Lion of the Blogosphere

Liberal manifest destiny?

I just read Randall Parker’s aka ParaPundit’s blog post about liberal universalism (which he thinks should be called liberal manifest destiny).

I think the story isn’t complete without bringing up unitarian Christian universalism (and I use lowercase letters to distinguish this from any formal church that may have the same or similar name), which is the belief that all of the major religions of the world are inspired by God and therefore they are all good and one can get closer to God by following the beliefs of any religion.

Ghandi said, “I believe in the fundamental Truth of all great religions of the world. And I believe that if only we could, all of us, read the scriptures of the different Faiths from the stand-point of the followers of those faiths, we should find that they were at the bottom, all one and were all helpful to one another.”

The assumption of unitarian Christian universalism it that what might be called Christian values are at the core of all religions faiths.

The impression of many readers is no doubt agreement with how good this sounds. You should be wary of that impression, because unitarian Christian universalism is what the elites have been preaching. Don’t trust the propaganda!

The Mayan religion included human sacrifices. That’s clearly not a Christian value. The unitarian Chrstian universalist would say that the practitioners of human sacrifice simply didn’t understand the true meaning of their religion, which coincidentally happens to match Christian values. If only the read their scriptures more carefully!

The concept of universalism doesn’t seem to make much sense when applied to the Mayan religion. Maybe it also doesn’t make much sense when applied to Islam. Many non-Muslim Westerners who say that “Islam is a religion of peace” may genuinely believe it because they believe in unitarian Christian universalism, whether actively or merely subconsciously, and peace is a Christian value so therefore it must be a value in all other religions, and any practitioners of other religions who think differently simply don’t understand the true meaning of their religion.

My own theory on this is that ISIS has a pretty good handle on interpreting the original intent of Islamic scripture (the Koran and the hadiths), and that the original intent (I hesitate to call it the “true meaning”) has been whitewashed by the elites of Islamic countries because it doesn’t serve their interests. The interest of elites has traditionally been to use religion to get the non-elites to behave well and to believe that the current social structure (which always benefits the elites at the expensive of the non-elites) is ordained by higher supernatural powers and therefore they mustn’t rebel against it.

The paragraph above is generally considered to be racist by liberals and SJWs, even though Islam is a religion and not a race, but racism is the most evil concept understood by SJWs, and they believe it’s very evil to make the case that Christianity has, at its core, better values than Islam. Even though many liberals are atheists (but those who aren’t are universalists), they believe in the idea that all religions are good if only their followers understood the true meaning of their religion.

So how does this all relate back to liberal manifest destiny, the belief that values supported by liberals (which now include gay rights and fighting global warming as well as peace on Earth and other more traditional Christian values) can be exported to the entire world? The answer is that Muslims are going to reject those values because they have their own religion which has very different beliefs. The only way to get the people of Islamic countries to believe in better values is to convert them to some other religion or to atheism. And that’s something liberals will never do because it would be evil, almost like genocide. Thus liberal manifest destiny is doomed to fail.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

December 14, 2016 at 3:24 pm

Posted in Religion

43 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The other problem is that religions reflect the genetic tendencies and neuro wiring of their people. Islam ain’t a warrior religion for nuthin. Blacks seem to like it a lot too.


    I wonder why.

    The Philosopher

    December 14, 2016 at 3:37 pm

  2. Whereas buddhism, hinduism reflect on their people’s as well….and why those are much more popular among coastal females.


    I wonder why.

    The Philosopher

    December 14, 2016 at 3:38 pm

  3. OT,

    Since we are big on figuring out what the TOOS are up to, I discovered this very interesting website and one of its topics:

    He has several of these detailing the bizarre architecture and decoration.


    December 14, 2016 at 4:38 pm

  4. The full quote is ” And I believe that if only we could, all of us, read the scriptures of the different Faiths from the stand-point of the followers of those faiths, we should find that they were at the bottom, all one and were all helpful to one another. Except Islam.”


