Liberalism as Meta-Religion

Post Reply New Topic

In this thread, I do not mean liberalism quite in the sense of the platform of the contemporary Democratic Party but in a broader sense of constitutionally defined, secular government, civil liberties, etc. In this broader sense, most right libertarians would also qualify as liberal as would many U.S. conservatives—at least somewhat (although certainly many would not). Liberalism demands tolerance of religious differences, endorsing the idea that it is not the state's role to favor or enforce any religion at all. This means all religions must submit to the meta-religion: to accept at least a modicum of tolerance of other religions and drop the claim to being the only truth. Of course, many dogmatic or fundamentalist religions make the claim that all other religions are wrong and that non-believers are heretics or infidels. Some religions settle for tolerating the freedom while making the claims; others desire to enforce this claim through the law or even violence against non-believers. In the past even in the West, such religion tended to predominate (the Roman Catholic Church, Puritanism, etc.). Religions that push against this liberal meta-religion tend to be strongly disliked by most in the U.S.

Does broad liberalism act as a sort of meta-religious frameworks that all religions must fit into to be accepted as legitimate in Western democratic society? Does this impinge upon a religion's ability to express itself? Is liberalism in some sense a secular religion then?

Yes, I view liberalism as a kind of secular religion. Liberals often appear like religious fanatics in their dogmatism, as they wage relentless war against the pillars of civilized society, convincing themselves they are paving the way towards a promised land of “freedom” and “equality” on earth.

The emphasis on personal religious freedom seems to be just one aspect of liberalism. Liberalism really seems to be about “liberating” the individual from all other higher social orders as well (such as family, race, nation and culture). In practice, this seems to entail using the state to implement draconian laws against “discrimination” and “hate speech”. Libertarianism is similar in its focus on extreme individualism, although libertarians obviously are less keen on state intervention, and tend to have more respect for freedom of speech and freedom of association, while seemingly having less concern than liberals for the plight of the poor or the state of the environment. (But I guess I would prefer a libertarian like Sean Gabb or Ron Paul to most leading liberals I’ve seen.)

Of course, some people pushing liberalism will really just be bureaucratcs justifying their positions, or foreigners pursuing their own ethnic interests, or opportunists in it for the money or power. But there are many people for whom liberalism seems to be their natural way of thinking.

I used to be fairly liberal myself. It’s not too difficult to see why aspies are often naturally drawn to liberalism, since it is an individualistic worldview. I am still not a social person myself; I just believe that people in general have social instincts that the ideology of liberal individualism actively denies.

There is a sense of conformism about the liberal worldview though. You notice certain patterns of thought. I’ve noticed for instance that just as the religious fanatics of old used to attack themselves to soothe the guilt they felt over having impure thoughts, modern liberals often need to soothe their own guilt by publicly attacking other people who express illiberal thoughts. Liberals seem to revel in rejecting any particularist attachment to their own group (be it ethnic, national, cultural or religious). Often, a white liberal (in fact, there are almost no other kinds) will happily watch, say, Islam undermine their own Christian heritage, and only start protesting when it threatens gay rights.

Anyway, I’m starting to think it might be pointless debating with liberals on particular issues until you can get them to question this idea all the people of this earth are just atomised individuals each with an equal “right” to pursue his/her own self-gratification and whose only duty is to not get in the way of others. The debates usually go down the same nihilistic path, with the liberal demanding to know “Why does it bother you if your country lets in millions of Third Worlders? Why does it bother you if your local landscape becomes dotted with minarets? Why does it bother you if gays want to get married? Why does it bother you if people want to smoke crack cocaine? Why does it bother you if the TV pumps out poisnous dumbed-down trash?”

The French New Right thinker Alain de Benoist wrote an interesting critique of liberal ideology, if anyone feels like wading through 17 pages. It touches on how the development of liberalism was supposedly influenced by developments in Christianity.
www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/critique_of_ ... eology.pdf

Neant, I think you need to check out Dennis Prager.

look up Secular Humanism

Religion:
- A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
- An institution to express belief in a divine power.
-A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Liberalism is none of these, acting in accordance to a set or principles, or the guidance of some leader/s doesn't qualify as a religion, although it can qualify as a belief system or doctrine.

Religion is a b1tch to define, and I find the above definition somewhat lacking. Here's a better definition:

Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings).
A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis.
Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual.
Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural.
A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
A social group bound together by the above.

And yes, "liberalism" is still not a religion according to this definition. People throw the word "religion" around a lot these days.

If objects are considered to be sacred due exclusively to a supernatural power of some sort, if by it's softer meaning "worthy of great respect or dedication", then this definition would also cover sports fans with memorabilia and military and political people and their special objects.

Religious feeling cannot be characterised outside of one religion, the feelings you stated are found in Western Christianity. In addition, all of the feelings mentioned could be experienced on, say, a camping trip to Niagra Falls where you sleep with your best friend's girlfriend.


A philosophy, world view and society brought together using these can be related to a religion, even dictated by one, but having them does not render one religious. Contrary to what those dropouts will tell you, Karl Marx wasn't a religious figure.

It wasn't lacking, it was concise.