Sermon for 1 February 2004, 1st Unitarian Church of Alton,, Illinois

LIBERALISM & THE UNITY OF HUMANITY

Ronald J. Glossop

I. Introduction
A. One central question for our Unitarian-Universalist church, which describes itself as "liberal," is what this term "liberal" means, especially in a religious context.
B. This year, in our adult education course which meets during the 9:30 forum hour, Jerry Gilman is leading a discussion of Jack Mendelsohn's book titled Being Liberal in an Illiberal Age, an updated version of a book whose earlier version carried the title Why I Am a Unitarian-Universalist. The name of our organization for young people is called "Liberal Religious Youth." Thus we see how the close tie is between the term "Unitarian-Universalist" and the term "Liberal " as applied to religion.
C. An interesting issue which needs to be addressed is whether a person who is liberal in religion must also be a liberal in the political sense. One great obstacle to dealing with such an issue is that in the political realm the term "liberal" has different, and at times even opposing, meanings.
1. In the political arena "liberalism" can refer to the idea that moderation and open discussion of alternative policies (what we call "democracy") is desirable while authoritarianism and violence against those with alternative viewpoints is to be avoided. It is in this sense that one speaks of the liberal political tradition of ancient Athenian democracy and the modern Western World, especially Britain and the U.S.
2. In the political context, the term "liberalism" can also be used to describe the very individualistic view put forth by the nineteenth-century British philosopher John Stuart Mill, namely, that the government has no right to restrict any behavior of individuals as long as their behavior does not harm others. For example, the government has no right to say people can't smoke cigarettes, drink alcoholic beverages, or use drugs as long as it doesn't harm others. In our contemporary American society people supporting this viewpoint usually eschew the term "liberal" and prefer to call themselves "libertarians."
3. Continuing our discussion of political liberalism and focusing now on those who do want to use the term "liberalism," we come to those who emphasize the goverment's economic policy. For them the term "liberalism" (often expanded to "classical liberalism") is used to refer to the view that intervention by the government in economic matters is to be avoided. In this sense Adam Smith with his arguments against mercantilism and for free trade and for allowing the market economy to operate without government interference is a prime example of what it means to be a "liberal." Paradoxically, this sense of "liberalism" with its focus on economic policy is the direct opposite of the way the term is used in contemporary U.S. politics. Ronald Reagan was a champion of this kind of liberalism.
4. Since the days of President Franklin Roosevelt, in the U.S. the term "liberal" has come to be used to refer to the use of government power to help those in the society who need special assistance, those who are not making it on their own. Opponents of this view argue that it is wrong for the government to collect taxes from those who are doing well and then use that revenue to help those who aren't doing well. Such a system, its opponents claim, penalizes competence and hard work and rewards incompetence and laziness. On the other hand, proponents of progressivism argue that people who are victims of bad luck should be helped by those who are luckier and more prosperous.
5. To avoid verbal confusion, I recommend that this newer political sense of "liberalism" be called "progressivism." Then the issue can be put this way: Will religious liberals necessarily be political progressives? My answer to that question is, Not necessarily but there is a natural affinity between liberalism in religion and progressivism in politics. I hope that the remainder of what I say will show why.

