I don’t think there’s a book that’s been on my reading list longer than Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. It’s one of those novels that I have for a long time felt duty bound to read but never actually have. And that’s largely in part because of an arrogant assumption that I already knew exactly how a story based on a dystopian future where women are stripped of fundamental rights would play out.

But as Tim Fargo said, “arrogance is the camouflage of insecurity.” As it turned out, The Handmaid’s Tale really was a story I needed to understand, but not for the reasons I had initially envisaged.

I must confess, I still haven’t turned the first page of Atwood’s novel. Instead, I looked to the critically acclaimed 2017 Hulu series of the same name. In part because of my desire for a new box set to binge watch, but also a curiosity of how Alexis Bledel — whom I will always know as Rory Gilmore — would handle a “grown-up” role and one that’s a far cry from Gilmore Girls at that.

The Handmaid’s Tale takes place in a dystopian reality, without flying cars or space travel, but instead only a few years ahead of ours. It follows the story of a young woman, torn away from her family and stripped of her fundamental rights in order to serve as the childbearing surrogate in a high-ranking family. She is known as Offred, which literally means of Fred, with no name to call her own.

That same high-ranking family played a large part in executing all three branches of the U.S. government, destroying the constitution, and throwing the country into a second civil war. From the ashes rose the “Republic of Gilead” — a totalitarian Christian theonomy — which imposes ultimate control over its citizens, including, women capable of bearing children, who are known as “handmaids.”

The Handmaid’s Tale has been heralded as the feminist parable of our age, and quite rightly too. It paints a bleak picture of a future where women are stripped of not only their reproductive rights but also basic human rights.

The Hulu series is incredibly uncomfortable viewing, especially as a feminist. However, it paints a far more harrowing picture of the consequences when the church and state aren’t kept at arm’s length. It provides a stark reminder of exactly why religion can play no part in governance and it does so not by looking to the past, or the other side of the world, but instead by demonstrating what our own society would look like under the influence of religious fanatics.

Admittedly, it’s difficult to envision a scenario in which all three branches of the U.S. government are overthrown. In fact, that particular plot is much better suited to ABC’s Kiefer Sutherland political thriller Designated Survivor. But instead, we could very well arrive at the same destination as The Handmaid’s Tale through a series of what initially appear to be small and incremental changes.

Just last month, in a Rose Garden ceremony marking the National Day of Prayer, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to create a new “faith initiative” which he claims will be tasked with enhancing “religious liberty” within the federal government. Trump claims the directive will ensure religious groups an, “equal right to exercise their deeply held beliefs.”

Trump didn’t, however, explain what the umbrella term “deeply held beliefs” would cover. Instead, it provides religious groups with a facility to advocate for anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, and a whole host of other extremist positions. When faced with scrutiny, such factions will claim that their views are protected by the aforementioned “faith initiative.” It all sounds eerily familiar to the response of pro-gun lobbyists in the aftermath of a school shooting, who claim their point of view can’t be challenged because of a guaranteed protection by the 2nd amendment.

Discrimination on the basis of religious views could be headed in a similar direction. When legislation is introduced to outlaw abortion in states across the country, any opposition could be shot down with Trump’s protection of “religious liberty.”

It’s a harrowing scenario that could see the country spiral into religious governance, much like is seen in The Handmaid’s Tale. And perhaps even more troubling is that Donald Trump’s religious views are somewhat liberal in comparison to Vice President Mike Pence. Pence, during his time as governor of Indiana, didn’t just advocate for extremist religious views but installed them as law.

Pence signed into law some of the most aggressive anti-abortion legislation in the nation, even banning termination in cases where the fetus has a genetic abnormality — such as Down syndrome — and crucially deterring doctors from performing such a procedure by holding them legally liable.

His views on LGBT rights are perhaps even more extreme. During his time as a congressman, he advocated that the federal government allocated less funding to the treatment of H.I.V. and AIDS and instead used it to discourage individuals from engaging in same-sex relationships. And he supported the repeal of the Clinton administration’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” that allowed homosexuals to serve in the military.

Pence and his extreme views are, to use a cliché, only a heartbeat away from the presidency. Should he ever be given the opportunity to ascend to the Oval Office, it isn’t difficult to envisage President Pence reveling in the opportunity to bring about an anti-women, anti-LGBT, religious society like that seen in The Handmaid’s Tale.

Religious encroachment into governance isn’t a problem exclusive to the United States, however. Across the Atlantic, the United Kingdom — a country where the head of state is also head of the church and unelected bishops sit in the upper chamber of parliament — has long been engaged in a battle to tear apart church and state. With theology’s close proximity to power, it similarly isn’t difficult to envisage one of the world’s other great democracies falling into a religious tyranny.

As an atheist, it is arduous to observe religious involvement in government objectively. And I also have an appreciation for numerous friends and family members with more forgiving religious views who have no want for a totalitarian government of any fashion. However, my warning to them would be that the citizens of Gilead unlikely looked favorably upon such an idea before it was thrust upon them. The fact remains, it only takes a group of extremists close to the centre of power to influence governance with their religious views and with little warning, an affliction similar to that seen in The Handmaid’s Tale is put into effect.

This is, by no means, a call for the prohibition of religion. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Removing the right to freedom of religion would only create absolutism of a similar scale. It is, however, a warning that freedom of religion should remain just that. The individual should be free to practice their chosen faith, whilst the government gets on with the business of administration without hindrance.

Religious texts can comfortably be interpreted to justify unspeakable evil. And that isn’t a problem until religion becomes part of the very fabric of government. What starts with politicians ending a declamation with “God bless America” could steadily tumble into the harrowing situation portrayed by Atwood in The Handmaid’s Tale.