This is just a quick thought about how religious theism seems to have been overtaken by a more secular kind of authoritarianism that demands just as much adherence as its predecessor. Namely the idea of Multiculturalism and diversity as a universal good or the intersectionality game.

As I am an Antitheist, this is very much something I am against, and when people make the distinction between what they view as religious authoritarianism and then what they call secular authoritarianism they are making an elementary mistake. Both are man made if you don't believe in a higher omnipotent being, and so both are one and the same.

The most granular power play relationship at its most fundamental is one human telling another to do something and trying to find the authority of why this request should be adhered to.

There can be a negotiation of conversation where one is reasoned into the legitimacy of the act, or persuaded that the moral sustenance the act will give to the world is worth while.

However in this type of relationship the sovereignty, or for this argument power, of both individuals has not been changed, and neither parties have been diminished.

However in the absence of reason and consent there is another way to gain authority. This is by enlisting the authority of something outside of the two people in question which bestows legitimacy onto the requestor that makes reason or negotiation inconsequential for the requestee.

This in the past has normally taken shape in religious dogma, or a similar kind of man made authoritarianism which demands complete obediance.
It is why, in this respect, fear of God or fear of the party leader is one and the same and secular or religious differences are unimportant.

What is central is that without reasoned arguments the authority comes from priviledging faith in an unanswerable higher power, over rationalising your position. If you believe that the higher power wishes it, the thoughts and fears of mere mortals are irrelevant.

Once this has been established this primary relationship we talk about here of two humans now changes from that of a negotiated conversation to an arbitrary demand of one over the other, with no tangible authority other than the soon to be inferior party buying into the lie that the demander is more powerful.