Ideas Have Consequence

Western civilization has a problem that could lead to not just its own death but also to the death of Asian cultures influenced by Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and other ideas and to the death of other indigenous cultures around the world. I label that problem "liberalism". The word “liberal” has been used in so many ways that I must be precise about what is this “liberalism” I denounce. By “liberalism”, I mean the value that no idea is to be taken seriously--which is fairly common among people who call themselves liberal and sadly among many people who call themselves conservative. One indication of this is that while there are histories of conservative thought, there is no liberal equivalent. Ask a liberal to name a prominent liberal intellectual from 1940 and you'll get blank stares. Even the brightest and most informed will be able to say Eleanor Roosevelt and leave it at that. (And does Eleanor truly count as an intellectual?)

As an example of this definition of liberalism, I offer the “liberal Christian", because he illustrates the idea well. (Before continuing, I must point out that I have no interest in taking a pro or con side on Christianity here as my goal is to defend the Western values that make freedom of belief and Christianity possible. I wish to argue in a way to appeal to both atheists and fundamentalist Christians and I don't want even to offend the few actual Christians who label themselves "liberal"). The most minimal definition of Christian that can be taken seriously is a Christian holds that Christianity is the truth and the best belief system. A "liberal Christian" avoids such a claim, because a "Liberal Christian" believes that you can't hold any religion better than any other religion or belief system. I have searched the Bible extensively for the quote where Jesus suggests that it doesn't matter what believe and have someway failed to find it.

To be a Christian, a Christian should be willing to say that Christianity is a force for good, and that it is possible for a non-Christian religion—which is, by definition, a false religion--to be a force for evil. "Liberal Christians" explicitly deny that an religion or belief system can be force for evil. (Of course, there is a slight contradiction in “liberal Christian” beliefs as Nazism in Germany and Republicanism in America are recognized as evil, but the "liberal Christian" seeks to avoid thinking and so such contradictions are inevitable.) Now, I am not saying that a Christian is required to hold that all other religions and non-religious beliefs systems to be evil. Most Christians do hold some other religions and non-religious belief systems are almost as excellent as Christianity. Christians are on the whole a tolerant people. (I know many Christians who think of themselves as fundamentalist believe everyone not saved is going to hell, but they are probably a minority among even fundamentalists.) On the other hand, “Liberal Christians” aren't so much tolerant as thoughtless. They deliberately misinterpret, “Judge not, that ye be not judged” into the greatest commandment that no one is allowed an opinion beyond the opinion that Republicans are evil. Because Liberal Christianity is an anti-intellectual view, it forbids us from talking about how to best improve the world or what threats we face, beyond a few environmental ones which they admittedly address more honestly than the right. I attribute their ability to deal more honestly with environmental threats to the large number of College professors who are both "liberals" and deeply knowable about science. (The world is a complex place and it is hard to completely demonize any group.)

Of course, there are also "liberal Buddhists", "liberal Muslims", "liberal Hindus", "liberal atheists", and so forth. Where all the forms of “liberalism” go wrong is their frivolousness towards leads them to ignore that ideas have consequences and some beliefs have evil consequences. For instance, Marxism, the champion evil belief system of the twentieth century, had many evil consequences and none good that I am aware of, though “liberals” overlook Marxism's evil because of some insane notion of power in relationships that is irrelevant to the current conversation. As I previously alluded to, “liberals” are willing to admit that Nazism in Germany and Republicanism Party in America are evil, but those are exception sfrom minds that don't care about contradiction. We should also defer to some other occasion discussion of the ridiculousness of the “liberals” considering the Republican Party to be one of the two avatars of evil in the twentieth century. The problem we face in the twenty-first century is that one major religion is pervasively evil and it could damage the human spirit for centuries in ways that Marxism didn't even come close.

The major religion I hold to be that evil is Islam. I will provide reasons.