I noticed (and changed) that Wikipedia classes Huntington as a Neocon. This to me is simply shocking, people see "clash of civs" and automatically assume this is some evil imperialist justification for America's interventions abroad.

Its the opposite. Fukuyama's End of History is the one which asserts that Western values are universal values.

The misconception I think stems from that Huntington appears far more christian. By that I mean, he is anti-immigration, asserts the "uniqueness" of Western Civ and generally comes accross as xenophobic.

But Huntington doesnt ENDORSE clash of civs (quite the opposite) but he PREDICTS them. Totally different.

Hence we get this paradox :
- Huntington comes across as Christian, but his civilizational isolationist views (epitomized by respect and "understanding" for foreign practices, moral relativism) are supported mainly by Americas mostly secular liberals
- Fukuyama comes accross as secular, but his moral absolutism (Western values) make him the the spokesman for Neocons (he belongs to the Project for the New American Century) connected with the Christian Right

We have a secular thinker with christian support and christian thinker with secular support :blink:

How is that surprising?

Well does it make any sense to you?

Secular wilsonian liberals tend to have the view of the christian xenophobe.

While christian neoimperialists share the view of the secular tolerant moral absolutist.

:huh:

It's not the religion that matters, but what beliefs they use in their writings.

I don't think this falls under the definition of a paradox, more of light irony, that essentially is meaningless.