    December 14, 2016 at 5:41 pm

  5. Does Islam have anything like a New Testament to temper the more brutal aspects of the ancient scriptures? The worst that can be said of hardcore Christians who follow the NT to the letter are that they’re weird, they’re okay with slavery as long as the slaves are treated well, and they possibly make bad husbands, e.g., Mel Gibson and his ultra-conservative wing of Old Rite Catholicism. Followed literally, neither Christianity nor Judaism really makes room for blowing shit up and forcing people to convert by the sword (though nominally Christian empires certainly did both in the past).

    Following the OT literally would mean you better not get caught banging anyone or anything but your spouse, or ur gonna have a bad time. Lion, what’s the Jewish rationale for not stoning adulterers and gays anymore? You guys have your own version of a ‘new convenant,’ right?

    Seth Long

    December 14, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    • “Lion, what’s the Jewish rationale for not stoning adulterers and gays anymore?”

      Only a special Jewish court can sentence someone to stoning, and such a court no longer exists, and even when it did allegedly exist, such punishment was said to be exceedingly rare. Maybe Yakov knows more.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      December 14, 2016 at 6:28 pm

      • Yakov knows more. The Sanhedrin didn’t ‘allegedly exist’, it actually existed. There us a Tractate Sanhedrin in the Talmud. One day Sanhedrin will be revived.

        In the annals of the Jewish common law there is not a single precedent of a homosexual having been stoned. I think this is because Judaism was never concerned with outing homosexuals and in the times of strong Jewish courts homosexuals stayed in the closet. I think this is the best situation for everyone.


        December 15, 2016 at 12:19 am

    • Maybe Yakov knows more.

      Maybe Yakov is one of the last judges who can order a stoning?

      The Undiscovered Jew

      December 14, 2016 at 6:35 pm

    • Taking anything literally, scripture or otherwise, is pretty stupid.

      Jokah Macpherson

      December 14, 2016 at 10:00 pm

      • Anything? Like traffic rules or the Ten Commandments?


        December 15, 2016 at 7:50 am

    • There is a new type of Muslim called “Quranist”. These people reject the hadiths (most of the brutal and specific stuff about sex slavery, beheading, pedophilia, etc. are in the hadiths rather than the Quran).

      Because the Quran is more poetic and vague than the hadiths, they can use a lot of verbal gymnastics to claim that the verses in the quran about wife beating, jihad, jizya, and brutal punishments like crucifiction actually mean something else, they have been mistranslated and misinterpreted for the last 1,000 years.


      December 15, 2016 at 5:23 am

      • The Koran doesn’t have the same kind of provenance that, say, Jewish and New Testament writings do. The ancient Jewish scriptures were written down and copied exactly for millennia. This at a time when there was not a whole lot of writing going on. The NT followed on this tradition. The Koran, however, despite being a fairly late collection, much later than Roman and Greek writings, does not come with such a pedigree. It was truly cobbled together by folks with a vested interest in having it be an aggressive warrior religion.

        not too late

        December 15, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    • ‘Lion, what’s the Jewish rationale for not stoning adulterers and gays anymore? You guys have your own version of a ‘new convenant,’ right?’

      There is no Jewish ‘new covenant’ of any kind. Historically as the Jewish authority weakened we’d lost the ability to adjudicate capital cases. This is why we couldn’t execute Jesus, even though he had earned it many times over by his public violations of the Law and claims to prophesy. The Romans had to do it. You can read up more about it, if you are interested.


      December 15, 2016 at 7:48 am

      • “This is why we couldn’t execute Jesus, even though he had earned it many times over by his public violations of the Law and claims to prophesy. The Romans had to do it. ”

        I found this unintentionally funny.

        Mike Street Station

        December 16, 2016 at 7:01 am

  6. To understand modern progressivism/liberalism, one would do well to study the early history of New England and especially the Pilgrim brand of Christianity practiced there. Those are the ancestors of modern liberals. Although today the modern liberal cares not at all about the sexual morality and the more jesus-y stuff, they are still very much about imposing a rigid and capricious morality on their inferiors (the entire world) by condescension, ostracism, and violence if necessary.

