As faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen. Will the quest for secular redemption doom the American idea?.The United States had long been a holdout among Western democracies, uniquely and perhaps even suspiciously devout. From 1937 to 1998, church membership remained relatively constant, hovering at about 70 percent.
Then
something happened. Over the past two decades, that number has dropped to less
than 50 percent, the sharpest recorded decline in American history. Meanwhile,
the “nones”—atheists, agnostics, and those claiming no religion—have grown
rapidly and today represent a quarter of the population.
But if
secularists hoped that declining religiosity would make for more rational
politics, drained of faith’s inflaming passions, they are likely disappointed. As
Christianity’s hold, in particular, has weakened, ideological intensity and
fragmentation have risen. American faith, it turns out, is as fervent as ever;
it’s just that what was once religious belief has now been channeled into
political belief. Political debates over what America is supposed to mean have taken
on the character of theological disputations. This is what religion without
religion looks like.
Not so long ago, I could comfort American audiences with
a contrast: Whereas in the Middle East, politics is war by other means—and
sometimes is literal war—politics in America was less existentially fraught.
During the Arab Spring, in countries like Egypt and Tunisia, debates weren’t
about health care or taxes—they were, with sometimes frightening intensity,
about foundational questions: What does it mean to be a nation? What is the
purpose of the state? What is the role of religion in public life? American
politics in the Obama years had its moments of ferment—the Tea Party and tan
suits—but was still relatively boring.
We didn’t realize how lucky we were. Since the end of the
Obama era, debates over what it means to be American have become suffused with
a fervor that would be unimaginable in debates over, say, Belgian-ness or the
“meaning” of Sweden. It’s rare to hear someone accused of being un-Swedish or un-British—but
un-American is a common slur, slung by both left and right against the other.
Being called un-American is like being called “un-Christian” or “un-Islamic,” a
charge akin to heresy.
This is because America itself is “almost a religion,” as
the Catholic philosopher Michael Novak once put it, particularly for immigrants
who come to their new identity with the zeal of the converted. The American
civic religion has its own founding myth, its prophets and processions, as well
as its scripture—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and The
Federalist Papers. In his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, Martin Luther King
Jr. wished that “one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning
of its creed.” The very idea that a nation might have a creed—a word associated
primarily with religion—illustrates the uniqueness of American identity as well
as its predicament.
The notion that all deeply felt conviction is sublimated
religion is not new. Abraham Kuyper, a theologian who served as the prime
minister of the Netherlands at the dawn of the 20th century, when the nation
was in the early throes of secularization, argued that all strongly held
ideologies were effectively faith-based, and that no human being could survive
long without some ultimate loyalty. If that loyalty didn’t derive from
traditional religion, it would find expression through secular commitments,
such as nationalism, socialism, or liberalism. The political theorist Samuel
Goldman calls this “the law of the conservation of religion”: In any given
society, there is a relatively constant and finite supply of religious
conviction. What varies is how and where it is expressed.
No longer explicitly rooted in white, Protestant
dominance, understandings of the American creed have become richer and more
diverse—but also more fractious. As the creed fragments, each side seeks to
exert exclusivist claims over the other. Conservatives believe that they are
faithful to the American idea and that liberals are betraying it—but liberals believe,
with equal certitude, that they are faithful to the American idea and that
conservatives are betraying it. Without the common ground produced by a shared
external enemy, as America had during the Cold War and briefly after the
September 11 attacks, mutual antipathy grows, and each side becomes less
intelligible to the other. Too often, the most bitter divides are those within
families.
No wonder the newly ascendant American ideologies, having
to fill the vacuum where religion once was, are so divisive. They are meant to
be divisive. On the left, the “woke” take religious notions such as original
sin, atonement, ritual, and excommunication and repurpose them for secular
ends. Adherents of wokeism see themselves as challenging the long-dominant
narrative that emphasized the exceptionalism of the nation’s founding. Whereas
religion sees the promised land as being above, in God’s kingdom, the utopian
left sees it as being ahead, in the realization of a just society here on
Earth. After Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September,
droves of mourners gathered outside the Supreme Court—some kneeling, some
holding candles—as though they were at the Western Wall.
On the right, adherents of a Trump-centric
ethno-nationalism still drape themselves in some of the trappings of organized
religion, but the result is a movement that often looks like a tent revival
stripped of Christian witness. Donald Trump’s boisterous rallies were more
focused on blood and soil than on the son of God. Trump himself played both
savior and martyr, and it is easy to marvel at the hold that a man so imperfect
can have on his soldiers. Many on the right find solace in conspiracy cults,
such as QAnon, that tell a religious story of earthly corruption redeemed by a
godlike force.
Though the United States wasn’t founded as a Christian
nation, Christianity was always intertwined with America’s self-definition.
Without it, Americans—conservatives and liberals alike—no longer have a common
culture upon which to fall back.
Unfortunately, the various strains of wokeism on the left
and Trumpism on the right cannot truly fill the spiritual void—what the
journalist Murtaza Hussain calls America’s “God-shaped hole.” Religion, in
part, is about distancing yourself from the temporal world, with all its
imperfection. At its best, religion confers relief by withholding final
judgments until another time—perhaps until eternity. The new secular religions
unleash dissatisfaction not toward the possibilities of divine grace or justice
but toward one’s fellow citizens, who become embodiments of sin—“deplorables”
or “enemies of the state.”
This is the danger in transforming mundane political
debates into metaphysical questions. Political questions are not metaphysical;
they are of this world and this world alone. “Some days are for dealing with
your insurance documents or fighting in the mud with your political opponents,”
the political philosopher Samuel Kimbriel recently told me, “but there are also
days for solemnity, or fasting, or worship, or feasting—things that remind us
that the world is bigger than itself.”
