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.
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.
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.
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.
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.