    Two in the Bush

    December 14, 2016 at 7:25 pm

    • I think that shows the cultural success of “Christian values” that the elites now feel free to discard the religion that birthed them and proceed is if their version of it were some sort of universal law, applicable to everyone. Ghandi’s quote is popular because that’s what people want to be believe; that all religions (and therefore all people and cultures) are really one in the same.

      Mike Street Station

      December 15, 2016 at 6:19 am

      • Ghandi’s ideas just reflect his Hinduism which unlike Abrahamic religions doesn’t exclude other religions.

        not too late

        December 15, 2016 at 12:30 pm

  7. Historically, it’s been nearly impossible to uproot Islam from a region once the religion is well established there. I suppose that the Spanish Reconquista and subsequent Inquisition is a great exception, but Muslims have done a superb job in “remaining and expanding.”

    Think about it: the eastern half of the Middle East was Zoroastrian, and now the religion is nearly extinct. Central Asia and Xinjiang were Buddhist territories for ages, but are now almost completely Muslim. Islam largely prevailed in Indonesia and Malaysia, and is still incredibly strong in South Asia. Turkey, the Levant, Egypt and North Africa were Christian strongholds, but they become steadily less Christian with passing time, with Turkey being almost completely non-Christian now. Heck, the Bosnians and Albanians have stayed Muslim, for all the hell in the Balkans.

    I think Islam’s two greatest strengths are its simplicity and its emphasis on a set number of physical rituals. As any psychologist would now tell you, practice creates belief. There’s really not all that much about Islam you need to understand, and once you start praying five times a day, start fasting during Ramadan, and do all the little mannerisms associates with the religion, the religion slowly changes you from the inside out.


    December 14, 2016 at 10:29 pm

    • You’re right. Islam’s strength is that it is a prole religion. Christianity inherited a lot of esoteric intellectual baggage from Judaism which goes over much people’s heads. Nitpicking the theological subtleties behind the nature of the trinity, biblical cosmology or transubstantiation was an entertaining past time for higher IQ elites in Constantinople, Alexandria and Damascus but the common man apparently preferred a simpler recipe. Pretty much everywhere Islam spread, except maybe Sub-Saharan Africa, the believers of the legacy religions tend to be more intelligent than the majority Muslim populations. On the other hand, the sort of evangelical Christianity that has been increasingly succesful in the US, Latin America and Black Africa, is also a dumbed down prole religion. And prole Christianity has a significant advantage over prole Islam in that you can throw out all the memorizing of classical Arabic prayers and Quran text that probably have little appeal to lower IQ believers.

      Peter Akuleyev

      December 15, 2016 at 5:20 am

      • “Christianity inherited a lot of esoteric intellectual baggage from Judaism which goes over much people’s heads.”

        One of the key differences between Islam and Christianity/Judaism is that the Quran was more or less formed by a single person, Muhammad, and he was more of a practically minded merchant and warlord than a wild-eyed mystic or philosopher. In contrast, both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles were formed over generations by various different authors, who each had different backgrounds, intelligence levels, and predilections. As such, both Judaism and Christianity are more complex, contradictory and richer religions than Islam is.

        “On the other hand, the sort of evangelical Christianity that has been increasingly succesful in the US, Latin America and Black Africa, is also a dumbed down prole religion.”

        Evangelical Christianity’s cultural influence in the US has greatly diminished over the last decade, but yes, Evangelicals are still marching on in the Third World. What makes Evangelical Christianity successful is that it drops theology and focuses on DUH BAIBUL and MUH RELATIONSHIP WITH JEEZUS. Evangelicals are also fairly cuckish, so if anything, they think that Third Worlders adopting their religion rips out Euro pagan traditions which nestled their way into Christianity and helps them find the true nature of Christianity.

        “And prole Christianity has a significant advantage over prole Islam in that you can throw out all the memorizing of classical Arabic prayers and Quran text that probably have little appeal to lower IQ believers.”