Absent some new religious awakening, what are we left
with? One alternative to American intensity would be a world-weary European
resignation. Violence has a way of taming passions, at least as long as it
remains in active memory. In Europe, the terrors of the Second World War are
not far away. But Americans must go back to the Civil War for violence of
comparable scale—and for most Americans, the violence of the Civil War
bolsters, rather than undermines, the national myth of perpetual progress. The
war was redemptive—it led to a place of promise, a place where slavery could be
abolished and the nation made whole again. This, at least, is the narrative
that makes the myth possible to sustain.
For better and worse, the United States really is nearly
one of a kind. France may be the only country other than the United States that
believes itself to be based on a unifying ideology that is both unique and
universal—and avowedly secular. The French concept of laïcité requires
religious conservatives to privilege being French over their religious
commitments when the two are at odds. With the rise of the far right and
persistent tensions regarding Islam’s presence in public life, the meaning of
laïcité has become more controversial. But most French people still hold firm
to their country’s founding ideology: More than 80 percent favor banning
religious displays in public, according to one recent poll.
In democracies without a pronounced ideological bent,
which is most of them, nationhood must instead rely on a shared sense of being
a distinct people, forged over centuries. It can be hard for outsiders and
immigrants to embrace a national identity steeped in ethnicity and history when
it was never theirs.
Take postwar Germany. Germanness is considered a mere
fact—an accident of birth rather than an aspiration. And because shame over the
Holocaust is considered a national virtue, the country has at once a strong
national identity and a weak one. There is pride in not being proud. So what
would it mean for, say, Muslim immigrants to love a German language and culture
tied to a history that is not theirs—and indeed a history that many Germans
themselves hope to leave behind?
An American who moves to Germany, lives there for years,
and learns the language remains an American—an “expat.” If America is a civil
religion, it would make sense that it stays with you, unless you renounce it.
As Jeff Gedmin, the former head of the Aspen Institute in Berlin, described it
to me: “You can eat strudel, speak fluent German, adapt to local culture, but
many will still say of you Er hat einen deutschen Pass—‘He has a German
passport.’ No one starts calling you German.” Many native-born Americans may
live abroad for stretches, but few emigrate permanently. Immigrants to America
tend to become American; emigrants to other countries from America tend to stay
American.
The last time I came back to the United States after
being abroad, the customs officer at Dulles airport, in Virginia, glanced at my
passport, looked at me, and said, “Welcome home.” For my customs officer, it
went without saying that the United States was my home.
In In the Light of What We Know, a novel by the British
Bangladeshi author Zia Haider Rahman, the protagonist, an enigmatic and
troubled British citizen named Zafar, is envious of the narrator, who is
American. “If an immigration officer at Heathrow had ever said ‘Welcome home’
to me,” Zafar says, “I would have given my life for England, for my country, there
and then. I could kill for an England like that.” The narrator reflects later
that this was “a bitter plea”:
Embedded in his remark, there was a longing for being a
part of something. The force of the statement came from the juxtaposition of
two apparent extremes: what Zafar was prepared to sacrifice, on the one hand,
and, on the other, what he would have sacrificed it for—the casual remark of an
immigration official.
When Americans have expressed disgust with their country,
they have tended to frame it as fulfillment of a patriotic duty rather than its
negation. As James Baldwin, the rare American who did leave for good, put it:
“I love America more than any other country in the world, and, exactly for this
reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” Americans who
dislike America seem to dislike leaving it even more (witness all those
liberals not leaving the country every time a Republican wins the presidency,
despite their promises to do so). And Americans who do leave still find a way,
like Baldwin, to love it. This is the good news of America’s creedal nature,
and may provide at least some hope for the future. But is love enough?
Conflicting narratives are more likely to coexist
uneasily than to resolve themselves; the threat of disintegration will always
lurk nearby.
On January 6, the threat became all too real when
insurrectionary violence came to the Capitol. What was once in the realm of
“dreampolitik” now had physical force. What can “unity” possibly mean after
that?
Can religiosity be effectively channeled into political
belief without the structures of actual religion to temper and postpone
judgment? There is little sign, so far, that it can. If matters of good and
evil are not to be resolved by an omniscient God in the future, then Americans
will judge and render punishment now. We are a nation of believers. If only
Americans could begin believing in politics less fervently, realizing instead
that life is elsewhere. But this would come at a cost—because to believe in
politics also means believing we can, and probably should, be better.
In History Has Begun, the author, Bruno Maçães—Portugal’s
former Europe minister—marvels that “perhaps alone among all contemporary
civilizations, America regards reality as an enemy to be defeated.” This can
obviously be a bad thing (consider our ineffectual fight against the
coronavirus), but it can also be an engine of rejuvenation and creativity; it
may not always be a good idea to accept the world as it is. Fantasy, like
belief, is something that humans desire and need. A distinctive American
innovation is to insist on believing even as our fantasies and dreams drift
further out of reach.
This may mean that the United States will remain unique,
torn between this world and the alternative worlds that secular and religious
Americans alike seem to long for. If America is a creed, then as long as enough
citizens say they believe, the civic faith can survive. Like all other faiths,
America’s will continue to fragment and divide. Still, the American creed
remains worth believing in, and that may be enough. If it isn’t, then the only
hope might be to get down on our knees and pray.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/america-politics-religion/618072/
**This article was published online on March 10, 2021.
***This article appears in the April 2021 print edition
with the headline “America Without God.”
**Shadi Hamid is a contributing writer at The Atlantic, a
senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a founding editor of Wisdom of
Crowds. He is the author of Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam
Is Reshaping the World and Temptations of Power.