Christian view of Liberalism

[gentlemantech48]

It has been said that speaking the truth is "negative". Using that line of reasoning Jesus Christ was very negative when He said:

"34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

Liberals have become an enemy of God and enemy of this country. They are your foe. Pray for them, love them, but show your contempt for their ways by separating yourself from them.

2 Corinthians 6:14Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?15Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?

16Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,
"I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM;
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.

17"Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord.
"AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN;
And I will welcome you.

[milos]

We shall notice that all conservative civilisations prosper, and all liberal civilisations fail.

Look at the ancient Rome, it is the most precious lesson. In the beginning, while Rome was a conservative and pretty much homogeneous community - they managed to unite the whole of Italy and later the Mediterranean. But, as their society became multicultural, they forgot their traditional customs and mixed with other very different peoples and cultures - they started to regress, until they were finally destroyed.

The same is happening today. Once prosperous Christian communities became that much liberal they are about to fail very soon. At the other side, Muslim communities, for example, kept their tradition, and so they prosper and advance.

[MFA]

We shall notice that all conservative civilisations prosper, and all liberal civilisations fail.

Look at the ancient Rome, it is the most precious lesson. In the beginning, while Rome was a conservative and pretty much homogeneous community - they managed to unite the whole of Italy and later the Mediterranean. But, as their society became multicultural, they forgot their traditional customs and mixed with other very different peoples and cultures - they started to regress, until they were finally destroyed.

Well, they didn't "start to regress" until they expanded that empire as far north as Britain, as far west as the west coast of Africa, etc., etc., etc.

Are you really suggesting that multi-culturalism is equivalent to liberalism, is dangerous, and is preferable to a homogeneous culture?

Isn't the United States built on numerous cultures?  Hasn't it been "multi-cultural" for years?  Did the cultural disintegration happen a long time ago or more recently?

[milos]

Well, they didn't "start to regress" until they expanded that empire as far north as Britain, as far west as the west coast of Africa, etc., etc., etc.

Are you really suggesting that multi-culturalism is equivalent to liberalism, is dangerous, and is preferable to a homogeneous culture?

Isn't the United States built on numerous cultures?  Hasn't it been "multi-cultural" for years?  Did the cultural disintegration happen a long time ago or more recently?

I am from Europe, so maybe my point of view could be different. We Europeans have built our nations on tribal and ethnic backgrounds, so we naturally see any idea of multiculturalism as a liberal threat to our communities.

The fall of Rome was a long process. The process of liberalisation went along with the process of multiculturalism. I don't know if that is a historical rule, but it happened in Rome that way. By gaining new teritorries and accepting different cultures and peoples, original Romans mixed with the newcomers. They forgot their original tradition and identity, but they didn't form any new identity nor tradition. They abandoned patriarchal values and became promiscuous. That was why they got weaker and disintegrated. At the end, they finished up with crazy emperors who had no relations to Rome nor its customs, Rome and other large cities became overcrowded with poor people, and very little people remained to cultivate the land and serve the army. That was when feudalism begun, when Romans were forced to free the slaves and accept barbarian tribes to colonize the emptied land. Christianity could save the Rome, it could unite Romans to become homogeneous community again, but they didn't adopt it on time, they persecuted Christians for centuries, and by the time Emperor Constantine finally allowed Christianity, it was already too late for them.

Sorry, multiculturalism is not equivalent to liberalism, liberalism can happen in any kind of society. But I think they are connected in a way that liberalism opens the doors for multiculturalism, and the opposite, multiculturalism opens the doors for liberalism. Because, for any liberalism more choices are required, you can hardly build liberalism in a homogenous conservative traditionalistic patriarchal society. Look at the Sweden, they had to become an open liberal socialist society before today's multicultural invasion could happen. Multiculturalism is alright when different cultures manage to preserve their original identity and don't mix with each other, but that kind of society is very hard to preserve. Look at the examples of Austro-Hungarian Empire, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, or Yugoslavia. Different peoples could have been kept together in those countries only because there was a central power strong enough to keep them together by force. Otherwise, peoples always look to find their own path. Mixed peoples can form a new entity, but their new entity must unite over some strong gathering point, like religion and language. For example, today's Turkey is a mixed multicultural and multiracial society, but they are all strongly connected over Islam and Turkish language.

