I'm the opposite of religious, and there's no doubt that the political strength (and happiness, and comfort) of religious groups lies almost completely in the fact that they meet regularly at a dedicated meeting facility, and this while this meeting can be gotten out of, it requires some sort of excuse, and an individual's consistent absence is considered a mild crisis for the group. The group is also expected to favor its members, and to provide mutual aid, and as the group increases in size, that mutual aid is often delivered in a form mutually beneficial to the helper and the helped e.g. one member needs work, another member needs a worker they can trust.
Many/most religious people have a very loose idea of the orthodoxies of their own religions, but they know everything about what's going on at their church, and in the lives of other people who attend it. Secular traditions can't really survive over the long term without designing similar structures.
I doubt that individualist ideologies can do this at all, because they tend to feel that obligation without contract is not a thing, and even that the strength of obligation with contract is directly related to the ability to enforce that contract.
Many/most religious people have a very loose idea of the orthodoxies of their own religions, but they know everything about what's going on at their church, and in the lives of other people who attend it. Secular traditions can't really survive over the long term without designing similar structures.
I doubt that individualist ideologies can do this at all, because they tend to feel that obligation without contract is not a thing, and even that the strength of obligation with contract is directly related to the ability to enforce that contract.