Most of this post involves a discussion of what Jesus would think about things today. We had this discussion not too long ago, so I am just going to focus on a couple of paragraphs that I think represent the primary way in which Matt Walsh contributes to the erosion of public discourse.
Matt Walsh writes:
So, I think we need to clarify that modern American liberalism, or ‘progressivism,’ is a particular ideology informed by the social, political, religious, and sexual philosophies of guys like Machiavelli, Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx — the ‘pillars of unbelief,’ as Peter Kreeft calls them. Contemporary Western liberalism — with its defense of abortion, gay ‘marriage,’ relativism, forced wealth redistribution, pornography, massive government, and its attacks on the family, faith, life, and liberty — is truly a unique abomination.
Dude, I appreciate the fact that you are reading, but you really need to find yourself some better sources of information. I had a bit of a giggle fit after reading the first sentence. I don't know who Peter Kreeft is, but he either has no knowledge of any of those figures, or he is willfully misleading his readers. The only one who could potentially, in any logical way, be connected to any strand of progressivism is Marx (most progressives, however, are not remotely Marxist). But... Nietzsche??? That is HI-larious. Nietzsche favors the aristocracy and despises the masses; he upholds notions of racial superiority; and he believes women represent the very worst traits of humanity. In fact, Nietzsche is in many ways the exact opposite of Marx. How they can be lumped together as the pillars of anything I do not understand. (Epistemologically, Nietzsche is also in direct conflict with Kant... though I suppose if I were to start listing all the ways this list is nonsensical, it would take me a while...)
As for the rest of the paragraph, here is the problem, Matt. You are seeing liberalism, or progressivism, as one homogenous thing. But it isn't. Just to pick from your list of issues - views on pornography vary widely, as do beliefs about the exact role and most effective mechanisms of the welfare state (or what you misleading dub "forced wealth redistribution"). Relativism? First, there are several different types of relativism. Second, the meaning of these types of relativism vary and are shaped by internal academic debates in particular academic disciplines - thus, cannot be understood apart from very specific contexts - and in a number of cases are associated with the conservative positions in the discipline rather than the more progressive views. I have found that conservative religious apologists use the term "relativism" in an extremely inaccurate, intentionally misleading way to set up false oppositional points of view. This has been a bonanza for them, it seems. However, there is definite diversity among liberals and progressives in their epistemological and cultural reasoning.
A large number of people who identify as liberal or progressive are Christian. And also every other religion, and non-religion. Some reliably support foreign intervention, while others reliably do not. As I mentioned before, views on the role of the federal government vary widely. Some are rich, some are poor, some are educated, some buy too easily into conspiracy theories. Some are even racist, or sexist, or homophobic.
The arguments you are making about liberals are as ridiculous as if some liberal blogger lumped together David Duke, C.S. Lewis, Van Mises, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Project for a New American Century as the cornerstones of modern conservativism. It makes no sense. Many different and incompatible things fall under the umbrella of modern conservativism just as many different and incompatible things fall under the umbrella of modern liberalism.
Creating a simplistic Us vs. Them dichotomy is neither helpful nor accurate. This is why people are justified in saying that you are divisive. And uninformed.
Jesus was not a liberal.
Lucifer, on the other hand, probably fits the bill.
After all, modern liberalism is nothing if it isn’t the worship of self. It is an ideology that places self fulfillment, pleasure, and convenience above everything. Liberalism bows to no one but its own reflection (and foreign bureaucrats, in the case of Barack Obama). Liberals believe that our personal desires are the ultimate arbiter, which is why life can be destroyed and institutions like marriage twisted and obliterated, all to serve the one god: self.
I threw this in here to make one point. Actually, "worship of the self" is a principle most closely aligned with the very philosophies/movements with which you identify (or have in the past). For example, as someone who has supported the tea party, surely you must know that Ayn Rand - whose entire doctrine was based on worship of the self - is one of the most revered thinkers of that movement. The legacy of valorization of self-interest is seen most prominently in libertarian thinking, not progressivism.