Can Religion Save Democracy? A New Book's Controversial Argument

A new book posits that dwindling levels of religiosity, particularly among liberals, have exacerbated political polarization and eroded democratic norms. The authors propose that increased engagement with religion, especially by secular individuals and liberals, could serve as a vital tool in bolstering American democracy.

Matthew Kaemingk, a conservative evangelical Christian, and Shadi Hamid, a liberal Muslim writer, present their argument in the book Can Religion Save Democracy? They contend that religious institutions and organized religion play an essential role in public life by acting as a moderating force against excessive emotion, fundamentalism, and nihilism. When this influence wanes, they suggest, these base instincts are redirected into political discourse.

"As Americans exit churches in droves, they’re not leaving behind their religious passions. Instead, they’re transferring those passions to the political battlefield," the authors write. "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."

Hamid elaborated in an interview, "We want to encourage secular readers to embrace the second proposition, even if they don’t believe religion is true or don’t believe God exists." He emphasizes that the goal is not conversion but recognition of religion's potential positive role.

The Impact of Religion's Public Decline

At the heart of Kaemingk and Hamid's thesis is the idea that a "religion-shaped hole" in the 21st century has been increasingly filled by politics, unbridled passions, and secular ideologies. This shift, they argue, has not eliminated spiritual passions but has instead given rise to new forms of fanaticism, either secular or fundamentalist, while diminishing the benefits that organized religion can provide, such as fostering civic partnership, trust, meaning, and belonging.

The authors draw upon thinkers like St. Augustine and Robert Putnam, alongside the 19th-century philosopher Abraham Kuyper, who argued that all people possess a religious fervor that can power political movements. They suggest that when these spiritual passions are suppressed or redirected from religion, they manifest in politics, fueling movements with quasi-religious fervor, such as observed in both Trump-aligned and anti-Trump movements.

Kaemingk and Hamid critique the common liberal response of denigrating religion and religious people. They propose that a path out of the current political stalemate involves liberals engaging with the devout with openness and curiosity. This includes practical steps such as prayer or prayer-like practices for nonbelievers to foster understanding and forgiveness of opponents. They also suggest meditating on scriptural teachings about forgiveness, debate, and the appropriate seriousness of earthly politics.

Furthermore, they urge liberals to reconnect with religious communities and congregations. Religious liberals are encouraged to avoid isolated faith and return to communal worship, while nonreligious liberals are advised to reexamine their ideological priorities and consider engaging with organized religion to better understand different worldviews. The authors also suggest that the dismissal of organized religion by secular Americans earlier this century, including the New Atheist movement and a general decline in church participation, may have contributed to the capture of some religious institutions by partisan forces and the decline of moderate congregations.

Limitations and Nuances of the Argument

The book's argument faces a significant challenge: If religion is inherently moderating, why have highly religious groups, such as evangelical Christians, often displayed intense polarization? The authors acknowledge this complexity, with Hamid attributing the strong partisan loyalties seen among some evangelicals to a Trump-specific phenomenon where "partisan loyalties take precedence over religious commitments." He further suggests that fervent MAGA supporters are not necessarily the most religious, noting a decline in regular church attendance among some evangelicals.

Additionally, while evidence suggests that those who leave their churches can become more cynical, there is less empirical support for the converse: that religious participation consistently tempers emotions and politics. Some research indicates that highly religious individuals are more likely to support harsher policies.

A Shifting Political Landscape

Despite these challenges, there are indications that the authors' perspective is gaining traction. Some Democrats are recognizing the importance of religious voters, with several prominent Democratic candidates in red states identifying as religious. Figures like Texas Senate nominee James Talarico and Kansas Senate nominee Rev. Adam Hamilton, along with governors such as Andy Beshear of Kentucky and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, openly discuss their faith and its role in public service.

This trend aligns with recent statements from Pope Leo XIV, who similarly called for secular liberals in France to reconsider their views on religious liberty and its balance with right-wing religious politics. The Pope argued that authentic secularity can value religion as an "educational resource" and suggested a potential link between the decline of religion in some countries and the rise of far-right movements that co-opt religious language.

Kaemingk and Hamid conclude that in a diverse nation, living together requires understanding and mutual respect. While the idea of religious engagement may be unpalatable to some liberals concerned about religious nationalism, the authors maintain that acknowledging and integrating religious convictions into the public square is crucial for a pluralistic democracy.