Executive Overview
For the average observer monitoring the fragile state of American democracy, concluding that religion has acted as a toxic destabilizing force over the past decade is both natural and justifiable. From the pulpit to the Pentagon, the public square has increasingly echoed with aggressive theological claims. Prominent right-wing religious figures, such as Southern Baptist televangelist Robert Jeffress, have explicitly endorsed “Christian nationalism,” while various evangelical pastors and conservative Catholic intellectuals openly debate whether the United States ought to transition into an overtly theocratic state.
These anxieties are further compounded at the highest levels of government. Figures like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth—who famously called for an “American crusade,” invoking the bloody, sectarian conflicts of the medieval era—routinely weave hardline Christian theology into justifications for modern military interventions, such as the conflict with Iran. To secular critics and defenders of pluralism alike, these developments present a chilling reality: American religion is mutating into an active, aggressive threat to the foundational tenets of liberal democracy, tolerance, and secular governance.
Yet, a provocative and counterintuitive thesis is challenging this consensus. What if the antidote to our current democratic decay is also religion—specifically, a robust, institutionalized resurgence of faith rather than its continued retreat?
In a newly published volume titled 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 deeply exacerbated political polarization. By abandoning the sacred, they argue, Americans have not abandoned their spiritual passions; instead, they have transferred them directly onto the political battlefield. Consequently, the authors contend that one of the most effective ways for liberals and secular citizens to defend democracy is to respectfully engage with religious communities, while urging non-attending believers to return to organized worship.
Detailed Chronology: The Evolution of Post-Religious Politics
To understand how America arrived at this theological-political crossroads, it is necessary to trace the erosion of institutional religion and the simultaneous rise of hyper-partisan zealotry over the past several decades.
1. The Turn of the Century and the New Atheist Backlash (Early 2000s)
At the dawn of the 21st century, cultural forces on the political left heavily championed secularism, giving rise to the "New Atheist" movement led by figures like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Intellectual and cultural elites increasingly derided organized religion as backward, anti-scientific, and socially harmful. This widespread skepticism contributed to a massive wave of disaffiliation, as millions of Americans abandoned institutional churches, synagogues, and mosques, choosing instead to define themselves as "nones" (religiously unaffiliated).
2. The Great Institutional Evacuation (2010–2016)
As moderate and liberal congregations experienced precipitous drops in attendance and funding, the traditional "third spaces" described by sociologist Robert Putnam—civic organizations, bowling leagues, and local houses of worship that historically fostered cross-demographic trust and community—collapsed. In their place, Americans increasingly retreated into isolated echo chambers. While religious conservatives retained some institutional structures, the center and the left experienced a sweeping evacuation of organized religious life, leaving a profound vacuum in civic belonging.
3. The Trump Era and the Mutation of Faith into Partisanship (2016–2024)
The election of Donald Trump in 2016 marked a watershed moment. Observers immediately noted the quasi-religious fervor animating the MAGA movement, characterized by an unyielding cult of personality, strict in-group moral signaling, and apocalyptic political stakes. Conversely, the anti-Trump resistance and progressive social movements developed their own dogmatic rituals and secular orthodoxy—culminating in phenomena like online conspiracy ecosystems ("BlueAnon") and rigid cultural conformity. Religion, stripped of its traditional institutional constraints, was weaponized by both sides. Within evangelical circles, scriptural teachings ceased to function as moral limitations and instead became partisan cudgels used to bludgeon political opponents.
4. The Contemporary Flashpoint and the Pentagon Shift (2026)
By 2026, the convergence of religion and hardline state power reached new heights. The establishment of a dedicated Office of Religious Affairs within the Pentagon, combined with routine invocations of biblical scripture to justify immigration crackdowns and foreign wars, intensified secular anxieties. Concurrently, high-profile conservative leaders—including theologian Al Mohler—formally signed on to explicit Christian nationalist platforms. Yet, this era also witnessed an unprecedented pushback from within the center-left, as a new wave of religious Democrats—such as Texas Senate candidate James Talarico and Kansas Senate candidate the Rev. Adam Hamilton—began running openly on their faiths, challenging the secular orthodoxies of their own party.
Supporting Context & Metrics: The Mechanics of Displacement
At the absolute core of Kaemingk and Hamid’s thesis is an anthropological observation: human beings possess an innate, unyielding demand for ultimate meaning, moral certainty, and transcendent belonging—what St. Augustine famously described when he wrote that "our hearts are restless until they rest in [God]."
