How can a religion become increasingly liberal without ending up like UU? But UU is contentless. Q.E.D.

What does it mean to be liberal?

To repudiate the idea justice, worth or an afterlife is dependent upon following one belief, culture or deity. Not contentless, just a rejection of most religion's hierarchal self-absorption.

What you just described was purely a lack of content.

This is the logical endpoint of the liberalizing of Christianity:

Unitarian Universalism

There is no content to UU that the wider secular culture does not provide (itself threadbare and defined negatively, in terms of tolerance). — The Great Whatever

The Unitarian movement began almost simultaneously in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and in Transylvania in the mid-16th century. In England, the first Unitarian Church was established in 1774 on Essex Street, London. In the United States, it spread first in New England, and the first official acceptance of the Unitarian faith on the part of a congregation in America was by King's Chapel in Boston, from where James Freeman began teaching Unitarian doctrine in 1784, and was appointed rector and revised the prayer book according to Unitarian doctrines in 1786... — Wikipedia

So, UU believe that God is a single person, not a trinity. They don't believe that Jesus was a deity, on earth or later. They believe

[*] God is the loving Parent of all people, see Love of God.
[*] Jesus Christ reveals the nature and character of God and is the spiritual leader of humankind, see New Covenant.
[*] Humankind is created with an immortal soul which death does not end—or a mortal soul that shall be resurrected and/or preserved by God—and which God will not wholly destroy.[8]
[*] Sin has negative consequences for the sinner either in this life or the afterlife. All of God's punishments for sin are corrective and remedial. — Wikipedia

Liberal Christianity certainly but not nearly as daft as the jokes would have it. ["What do you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Jehovah's Witness? Some one who goes door to door, but doesn't know why."]

Unitarian Universalists do what other religious people do: They gather regularly to learn about their faith. They teach their children how to behave in accordance with their faith. The engage in worship. They have fellowship together. They, like other Christians, believe in doing good works. They are not a liturgical denomination.

Without content? Hardly.

Lots of "mainline" Christians find the Trinity very problematic. I don't find it necessary or helpful. Jesus was not a Trinitarian, and as far as I know, God never claimed to be Trinitarian either.

To the dogmatic religious believer, no doubt. In cultural and human terms, absolutely not. It means justice and worth of life are given without following one particular tradition. It means a culture where people aren't killed for not following a particular religious belief. It means an understanding of the self and fulfilment not tied making others hold your specific religious beliefs.

Contentless? Only to religious zealots for whom their religion is the only content that counts.

The Unitarian Church is an older entity than the UU Church. The latter has no commitment either to the existence or non-existence of a deity or deities of any sort.

Again, you just described negative things and lack of belief.

You are conflating belief with content.

Even if one accepted that belief is not a significant part of liberal Christianity, that would not make it contentless. The emphasis on belief stems from the 'sola fides' doctrine of the Protestant reformers ('justification by faith alone'). It is not essential to Christianity, and it plays very little role in most other religions.

As the great liberal RC priest James Allison points out, it reveals a peculiarly Evangelical-Christian-centric view of the world to refer to religions as 'faiths', when it is only some parts of Christianity, and to a lesser extent Islam, that regard faith as essential.

If you want to know what the content of liberal Christianity is, you need to get out and talk to some liberal Christians about their religion, rather than just armchair-theorising.

Nevertheless, you could make a start by reading the following by Marcus Borg, a well-known liberal Christian, recently deceased. He starts, of course, by saying what he does not believe, because the first thing he has to do is distinguish his position from the Evangelicals. But then he presents three key positive aspects of his religious position.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/marcusborg/2013/11/what-is-a-christian/

I never said anything about belief. It has no content of any other sort, either.

He starts, of course, by saying what he does not believe, because the first thing he has to do is distinguish his position from the Evangelicals. — andrewk

Really? Might there not be another reason he begins with that?

Really? Might there not be another reason he begins with that? — The Great Whatever

Is there any point behind this rhetorical question?