II. We should start by examining in more detail what the word "liberal" means.
A. The word "liberal" comes from "Liber," which as Jack Mendelsohn notes in Being Liberal in an Illiberal Age, is the name of an old Roman God of fertility and wine. That name "Liber" could also be translated as "The Free One." The key idea was lack of restraint, "not bound by established mores to the orthodox and formal."
B. The word "liberal" itself was used to describe what is characteristic of the free man, the gentleman in the social sense. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the original definition of this term in English was the reference to the liberal arts and sciences, those worthy of a free man as opposed to things of interest to people subordinate to others. In this sense the word "liberal" carries with it an aura of elitism, and for many people this connection between "liberal" and people of presumed special status continues. Unfortunately, I think that some people still see liberal religionists such as Unitarian-Universalists as elitists, as snobs.
C. The second definition in the OED is "free in bestowing, bountiful, generous, open-hearted." For example, we may speak of a "liberal supporter" of some cause.
D. The third definition in the OED is "free from restraint; free in speech or action." In the 16th and 17th centuries "liberal" often suggested being unrestrained by prudence or decorum--and even being licentious. It could also be used to refer to being freely permitted to do something (such as having "liberal passage" to a place) or doing something in an unrigorous way (such as a making a "liberal translation").
E. The fourth definition, which is particularly relevant to "liberal religion," is "free from narrow prejudice, open-minded, candid." More specifically, this sense of "liberal" means "free from bigotry or unreasonable prejudice in favor of traditional opinions or established institutions, open to the reception of new ideas or proposals of reform." This is the definition of "liberal" that applies to Unitarian-Universalism.
F. The fifth definition is particularly relevant to political opinions. Here the word "liberal" means "favorable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms leading in the direction of freedom or democracy." It is this sense of "liberal" to which I referred in my first definition of political liberalism, that is support for moderation and open discussion rather than authoritarianism and use of violence.
G. Putting all these various definitions together, we see that "liberal" refers to being free in various ways, to being free from certain kinds of restrictions.

III. Religious liberalism, as we have already noted, involves being free from the restraints of traditional opinions and established institutions.
A. Traditional religions, especially the Western religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have been based on acceptance of and obedience to some authority which will do your thinking for you, in terms both of what you are to believe and how you are to act. That authority may be some church or religious community. It may be some book that supposedly contains "the Truth."
B. Liberal religion means breaking free from those bonds of authority and tradition. It means thinking for yourself about what to believe with regard to the nature of ultimate reality. Is there or is there not some kind of supernatural realm of existence, and if so, what is it like? It means thinking for yourself about how to behave and what to do with your life. It means deciding for yourself what kind of person you will try to become and what sorts of things you will try to do.
C. This is not an easy task. Furthermore, it is a never-ending one because one is always having new experiences, hearing new ideas and viewpoints and arguments, and making new decisions. But as Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Dealing with these hard issues is the alternative to being a slave to someone or something that does your thinking and decision-making for you.

D. At the same time, we need to realize that our particular liberal religion has its base not only in the Western philosophical tradition but also in the Judaeo-Christian religious tradition. Among the key ideas we have inherited from that tradition is the moral duty to be compassionate toward others who need our help. We are know the ideal of compassion for the less fortunate is also found in other religion traditions and philosophies, but because of our history, we have acquired it from Christianity.

IV. Let us now turn our attention to political liberalism, using the word "liberal" as it is customarily used in this society today, that is, as the progressive view that government power should be used to help those in the society who need special assistance.
A. As citizens in a democratic society, the most dominant one in the world today, it is important for each of us to think about this issue of whether government power should be used to help the less fortunate among us, and if so, to what extent.
B. I want to make some observations about political liberalism and about its philosophical foundations which I hope will be helpful to you in your own thinking about this issue.
C. As I see it, the foundation of political liberalism is the recognition that all humans are members of a single species-wide community and that all individual differences among us are essentially outside of our control. None of us decided when to be born, where to be born, what race we would be, what gender we would be, who are parents would be, what talents or disabilities we would have, or any characteristics that we would have no matter how important or insignificant. To put it in another way, we had nothing to do with what our DNA would be, just as we had nothing to do with whether we would be born in the United States or Uganda and whether we would be born in the 10th century or the 20th century.
D. Since none of us had any choice in the differences that exist among us, our thinking about our society must begin with the realization that we are all equal in our helplessness. We belong to different ethnic groups and live in different geographical locations but we had no choice in those matters. Some people (all of us in this room) have been very lucky, some people have been a little bit lucky, some people have been a little unlucky, and some people have been very unlucky. Furthermore, anyone's luck can change very suddenly and very dramatically.
E. Consequently, there are certain doctrines and ideas which just cannot be accepted. For example, the idea that one ethnic group or one gender or the people liviing in one geographical area have a right to exercise control another ethnic group or gender or geographical area must be rejected. The idea that talented persons or persons who possess much wealth have the right to lord it over less talented persons or poorer persons cannot be accepted.
F. The other positive side of these doctrines and ideas is that the basic equality of all persons must be the basis of all decisions and thinking about the ordering of society, not only of our own country but of the whole world community.
G. The focus on equality means that political liberalism/progressivism is a leftist political ideology, but it represents a moderate leftist viewpoint which is content with gradual progress toward equality using processes of representative democracy.

