that necessitates thinking about these things in the context of a religion.
Bellah merely assumes that there is such a religion, and then goes about defining its tenants, figureheads, and symbols. He addresses briefly the problem of why we have historically invoked deities in our formal government proceedings, and then continues to explain problems we have had with belief systems of our government in relation to the world. However, rituals and belief systems do not necessitate a religion. Many atheists hold that they believe in love, and habitually brush their teeth every morning. Yet this does not necessarily make them part of a new “love and toothbrushes” religion.
To properly show that what we are dealing with is indeed a religion, is a much harder task than what Bellah has undertaken. I’m not sure what exactly one would have to go through to argue this, but I am certain that only a small shred of it is in Bellah’s article. In fact, it may even be impossible to truly argue the existence of a religion...I don’t know. Regardless, it would be more apt to think of Bellah’s piece as an insightful comparison, or maybe even a thought experiment. As for an argument on the existence of a religion, I think there is a lot to be desired.