The people who built United States were all Europeans. They came from different countries: Great Britain, Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, etc; but they were all Europeans. And Native Americans, or Mexicans, or Chinese, or Blacks, had very poor rights. So I think United States were built on European culture, and not on multiculturalism. I am not fully aware of what is actually happening in the United States today. I know American states are very different, with different peoples, laws, customs, traditions, and religious beliefs. I am sure they can live good lives together in peace and prosperity if they have a strong central power, and if they accept each other as they are.

[Solar]

Well said Milos.
Here in the US, liberals are using multiculturalism as a way of dividing America, removing Christianity from the public square, they have no interest in making immigrants become Americans, learn the language, our history.
To do so would give people an understanding of what truly being an American means, they don't want that because these new people would vote Conservative, it's the reason they are pushing this huge amnesty bill, they know it will destroy what little of it means to be a true American.

[MFA]

Well said Milos.
Here in the US, liberals are using multiculturalism as a way of dividing America, removing Christianity from the public square, they have no interest in making immigrants become Americans, learn the language, our history.
To do so would give people an understanding of what truly being an American means, they don't want that because these new people would vote Conservative, it's the reason they are pushing this huge amnesty bill, they know it will destroy what little of it means to be a true American.

I live in a far more multi-cultural country than the United States.  From what I've see lately, many of the immigrants are far more conservative than the people who were already here.

[Solar]

I live in a far more multi-cultural country than the United States.  From what I've see lately, many of the immigrants are far more conservative than the people who were already here.

Lucky you.
But you don't have people in the millions breaking the law to be there. That's the difference in those seeking to do it legally and those that scoff at our laws and culture.

[MFA]

Lucky you.
But you don't have people in the millions breaking the law to be there. That's the difference in those seeking to do it legally and those that scoff at our laws and culture.

That's true.  In Toronto, arguably the most multi-cultural city in the world, immigrants tend to move to the inner city and than radiate outward to the suburbs as they increase stability and income.

But hey, I love my "Chinese food," Mexican food, Thai food, as well as other valuable cultural input.  In my view, it is not multiculturalism that is the threat.  Just thinking out loud, I think it the exaggeration or distortion of the ideal of tolerance that makes it mean that every point of view is equally valid or equally true.  While this sounds nice and accepting, the reality is that nobody holds to a worldview or point of view that they believe to be false.  That would be literally insane.  But in the clash of worldviews we are somehow expected to dismiss or diminish the validity of our own point of view for a competing point of view, regardless of the soundness of the competing view.

To be honest, fair, and intellectually sound, we must be able to respect another person without caving to their point of view--establishing dialog in which worldviews can be critically valued rather than mindlessly accepted and adopted.

[Solar]

That's true.  In Toronto, arguably the most multi-cultural city in the world, immigrants tend to move to the inner city and than radiate outward to the suburbs as they increase stability and income.

But hey, I love my "Chinese food," Mexican food, Thai food, as well as other valuable cultural input.  In my view, it is not multiculturalism that is the threat.  Just thinking out loud, I think it the exaggeration or distortion of the ideal of tolerance that makes it mean that every point of view is equally valid or equally true.  While this sounds nice and accepting, the reality is that nobody holds to a worldview or point of view that they believe to be false.  That would be literally insane.  But in the clash of worldviews we are somehow expected to dismiss or diminish the validity of our own point of view for a competing point of view, regardless of the soundness of the competing view.

To be honest, fair, and intellectually sound, we must be able to respect another person without caving to their point of view--establishing dialog in which worldviews can be critically valued rather than mindlessly accepted and adopted.

Yep, I agree and that is what made America great, cultures coming together under a belief in one culture, a culture of freedom, all the while keeping their own heritage alive.

Flooding the US with people that have shown they have no interest in following the laws of the land is what is destroying our culture, along with having a Marxist in the WH.

[MFA]

Yep, I agree and that is what made America great, cultures coming together under a belief in one culture, a culture of freedom, all the while keeping their own heritage alive.

Flooding the US with people that have shown they have no interest in following the laws of the land is what is destroying our culture, along with having a Marxist in the WH.

This is one of the few cultural differences between Canada and the United States:

The United States sees and sells itself as a "melting pot."

Canada sees and sells itself as a "mosaic."

