Can Western liberalism tolerate anything at all but itself?

In the early 1990s, the book "The End of History" by American political scientist Francis Fukuyama was published. Before anything else, this book is symbolic of the zeitgeist of the early 1990s. With the end of the Cold War, the world would enter a new phase in which Western liberal democracy (and economy) would be the only and eternal measure of things.

While there is an enormous amount to criticise about the global validity of this theory, we see that "general liberalisation" did become commonplace in the West.

This fact is a direct result of secularisation, the declining influence of religion on both personal life and broader society. The old world, with its conservative morality, which was normative for centuries, is now structurally pushed away in the modern West. Religion no longer seems to fit the narrative of the Occident. Citizens are taught to be "free" and "progressive" and therefore to be intolerant of what they see as "the intolerant."

And with this we touch directly on the liberal paradox. For if we must be intolerant of that which is intolerant from a liberal perspective, can liberalism tolerate anything at all but itself? Practice shows it cannot.

Consider the continuous criticism of Western countries against Qatar during the World Cup because of its different views on marriage and intimacy. In theory, the liberal approach would be one of acceptance but the opposite turned out to be true: there was outrage in Europe about the country in talk shows, in newspapers and in radio programs. Complete football teams had to wear captain's bands in rainbow colours and even political delegations felt the need to make a statement against the so-called "intolerance" of the Islamic country.

Where liberalism preaches general acceptance and openness to the other, in the present context it constantly imposes on the other what the morally right thing should be. To deviate from these "progressive, social truths" today means that one is often reviled, condemned or labelled as far-right.

Where Qatar was treated to this new secular-missionary attitude of the “believers without God” for just one month, Muslims - and, to a lesser extent, Christians - living in the West are exposed to this intolerance 365 days a year. The "old ideas and morals" about belief in God, the traditional family, the importance of community and a conservative view of sex have had to give way to progressive ideals. Ideals where only human beings are central, where people believe in a makeable society, hyperindividualism is glorified and pleasure seems to be the highest goal.

Nowhere is the aforementioned paradigm shift and social pressure on dissenters more explicitly expressed than in the so-called LGBT movement. After all, at its core, people define themselves according to their own sexual orientation, thereby integrating hyperindividualism and hedonism into their personalities. At the same time, quite aggressive attempts are made to correct representatives of the "old world" or convey the secular-liberal message.

In addition to the examples mentioned with regard to Qatar, top football player Orkun Kokcu in the Netherlands was temporarily not allowed to be captain of then his club Feyenoord because he did not want to wear a rainbow armband for religious reasons. In Dutch politics, councilman Guler of the progressive Green Left, was threatened with expulsion by his party when he would not vote for the arrival of a so-called ‘gay crossing’ (a crosswalk in the colours of the rainbow).

There are schools in the Netherlands that annually, on "Purple Friday," pay attention to LGBT issues and diversity, but at the same time explicitly state that they do not want a prayer room for Muslim students who request it. And very recently, airline KLM decided to allow only staff with LGBT backgrounds to work on some flights, which of course met with resistance from other staff. However, KLM did not heed those objections. After all, one is of the opinion that they should be intolerant of the intolerant.

And so “the believers without God“ increasingly determine public morality in the West – unhampered by hypocrisy and the liberal paradox. These are worrisome times.