Viciousness and evil comes in all shapes and sizes; we should not be confused if it wears the veil of religion - or any other veil. Those who would defend, protect, or apologize for it might look at the history of Thuggee in India.

Under criminal law, it all may be a matter of degree; e.g., 1st, 2d, or 3rd degree offence. Morally, it either is or it isn't; if it is, what kind is it? And what are its special features? That is, not a matter for degree.

And it's amazing, once you permit evil, how manipulative it can be in justifying any and every horrible action. I don't think Islam has a monopoly on evil, but they sure sometimes seem to - a trait shared by Republicans in the US.

To be liberal is to be contentless – liberalism is defined in terms of lack of content, and permissiveness. You yourself in describing it only defined it in terms of losing facets of a substantive belief that it once had.

You cannot ignore the existence of UU – it's a historical reality. — The Great Whatever

It's hard to claim that UU is a historical reality, and yet claim that liberalism is contentless. Contentful liberalism is a historical reality. The ideas of J S Mill, for instance, argue for a certain form of utilitarianism, and a multiplicity of freedoms of speech, freedom from want and rights to assembly, to be enacted through liberal democracy, with a special emphasis for its time on sexual equality. I'm not that sort of liberal, but I admire and recognise its presence in my world.

Freedom from, freedom from – again, negative definitions. As far as positive democratic notions, I'm not sure what they have to do with religion.

While looking for a podcast of a radio show I overheard with an Indian giving his view on Hinduism, I came across the podcast of the discussion I mentioned above where the guests were a conservative Evangelical and a progressive Christian.

I think it will be an interesting listen. I haven't listened to all of it yet. It's here. The link is direct to the MP3, which is 49MB.

I am increasingly coming to like that show, which is called God Forbid, on ABC Radio National on Sunday nights. The host seems to try hard to get people from contrasting religious backgrounds and foster a constructive discussion between them. The show's web page is here.

Among fundamentalists, extremists and fanatics, it so happens that religious scriptures can be interpreted either way. That's not limited to the Quran. You could similarly interpret the Bible to both be against and to allow slavery. For that matter, anyone could claim that their interpretation is the one correct reading. Such is the nature of scriptures I guess; anyone may employ whichever interpretation when that's convenient.

<sup>I personally know a lovely Muslim couple, currently living in the US (and was a bit worried when Trump got into office, but fortunately they're fine for now). They're just ordinary moderates, not anti-secular, or theocratic or anything. If things in the US takes a turn for the worse, then we'd invite them to stay here until they could get a footing. Off hand, I'm guessing their sentiment is the majority among Muslims, but it's a guess on my part.

I also know a Muslim that's a bit less moderate. In their own words, Islam is all-encompassing, and addresses every aspect of life. Not sure what their sentiment on secularism is, though I can't really see them wanting to enforce Islam, Sharia Law, or the likes. All I can say, is that they'd most likely be fine if living in a theocratic, Islamic society with heavy enforcement of blasphemy laws.</sup>

At this time in history, it seems that a good lot of violent, extremist religious folks are Muslims. I'm not sure that can be derived from the Quran in particular (in comparison to any other scripture) though. It comes down to what their reading is; you can also find passages that prescribe kindness toward others.

But, yeah, "Jakarta's Christian governor jailed for blasphemy against Islam" is ridiculous, deplorable, and should be met with critique accordingly.

We just watched "The Monster Among Us" (2008) on the Documentary channel.

Sixty years after the Holocaust, a new brand of anti-Semitism has reared its ugly head again in Europe. It has the same purpose, but a different face.

It's somewhat related to Islam, in part due to the unfortunate Israeli-Palenstinian situation.
Here's a short youtube: The Monster Among Us/ Allen Mondell Cynthia Salzman Mondell (4m:38s)
Yeah, if there are aliens out there, then that's why they're keeping out of sight.

Just this: every religion is theocratic by nature. — Noblosh

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39996508

In America, gays in bars get gunned down.

In Indonesia, gays in bars get arrested, >:O