Religious fusion with nationalism matters only when it legitimizes 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

• DEFINE: Operational definitions of ‘fusion’ vs mere ‘religious influence’ in nationalism.
• XREF: Connects to reader’s question about when professed religious framing actually drives policy vs decorative rhetoric. — connects to: Religion fuses with nationalism only when it legitimizes actual state governance — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized:…, 75; Religious legitimation of policy is usually studied only as social-sphere activism. — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized:…, 87; Secularization stripped religion of its state-legitimating function in the US and Japan — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized:…, 90

Broader Connections

• Religion fuses with nationalism only when it legitimizes actual state governance #epitomizes (1.00) — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized, 75
• Religious legitimation of policy is usually studied only as social-sphere activism. #contradicts (0.80) — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized, 87
• Secularization stripped religion of its state-legitimating function in the US and Japan #corroborates (0.80) — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized, 90