Unless you've been to seminary or some such theological locus, the name of Friedrich Schleiermacher is blessedly unknown to you.
He was a very big deal in the Protestant church world in the 19th century. Like so many who bobbed around in Kant's wake, he tried to re-establish religion on non-metaphysical foundations.
But he wrote a set of lectures whose title has stayed with me, even as the content remains foggy:
On Religion: Speeches To Its Cultured Despisers.
Religious liberals all follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps in that they pitch their doctrines and disciplines to please the group that is least likely to appreciate their efforts, the Cultured Despisers.
Religious liberals, and political and social conservatives who continue to play the game within the boundaries and according to the rules, quite underestimate, I think, the contempt in which they are held by their secular counterparts.
Any attempt to accomodate them, even if praised in public as wisdom, is despised in private as weakness. I think of hapless George Bush's attempt to work with Ted Kennedy on education bills.
The school of marital therapy that I generally follow holds that while conflict is painful, it is not nearly as important as the capacity to recover from it. Couples who clash frequently may in fact be just fine, as long as they have an established and non-crazy route to reconnection. The greatest sign of marital failure is when, in the presence of others especially, one party expresses contempt for the other, from a position of superiority. When this happens, the relationship is pretty well dead and divorce is almost a certainty.
Unless you are entranced or blind or tone-deaf, it's pretty clear that the liberal attitude toward religion --real religion, not Liberalism itself-- is contempt, from a position of superiority. And frankly, it is only contempt for actual Christianity. Islam, as we know, being a code for People Of Color, is kowtowed to and never critiqued. Its most basic features are denied in order to maintain the larger Narrative.
And Judaism, protected by the religion of Holocaustianity, is likewise danced around. Liberalism is so disproportionately dominated by secular Jews --who make up the great majority of Jews in the world now-- that actual Judaism is usually ignored unless attacking something in Israel. And it would be naive of me to think that the large Jewish energy in Liberalism had nothing to do with its loathing of Christians. (Thank you, once again, alas, Dennis Praeger.)
Watching all the happy Episcopalians congratulating themselves on their new Black head bishop and their gay wedding rites makes me shake my head. The passengers on the Titanic cheering for the iceberg. And the moribund German Catholic Church, pushing to allow divorced-and-remarried Catholics to receive Communion...it's pathetic. As with the Protestants and gays, in order to please a very tiny minority, these churches gut themselves on the altar of pleasing the Cultured Despisers. Even the Mormons just donated several thousand dollars to an LGBT homeless youth program in Utah. If they think that will soften the loathing of the gays toward them, they are deluded.
As some wise man said, The lion and I may be brothers, but the lion does not know that.
Part of my move from conservative to reactionary is the realization of the depth of the contempt that the Left has for the Right. (And I confess right away that it is reciprocated heartily by me.) But in a political climate where the other side of the aisle is no longer your competitor or even antagonist but your deadly enemy, who wants not only to win the discussion but to humiliate and erase you, seeing all conflicts as battles in a war is the only way it makes sense to me now.
And divorce, at some point, seems the terrible but only non-suicidally crazy option.