        Partially true. I doubt lower IQ Muslims have much fun memorizing the Quran, but they rarely do that anyway. Again, if you’re Muslim, you just need to practice a set number of rituals daily, and doing so inevitably roots Islam in your mind. If you’re a higher IQ Muslim, then yes, you can go to madrassa and memorize the Quran, which will keep you and your peers from thinking too critically.


        December 15, 2016 at 11:48 am

      • “the Quran was more or less formed by a single person, Muhammad”

        We don’t know that Muhammed was a real historical person. I assume he’s a myth.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 15, 2016 at 12:37 pm

      • “We don’t know that Muhammed was a real historical person. I assume he’s a myth.”

        There’s not much hard evidence that any particular person before 1000 or so actually existed in history and wasn’t just a myth. Most of the evidence is quite circumstantial.

        That said, I do think that Muhammad was a historical person because he generally comes across as having a distinct personality with his own particular idiosyncrasies, in all of the books I’ve read about him. Furthermore, the Quran generally comes off as being a document with a single author with his own point of view.

        By way of comparison, I think that’s why it’s likely Confucius was a historical person while Lao-tzu is probably a myth. The Analects betray a consistent, particular worldview, whereas the Dao De Jing feels more like a hodgepodge of musings from mystics.


        December 15, 2016 at 2:19 pm

      • Greek mysticism was also an influence on Early Christianity.


        December 18, 2016 at 5:09 pm

      • The Koran was most likely written down after the time of Mohammed but of course Mohammed was a real person as was Jesus and also Moses and Abraham for that matter. Even King Arthur probably corresponded to an actual Celtic chieftain..


        December 18, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    • Malta was ruled by Arabs for quite a long time and the Maltese language is a Semitic language. Nevertheless the Maltese are more than 99% Catholic.


      December 18, 2016 at 5:08 pm

  8. The cultural left thinks in terms of decades and centuries. Once they have Muslims located in the west they plan to “turn” the religion into something with cultural left values. They know this will take a long, long, time.


    December 14, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    • Actually I think they just want to use Muslims in the West to destroy the current Western/Christian culture and assume that a generation with Iphones will just forget about their crazy religion and become secular humanists. Ultimately, they just can’t take religions seriously and don’t think they are really turning the West muslim. That’s why for 15 years they’ve been puzzling over the true motives for 9/11. They can’t just accept “Islam” really had nothing to with it because they can’t really imagine anyone willing to die for a religion.

      Mike Street Station

      December 15, 2016 at 6:24 am

    • Refreshing and appropriate, ain’t it?


      December 15, 2016 at 12:23 pm

  9. I am a mainline protestant (Episcopalian) and have seen this mentality take over the church and all others in the historic mainline (ie Presbyterian Church USA, UCC, ELCA Lutheran, UMC). This version of progressive Christianity has a simplistic theology that boils down to one statement: God is love. Therefore, you are not to judge anyone for anything and accept all cultures and peoples as one, with no reservations. These mainline denominations have become an incubator for affluent swpls and the social justice activism that goes along with this. In fact, I would blame these liberal churches even more than public education for the sjw phenomenon. This has been a powerful tool for the left since many children of privilege will get indoctrinated with this during their early childhood, and then go straight to a liberal university for finishing school. This is how the WASP elite turned left over the last fifty years. Of course, it didn’t use to be this way. Prior to the 1960’s they were fairly conservative institutions.

    In recent years I have seen the creep of liberal politics into our own church. Every sermon or seminar now seems to reference climate change, white racism, lgbt rights, etc. And of course, the ever pervasive lie that Islam is a “religion of peace”. Getting ready to leave for the sake of my children.


    December 15, 2016 at 6:36 am

    • This describes well reformered and conservative ‘Judaism’.


      December 15, 2016 at 9:53 am

    • Good heavens, you need to get out of there man. There are some conservative splinter denominations that have broken away from the Episcopalian church ( i.e. the Anglican Church of North America, and others) maybe you will have one or more in your city?

