In a piece that Moore wrote defending his friend's, Maher's, anti-Islamic statements, Moore wrote this about why liberals would criticize Christians in a heartbeat but not Muslims:
1. We have witnessed, since 9/11, Arabs and Muslims in this country undergoing huge amounts of prejudice, bigotry and sometimes outright violence. This sickens us (as I know it does Bill). So we are extra sensitive to what sounds like, as it goes through the liberal filter in our ears, any "anti-Arab" comments. We don't want to hear anything even remotely anti-Muslim. But we have to be careful that this doesn't stop us from listening to legitimate criticisms about things that go on in the Muslim world. I just think that, due to our illegal actions (invasions) of the past decade, our government lacks any moral authority on this and should be forbidden from any attempts to "fix" those problems.
2. Liberals are intensely fed up with these two wars against mostly Muslim populations (not to mention the indiscriminate drone strikes on at least four other nations). And now the party that won the elections last Tuesday would like a war with Iran. An ignorant American public was manipulated with fear and lies to start and maintain the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars -- and that manipulation continues today in order to justify things like the mass spying by the NSA on our entire citizenry. When the Cold War ended (25 years ago today in Berlin), the defense industry went berserk with worry that their salad days were over. A new enemy was needed. Arab terrorists fit the bill perfectly! Not only has the defense industry since thrived, a whole new fake industry has arisen -- the Homeland Security behemoth. As our infrastructure, our freedoms and our middle class vaporize, billions are spent as a grossly out-of-proportion response to a few shitty disasters.
While I don't disagree with every single word Moore wrote here, I disagree with most of it, and with his fundamental argument about why liberals lopsidedly criticize Christians rather than Muslims.
Nor do I merely 'just happen to disagree with him.' No, this is the stupidest read of history and psychology I have ever come across. But it is exactly what I expected from someone like him. He had just stated before this that Christians have done way worse in history than Muslims have. Of course, that is an old, completely unjustified part of liberal mythology. It's akin to Dawkins saying that Stalin and Mao (you, know the two worst murderers in human history) weren't atheists and that their atheism had nothing to do with their murders - but of course, the Christianity of Christians had everything to do with the murders Christians committed. How convenient of Dawkins. How convenient of Moore here to make this Christians have been the worst ever statement without any proof of any kind. And, by the way, only anti-Christian ideologues would ever make such statements - not any real historians.
I bring up psychology here alongside history. Why? I do so because Moore is asking a psychological question - why are liberals more anti-Christian? And he answers the question in a way flattering to liberals: it's because they are so compassionate. Well, yes, I agree that feelings are important to liberals - but only the right feelings, not feelings for aborted fetuses, Chinese women who are forced to have abortions, or priests unfairly labelled pedophiles, as Moore in fact labels them in this piece. Only the right feelings for the right people. So he doesn't really answer the question. Why are your feelings for Muslims and not Christians? If one were to answer astutely one would have to see what the anti-Christian animus in the West really is, what it really means psychologically. I will hazard a guess, and although it might not be complete I guarantee it'll be better than Moore's.
Although I haven't yet read it, a book was recently released talking about the link between atheism and bad father relationships. God is a father, no duh. Atheists and Western anti-Christians almost all come from a psychologically bad place. I talked about the Clintons some time ago and their horrendous pasts, especially Bill's. I made this connection a long time ago based upon personal experience. People with unfavorable family backgrounds feel judged by the Christianity. Why? If you read any lives of the saints hardly any of them had good family backgrounds. At first it made no sense to me. But then I realized that people don't see Christianity for what it is but for what it represent to them: they see it as part of the establishment. It's not part of the establishment, though. This is something that people who hate the Church just can't see. Christianity is quickly becoming illegal. How many Supreme Court judges are strong, traditional Christians, for instance? Christians are social pariahs because liberalism is ascendant, and yet Moore has the audacity to claim that "the crazy Christian Right... has controlled much of our politics for the past 33 years." So over those 33 years has abortion ended? Who controls the Supreme Court? Has pornography not been mainstreamed? If this is 33 years of Christian control I will truly dread when they no longer are in control.
No, liberals feel judged for their personal 'failings' by Christianity and so resent it. They don't think of the Church as the number one provider of health care in Africa, no, they think of them as having somehow killed all the North American aboriginal. Huh? Yes, he said that.
Islam, on the other hand, is exotic and, thus, good. Not a part of the big bad white evil. Multiculturalism is a part of liberal self-loathing. Why would someone self-loath? Because they feel rejected by their fathers, their culture, their homeland, their tradition. They self-loath inasmuch as they hate their fathers. This is how a Justin Trudeau can admire China. He hates everything white, and so he must love everything outside of home. It is truly remarkable that China, which forces women to have abortions, gets a free pass from liberals. But father-hatred can do that. Fathers are everything. They provide meaning. And when a child perceives his father’s disapproval (whether it is actual or not does not really mater, just like the truths of history don't really matter to them) a child can react in the most astonishing ways.
Liberals love the other because they do not want to know what they really are. They don’t want to know Christian history as it really was, they just want to ‘know’ that it is bad. They don’t want to know that forcing women to have abortions is about the most anti-feminist thing possible. They don’t want to know just how bad Islam is by actually studying the Koran. Because to know how bad the other is forces them to take a look back at their own fathers. And if dad turns out not to have been as bad as the other fathers, well, then I will have to realize that I am the problem, that I come up short in terms of my knowledge and my personal generosity, that I have been a bad son. Moore is rich and yet hates rich people; he is a Socialist who yet cannot come to grips with the fact that the worst human beings who have ever lived were Socialists; he is fat and yet hates the West for its exploitation of the Third World; he is ignorant of history and yet claims to have its good guys and bad guys figured out. Christianity proposes one great uncomfortable truth. In the words of Chesterton, it is that that the problem with the world is me. It’s easy for Moore to blame Christians – that means he doesn’t have to look in the mirror.
The problem with the world is me: I take, I am selfish, I don’t share, I don’t restrain myself, I don’t want to be chaste, I don’t want to study God’s Word, I don’t want to know that the truth is a truth that is inconvenient. I would rather blame governments, big business, and boogeymen in the Vatican. Following Jesus sounds boring and hard so I blame Christians for everything so I don’t have to do the good that’s right in front of me.
I remember when I was first confronted with the Gospel and realized that to follow it is to surrender a lot of my will to pleasure. It's a real dilemma. It's still one I face daily.
Either liberals are omniscient and really know that Muslims are better than Christians, as Moore suggests Muslims are, or liberals need them to be better than Christians are. Why this need? All of what I said above.
It's an old fact that indifference is the opposite of love, not hate. So why do liberals absolutely loath Christians? They feel personally inadequate.
But let me just say this. I would not be Christian if I thought that Christianity actually upholds the reigning ideas of the West - abortion, anti-family, individualism, this and that. Christianity is not a part of those things. It is intrinsically against them - that is why it is great! Christianity is not a part of the status quo. If you actually knew Christian history, the history of the saints and even, yes, even of the papacy, you would see that it always opposed the terrible excesses of the Western way - slavery, violence, etc. No, it did not always do a great job at it, but it was always against these things. Read all the papal documents against slavery! What? you say - yes, they exist. You can read them. And yes, the Church strongly opposed Nazism and Communism and even now strongly opposes the excesses of Capitalism.
When I became a Christian I made a decision to part ways with the world. You don't do that by making up a bunch of evil dead white men and hating them. Hate yourself, because you are the problem.
Finally, your culture, your father, cannot love you like God loves you in Jesus. There is no reason to feel rejected and unloved.