Abstract

Recent publications by Charles Taylor (Varieties of Religion Today, Modern Social Imaginaries) have considered the meaning of religion in modern secularized society, especially with regard to the construction of political identities. This critical study points to an inconsistency in Taylors approach to religion. In his criticism of William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, Taylor argues that James' conception is one-sided: it overlooks a crucial feature of Catholicism, the need namely for a mediation of the divine. James' conception of religion, on the contrary, starts from individual experience. In Taylors description of the development of the relation between politics and religion, however, this critical attitude seems to vanish. Instead of working out a political philosophy, Taylor hides himself behind sociological and historical considerations. The paper argues that a political philosophy should be mindful of the consequences of Taylors remarks in the field of the philosophy of religion. In order to do this, use is made of Carl Schmitt's notion of ‘political theology’ and his thesis concerning the “anti-Roman affect” in the political history of the West. Any political philosophy that is prepared to consider the relations between ‘politics’ and ‘religion’ should take into account the varieties of religion and their impact on politics