Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 18 May 2026

Multiculturalism has been political elites’ religion du jour for fifty years, so it’s been around long enough for us to know it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #262 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

A philosophy called “multiculturalism” has been one of the major philosophical frameworks shaping debates about immigration in both United States and Europe, especially since the mid-20th century. Supporters and critics often disagree not only about immigration levels, but also about national identity, integration, religion, social cohesion, and liberal democracy itself.

After WWII, with a reaction against what was perceived as the excesses of nationalism resulting in massive destruction and death, Europeans searched for a new philosophic approach to governance that they hoped would reduce if not eliminate the possibility of ever again seeing the continent in flames. Multiculturalism gained acceptance in academia, government, and civil rights discourse because it seemed to offer a new tolerance, a new way to allow for commerce without conflict.

Multiculturalism can refer to both a social reality (many cultures living together) and a philosophy or political theory about how diverse societies should function. So, some see it as a move from cultural assimilation (“everyone becomes culturally the same”), and some see it as a move toward cultural pluralism (“different cultures can coexist publicly”), with both approaches rejecting nationalism.

In the 1970s and 1980s, multiculturalism was adopted by several European governments as a framework for integrating immigrants while allowing them to retain distinct cultural and religious identities. Policymakers in countries such as Germany, United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Sweden promoted the idea that diverse communities could coexist under a shared legal and economic system without requiring full cultural assimilation. At first, it was an economic argument, considered practical in the face of declining populations.

Population, i.e., fertility replacement rates, in Western countries, and indeed most countries of the world has been declining. Family size is not simply about biology. This trend is not just happenstance, nor is it that people in the West have forgotten how to make babies. It’s happening because of changing values and moral choices:  rejection of “be fruitful and multiply,” childbearing no longer viewed as a vocation or blessing, but as a burden or lifestyle option, loss of God-centered purpose, and life oriented toward self-fulfillment rather than stewardship and legacy. Biblical language “children are a heritage from the Lord” (Ps. 127) is replaced by cost-benefit thinking. Children are seen as obstacles to freedom rather than signs of hope and continuity. 

Fear and anxiety regarding future global crises are replacing trust in providence with a consequent loss of hope in the future. When societies become dominated by fear, comfort-seeking, or radical individualism, they often lose the willingness to sacrifice for the next generation. Population decline is not merely a demographic trend but a reflection of deeper spiritual, cultural, and moral realities. 

As labor shortages grew and humanitarian commitments expanded—particularly after decolonization and later during refugee crises—multiculturalism was frequently cited as a moral and logical rationale for relatively high levels of immigration. The approach emphasized tolerance, anti-discrimination protections, and public recognition of minority identities as compatible with liberal democratic values. It also evidenced a rather astounding naiveté about religion and religious worldview.

Multicultural mass immigration emphasized something called cultural relativism, the idea that no cultures are better than others, that a given culture’s practices and mores are defensible and cannot be judged by others or by some non-existent (proponents assumed declining influence of religion) higher standard.

Political leaders failed to foresee the sheer numbers or scale of new immigrants that would flood their countries and did not understand nor account for the impact of Islam and its worldview, which is diametrically opposed to the Judeo-Christian worldview and natural law theories upon which modern Western Europe was founded and which still, even if diminished, motivate their cultures.

Cultural relativism easily gives way to moral relativism wherein truth, right and wrong, and thus law and order collapse. When leftist, woke ideas about diversity and inclusion are added to this equation, you get moral and social chaos.   

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel’s stance on multiculturalism evolved noticeably over her tenure, reflecting both shifts in policy experience and public sentiment. In the early 2000s, Merkel, along with much of Germany’s political establishment, endorsed multiculturalism as a framework for integrating immigrants. She and other leaders emphasized that Germany was becoming more culturally diverse and that immigrants should be able to maintain their cultural and (Islamic) religious identities while participating in German society. This naive pipedream aligned with the broader European trend at the time, which promoted tolerance, anti-discrimination measures, and recognition of minority communities as compatible with liberal democratic values. 

With respect to immigration, the question became:  Should immigrants mainly assimilate into a dominant national culture, or should societies adapt to enduring cultural diversity? During the multicultural era, diversity, borrowed from woke DEI or Diversity, Equity, Inclusion emphasis, emerged as the end-all, be-all with vacuous phrases like “Diversity is our strength” or “Equity over equality.”

But as it turns out, what multicultural policies (without the benefit of prioritizing unity) encourage is communities remaining socially separated rather than integrated. Multicultural policies yield ethnic enclaves, language isolation, and limited interaction between groups, and worst of all, it provides a Petrie dish for religious radicalization. Leaders such as former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former UK Prime Minister David Cameron now declare that state multiculturalism has not succeeded in promoting integration and indeed the policy, in Merkel’s words, “utterly failed.”

What they did not foresee is that millions would come, millions would not assimilate, and millions would bring with them religious values and cultural practices markedly different and often opposed to Europe’s historic Western values.

Fast forward to the 2020s and Europe is now awash in serious demographic, social, and political problems, many of them stemming from the fragmented societies they allowed, nurtured, then could not stop. Under President Joe Biden, the USA pursued a similar path, cloaked in the new religion of multiculturalism and “No one is illegal” mantras. Mr. Biden opened the southern US border and welcomed immigrants from all over the world, largely unvetted and unmanaged, with no plan for how to house, employ, feed, or provide education and healthcare for these masses. Again, the idea of multiculturalism is that somehow all these new immigrants representing varying cultures and religions would provide economic and political power with no side-effects. But, like Europe has learned, we now know this is a hugely misguided generational error.

In terms of newly arrived immigrants, multiculturalism means they need not learn English because, of course, their language is just as good. They need not assimilate, for this would be a violation of multiculturalism. Immigrants need not adapt or adopt any American cultural practice for this would threaten the sanctity of their heritage culture, so they might best live in parallel communities, cultural ghettos, some “not American” space. American citizens cannot adopt any of immigrants’ cultural practices, for this would amount to another new sin, “cultural appropriation,” the idea a given culture somehow owns a practice for time and eternity, so for example, if my family celebrates Cinco de mayo by wearing Mexican sombreros, we’ve somehow deeply offended all Mexicans.

The late, great Harvard University professor Samuel P. Huntington argued large-scale immigration combined with multicultural ideology could weaken traditional American cultural cohesion. His 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, outlined some of his insights and concerns, and for this he was strongly criticized. Those on the left thought, how dare Huntington question their love of multiculturalism? But time will tell, and we now know Huntington was correct. Multiculturalism weakens and provides the ground for destroying nation-states.

Multiculturalism that simply seeks to respect and learn from different cultures can be interesting and useful. But as a political policy, it rarely if ever stays at that level. Perhaps inevitably, it morphs into cultural relativism, which is the idea that a culture’s values and behaviors are all morally justifiable, worthy of praise, no matter what a culture propagates. To call out these values and behaviors is, in terms of cultural relativism, racism, the ultimate insult and today’s original sin.

So, the next time you hear multiculturalism or cultural relativism or moral relativism, speak the truth in love and challenge these damaging ideas. Don’t let them ruin the future society in which your children will live.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026  

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.