Executive Overview
To the casual observer concerned with the fragile state of American democracy, concluding that religion has acted as a toxic catalyst over the last decade is remarkably easy. High-profile right-wing figures—ranging from prominent televangelists like Robert Jeffress endorsing Christian nationalism to conservative Catholic intellectuals and evangelical pastors openly pondering a turn toward theocracy—have seemingly weaponized faith.
The integration of religious rhetoric into secular governance has reached unprecedented heights. Most notably, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has openly called for an "American crusade," evoking the bloody ideological conflicts of the medieval era while routinely referencing Christian theology to justify modern geopolitical conflicts, such as tensions with Iran. To many critics, these developments confirm a grim reality: American religion is mutating into an active, aggressive threat to the pluralism, tolerance, and secular governance that sustain a functional democracy.
Yet, a provocative and counterintuitive new thesis challenges this consensus. What if the antidote to the current anti-democratic slide is not less religion, but more—or, at the very least, a radical rehabilitation of how a secular society engages with religious institutions?
In their compelling new book, Can Religion Save Democracy? How More Faith, Not Less, Can Heal Our Public Life, conservative evangelical Christian scholar Matthew Kaemingk and liberal Muslim writer Shadi Hamid argue that declining levels of religiosity across the ideological spectrum have exacerbated political polarization, thereby eroding foundational democratic norms. The authors suggest that one of the most effective ways for liberals and secular Americans to defend democracy is to re-engage with religious communities and scriptural traditions with profound respect, openness, and intellectual curiosity. Simultaneously, they urge secular-leaning believers to embrace organized religion rather than retreating into isolated, privatized forms of faith.
Rather than viewing religion solely as a threat, Kaemingk and Hamid argue that healthy, institutional religion serves a vital regulatory purpose. It acts as a moral brake, tempering human emotions, fundamentalist impulses, and civic nihilism. When institutional religion recedes, those base passions and spiritual hungers do not simply vanish; instead, they are channeled directly into the political battlefield—transforming hyper-partisan politics into a dangerous, quasi-religious proxy war.
Detailed Chronology: The Evolution of Faith, Politics, and Secularism in America
To understand how American political culture arrived at its current state of hyper-polarization, one must trace the historical trajectory of religion’s shifting role in the public square over the past several decades.
The Late 20th Century: The Rise of the Religious Right and the Secular Backlash
- The 1970s and 1980s: The formal emergence of the Religious Right deeply intertwined conservative Protestantism with the Republican Party. While this mobilized millions of voters around social issues, it also initiated a long-term cultural alignment where partisan loyalty and religious identity began to blur.
- The Late 1990s and Early 2000s: The rise of the "New Atheism" movement, spearheaded by public intellectuals like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, marked a significant cultural counter-offensive. Secularism gained intellectual cachet, and organized religion was increasingly painted not just as outdated, but as inherently anti-rational and harmful to social progress.
The 2010s: De-institutionalization and the Great Secular Exodus
- The Mid-2010s: Sociological data began recording a massive acceleration in the "nones"—Americans professing no religious affiliation. Millions exited mainstream, moderate, and conservative churches, synagogues, and mosques.
- The 2016 Election: The fracturing of the traditional electorate saw Donald Trump secure the presidency. Notably, data revealed that while highly committed churchgoers showed complex voting patterns, unchurched or loosely affiliated evangelicals formed a ferocious, highly energized base of support. Political movements on both the right (MAGA) and the left ("Woke 1.0" and progressive identity movements) began adopting the psychological structures of religion: dogmatic purity tests, in-group tribalism, and secular salvific promises.
The 2020s: The Normalization of Religious Nationalism and Institutional Capture
- 2020–2024: Political polarization intensified, characterized by the events of January 6, rising authoritarian rhetoric, and the entrenchment of "BlueAnon" conspiracy theories and extreme partisan tribalism on the left. Meanwhile, right-wing religious leaders increasingly mainstreamed Christian nationalism, framing electoral politics as an existential, spiritual war of good versus evil.
- 2026 (The Present Era): The appointment and rhetoric of figures like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—who invoked a modern "American crusade" and leveraged Christian theology in statements regarding foreign military conflicts—cemented mainstream fears of theocratic creep. Concurrently, a new generation of religious Democrats (such as Texas Senate nominee James Talarico and Kansas Senate nominee Rev. Adam Hamilton) began pushing back against the secular left’s historical dismissal of faith, signaling a potential political realignment.
Supporting Context & Metrics: What Happens When Religion Recedes?
At the core of Kaemingk and Hamid’s thesis is an anthropological observation: human beings possess an innate, unyielding desire for ultimate meaning, moral certainty, and transcendent belonging. When institutional religion retreats from the public square, this "religion-shaped hole" does not remain empty. Instead, it is rapidly colonized by politics, unbridled emotional passions, and secular ideologies.
[Traditional Institutional Religion]
│ (Decline / Exodus)
▼
[Secularized Vacuum & Lost "Third Spaces"]
│ (Unyielding Human Need for Belonging & Meaning)
▼
[Hyper-Ideological Politics & Quasi-Religious Partisanship]
├── Right: Christian Nationalism / MAGA Cults of Personality
└── Left: Dogmatic Secular "Creeds" / Tribal Purity TestsDrawing upon St. Augustine’s famous dictum that "our hearts are restless until they rest in God," and political scientist Robert Putnam’s modern sociological research on the collapse of America’s "third spaces" (churches, fraternal lodges, and civic groups), the authors demonstrate that the decline of organized religion directly correlates with the rise of modern fanaticism.
