By Alan Cousin
Compiled by Lewis Loflin
Observing the Unitarian-Universalist Association (UUA) and many mainline Protestant churches, one might assume liberal politics flow naturally from liberal religion. These groups champion social-action causes—reforming societal norms or redistributing resources—often aligned with modern progressive agendas. But is this connection inevitable?
The answer is a qualified “maybe,” hinging on definitions. What do we mean by “liberal religion” and “liberal politics”?
The political term “liberal” is misleading. In Europe, it denotes support for individual choice and initiative, opposing expansive government regulation—a meaning it held in the U.S. through the 18th and 19th centuries. Only in 20th-century America did “liberal” shift to mean backing a powerful state. Today, libertarians and limited-government conservatives often call themselves “classical liberals,” echoing that older tradition.
This duality matters. Classical liberalism champions personal liberty; modern liberalism embraces state control. As Erich Veyhl notes in “Ominous Parallels,” environmentalists—often modern liberals—push collectivist policies, blurring lines with socialism. Does religion follow suit?
“Liberal religion” has evolved too. In William Ellery Channing’s era, it meant rejecting creeds and authoritarianism for individual inquiry—classical liberalism in faith. Today’s UUA often rejects traditional values entirely, but it’s not anti-authoritarian. Defy UU orthodoxy—say, profess belief in God—and you’re unwelcome. Modern liberal religion has traded personal exploration for a new dogma, as I’ve argued in “Separation of Environmentalism and State” about eco-spiritualism.
Emotionally, no—people compartmentalize beliefs, ignoring consistency. But for those valuing logic, does liberal religion imply liberal politics? Within each definition, yes. Classical liberal religion, prizing individual autonomy, likely aligns with classical liberal politics—favoring freedom over state control. A modern liberal religion, focused on secular causes, may demand government intervention, mirroring progressive politics.
A classical liberal believer might oppose abortion, viewing life from conception as an individual right, or reject tax-funded art, honoring personal property—stances labeled “conservative.” They might back wars to end tyranny, like Iraq in 2003, for liberty’s sake. Conversely, modern liberal religion, if not about God or spirit, must adopt secular crusades to survive—becoming a philosophy of social change, not faith. Think Al Gore’s eco-theology in “New Age Eco-Dogma” or Greenpeace’s anti-human bent in “Green Theology.”
If you value individual liberty in religion, you’ll likely value it in politics—classical liberalism bridges both. If you accept state regulation in life’s secular aspects, that may extend to faith, birthing a modern liberalism that’s less about divinity than control. Veyhl’s environmentalists, sacrificing people to nature, exemplify this shift—religion as politics by another name, as in “Rational Farming” where dogma trumps reason.
So, no absolute link exists, but consistency suggests one. Classical liberal religion can yield “conservative” politics; modern liberal religion often fuels progressive statism. Context—and definitions—decide.
Originally published 2003 by the American Unitarian Conference
Acknowledgment: Compiled by Lewis Loflin with assistance from Grok, an AI by xAI, for drafting and refining this presentation. The original work and perspective remain Alan Cousin’s.
