Thank you for this essay. While I find it unpersuasive in its conclusion, I found it odd in other respects. The author speaks of religion solely in the context of forms of Christianity, and solely as it impacts the political right. What of Muslims or Jews or other religious groups, many of whom identify as liberal Democrats in the US? There is also an implicit blame of liberalism as the reason for the decline of religion, rather than pointing a finger towards the antiquated institutions that refused to adjust to a modern society. Had churches adapted to a broader acceptance of sexuality and identity, for example, the exodus from religious doctrine might not have been so steady. Even were we to accept the author's conclusions, which religious doctrine should prevail in multi-ethnic, pluralistic societies? The author seems to begin with a predetermined conclusion. I would argue that people turned from religion for the same reason they turned from democracy...the institutions became rotted and feeble over time, leadership was reactive to crises, policies shifted dramatically in reaction to whatever crisis damned the last administration. Every benefit you note that is provided by a church is also provided by NGOs, non-profits, community organizations. The reason that people flocked to Trump was that he pretended to be a leader who understood their disillusionment. The reason that the world has rallied around Zekenskyy is that he's actually a leader who stands with his people fighting for a common cause, irrespective of religion. The world doesn't need more religion to function more humanely, it needs better leaders.
I’d go further here and say that the Christian churches in the US (since that’s what the article is confined to) have been the explicit cause of the loss of social cohesion. The Catholic Church did itself (and the world) immense harm by allowing child sexual abuse among the priesthood to go on for so long. If I had a family member who had been abused at a particular institution, I surely wouldn’t go back.
The article also doesn’t take into account the evangelical mega churches, and how the type of worship they provide (in arenas!) also does not produce the close community ties that promote social cohesion.
Mar 8, 2022·edited Mar 8, 2022Liked by Shikha Dalmia
As a 66-year-old man who was raised Catholic, and who became an atheist around age 15 or so (the concept of God just made no sense at all, and still doesn't), I am absolutely on-board with religion being necessary for a stable society.
In my 20s, I married a woman who is a practicing Catholic. I supported her by attending Mass weekly and raising our children in the Church.
Although I am still an atheist as a core belief, the social benefits of religion became clear to me through these decades of practice.
IMO, a revival of tradional religion, lightly but thoughtfully practiced by a majority, is essential if we are not to ultimately undergo societal collapse.
I find the article gives no data in associating drops in religious attendance or religiosity with rise in populism, and then proceeds to speculate on why this imo doubtful phenomenon is happening.
In the western countries the countries ranked lowest in importance of religion to citizens are Sweden, France, UK, Germany, Finland, Denmark. Higher in importance of religion are US, India, Greece, Poland, Spain. At first glance the reverse correlation is true with the populist authoritarians on the rise in Poland, India, US more so than Scandinavia or Germany.
Now those are static correlations so if the contention is that falling religiosity is the cause I would need to find that data, which I could not, but the author doesn't present it either, so I feel that he has a narrative to explain his predilections more than something real.
Religion is falling off in most Western countries so when the author picks a few like the US and ties that to a rise in populism, it seems cherry picking as religion is falling off everywhere and is almost gone in Scandinavia not know for their populism whereas it is flourishing if anywhere in Africa and Muslim countries not known for liberal democracy. And Russia has had some resurgence in the Church with Putin.
This last part is precisely what he is disputing. He is making the case that those people for whom religion is an identity and not a matter of personal moral piety (hence they feel no need to go to church, where their views could be moderated) are the ones most susceptible to the allure of authoritarianism. But your bigger point is well taken. In your list of non-religious countries that are not going authoritrian, I'd also throw in Japan. But Japan hasn't confronted the kind of disruptive demographic change (precisely because an extreme nativism is already baked into the cake) that the West has that its politics would be challenged. However, Scandinavian countries that have do have a growing populist authoritarian movement -- but I agree that we'd need a lot more very specific data to know whether that would be mitigated, or inflamed, by religion.
When you say "whom religion is an identity and not a matter of personal moral piety (hence they feel no need to go to church, where their views could be moderated) are the ones most susceptible to the allure of authoritarianism." Yet in the US clearly the most prone to authoritarianism in the form of Trump are the most regular church attenders I believe, at least in white evangelical circles. Indeed the evangelical clergy like Falwell, and I am sure in Hindu and Muslim nationalist circles are the ones egging on the intolerance, where going to church or temple sometimes incites more than moderates). There is a long history of religious based incitement to authoritarianism just as their is a history of religion fostering peace and tolerance like the abolitionists, MLKing, so imo it is less religion vs no religion but what that religion is saying.
Now I might agree that those who truly are following the precepts of most of these faiths might be moderated but who is to say who the true followers are. King and Ghandi fostered peace, Falwell and Mullah Omar sow intolerance.
I've been noticing an increase in articles promoting religion as an antidote to the divisiveness of our society. It seems to be part of an effort to do an end run around the proven effectiveness of Reason and Liberty (defined as freedom from government coercion), which were promoted by the founders of the U.S. When Liberty dies and the government forces a one-size-fits-all solution on everyone, you can expect only more extremism, polarization social breakdown. Religion is not going to change that, but less government would.