Furthermore, the authors invoke the insights of 19th-century Dutch philosopher Abraham Kuyper, who posited that all human beings are fundamentally religious. According to Kuyper, religious fervor quietly powers every major social and political movement. When religion is forcibly scrubbed from public life, it does not extinguish spiritual passions; it merely displaces them.
The Quasi-Religious Nature of Modern Politics
This displacement is empirically observable across the American political landscape:
- The Right: Donald Trump’s populist movement frequently manifested elements of a cult of personality, offering followers a secular framework of salvation, moral purification, and an in-group identity that mirrored religious devotion without the theological accountability of a church community.
- The Left: Progressive social movements and anti-Trump resistance networks occasionally adopted rigid dogmatic structures, complete with secular creeds, excommunication rituals (cancel culture), and apocalyptic warnings about the fate of the republic.
When both sides abandon institutional religion, the public square becomes a battleground of isolated, fanatical individuals wielding theological concepts—such as Scripture, sin, and redemption—not as moral constraints, but as political cudgels to batter their opponents.
The Limitations of the Argument
Critics of Kaemingk and Hamid’s hypothesis raise a fair, highly pragmatic question: If religion is such a powerful moderator of human emotion, why has it utterly failed to temper the behavior of the most religious Americans today?
Statistical data from recent election cycles shows that the most loyal, unshakeable voting bloc for Donald Trump and the populist wing of the GOP consists of white evangelicals and nondenominational Protestants—demographics reporting above-average levels of religious participation. Furthermore, sociologists like Robert P. Jones (PRRI) have documented a persistent correlation between high religious commitment and support for exclusionary, authoritarian, or harsher nationalist policies.
When pressed on this contradiction in interviews, Hamid offered a nuanced defense: this phenomenon is not an indictment of religion per se, but rather the result of a Trump-specific distortion.
"Many evangelicals have let partisan loyalties take precedence over religious commitments," Hamid noted, pointing to the de-institutionalization of Protestantism where the most fervent populist foot-soldiers often exhibit lower levels of actual church attendance than traditional, institutional churchgoers.
Official Statements & Perspectives
The debate over the intersection of faith and democracy has drawn commentary from major religious and political figures worldwide, highlighting a global tension between authentic spiritual practice and far-right nationalist co-optation.
Shadi Hamid on Secular Engagement
In an interview discussing the core message of Can Religion Save Democracy?, Hamid clarified that the book’s intent is not to proselytize nonbelievers:
"We’re not trying to convert nonbelievers. Believing is one thing, but believing that religion can play a positive role is another. And we want to encourage secular readers to embrace the second proposition, even if they don’t believe religion is true or don’t believe God exists."
Pope Leo XIV on Authentic Secularity and Far-Right Co-optation
Adding immense intellectual weight to this debate, Pope Leo XIV recently addressed European civic leaders in Paris, offering a direct defense of religious liberty and warning against the distortion of faith by political extremists:
"A Christian engaged in public service and guided by the light of his or her conscience, illumined by faith, cannot be considered a proselytizer or a threat to the unity of the nation," Pope Leo declared, appealing directly to France’s fiercely secular traditions. "Indeed, authentic secularity does not exclude religion but is capable of valuing it as an educational resource."
Aboard the papal aircraft returning to Rome, the Pope expanded on these warnings, specifically pointing to the rise of far-right movements in Europe that cloak themselves in Christian imagery:
"It would be interesting to study, analyze if and how there may be a relationship… between the growth of these groups on the far right… with some expression of a combination of these far-right points of view with a certain kind of religion, which… is not an authentic expression of Christianity."
Future Outlook: A New Path Forward for American Politics
As the United States looks toward upcoming midterm elections and future presidential cycles, the relationship between faith and public life stands at a critical crossroads. For secular liberals and progressives, the reflexive instinct to dismiss, mock, or purge religion from the public square has proven politically shortsighted and culturally disastrous.
However, signs of a profound strategic and cultural shift are already emerging. A new generation of pragmatic, faith-literate Democratic candidates is proving that religious belief and progressive or pluralistic politics are not mutually exclusive. Prominent figures such as Texas Senate nominee James Talarico, Kansas Senate nominee Rev. Adam Hamilton, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro demonstrate a refreshing comfort in articulating their personal faiths while fiercely defending democratic norms and institutional separation of church and state.
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │ THE PATH TO DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1. SECULAR RECOGNITION: Secular liberals must acknowledge that
erasing religion from public life creates a spiritual vacuum
rapidly filled by toxic, fanatical political ideologies.
2. RELIGIOUS ACCOUNTABILITY: Believers must resist partisan
co-optation, ensuring their faith serves as a moral brake
rather than a political cudgel.
3. PLURALISTIC ENGAGEMENT: Both camps must embrace deep,
respectful dialogue, allowing citizens to bring their full,
unfiltered moral and spiritual convictions into the public square.The Unavoidable Reality of Pluralism
For secularists deeply rattled by the incursions of Christian nationalism—such as the establishment of partisan religious offices within governance structures or the invocation of divine mandate for partisan policies—accepting Kaemingk and Hamid’s prescription requires swallowing a bitter pill. It demands partnering with the very institutions they have long viewed with suspicion.
Yet, the core premise of Kaemingk and Hamid’s thesis remains undeniable: in a vast, diverse, and deeply divided nation, Americans have no alternative to coexistence. Eradicating religious passion is neither possible nor desirable; instead, the preservation of American democracy depends on civil society’s ability to civilize, respect, and constructively channel those profound spiritual energies back into the service of the common good.
