This paper tries to offer a critical approach of both Hungary's Christian presentation in the publica area by the political powers especially focusing on the prime minister's selected speeches as well as the Fundamental Law of Hungary as well as it seeks to identify and critically evaluate the major 'tenets' of liberal political doctrines. It argues that both public visions of how to make society a better one function like quasi-religion explored by J. E. Smith (international liberalism or national conservativism). Thus, they exhibit many of their characteristics of 'religion proper'. However, they feel really uncomfortable to recognise their own mistakes and fall into their own pitfalls. Furthermore, neither political 'agenda' appreciates the other's worldview at all. Against this background the paper endeavours to address the issue of power, self-identity, self-imagination and offers a philosophical-religious critique from the very essential sources of Christianity for the right-wing political ideas and selected writings of the liberal political canon. It is argued none of political powers wrestling with each other place their own stances really under critical scrutiny at all. On the contrary, they use unacceptable means of 'demonising' the other in the name of 'Truth', therefore, contributing to the radicalisation of European public arena. The underlining stance of the paper wishes to offer an epistemological explanation which challenges dominant modes of public reasoning of quasi-religions and it provokingly ask whether any claims of neutrality of any institutional authority is viable and maintainable. It argues both 'political religions' may be prone to producing inequality of any kind that is sustained by their own 'ideology' and power structure In so doing, the paper challenges the issues of neutrality, objectivity, the exclusive claim of possessing the 'truth' and throws light on who quasi-religions often exhibit a very radical tones.