I think this one of the reasons Canada is more liberal--traditionally, we are less patriotic and allow more perpetuation of incoming culture (a stronger "voice"), even though, on paper, we have no "separation between Church and State" and the Church used to have far more influence.

[Solar]

This is one of the few cultural differences between Canada and the United States:

The United States sees and sells itself as a "melting pot."

Canada sees and sells itself as a "mosaic."

I think this one of the reasons Canada is more liberal--traditionally, we are less patriotic and allow more perpetuation of incoming culture (a stronger "voice"), even though, on paper, we have no "separation between Church and State" and the Church used to have far more influence.

Interesting, and makes sense.

[milos]

The United States sees and sells itself as a "melting pot."

Canada sees and sells itself as a "mosaic."

Thank you for this explanation.

It seems like Canada is one rare example of succeeded multiculturalism. Do you in Canada have a feel of a Canadian nation? I have nothing against a multicultural mosaic, on the contrary. I was born in the former Yugoslavia, and I really believed different peoples, like Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and the others, could live happily together and be proud of their multicultural mosaic. (Which was not that much "multi" at all, actually very similar.) But, recent history taught us the opposite - very few of us really enjoyed being together in the same country. Former Yugoslav kingdom before WWII, and later communist Yugoslav republic, both wanted to establish a new Yugoslav nation as a melting pot instead of a mosaic, but it could never happen. It seems European peoples have a strong will for self determination.

I am not sure United States weren't also meant to be a mosaic rather than a melting pot. A mosaic of different states and a mosaic of different peoples. But maybe it's up to peoples themselves to stick together if they want to? For example, Irish or Italian or Jewish, i think they stick together more than English or Germans in the USA? Not to mention Native Americans, Mexicans, Chinese, or Blacks. Could USA be more like Canada? And if not, why is it so? I found this on Wikipedia about the explanation of the Seal of the United States motto "E Pluribus Unum": "Traditionally, the understood meaning of the phrase was that out of many states (or colonies) emerge a single nation. However, in recent years its meaning has come to suggest that out of many peoples, races, religions and ancestries has emerged a single people and nation—illustrating the concept of the melting pot."

And I have to apologize because I have turned this topic into a subject of multiculturalism instead of liberalism, but I have explained why it semed the same to me, because one can easily involve the other.

[Solar]

Thank you for this explanation.

It seems like Canada is one rare example of succeeded multiculturalism. Do you in Canada have a feel of a Canadian nation? I have nothing against a multicultural mosaic, on the contrary. I was born in the former Yugoslavia, and I really believed different peoples, like Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and the others, could live happily together and be proud of their multicultural mosaic. (Which was not that much "multi" at all, actually very similar.) But, recent history taught us the opposite - very few of us really enjoyed being together in the same country. Former Yugoslav kingdom before WWII, and later communist Yugoslav republic, both wanted to establish a new Yugoslav nation as a melting pot instead of a mosaic, but it could never happen. It seems European peoples have a strong will for self determination.

I am not sure United States weren't also meant to be a mosaic rather than a melting pot. A mosaic of different states and a mosaic of different peoples. But maybe it's up to peoples themselves to stick together if they want to? For example, Irish or Italian or Jewish, i think they stick together more than English or Germans in the USA? Not to mention Native Americans, Mexicans, Chinese, or Blacks. Could USA be more like Canada? And if not, why is it so? I found this on Wikipedia about the explanation of the Seal of the United States motto "E Pluribus Unum": "Traditionally, the understood meaning of the phrase was that out of many states (or colonies) emerge a single nation. However, in recent years its meaning has come to suggest that out of many peoples, races, religions and ancestries has emerged a single people and nation—illustrating the concept of the melting pot."

And I have to apologize because I have turned this topic into a subject of multiculturalism instead of liberalism, but I have explained why it semed the same to me, because one can easily involve the other.

Canada is still a divided Nation, with a split personality, one speaks French, while the other English.

[MFA]

Canada is still a divided Nation, with a split personality, one speaks French, while the other English.

Not quite true...almost all people born in Canada speak both English and French...or, more precisely, speak English and a bit of French or speak French with a bit of English.

[Solar]

Not quite true...almost all people born in Canada speak both English and French...or, more precisely, speak English and a bit of French or speak French with a bit of English.

http://world.time.com/2013/04/08/quebecs-war-on-english-language-politics-intensify-in-canadian-province/