Dubious
I don't disagree with most of what you say although I'd give it far more sinister consequences if it comes to a boiling point, which seems to be inevitable.
What I object to is your use of the terms secular and secularism which in actuality can be anything which is not theistically inclined or excludes theistic interpretations. Calling the Present Age "The Great Beast" is apropos when considering the ponderous and failing institutions which are currently in control. An analogy would be one of super massive stars which keeps synthesizing elements to keep itself in operation until the Iron Age when it all implodes.
The Secular is replete with labels such as given by an Age to an Age - not unlike the one you apply to the current period. In that sense "Secularism" is granted a temporary title, a connotational description or placeholder as it were. Its denotational features, conversely, can default to any narration possible between an Iron Age and a Golden one.
I'm not being critical but just know these ideas are hard to get used to if unfamiliar with them. Secularism refers to the attitude, the mindset, of the Great Beast. Perhaps this excerpt will make what is meant by the Great Beast and secularism more clear. Secularism is ground oriented, one level, the realm of the Beast as compared to universalism which is multi leveled. The Great Beast is society itself as opposed to a facet of society.
http://www.hermitary.com/solitude/weil.html
…….In "Sketch of Contemporary Social Life" (1934), Weil develops the theme of collectivism as the trajectory of modern culture.
Never has the individual been so completely delivered up to a blind collectivity, and never have men been so less capable, not only of subordinating their actions to their thoughts, but even of thinking.
Weil is not defending the individual as laisse-faire atom but as subordinated to inimical modern forces by "production and consumption," with science, technology, labor, money, and social life turning historical means into corporate and collectivist ends.
The inversion of the relation between means and ends -- an inversion which is to a certain extent the law of every oppressive society -- here becomes total or nearly so, and extends to nearly everything.
Weil then analyzes the relationship bwtween economics and the state, and militarism as an adjunct to extending economic control and social content to the goals of the powerful. Sometimes she uses Marxian or anarchist viewpoints to demonstrate her point; other times she uses them to demonstrate their failure to have anticipated the shrewdness of the capitalist elites and institutions to bypass and overcome the logical obstacles to their version of reality. With the modern spirit has come the systematization of accumulation, organization, and control of the range and relationships of all human activity. Power is concentrated and like a whirlpool absorbs every facet of life. Oppression is inevitably bound to productivity, efficiency, coercion. Productivity and progress, consumption, and limitless expansion of desire and power are all aspects of modern culture. And yet society revolts not against its own oppressors but against nature.
In an aphorism of "The Great Beast," Weil begins the transition from analyzing society to discovering a solution or antidote. Here her thoughts hearken to anthropological thinking circulating in the early twentieth century, which maintained that society is a project of individual relationships, a projection given life and meaning separate from those relationships, a projection to which power and thought and authority is renounced. This is not a renunciation to the fictional cooperative called "society" but to individuals as authorities, who then contrive the symbols, ploys, and coercive social structures. Anthropology called these "totems"--Weil does not use the term--which define God, religion, and the norms of society via the power of institutions to interpret and sanction.
According to Weil, the person's accession to society, the individual's renunciation of values to the collective as defined by a small group, is based on ignorance and fear, fear that without society (which is to say the state), people will collapse into crime and evil. The social and collective is seen as transcending individuals, as a supernatural entity from which nationalism and war is as normal as science, progress, and consumption. All of these evils are taking place simultaneously in a social context. The individual has probably never reflected on these issues at all, never acknowledged his or her degree of complicity in this system. But, say the apologist for the Great Beast, the individual need have no direct responsibility,
The collective is the object of all idolatry, this it is which chains us to the earth. In the case of avarice, gold is the social order. In the case of ambition, power is the social order.
Thus society itself is the Great Beast, not some particular product of society, not even the state, the mode of production, the capitalist class, or any other social product. The weight of humanity is a heavy and ponderous gravity, a force but a contrived force to which the individual remains oblivious.
As long as one accepts the "totem," and subordinates all values to the collective, the contrived dichotomy of good and evil will trap individuals in fear. But the solution to the dilemma Weil depicts is not Nietzsche's transcendence of morality but a simple perception of the nature of society, of the nature of the "Great Beast."..........................
Secular intolerance is then just an expression of a person's emotional defense of their god - the Great Beast
Some of you may notice its (superficial) commonalities with Chaucerian Middle English.
