How to Engage the Secular Right

Notes for Christian Fellows

A discussion broke out in my group chat this morning between Christians and secularist rightists. Yes, my space is open to all. We love our Christians, don’t we, folx? We were debating how the irreligious perceive Satanic symbols differently from the religious right—for example, Hollywood’s use of demons, inversions of Catholic mass, and mockeries of nativity scenes.

While Christians often feel disgust or even spiritual fear at these inversions of holy symbols, the secular right, while equally repulsed by their profanity, views them as philosophical refutations of Christianity—specifically American Protestant Christianity—as an ideology. Philosophical Satanism, from this perspective, aligns with objectivism: Ayn Randian raw selfishness and an ultra-liberal obsession with individual happiness at the extreme expense of the community.

“Satanists,” who are almost always products of a distinctly American context, represent a hyper-individualistic ethos opposed to the communitarian values of Christianity. This isn’t to deny the existence of bizarre occult practices among elites—things like Bohemian Grove or “spirit cooking.” Those certainly exist in some form. But the secular right views Satanism as a pathetic joke: the ultimate “fuck you, dad,” a proto-fedora atheist rebellion rather than an invocation of metaphysical evil. Irreligious folks don’t care about this stuff. They see it for what it is—reactionary nonsense designed to provoke Christian fears. And they do it well. Even intelligent Christians fall for it. The secular right is immune to the spiritual angle, viewing it instead as an attack on their heritage.

A Christian in the chat suggested that secularists are immune because “the greatest trick Satan ever pulled was convincing people he doesn’t exist.” But this prompted deeper questions: What is Satan? Is he a malevolent entity, a dark god, or merely a metaphor for evil? These questions sparked further discussion. I argued that secularists don’t reject revealed truths because, for many of us, there are no revealed truths to reject—only ignorance of them, willful blindness or no. Another question arose: Are symbols of metaphysical evil, like inverted Christian symbols, exclusive to Satanism?

One member argued that Satan represents darkness, while Jesus embodies light. A European participant elaborated, saying Satan represents corruption—corruption of desire, for example. Within marriage, lust is natural and desirable. Outside it, lust leads to issues like STDs. He extended this logic to claim that homosexual relationships represent corruption because they hinder reproduction. I asked him to be patient, explaining that I didn’t share his Christian upbringing. He countered that I must, claiming he too had once been an “edgelord atheist” like me. But he was wrong. I was never an atheist—nor were many irreligious people in Canada and Europe.

This led to a broader discussion about upbringing. One prominent Christian in the group accused me and the secularists of rejecting Christ. That’s when I had an epiphany. The biggest communication hurdle between what I’ll call the New Religious Right and secularists (which includes agnostics, atheists, and sometimes pagans) is the distinction between anti-Christian and post-Christian. Not all anti-Christians are post-Christian, and not all post-Christians are anti-Christian.

To be anti-Christian, in my view, you need to have grown up in or around Christianity and formed your views in reaction to it. I was born and raised in Quebec, the most intentionally secularised region on the continent, shaped by a unique form of irreligiosity that emerged from what I would call a Soviet-style dechristianization, like in East-Germany, or France. During the Quiet Revolution, Quebec cast off its Catholic roots with a speed and intensity unmatched elsewhere in North America. This wasn’t just a rejection of Christianity; it was the deliberate construction of a society where religion played no significant role in public or private life. It is the only part of North America to ban the open wearing of religious symbols or garb in the public service, such as Islamic veils, crosses, Sikh turbans, or Jewish kippahs. France follows the same policy. For people like me, Christianity wasn’t something to rebel against—it was irrelevant. Apathy toward religion was the default, not an act of defiance. The New Religious Right, primarily shaped by Christian cultures in the U.S., struggles to understand this. Their proselytisation efforts fail because they assume irreligiosity is a conscious rejection rather than a natural state for many.

Some Christians argue that people can’t believe in “nothing” and that once materialism and liberalism collapse, they’ll return to Christ. I countered that nobody truly believes in nothing, even secularists. In Quebec, secularism itself, the authoritarian social democracy of the provincial government, and even the heritage of Quebecers serve as secular “gods.” Identitarianism perhaps, comes as an easy fill in.

At this point, I had to emphasise that my position isn’t one of rebellion. My apathy toward Christianity stems from its total absence in my upbringing and community, much like in most of Canada. Christianity wasn’t relevant—it simply didn’t exist. This highlights the difference between anti-Christian and post-Christian mindsets. The Christian Europeans in the group, and the secular Canadians, understood this perspective, while the Christian North Americans struggled.

Canada and Europe share an eerily similar religious landscape: largely post-Christian, deeply secularised, and irreligious. For Canadians and Europeans, Christianity is a cultural legacy—a relic, a museum piece. People might consider themselves culturally Christian but not practically so. Contrast this with the U.S., where Christianity remains a significant cultural force. Roughly 50% of Canadians identify as Christian, but only 5% attend church weekly. Most of those attendees are deeply religious immigrants, like Nigerians or Filipinos, not ethnic Canadians.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., there’s something of a neo-traditionalist LARP going on, reminiscent of the faux-conservative wave of the 1980s. Shows like the Whatever podcast host OnlyFans models to name and shame, while figures like Andrew Wilson tell them to “find God.” Of course, Wilson is a one-man army, an Orthodox Christian without the institutional support to channel these people toward the Light. The vast majority of practising Christians in the U.S. are part of legacy denominations that have been ideologically captured. Some Christian intellectuals call this “churchianity” or “regimevangelicalism,” which I think is apt.

One of my favourite glib retorts to “If you love paganism so much, you should try following the most popular tradition of all—converting to Christianity,” is: “If you love Christianity so much, you should try following the most popular Christian tradition of the last two and a half centuries—converting to secular liberalism?”

Obviously, I don’t support secular liberalism. But this encapsulates the communication breakdown. The New Religious Right assumes everyone has rejected a path back to Christ. For the secularists, there is no path. There is no Jesus to “return” to. That tradition has been gone for years. They’ve never read the Bible, and even if they wanted to, there’s five versions. The “tradition” for them is the secular irreligiosity, the Christian converts are the weird ones. You are Boniface speaking to the unwashed Saxons. You are missionaries chiding the pagan Anglo-Saxons for admiring Beowulf or Ingeld. You are Clothilde telling Clovis to abandon Woden after he believed the god granted him military victories through his piety. Communication has to start from this position, we’re talking day zero.

The secular right doesn’t think about Christianity at all—except when interacting with their Christian friends (or enemies). They incorrectly view corrupt Christian institutions as indistinguishable from Christian beliefs.

If Canada were ever to Christianise (not re-Christianize), it would come from Europe in a distinct new context, unconnected to the North American legacy. It would be by post-Christians, for post-Christians, and without the presuppositions and dismissive arrogance of many in the New Religious Right.