When institutional religion recedes from the public square, this fundamental human drive does not vanish. Instead, it is displaced onto secular ideologies, national identities, and political candidates. As the authors write:
"As Americans exit churches in droves, they’re not leaving behind their religious passions. Instead, they’re transferring those passions to the political battlefield. In this new post-religious context, Christian faith and Scripture function less as moral constraints within evangelical circles and more as political cudgels to use against one’s opponents."
This dynamic draws heavily upon the historical insights of 19th-century Dutch philosopher Abraham Kuyper, who argued that all human beings are inherently religious. According to Kuyper, spiritual fervor quietly powers every significant social and political movement. When religion is forcibly sequestered or erased from public life, the vacuum is quickly filled by fear, distrust, and a secular nihilism that lacks the ethical humility, guidance, and caution historically provided by organized religious traditions.
The Paradox of Religiosity and Modern Politics
Despite the compelling nature of this argument, critics immediately highlight a glaring empirical paradox: If institutional religion is such an effective moderating force, why has it failed to temper the behavior of the most religious Americans today?
Statistically, the most loyal and reliable voting bloc for Donald Trump and the populist right over the last decade has consisted of white evangelicals, nondenominational Christians, and traditionalist Catholics—demographics that report well-above-average rates of religious attendance. Scholars such as Robert P. Jones (PRRI) have documented a strong correlation between high levels of traditional Christian religious observance and support for authoritarian, exclusionary, and punitive political policies.
When pressed on this contradiction in interviews, Shadi Hamid argues that this phenomenon is not an indictment of religion itself, but rather the result of a Trump-specific distortion.
"Many evangelicals have let partisan loyalties take precedence over religious commitments," Hamid notes.
Hamid points out a crucial nuance: the most fervent, radicalized MAGA supporters within the broad Protestant domain often turn out to be unchurched or poorly integrated into actual local church communities. The process of de-institutionalization—the weakening of local accountability structures—has allowed a degraded, politicized caricature of faith to replace orthodox religious practice. Unmoored from the structural disciplines of a local congregation, believers easily fall prey to ideological radicalization.
Official Statements and International Perspectives
The debate over the public role of faith is not confined to American domestic politics; it has increasingly become a central theme for global leaders attempting to diagnose the rise of illiberalism in the West.
During a high-profile visit to Paris, Pope Leo XIV directly addressed the deep-seated anxieties of France’s fiercely secularized civic leaders (laïcité), urging them to radically reexamine their understanding of religious liberty and its relationship to democracy:
"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 in Paris. "Indeed, authentic secularity does not exclude religion but is capable of valuing it as an educational resource."
In a subsequent press briefing aboard the papal aircraft returning to Rome, the Pope expanded on these themes, pointing to the rapid secularization of Germany as a potential catalyst for the rise of far-right extremist movements that cloak themselves in superficial religious symbolism:
"It would be interesting to study, analyze if and how there may be a relationship, for example, 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."
Echoing these international sentiments, domestic political actors are beginning to shift their posture. Reflecting on the growing visibility of faith-driven Democratic candidates, Hamid emphasized the urgent need for political authenticity:
"Part of what we argue in the book is that Americans should be able to bring their full convictions into the public arena. If they’re editing themselves or suppressing their religiosity out of fear of alienating constituencies, that’s not good for democracy."
Future Outlook: Rebuilding the Pluralistic Middle
For secular liberals and progressives who have spent the last decade fighting the encroachment of Christian nationalism, the prescriptions offered by Kaemingk and Hamid can feel exceptionally difficult to swallow. Asking secular Americans to re-engage with religious institutions—and asking them to admit a measure of culpability for mocking faith during the New Atheist era—runs entirely counter to current political instincts.
Yet, the core takeaway of their thesis remains an inescapable sociological reality: in a diverse, deeply pluralistic republic, citizens have no operational alternative to learning how to live alongside one another. Erasing religion from the public square is neither historically possible nor psychologically viable.
Looking forward, the salvation of American democracy may well depend on a painful, mutual reckoning. On one hand, religious conservatives must reclaim their traditions from the clutches of partisan idolatry and submit once more to the moderating accountability of institutional church life. On the other hand, secular liberals must drop their reflexive dismissal of faith, recognizing that a healthy, vibrant, and institutionally rooted religious life is not the enemy of democracy—it may very well be its last, best defense.