Thank you for this essay. While I find it unpersuasive in its conclusion, I found it odd in other respects. The author speaks of religion solely in the context of forms of Christianity, and solely as it impacts the political right. What of Muslims or Jews or other religious groups, many of whom identify as liberal Democrats in the US? There is also an implicit blame of liberalism as the reason for the decline of religion, rather than pointing a finger towards the antiquated institutions that refused to adjust to a modern society. Had churches adapted to a broader acceptance of sexuality and identity, for example, the exodus from religious doctrine might not have been so steady. Even were we to accept the author's conclusions, which religious doctrine should prevail in multi-ethnic, pluralistic societies? The author seems to begin with a predetermined conclusion. I would argue that people turned from religion for the same reason they turned from democracy...the institutions became rotted and feeble over time, leadership was reactive to crises, policies shifted dramatically in reaction to whatever crisis damned the last administration. Every benefit you note that is provided by a church is also provided by NGOs, non-profits, community organizations. The reason that people flocked to Trump was that he pretended to be a leader who understood their disillusionment. The reason that the world has rallied around Zekenskyy is that he's actually a leader who stands with his people fighting for a common cause, irrespective of religion. The world doesn't need more religion to function more humanely, it needs better leaders.
I’d go further here and say that the Christian churches in the US (since that’s what the article is confined to) have been the explicit cause of the loss of social cohesion. The Catholic Church did itself (and the world) immense harm by allowing child sexual abuse among the priesthood to go on for so long. If I had a family member who had been abused at a particular institution, I surely wouldn’t go back.
The article also doesn’t take into account the evangelical mega churches, and how the type of worship they provide (in arenas!) also does not produce the close community ties that promote social cohesion.
Good points, though I think the loss of social cohesion is multi-pronged. There is a loss of trust in institutions as a whole.
For sure. But, as you said, often for compelling reasons.
As a 66-year-old man who was raised Catholic, and who became an atheist around age 15 or so (the concept of God just made no sense at all, and still doesn't), I am absolutely on-board with religion being necessary for a stable society.
In my 20s, I married a woman who is a practicing Catholic. I supported her by attending Mass weekly and raising our children in the Church.
Although I am still an atheist as a core belief, the social benefits of religion became clear to me through these decades of practice.
IMO, a revival of tradional religion, lightly but thoughtfully practiced by a majority, is essential if we are not to ultimately undergo societal collapse.
I find the article gives no data in associating drops in religious attendance or religiosity with rise in populism, and then proceeds to speculate on why this imo doubtful phenomenon is happening.
In the western countries the countries ranked lowest in importance of religion to citizens are Sweden, France, UK, Germany, Finland, Denmark. Higher in importance of religion are US, India, Greece, Poland, Spain. At first glance the reverse correlation is true with the populist authoritarians on the rise in Poland, India, US more so than Scandinavia or Germany.
Now those are static correlations so if the contention is that falling religiosity is the cause I would need to find that data, which I could not, but the author doesn't present it either, so I feel that he has a narrative to explain his predilections more than something real.
Religion is falling off in most Western countries so when the author picks a few like the US and ties that to a rise in populism, it seems cherry picking as religion is falling off everywhere and is almost gone in Scandinavia not know for their populism whereas it is flourishing if anywhere in Africa and Muslim countries not known for liberal democracy. And Russia has had some resurgence in the Church with Putin.
And an addendum, if religion is a mitigating factor to populism why are the most religious people supporting Trump, Putin, Modi, Erdogan, Netanyahu.
This last part is precisely what he is disputing. He is making the case that those people for whom religion is an identity and not a matter of personal moral piety (hence they feel no need to go to church, where their views could be moderated) are the ones most susceptible to the allure of authoritarianism. But your bigger point is well taken. In your list of non-religious countries that are not going authoritrian, I'd also throw in Japan. But Japan hasn't confronted the kind of disruptive demographic change (precisely because an extreme nativism is already baked into the cake) that the West has that its politics would be challenged. However, Scandinavian countries that have do have a growing populist authoritarian movement -- but I agree that we'd need a lot more very specific data to know whether that would be mitigated, or inflamed, by religion.
When you say "whom religion is an identity and not a matter of personal moral piety (hence they feel no need to go to church, where their views could be moderated) are the ones most susceptible to the allure of authoritarianism." Yet in the US clearly the most prone to authoritarianism in the form of Trump are the most regular church attenders I believe, at least in white evangelical circles. Indeed the evangelical clergy like Falwell, and I am sure in Hindu and Muslim nationalist circles are the ones egging on the intolerance, where going to church or temple sometimes incites more than moderates). There is a long history of religious based incitement to authoritarianism just as their is a history of religion fostering peace and tolerance like the abolitionists, MLKing, so imo it is less religion vs no religion but what that religion is saying.
Now I might agree that those who truly are following the precepts of most of these faiths might be moderated but who is to say who the true followers are. King and Ghandi fostered peace, Falwell and Mullah Omar sow intolerance.
I've been noticing an increase in articles promoting religion as an antidote to the divisiveness of our society. It seems to be part of an effort to do an end run around the proven effectiveness of Reason and Liberty (defined as freedom from government coercion), which were promoted by the founders of the U.S. When Liberty dies and the government forces a one-size-fits-all solution on everyone, you can expect only more extremism, polarization social breakdown. Religion is not going to change that, but less government would.