      Two in the Bush

      December 15, 2016 at 11:01 am

      • There is a very small ACNA church plant near us in a rough part of town. I went once and really liked it..a high church service that uses the Book of Common Prayer from 1662. My wife poo pooed it because it’s in a bad area and there isn’t a youth group for our kids.


        December 15, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    • It is interesting that with their militant SJW stance, the Dems have been moving white ethnic Catholics more and more into the R column, as can be seen from the most recent election. This despite the highly liberal stance of the US Catholic Church. This is a cleavage that the elites had not fully anticipated and hence their strong disparagement of Catholicism with exceptions made for the current Pope and for situations in which the fear of seeming anti-Irish (cf. JFK) comes back to haunt them.


      December 15, 2016 at 11:53 am

      • Of course, the Catholic Church is a unique situation because although very socially liberal, it is virulently anti-abortion and makes the “life” issue much more integral to the faith than I think most Protestant denominations. And of course, as we know, the absolute nonnegotiable cornerstone of modern progressivism is maximizing the ability of and ease with which all women may abort their unborn children.

        Two in the Bush

        December 15, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    • I am in exactly your situation. I switched from Episcopalian to Lutheran 20 years ago, and now the Lutherans have gone full SJW, and I dread the sermons, though I love the rituals. Where do we go now? I bring my grandson to church, and he loves it, but I have to move on, with him. I want a non-political non-SJW church, full of beauty and meaning. Incidentally since Trump won, it has gotten much worse. Trump has sent our pastor round the bend. Yuck.


      December 15, 2016 at 12:25 pm

      • LCMS, dude. Very apolitical. Probably the least politically involved denomination in the USA. Mostly runs from center to the right but with very few ideologues one way or the other. So you don’t get SJWism but you also don’t get annoying rah-rah Jesus Loves America patriotism like you do in the non-denominationals. Also, it’s Lutheran, so drinking is practically another sacrament.

        Seth Long

        December 15, 2016 at 3:57 pm

      • Check out the NALC (North American Lutheran Church) which broke off from the ELCA. It’s a solid, conservative denomination with good leadership. They have an established church near us that we are considering joining when we leave the Episcopal Church. We would join a conservative Anglican group like ACNA but they only have a small church plant near us in a bad part of town.


        December 15, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    • Are you leaving religion altogether or going to the Catholic, Anglican, LCMS, PCA?

      not too late

      December 15, 2016 at 12:34 pm

      • Probably NALC Lutheran


        December 15, 2016 at 4:23 pm

  10. Christianity is a cause of the liberal manifest destiny but only indirectly. It did so by setting up the selective pressures which eventually shaped the NW European mindset. The religions people embrace today are largely effects, not causes, of their individual outlooks and beliefs.


    December 15, 2016 at 9:32 am

    • Thank you. This is the kind of notion that sociologists should be researching because it affects so many, rather than endless LGBT stuff which affects so few.

      not too late

      December 15, 2016 at 12:36 pm

  11. Already the medievals (staunch Christians) accepted that there are real similarities at least among the monotheist religions. The Mayans or Aztecs with human sacrifices etc. and idols don’t count for this restricted universalism, though.
    Overall, I think the two main things liberals do not sufficiently understand is that modern liberalism (both classical and the leftist meaning) are historically special, not universal. Therefore it is naive to assume that regions with very different histories would simply accept western Liberalism. We now see clearly that they usually do not (China is probably a better example than the Islamic world).

    The other thing is what Nietzsche and others realised very clearly more than 100 years ago: Most of modernity (both classical liberalism and Marxism) is a “christian heresy”. To a large extent modern societies work only rather well because of the sedimented heritage of >1000 years of Christianity. One example Jayman pointed out is the comparably anti-tribal stance of Western Christianity that led to Western Europe being less clannish than almost any other region of the world. It is similar in everyday ethics. People stuck to secularized versions of christian ethics long after they ceased to believe in religion. But 100 years later with new waves of secularization in the 20th century the behavior is crumbling more and more, making society ever more unstable.


    December 16, 2016 at 5:13 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: