liberalism as a modern religious movement

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Nov 27, 2012
55
7
8
#1
Having done an essay on the religious origins of belief in evolution, I suspected that same type of opinion of evolution would also apply generally to liberalism. I tabled that thought for a few years until it recently came back to me because of the general state of America and recent political events.


What I'm going to say I think has been said nowhere else. I know that liberalism is considered a secular religion, but nobody has attempted to match individual nuances of liberalism with those of, say, Christianity - that is, until now.

I claim that the deeply secular liberals - the "true believers" if you will - who are intent on propping up liberalism with any bit of fake news, faulty evidence, and logical fallacies - have no need for God in their lives but still have the deep religious longing in their hearts that needs to be satisfied. Their only recourse then is to wrap their secular beliefs around a quasi religious framework that apes the kind of history that Christianity has, a kind of history they wish their secular religion had as well.

Let's take the liberal desire to find the downtrodden in society whether victims of injustice or not, whether victims of their own failures or not. Thomas Sowell, black conservative writer, calls them the "mascots" of the "anointed." I claim they are not mascots. I claim they are martyrs.

Here's how I think liberals think of themselves. Liberals see the way Christianity conquered the Roman Empire and became dominant and they want that type of success for themselves. Only this type the dominant force needing to be overthrown is not the Roman Empire but patriarchy (if you are a feminist) or white male domination or Wall Street (if you are a Bernie Sanders supporter) or "the rich" but whatever the dominant group is the reaction is the same: revulsion and blame for all the misery the liberal has. Those who are oppressed in the liberal mind, including the liberals themselves, of course, are the Christians who of course will eventually overcome the dominant group. Christians overcame the Roman Empire and liberals believe they will overcome their foes as well. What else explains their continued faith in their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary? They believe it's inevitable they will succeed.

Christians have positive views toward those who gave their lives to spread their faith. Liberals have the same view toward those who suffer injustices at the hands of oppressive patriarchy or the rich or male domination or whatever. In fact, I saw National Review online feature an article about a liberal who said that oppressed groups are incapable of being oppressive themselves. They (liberals) can't see the oppressed that way because they want to see their mascots in the same way Christians see their martyrs.

Even secular liberal goals ape the final destination of heaven that Christians hope for. Liberals believe that if we eliminate inequalities of any kind then evil deeds and desires will disappear. That would indeed be heaven on earth. Marxists believed that they needed to eliminate the gulf between the rich and poor for secular heaven on earth to happen also. As they push for this type of secular utopia, they see themselves as the disciples of the movement. Since they have no secular equivalent of Jesus, they invent all sorts of secular bishops or popes to follow. This explains the undying devotion to the Clinton's and Obamas of the world.

See what do you think? Is it a worthy theory you can get behind?
 

ItsMeYaBoi

Junior Member
Oct 9, 2017
12
1
3
#2
What I'm going to say I think has been said nowhere else. I know that liberalism is considered a secular religion, but nobody has attempted to match individual nuances of liberalism with those of, say, Christianity - that is, until now.
You're literally the only person I've seen that claims being a liberal is a religion.

Also a secular religion is an inherent contradiction. It's like a Catholic Voodoo Priest. They both imply completely different things.
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#3
You're literally the only person I've seen that claims being a liberal is a religion.

Also a secular religion is an inherent contradiction. It's like a Catholic Voodoo Priest. They both imply completely different things.

then you simply do not understand what religion actually is and the op is out of your pay grade
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#4
What I'm going to say I think has been said nowhere else. I know that liberalism is considered a secular religion, but nobody has attempted to match individual nuances of liberalism with those of, say, Christianity - that is, until now.
I find this an interesting concept, but do not see it as original

actually I see the roots going all the way back to square 1. religious people are self righteous...do you know any true liberals that are NOT self righteous?

I claim that the deeply secular liberals - the "true believers" if you will - who are intent on propping up liberalism with any bit of fake news, faulty evidence, and logical fallacies - have no need for God in their lives but still have the deep religious longing in their hearts that needs to be satisfied. Their only recourse then is to wrap their secular beliefs around a quasi religious framework that apes the kind of history that Christianity has, a kind of history they wish their secular religion had as well.
no argument from me. filling the void here

Let's take the liberal desire to find the downtrodden in society whether victims of injustice or not, whether victims of their own failures or not. Thomas Sowell, black conservative writer, calls them the "mascots" of the "anointed." I claim they are not mascots. I claim they are martyrs.
would have to hear more from you on this one

Here's how I think liberals think of themselves. Liberals see the way Christianity conquered the Roman Empire and became dominant and they want that type of success for themselves. Only this type the dominant force needing to be overthrown is not the Roman Empire but patriarchy (if you are a feminist) or white male domination or Wall Street (if you are a Bernie Sanders supporter) or "the rich" but whatever the dominant group is the reaction is the same: revulsion and blame for all the misery the liberal has. Those who are oppressed in the liberal mind, including the liberals themselves, of course, are the Christians who of course will eventually overcome the dominant group. Christians overcame the Roman Empire and liberals believe they will overcome their foes as well. What else explains their continued faith in their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary? They believe it's inevitable they will succeed.
I honestly do not believe they have that depth of reasoning. then again, I tend to think far too many people on either side of the border (and I mean ideological borders here) do not necessarily pause to give thought a reason for what they do. which, and again, IMO, is the 'built in' void you mentioned and which I agree is there...you can see it even if scripture didn't talk about it

a person can believe whatever and be totally deceived and yet be moved along by the current of that deception and increasing power as they move away from the truth

Christians have positive views toward those who gave their lives to spread their faith. Liberals have the same view toward those who suffer injustices at the hands of oppressive patriarchy or the rich or male domination or whatever. In fact, I saw National Review online feature an article about a liberal who said that oppressed groups are incapable of being oppressive themselves. They (liberals) can't see the oppressed that way because they want to see their mascots in the same way Christians see their martyrs.
again, would need to have this better developed. if you are saying they do not really care for their 'cause' in a personal sense, I would agree but with caveats

Even secular liberal goals ape the final destination of heaven that Christians hope for. Liberals believe that if we eliminate inequalities of any kind then evil deeds and desires will disappear. That would indeed be heaven on earth. Marxists believed that they needed to eliminate the gulf between the rich and poor for secular heaven on earth to happen also. As they push for this type of secular utopia, they see themselves as the disciples of the movement. Since they have no secular equivalent of Jesus, they invent all sorts of secular bishops or popes to follow. This explains the undying devotion to the Clinton's and Obamas of the world.
well we know for a fact that communism is a total bust and you basically end up with an enslaved population serving the dictatorship that has become worse than a king of the 15th C and Marxists love to label people and put them in groups

whatever undying devotion is misplaced in any group or individual, it is a pale copy of the reality and this 'utopia' is so, only for the deceived and the deceiving . but I agree that god will be constantly reinvented as the need arises and of course one of their own making...much like the Bible speaks of the idol carved out of wood and then worshiped

See what do you think? Is it a worthy theory you can get behind?
it certainly makes for an interesting discussion and I think you have pointed out a truth regarding 'secular' religion and I voiced some of what I thought/think

depending on who responds, this can go different ways as you most likely know

don't take my responses as necessarily negative.
 

Tommy379

Notorious Member
Jan 12, 2016
7,589
1,151
113
#5
You're literally the only person I've seen that claims being a liberal is a religion.

Also a secular religion is an inherent contradiction. It's like a Catholic Voodoo Priest. They both imply completely different things.
A person can be religious about anything. A cult can be built around anyone or anything.
 
S

Society

Guest
#6
Notice the OP does not talk about his own dogmatic adherence to "conservatism" as a modern religious movement.
 

Yeraza_Bats

Senior Member
Dec 11, 2014
3,632
175
63
35
#7
You're literally the only person I've seen that claims being a liberal is a religion.

Also a secular religion is an inherent contradiction. It's like a Catholic Voodoo Priest. They both imply completely different things.
Belief in a deity is one of the definitions of a religion, but not the defining rule. You can have a religion without the worship of a deity.
 

ItsMeYaBoi

Junior Member
Oct 9, 2017
12
1
3
#8
Notice the OP does not talk about his own dogmatic adherence to "conservatism" as a modern religious movement.
No don't you get it? It's only bad when people are liberal. Can't have any of those public roads, fire departments, police forces, or military, now can we?
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#9
Notice the OP does not talk about his own dogmatic adherence to "conservatism" as a modern religious movement.

but you are posting about yours

right?

yeah, right LOL!
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#10
No don't you get it? It's only bad when people are liberal. Can't have any of those public roads, fire departments, police forces, or military, now can we?

it's really only bad when liberals go out of their way to mock people with conservative values...the Bible actually being one of those conservative values

too bad you don't seem to get that :(

(most) liberals are for the following:

abortion
homosexuality
free everything with someone else paying for it
hollywood morality
taking men out of the family and creating girly men
mocking anyone who is conservative
lying about anyone who is conservative
arguing and presenting no evidence of what they say other than what someone told them
change history to reflect conservative values as bad even if it means destroying public property and actually lying
forced health care that includes paying for abortions and birth control
creating brainwashed children to turn against their parents

and many more negative things that without intervention would destroy this country y'all are so free to shoot your mouths off in

keep laughing though cause one day you might get what you have been told you want and wish for the good ole days when speaking against people in power did not land you in jail or worse

remember that if you are young enough to see it come to pass
 
S

Society

Guest
#11
but you are posting about yours

right?

yeah, right LOL!
Is there some sort of filter I can apply to understand what this means?

it's really only bad when liberals go out of their way to mock people with conservative values...the Bible actually being one of those conservative values

too bad you don't seem to get that :(

(most) liberals are for the following:

abortion
homosexuality
free everything with someone else paying for it
hollywood morality
taking men out of the family and creating girly men
mocking anyone who is conservative
lying about anyone who is conservative
arguing and presenting no evidence of what they say other than what someone told them
change history to reflect conservative values as bad even if it means destroying public property and actually lying
forced health care that includes paying for abortions and birth control
creating brainwashed children to turn against their parents

and many more negative things that without intervention would destroy this country y'all are so free to shoot your mouths off in

keep laughing though cause one day you might get what you have been told you want and wish for the good ole days when speaking against people in power did not land you in jail or worse

remember that if you are young enough to see it come to pass
I can tell from your lack of capitalization or punctuation that you are a well read individual.

Anyone can make up some nonsense list of negative attributes to apply to "the other guy" and it means nothing.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Demonization
 
Last edited:

ItsMeYaBoi

Junior Member
Oct 9, 2017
12
1
3
#12
it's really only bad when liberals go out of their way to mock people with conservative values...the Bible actually being one of those conservative values

too bad you don't seem to get that :(

(most) liberals are for the following:

abortion
homosexuality
free everything with someone else paying for it
hollywood morality
taking men out of the family and creating girly men
mocking anyone who is conservative
lying about anyone who is conservative
arguing and presenting no evidence of what they say other than what someone told them
change history to reflect conservative values as bad even if it means destroying public property and actually lying
forced health care that includes paying for abortions and birth control
creating brainwashed children to turn against their parents

and many more negative things that without intervention would destroy this country y'all are so free to shoot your mouths off in

keep laughing though cause one day you might get what you have been told you want and wish for the good ole days when speaking against people in power did not land you in jail or worse

remember that if you are young enough to see it come to pass
Hooooooo boy. Let's go then.

Abortion: Yep, bodily autonomy is a thing. We don't even let people use a corpse without permission from the person it belonged to so why should we let a fetus use someone else? Nobody is going to run up to you on the street and force you to donate a kidney or blood to someone who needs it, so a fetus should have no right to the mother's body. Take that away and you're giving women less rights than a corpse.

Homosexuality: Whatever someone does in their bedroom is between them and the consenting adults that they do it with, why should I care?

Free everything: I think a comprehensive social safety net is a pretty good thing. It prevents things, like getting cancer, from bankrupting you and your family. Even more useful if for some reason you lose your job and suddenly have no health insurance. Everyone helps out everyone else, and together we all do better.

Hollywood Morality: I have no idea what this means, you'll have to elaborate.

Taking Men out of Family/Girly Men: Who is removing men from families? Is there some secret police I'm unaware of that comes in the night to steal husbands? And who cares if men are more effeminate? I've gone to get pedicures/massages/manicures with my girlfriend and it feels great. Pretty sure the 'manly' person is the one who does what they want and doesn't care about people like you judging them.

Mocking Conservatives: Don't even pretend conservatives don't mock anyone liberal. That's what this entire thread is.

Lying About Conservatives: Yep, this absolutely happens. I am 100% sure that news stories have been fabricated about conservatives by liberals. I am also 100% certain that conservatives have fabricated things about liberals. Your side isn't innocent of this.

Arguing/No Evidence: Again, both sides. Do you honestly think conservatives and conservative news outlets don't make up stories and repeat things without evidence?

Change History: I assume you mean the statue of that Confederate dude? Statues are for people to look up to, I don't think someone who died fighting for slavery should be looked up to. Throw it in a museum to show that you're beyond that. No reason to glorify a loser's ideology.

Forced Healthcare: I think I answered this above. A single-payer system is pretty great honestly, it protects you when you have an unlucky streak. Lose your home? Your job? Your insurance? That's fine, if you get sick you can still get treated. Without a single-payer system the poor are unable to access treatments that are sometimes required to live.

Brainwashed Children: What brainwashed children?

Nobody is being thrown in jail for voicing their opinion, no need to start the fear mongering. Though if I wrote my own list of 'conservative things' I would put fear mongering right on top.
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#13
well yaboy...since you are not a Christian and seem to be here to mock no answer will do anything more than add to your mirth

maybe just go back to your atheist site and mock from there

if you have a genuine interest, you can always ask genuine questions
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,261
2,386
113
#14
Is there some sort of filter I can apply to understand what this means?



I can tell from your lack of capitalization or punctuation that you are a well read individual.

Anyone can make up some nonsense list of negative attributes to apply to "the other guy" and it means nothing.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Demonization



If you're going to pretend to be a rational atheist, then you'll need to conduct yourself rationally.



1. It's generally considered bad form (rude and unintelligent) to criticize people's spelling and grammar on an internet forum, where people post hurriedly from cell phones, and where most people never check their own writing for errors because this kind of format is considered "disposable".

This lends no power to your argument, it's just an attempt to back someone down through rude personal criticism.



2. At what point exactly did being "well read" enter into this conversation?

Oh, right, it didn't.
It's another comment which lends no power to your argument, it's just an attempt to malign someone's argument through rude, personal criticism.

I could also point out that that these kinds of ad hominem arguments you make are not only rude, but they're also logical errors... showing a person has poor reasoning skills.



3. At least some of the points on this list are quite tangible, and address issues which are highly controversial in our society... making it FAR from being a "nonsense list."

Again, you just make rude, unfounded criticisms to malign the commenter.


4. Finally, I think that overall, the OP's post was a meandering editorial with little support or clear logic... but that doesn't mean I have to look the other way while atheists come into this forum and just randomly attack people with rude insults, like you've done to 7seasrekeyed.

I don't go into atheist forums and just start insulting everyone.

Maybe I should.
 
Last edited:
S

Society

Guest
#15

If you're going to pretend to be a rational atheist, then you'll need to conduct yourself rationally.



1. It's generally considered bad form (rude and unintelligent) to criticize people's spelling and grammar on an internet forum, where people post hurriedly from cell phones, and where most people never check their own writing for errors because this kind of format is considered "disposable".

This lends no power to your argument, it's just an attempt to back someone down through rude personal criticism.



2. At what point exactly did being "well read" enter into this conversation?

Oh, right, it didn't.
It's another comment which lends no power to your argument, it's just an attempt to malign someone's argument through rude, personal criticism.

I could also point out that that these kinds of ad hominem arguments you make are not only rude, but they're also logical errors... showing a person has poor reasoning skills.



3. At least some of the points on this list are quite tangible, and address issues which are highly controversial in our society... making it FAR from being a "nonsense list."

Again, you just make rude, unfounded criticisms to malign the commenter.


4. Finally, I think that overall, the OP's post was a meandering editorial with little support or clear logic... but that doesn't mean I have to look the other way while atheists come into this forum and just randomly attack people with rude insults, like you've done to 7seasrekeyed.

I don't go into atheist forums and just start insulting everyone.

Maybe I should.
Well first you might want to ask what I am before assuming I'm an atheist.

The way I structured the reply, where I said "Is there some sort of filter I can apply to understand what this means?" came after a very specific paragraph and would imply to most people I was referring to that particular post and not to that which follows.

When you only bother to respond to the mean atheists "rudeness" and not anyone else's, including the rudeness just two posts up directed at me, you make it obvious you don't really care about my tone and only wish to attack me.
 
P

pckts

Guest
#16
Well first you might want to ask what I am before assuming I'm an atheist.

The way I structured the reply, where I said "Is there some sort of filter I can apply to understand what this means?" came after a very specific paragraph and would imply to most people I was referring to that particular post and not to that which follows.

When you only bother to respond to the mean atheists "rudeness" and not anyone else's, including the rudeness just two posts up directed at me, you make it obvious you don't really care about my tone and only wish to attack me.
I can tell from your lack of capitalization or punctuation that you are a well read individual.
Don't play the victim.

