Attempts are sometimes made to dismiss Marxism as a “secular religion”--oddly, often by people who (unlike Marxists) have no problem with actual religion. And what exactly is a secular religion? Something that’s a religion, one is left to suppose, only without the religious part.
The haziness of this concept had always put me off until a few years ago I happened to come upon this elaboration in the Economist, which I found hard to answer:
Anti-globalism has been aptly described as a secular religion. So is Marxism: a creed complete with prophet, sacred texts and the promise of a heaven shrouded in mystery. Marx was not a scientist, as he claimed. He founded a faith. The economic and political systems he inspired are dead or dying. But his religion is a broad church, and lives on.
If a new religion comes along now, for example, its adherents may try to differentiate themselves from both Christianity and Islam by adopting some new dogma and some new method of anointing themselves as the Chosen Ones.
This is precisely what Marxists did: they rejected God, which of course differentiates them rather dramatically. They didn't proscribe images, and they also copied everything else that Christianity has. Their church, their schism, their protestants, their pope, their holy book, their prophets, their martyrs, their satan, their missionaries--namely, the Soviet Communist Party, the Soviet-Chinese split, the Chinese Communist Party, Mao, Das Capital [sic], Marx and Engels, Che Guevara, America, the CPI(M). The comparisons are striking.
I bring this up only because I have lately made an important discovery along these same lines: modern medicine is secular shamanism. You go see a priest (doctor) who performs a ritual (examination), consults some sacred texts (medical books), divines omens (reads tests), and prescribes healing herbs and potions (pharmaceuticals).
The comparisons are striking.