Meaning: The quote by Christopher Lasch delves into the intersection of politics and religion and suggests a different approach in response to right-wing religiosity. To fully understand the implications of this quote, it is important to explore the context in which it was made and the underlying ideas it represents.

Christopher Lasch was an American historian and social critic known for his insightful analysis of contemporary culture and society. He was particularly interested in the ways in which politics, religion, and social values intersect and influence each other. In this quote, Lasch challenges the conventional response of the left to right-wing religiosity, which is often to assert the separation of politics and religion. Instead, he suggests that there is a more appropriate and effective way to engage with the influence of religion on political ideology.

The concept of right-wing religiosity refers to the strong influence of religious beliefs and values on conservative political movements and ideologies. It is often associated with a traditionalist and moralistic approach to governance, with an emphasis on preserving traditional social and cultural norms. Right-wing religiosity can manifest in various policy positions, such as opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion rights, and secularism in public institutions.

The stock response of the left, as mentioned by Lasch, is to advocate for the separation of politics and religion, often citing the principle of secularism and the need to maintain a clear boundary between the two spheres. This approach is rooted in the idea that religious beliefs should not dictate public policy and that individuals should be free to practice their own faith without interference from the government.

However, Lasch challenges this response by suggesting that it may not effectively address the underlying issues driving right-wing religiosity. He implies that dismissing the influence of religion on politics is not an adequate or productive response. Instead, he proposes an alternative approach that acknowledges and engages with the role of religion in shaping political ideologies.

One interpretation of Lasch's viewpoint is that he advocates for a more nuanced understanding of the complex relationship between religion and politics. Rather than simply dismissing the influence of religion on right-wing ideologies, he encourages a thoughtful and respectful dialogue that seeks to understand the underlying motivations and values driving religious conservatives.

This approach does not necessarily entail endorsing specific religious beliefs or policies, but rather engaging in a more empathetic and constructive conversation about the intersection of faith and politics. It acknowledges that religious beliefs are deeply held and influential for many individuals, and seeks to find common ground and mutual understanding, even in the midst of ideological differences.

Furthermore, Lasch's perspective may also imply a critique of the left's tendency to overlook the moral and ethical dimensions of political discourse. By insisting on the separation of politics and religion, the left may inadvertently neglect the important role that religious values play in shaping individuals' ethical frameworks and moral convictions. Lasch's call for a different response suggests a recognition of the moral and ethical dimensions of political debate, and an invitation to engage with these dimensions in a more meaningful and inclusive way.

In conclusion, Christopher Lasch's quote challenges the conventional response of the left to right-wing religiosity and urges a more nuanced and empathetic approach to engaging with the influence of religion on politics. By advocating for a thoughtful and inclusive dialogue that acknowledges the complexities of the relationship between religion and politics, Lasch invites a deeper understanding of the underlying values and motivations that drive political ideologies. This quote prompts us to consider the importance of engaging with differing perspectives in a respectful and empathetic manner, even when faced with ideological differences.