You claim to be a conservative and post extremely liberal views. There is no point in asking
someone that lacks self-awareness what term they think describes them. It's better to define them on the opinions and behaviors they express.
 
Last edited:
S

Society

Guest
#17
Don't play the victim.

Translation: "I wanna pick at you, not the other person exhibiting the exact same behaviour I claim to be offended by. Stop trying to change the conversation by stating the facts."

I'm not a victim and I am hardly offended by rudeness. I'm just pointing out the humorous nature of Maxwel's hypocrisy.



You claim to be a conservative and post extremely liberal views. There is no point in asking
someone that lacks self-awareness what term they think describes them. It's better to define them on the opinions and behaviors they express.
You'll notice if you bothered to read my posts that I never actually expressed any political or societal views whatsoever. I'm going to assume you saw other "conservatives" attacking me and assumed I must have posted some lefty hippy content that they were responding to. So now that we know you can't be bothered to read the threads you respond to let us address my "liberalism".

There's an old saying "A liberal is anyone to the left of me". I don't care much for labels or maintaining some sort of ideological purity like some here do. The nice thing is you don't get to decide for me what I am and am not... I do. I suppose to some people like yourself I might come across as "Liberal", but that may be because you are so right wing that any reasonable point of view puts one to the left of you. I believe in personal freedom and small effective government. I am a capitalist and a believer in the free markets. I believe the government has no business telling people how to live or what to do with their bodies unless it harms others. I believe in religious and political freedom. By most rational standards that makes me a conservative. But even if you don't agree, calling me a "liberal" doesn't somehow offend me and isn't some sort of argument winning "gotcha". It just means you don't know how to discuss an issue, just how to attack people.
 
P

pckts

Guest
#18
You'll notice if you bothered to read my posts that I never actually expressed any political or societal views whatsoever. I'm going to assume you saw other "conservatives" attacking me and assumed I must have posted some lefty hippy content that they were responding to. So now that we know you can't be bothered to read the threads you respond to let us address my "liberalism".

There's an old saying "A liberal is anyone to the left of me". I don't care much for labels or maintaining some sort of ideological purity like some here do. The nice thing is you don't get to decide for me what I am and am not... I do. I suppose to some people like yourself I might come across as "Liberal", but that may be because you are so right wing that any reasonable point of view puts one to the left of you. I believe in personal freedom and small effective government. I am a capitalist and a believer in the free markets. I believe the government has no business telling people how to live or what to do with their bodies unless it harms others. I believe in religious and political freedom. By most rational standards that makes me a conservative. But even if you don't agree, calling me a "liberal" doesn't somehow offend me and isn't some sort of argument winning "gotcha". It just means you don't know how to discuss an issue, just how to attack people.
I bothered to read your posts and you actually expressed political and societal views, so whatever.

I don't care if you agree with my "liberal" views. (I'm a card carrying member of the conservative party btw).
Maybe by your "rational standards", but these are liberal views. Let me speak more against your "rational standards". When you tell people they can do whatever they want unless it harms others, they harm themselves and this effects those around them. So if you want to enforce, "unless it harms others", you have to tell and influence how people live their lives.

I agree with this.

Do you believe The Bible is the literal word of God and that Jesus Christ is God? I'm not really concerned with your views, I'm just trying to figure out what motivates them and it doesn't seem to be Christianity.
 
Last edited:

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,312
1,039
113
#19
A person can be religious about anything. A cult can be built around anyone or anything.
Like the way right Wingers Revere Alex Jones 3az some type of Guru or something despite the fact that he's a raving lunatic
 
P

pckts

Guest
#20

But even if you don't agree, calling me a "liberal" doesn't somehow offend me and isn't some sort of argument winning "gotcha". It just means you don't know how to discuss an issue, just how to attack people.
I didn't call you a liberal in this exchange you are quoting. I was pointing out that it's better to consider people's opinions and views rather than asking them what they identify as. This was clear in my post, so I guess you just want to play the victim again.

If you express beliefs and views that are contrary to Christianity on a Christian forum, people are going to "attack" (challenge) them. Your reaction means you don't know how to discuss an issue, just how to claim all opinions are equally valid after you disagree with one, and retreat because you don't like conflict or being "attacked".

Once more so you don't avoid it, Do you believe The Bible is the literal word of God and that Jesus Christ is God? I'm not really concerned with your views, I'm just trying to figure out what motivates them and it doesn't seem to be Christianity.
 
Last edited: