Religion fuses with nationalism only when it legitimizes actual state governance

Evidence

At the same time, given the vast literature on the interactions, juxtapositions, and interlocking effects between religion and nationalism, we should address the question of what makes this intertwining or fusion different than other forms of interaction. This is particularly important in light of what we stated above – that we agree that all nationalisms have some sort of religious elements, roots, or traces. In this regard, narrowing this question to the inquiry posed by Brubaker (2012, 11) can help us: “What counts as religious message and imagery as opposed to religiously tinged or originally religious but subsequently secularized language and imagery?” This is a critical question, but one that is hard to address fully, because the answer, given the diverse historical contexts and multiple cases, often becomes a matter of interpretation influenced by power dynamics, including Western-centered intellectual and political predispositions and interests. Our answer goes to the heart of our concern and sidesteps the possible problematics of subjective interpretations: What counts as fusion is when religion and religious claims interact with nationalism in ways that are used to frame and/or legitimize the state’s political ideologies, decisions, and governance. This is why, in our view, when it comes to the impact of religious claims on state politics, lumping all cases of nationalism together by arguing that “all nationalisms have religious influence” misses a potentially major theoretical input. It leads to overlooking cases in which religious claims or the invocation of religious text and interpretations have a vital hold on nationalism in ways that become apparent in framing state policies. A distinctive feature of the state in such cases, as detailed below, is sacralizing politics embedded in religious claims and sacred religious texts. — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized, 75

Categorization

• XREF: Their operational test for ‘fusion’ — religion used to frame and legitimize state governance/decisions, not merely trace — is the criterion to apply when testing whether pre-1947 India or the Ottoman millet qualifies. — connects to: Distinguishes ‘full fusion’ nationalisms from mere religiously-inflected ones by whether religion defines the nationalism — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized:…, 102; Nationalism’s borrowings from religion do not make religion its source — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular:…, 946; Religion carries no necessary political meaning but is anchored in tendential historical formations (+13 more)
• QUESTION: The definition rests on state-level ideological framing; do non-state imperial formations like the Ottoman millet even have the relevant ‘state’ being sacralized, or does that require the modern nation-state?

Broader Connections

• Christian Statism pursues exclusive state power over cultural dominance #expands (0.80) — Ruiqian Li and Paul Froese, The Duality of American Christian…, 44
• The nation-state has weaker legitimacy in Islam than tribe and faith #corroborates (0.78) — Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the…, 474
• Religion carries no necessary political meaning but is anchored in tendential historical formations #corroborates (0.75)
• Nationalism’s borrowings from religion do not make religion its source #qualifies (0.72) — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 946
• Religion, State, and party form an indissoluble unity rather than separable priority #contradicts (0.72) — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 992
• Christian nationalism functions as a power grab disguised in religious language, not genuine piety #complicates (0.70) — Andrew L. Whitehead; Samuel L. Perry, Taking America Back for God, 455