The more secular politics becomes, the more it resembles a holy war
Two authors argue that when people stop deriving identity and ultimate meaning from religion, this longing does not disappear but instead transfers into politics—which is the root cause of American politics becoming ‘holy war-like’.
The video won't play here. Listen to the audio instead:
The argument · timestamps estimated from transcript position
Politics is filling the spiritual void left by religion
Kaemingk's argument is that democratic theorists long believed secularization would make people more rational and unified, but American reality contradicts this: as religious identity declines, political polarization rises instead. The reason is that people no longer derive identity and meaning from religion, instead seeking them from political tribal identity—who are good and who are bad, the ultimate meaning of life, all concentrated in elections and parties. This produces political language imbued with apocalyptic sense like ‘this is the most important election of our lifetime,’ with politics itself beginning to perform functions that should belong to religion.
— KaemingkMonotheism's true function is pulling politics off the pedestal
The three believe monotheism's greatest contribution to democracy is not moral doctrine but ‘desacralizing politics’—pulling presidents, parties, and particular elections down from ultimate status. Kaemingk raises the ancient concept of ‘idolatry,’ which actually carries urgent contemporary political significance: placing ordinary things in life (an election, a political figure) on a sacred pedestal is itself a political danger. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity share a common legacy of reminding people never to treat any secular thing as the source of ultimate salvation.
— KaemingkBelief in the afterlife paradoxically relaxes political intensity
The book has a dedicated chapter called ‘In Defense of Hell,’ arguing that belief in the afterlife's judgment brings a kind of political relief—you need not make final reckoning with every dictator and injustice in this life, because there will eventually be a final accounting. Hamid argues this is not defending political passivity, but rather that it allows people to avoid the obsession with ‘must completely win in this lifetime,’ and thus handle politics more lightly. Conversely, the 20th century's most destructive communist movements were precisely secular ideologies attempting to realize paradise on earth.
— HamidSecular ideology killed more people in the 20th century than religious war did
Against the common accusation that ‘religion is the cause of violence,’ Hamid counters that the 20th century itself was a century when secular ideologies killed tens of millions—Mao's Cultural Revolution and the anti-Christian core of Nazism are examples. Both acknowledge that religious extremism has existed historically (from Christian religious wars to Islamic extremist organizations), but they argue that secular ideology in the modern era often escapes the same scrutiny, and Mounk agrees this has been underestimated.
— HamidEuropean religious wars were power struggles, not conflicts over faith
Kaemingk cites William Cavanaugh's “The Myth of Religious Violence” to point out that conflicts historically called ‘religious wars’ in European history were largely different power brokers exploiting tensions between Catholicism and Protestantism to serve their political and economic ends, with religion being more a manipulated tool than the root of conflict. This stands opposite the historical narrative often invoked by secularists to argue that ‘religion cannot enter public life.’
— KaemingkParty identity is now replacing race as the most dangerous dividing line
Mounk raises that the most dangerous division today is no longer primarily race or class, but party identity—polls show American parents are more likely to be unhappy if their child marries someone from the opposite party than if they marry someone of a different race. Religion could originally have been a ‘bridging identity’ across parties: Catholicism, some Protestant churches, and Islam in America are all highly multiethnic and could reasonably connect people in different parties. But in reality religion has become highly mapped onto party division—observant white people are likely Republican, secular white progressives are likely Democratic.
— MounkDemocratic Muslim candidates are selected to be too smooth
Kaemingk criticizes Democratic Muslim candidates like Zohran: they align perfectly with Democratic positions on gender and sexual orientation, with no genuinely ‘strange’ Muslim perspectives. What he hopes to see is a Muslim elected with openly orthodox Islamic positions (such as diverging from party mainstream on gender issues) rather than being treated as symbolic packaging. Hamid partly agrees, suggesting Abdul El-Sayed may privately hold more conservative views but chooses to avoid them for fear of angering the progressive base; he also notes that the Democratic Party was not inherently meant to be secular—four or five decades ago in the Jimmy Carter era, it still accommodated large numbers of white evangelicals.
In their own words · checked verbatim
as politics becomes more secular, it is actually becoming more religious. It’s having a sense of holy war to it.
Kaemingk0:00
We don’t think politics should be the place where you find or search for your deepest longings and yearnings. That can be dangerous. Politics can’t really contain that level of intensity.
Hamid0:00
That is one of the fundamental gifts of traditional monotheism: that it radically secularizes politics, in the best way, that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity take politics down three notches—or at least it should.
Kaemingk0:00
Not having to have a final victory in the here and now can be liberating. It allows us to chill, ideally, and be more relaxed about our politics.
Hamid0:00
it is really worth remembering that the twentieth century is a century of secular ideologies killing tens of millions of people: Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Nazism was anti-Christian at its core.
Hamid0:00
With James Talarico, my concern is that he is too smoothly a Democrat. He doesn’t have—he’s not strangely Christian. His Christianity just falls perfectly in line with the Democratic Party.
Kaemingk0:00
I would love to see the Democratic Party elect a Muslim who openly has Muslim views on gender and sexuality.
Kaemingk0:00
Figures
| 20th-century deaths from secular ideology | tens of millions | 0:00 |
Glossary
- idolatry
- Elevating ordinary things in life (such as an election or political figure) to a sacred, ultimate status.
- political hobbyism
- Engaging with politics as a hobby or interest rather than as a rational expression of one's concerns.
How to listen
Readers interested in the relationship between American religion and party politics, or intrigued by the counterintuitive argument that ‘secularization leads to polarization’.
The opening theoretical framework is somewhat lengthy; you can jump directly to the second half's discussion of the Democratic Party and faith candidates.