[In sum, sports stadiums derive from social construction. They are imbued with “references constructed on references”.
Therefore, the American system permits the establishment of religion for the sovereign states, but not for the sovereign nation.
The American Revolutionaries knew that people would ultimately vote with their feet. False sovereign religions drive people out of their states.]
Summary of text [comment] page 61-62
[In the late 1700s, the American revolutionaries tried circumvent the establishment of a sovereign religion in two ways.
First, they amended their Constitution.
Second, they placed public works in the hands of the states.
They knew that public works would be sites for infrasovereign ambitions. For example, “building a sports stadium at taxpayer’s expense” may not seem religious because “it appears to be a sensible construction”. Stadiums are supposed to increase economic activity.
Critical inquiry is supposed to stop at this sensical statement. Self-declared “not religious” postreligionist (enlightenment) believers will insist that exploration stop at this explanation.
However, even “a cursory anthropological examination of so-called sports stadiums produced by human civilizations” readily demonstrates that they imply more than “economic activity”. They are cult sites for civic religions.]
[Alliances of infrasovereign religions may gain sovereign power.
I call the alliance “sovereign religion” or religionsov.
I call each party an (infra)sovereign religion.]
[What about businesses?
Businesses act as institutions when establishing organizational objectives.
If those objectives do not include the pursuit of sovereign power, the business may not be classified as a religioninfrasov. If they pursue sovereign power, they may be so classified.
In America, Progressive legislation has transformed many large business corporations into religiousinfrasov entitities. Many of these entities cannot meet the bottom line without advantages provided by the sovereign. But what do they materially offer in return? The offer immaterial rewards, instead.
This has been seen before. The First Battle Among the Enlightenment Godheads (1914-1918) was a fight among mercantilist religionsovs. The monospolistic business communities of each nation had established themselves as religioninfrasovs.
Theologians should critically compare the business ideologies of large (monopolistic and mercantilist) corporations in the late nineteenth century to those of today.]
[Many infrasovereign religions grasp for sovereign power.
Many refuse to do so by their own institutional mandates.
Yet, the capacity always exists for an infrasovereign religion.]
[Technically, the four mandates of the sovereign includes a civil court system, a criminal court system, military defense of the realm, and the maintenance and construction of public works. Examples of public works include standard measures as well as roads.
These four mandates justify the establishment of a sovereign.
Once established, however, the sovereign itself becomes a target for infiltration and takeover by alliances of infra-sovereign institutions. These infra-sovereign religions imagine that they can better achieve their goals through the exercise of sovereign power.]
Summary of text [comment] page 61-62
[The sovereign situates these all institutions through an exercise of sovereign power.]
[Now, I have another terminological challenge:
What should one call the “sovereign power” that exists within each institution?
To me, the word “discipline” comes to mind.
Each institution operates as a little society.
Disciplinary powers reify organizational activities. They turn these activities into observables. Disciplinary power establishes diagrams of accountability, assigns office spaces and other trappings of power, and generates influence, status, wealth, charisma, celebrity, intellectual acclaim, scientific expertise, ecclesial authority, and so on. Disciplinary power also tries to put other institutions, both allies and competitors, into context.
In sum, disciplinary power operates within an institution.
An institution contextualizes its own organization and attempts to contextualize other organizations.]
Summary of text [comment] page 61-62
[Spontaneous orders naturally self-organize according to the character of the individuals in community. These organizations are devoted to achieving goals.
These goals, plus the efforts required to achieve these goals, are contextualized.
Who contextualizes?
What does one call “that part of an organization that puts the organization into context”?
The word ‘”institution” comes to mind.
“Institutions justify organizational activities” according to “objects that bring people into organization”.]
[The object of a suprasovereign religion is, technically, “the object that brings all into relation”.
This object puts the sovereign into context.
This object interpellates all individuals (ultimately, as a universal interpellation).
This object calls individuals to adopt particular ideas, attitudes and frames of mind (beliefs and habits) that build character.
Religionsuprasovs build individual character.
“Character” is “the capacity to exercise both responsibilities and freedoms”.
Here, “freedom” represents “an openness to create and maintain responsibilities”, rather than the misleading “avoidance of obligations”.]
