The conclusion of this peice couldn't be more off the mark. Carson is trying to make the connection between the loss of religion and the rise of PC, as if both were somehow related. It is a lot like blaming obesity rates on the existence of hamburgers or blaming murders in the existence of guns. People make a conscious decision to exercise militant groupthink ( which is what PC essentially is ). And some of those people can be quite religious, having religious values doesn't stop a person from exercising other values.
On the right side of the political spectrum , we have people who are nihilists, objectivists, atheists and freethinkers who loathe militant groupthink. I would argue that it is not the decay of religion causing this, rather it is an age old problem of people who think it best to change the minds of men through social conditioning and/or brute force.
In short, they run a sort of moral protection racket. They make people feel guilty, and then they offer them absolution. They are our only protection against hellish shame and humiliation. Join them, and your sins are washed away. Refuse, and bear on top of your own sins, which were already too heavy to carry, the burden of the sins of the whole world.
...and applies equally well to all advocates of a doctrine of Original Sin, be they Greens or Communists or Calvinists.
But then his final paragraph completely and inexplicably contradicts the conclusion he is leading up to in the rest of the essay.
I agree with the essayist: man longs for faith. PC is a system of belief, a form of faith, an ideology with doctrine and mantra. The irony is PC indoctrinees are more zealous than the believers they decry. V's wife.