ABSTRACT
Since Eric Voegelin and Raymond Aron, repeated attempts have been made
to comprehend the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century – above all, National Socialism and Leninism-Stalinism – as ‘political religions’. What
might the word ‘religion’ mean in this context? What is religion? Are there
various perspectives in which to understand it? If so, how do they relate to
one another? This brief essay will handle these questions from the stand-
point of philosophy. Accordingly, it will seek to contribute to an inter-
disciplinary discussion. The concept of religion offered by the philosophy of
religion will thereby serve as a norm by which to evaluate the concept of
‘political religion’ – a concept that has been developed by historians. As a rule,1 the classical science of religion is guided by a pre-scientific
understanding of religion. According to this understanding, religion – above
all, the great monotheistic religions – entails something that totalitarian
movements fundamentally lack: namely, the intention both to relate all acts
of worship to a transcendent divine sphere and to understand reality in
terms of this sphere. Insofar as they immanentise the transcendent,2 there-
fore, do the National Socialist and Marxist world-views entail not much
more than ‘anti-religions’ or ‘pseudo-religions’? If we consider that both movements set up a part of reality – namely, nation/race or the classless
society – as an absolute, the expression ‘ersatz religion’ seems better suited.
For in this case, the anthropological givenness of the reference to God is
substituted by something that – regarded ontologically – is not itself the
absolute, the ultimate reality. In what follows, the absolutisation of a part of
reality shall be understood as ideology. The concept of ideology shall be
used here in this normative sense. To this extent, ‘political religion’ is a
substitute for the ‘true religion’. One might speak of ‘religion’ in this case in only an inauthentic sense.
