The Rising Religious Fervour of Political Discourse

We Cannot Serve Both God and Baal

All people worship someone or something.  In Christian terms we would say, all human beings either worship God and His Messiah, or they worship the Devil.  There is no neutral ground. Now, of course, the Satan has a bunch of "front organisations", but all, ultimately, are fronts for his grand rebellion against the Almighty.

For example, agnosticism is not a neutral place: it is a "soft" declaration that God does not exist.  Atheism is a "hard" declaration of the same.  In both cases, the agnostic and the atheist are serving the only other alternative: the one whom Christ's spokesman, Paul "outed" by calling him the god of this world.

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.  [II Corinthians 4:4]

As atheism and agnosticism spread across the Western world the secularist's god manifests himself through the institution of the secular state.
 Gods are synonymous with power.  It is incumbent upon the deity to manifest his glory and power, for then he commands our respect and obeisance.  Increasingly the state is becoming the nexus of power: the state commands more and more of our lives, our income, our loyalty, and our fidelity.  The state asserts ever greater competence--an omni-competence--to put all things to right.  The average atheist and agnostic don't just clap and cheer these developments: they fervently demand and insist upon the ever encroaching powers of the omni-competent state.  Why?  Why the fervour?  Because if the god of our society is not seen to be clothed with power, he is not god, he is not worthy of our devotion and worship.  If any question the competence of the state they are likely to be condemned as blasphemers.

Gracy Olmstead has written a piece in The Federalist bemoaning the rising partisan intransigence in national discourse.  She writes:

In America, organized religion has slowly lessened in importance in people’s day-to-day lives. The number of people who attend church every week has dropped, and the Americans who identify themselves as “nones” (religiously speaking) is on the rise. Though many would still say they believe in God, that doesn’t guarantee regular participation in a church, mosque, or synagogue.

Meanwhile, political dogma is on the rise. We virtue signal not through religious adherence, but via protesting and voting. We treat our political ideologies not just as governing ideals for the nation but also, often, as private orthodoxies.

Why is this?  Why have political opinions, views, convictions morphed into religious commitments?  Simply because it is a necessary fruit of secular atheism.  There is no such thing as a religious vacuum in the human heart: there is only the regency of a particular deity.  In the Christian world-view there is a regnancy of the One or the Other: the Lord Jesus Christ or the Devil.  Secularism, atheism, and agnosticism are all denominations within the Church of Satan.

The centre of power for the secularist is more and more emerging as the State.  Therefore political discourse necessarily becomes religious in nature.  One's enemies are those who hold different views of how the State ought to act, rule, and govern.  Those views are quickly identified either as orthodox or heterodox.  Political discourse is increasingly a clash of religions.  When both "sides" of politics implicitly believe, "there is no god but the Devil and the State is his messiah", political discourse is inevitably going to be charged with religious fervour.

And so it has come to pass.  Our point is this: the extremism now evident in political discourse is a necessary result of the rise of secularism, atheism, and agnosticism.  When the state has become quasi-divine, opponents are apostates and must be brought to the scaffold one way or the other.