Religion, regardless of form or complexity, has been a constant in all human societies for as long as we can recall. Politics is likely just as ancient. I’ll define religion as the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods. The reader can extend the definition if so desired. I’ll also use the simplest definition for politics. The activities associated with the governance of any group, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.

Thus religion and politics can involve groups as small as a family or as large as multiple countries. The literature on each subject is vast and beyond the capacity of one person. My topic is not either of them, but rather the inner human need that requires their presence. Though clearly different they are often intertwined. I could give numerous examples of the interplay of the two from antiquity to the present, but Gibbon’s grand sentence sums up the combination. So intimate is the connexion between the throne and the altar, that the banner of the church has very seldom been seen on the side of the people.

What happens when a large and increasing portion of a society or multitude of societies chooses to discard religion? People can make various decisions that run counter to their inner needs or desires. When religion is eschewed something must take its place. One can change one beverage for another, but fluid intake cannot be abandoned. The same is true for the need to believe in something beyond the concrete. Abandon religion and something else beyond the precise measurement of science will fill the vacuum. Increasingly, this substitute has been politics. Politics need not be necessarily irrational or the fulfillment of some inner need for spiritual satisfaction, yet it has increasingly moved to that spot.

The purpose of national politics, expanding on the simple definition given above, is to organize the regulation of society by whatever system prevails in the involved country. The system can be tight or loose, central or diffuse, or relatively free or totalitarian. Regardless of what prevails large groups of people will oppose it either silently, begrudgingly, or actively sometimes to the point of violence.

Up until comparatively recently, the two have acted as independent entities, though often in concert. The United States is atypical in that it has no state religion and even has a constitutional prohibition against the establishment of such a religion. It does, however, have more religions than Joseph’s coat had colors. Nevertheless, the adherents to these religions are shrinking.

That politics can be a serious subject is attested by Aristotle’s work on politics. There are of course many more. They range from the scholarly, dispassionate, and erudite to the nefarious – Das Capital and Mein Kampf. But there has always been an emotional dimension to politics. This facet has been a feature since before the emergence of our species.

The roles of faith and reason as adjudicators of our behavior have been both coordinated and opposed in the workings of society. Assigning a proper place for each is a sign of a healthy polity. But when religion is discarded or suppressed the need it satisfies is unassuaged. Those who have given up on religion may not even be aware that something important is missing. A substitute must be found even if the search and replacement are unconscious. When the search lands on politics discord is the result

As indicated above, politics should be based on reason and analysis. But even the most careful examination of the rules that should govern people will yield different solutions from different minds. There will always be sharp disagreements as to how we should be governed. But even as emotions will inevitably creep into anything human, politics should be based as much as possible on reason rather than passion. Of course, that’s as much a wish as reality. Politics had always been a rough business. Clausewitz’s dictum that war is a continuation of politics by other means shows how hot the mechanics of governing can get. But even at its most extreme and error-filled, it should be based on an analysis of what’s best for the country and its citizens. Thus, the government and those who elect or appoint it may be terribly wrong but only because they made bad decisions that they thought were best at the time they were made. As the best and brightest of minds will inevitably disagree, establishing the rules of politics inevitably is a messy process.

Religion, by contrast, is based on revelation and faith. To a believer, its truth is beyond question. Societies function best when religious toleration is ingrained into the fabric of life even when dispute is pushed to the edge of civil discourse. How does a society adapt when religion disappears spontaneously or by fiat? This vanishing act seems to be ubiquitous in much of the world.

In some totalitarian states religion is a threat and it is suppressed and replaced by forced devotion to the state. In others, it is captured by the state and effectively becomes another bureau.

In countries with real elections, political fervor increases as religious devotion diminishes. Humans, in the main, can’t function without irrational beliefs. The portion of mental activity previously directed to religious belief when transferred to politics results in vicious disputes over the best way to order society. Substituting politics in place of religion is not only harmful to mental equilibrium it results in angry and ineffective governance.

Is there a solution? I can’t see one consistent with liberty. Asking people to calm down and be more tolerant likely won’t hurt but it is also just as likely to be without result. Life is full of problems without solutions. Santayana’s advice seems the only ready solace. No cure for life and death save to enjoy the interval.