Guardian Unlimited | US elections 2004 | Loose definitions: "Not all leftwingers in the US are as frankly religious as Hillary Clinton, and many don't even realise that the ideas that they champion have deep religious roots. But even for these people, being leftwing has itself become a sort of religion, with those who disagree viewed as sinister, almost demonic forces, rather than simply as individuals holding different views.
The language of righteousness and sin, if not that of redemption and grace, remains a hallmark of the purportedly secular left, though I find it no more attractive than the language of the religious right.
I don't fit into the religious right or the religious left. But, in America, you don't get to choose a major political party that does not have some sort of religious strain to it.
And it strikes me that one reason why politics in the US have become so much more bitter over the past couple of decades is that two rather different threads of religiosity have come to dominate the two major parties in distinct fashion, where each party had previously incorporated major components of both. This has turned political battles into quasi-religious ones."
This quote is old but it came up at Instapundit recently.
I've believed this for years. Which is why it's so absurd when people say that we should keep religion out of school. There's plenty of religion in school today. It's just not Christianity anymore, as it was when Harvard and Yale were founded. And it has all of the intolerance and narrow-mindedness associated with the worst of religion, made worse by the delusion that it isn't one.