V. Let us look at some of the alternatives to political liberalism/progressivism.
A. An alternative leftist political view which has appealed to some religious liberals is the more extreme leftist view of Marxism. I call Marxism an extreme leftist view because it advocates violent revolution by the less fortunate against the more fortunate capitalist class as the means of getting the equality which is desired. For the moderate leftist, using violence in an effort to reach the goal of equality quickly means committing injustice against some individuals who have had no chance to determine where they would be or what role they would have. Furthermore, violence begets more violence. It is better to move gradually toward more equality as takes place in representative democracies.

B. Shifting over to the rightist viewpoint, which emphasizes competition and merit rather than equality, the moderate political ideology is conservatism, the view that things should continue as they are, that is, with a system that allows those who are well-off to control the government and to maintain rules that allow them to keep their wealth without being forced to share it with the less fortunate. The government could have the form of a representative democracy but it is organized in such a way that political control is always maintained by those who are well off. This, in fact, is the kind of system we have in the U.S.
C. The extreme rightist view is that the society should be forcefully controlled by one person or a very small group of very wealthy persons and that a militarity strong government should guarantee that that person or group can maintain and even increase their wealth. This is the kind of set-up we often find in less-developed countries controlled by a tyrant or small ruling party.
D. To better understand the rightist viewpoint, is want to look at the ideas of one well-known and widely admired thinker who was particularly opposed to political liberalism, to the idea that all people are to be treated equally and that those who have been lucky have any obligation to those who have not, was the 19th-century German philologist Friedrich Nietzsche. He characterized the liberal/progressive thinking that emphasizes equality and empathy with others as exemplary of the slave morality of the have-nots, in contrast to the master morality of the haves and their will to dominance and power which he championed. He thought that egalitarian philosophy was leading to the decadence of European culture, to a satisfaction with mediocrity and contentment rather than a struggle for ever more excellence. Consequently, he condemned democracy, socialism, the usual morality of Socrates and most other philosophers, Judaism, Christianity, and any kind of emphasis on the equality of all persons or the unity of humanity. Nietzsche based his outlook on the reality of evolution and the belief that evolution is the result of competition and domination of nature by superior individuals who exemplify the will to power. He thinks that hard-driving individuals with increased will to power would be a higher form of life than present ordinary humans. "Man is something to be surpassed."
E. Another extreme rightist view that needs to mentioned for the sake of completeness it that of Fascism. Fascism or National Socialism as the Nazis called it in Germany, refers to the view that there is a rivalry for dominance among the nation-states of the world. This is an extreme rightist view because of its emphasis on competition and using violence (war) to gain dominance plus the notion that those who are well-off not only have no obligations to the unfortunate but even are entitled to exterminate them. The difference between the views of Nietzsche and the Fascists is that Nietzsche focuses on the competition among individuals while the Fascists focus on the competition between societies or national groups as groups.
F. Turning to my critique of these rightist views, Nietzsche ignores the role of luck in individual lives, neglects the fact that successful evolution tends to be the result of cooperation among members of a species as they compete against other species, underestimates what can be done by collective human action, and overestimates what can be done by individual will-power and individual strivings for dominance. He wants to glorify the pervasive will-to-power which is found even in unconscious living things while denigrating the wonderful capacity of humans to move beyond egoism to love, to a compassion for others. It seems to me that the continuous expansion of this capability for love is what makes humans superior to other forms of life. If we want to surpass where we humans are now, more compassion for others seems to me a better direction to go.
G. The Fascists and National Socialists ignore the fact that social groups as well as individuals are in the situation they are in as a result of luck. They neglect the fact that all humans are members of the same species and that the struggle between societies known as war is not a desirable way of competing for dominance. Why not set up rules everyone must follow and then compete economically, culturally, in sports or in other nonviolent ways? Also in their ideology any concern for others is restricted to their own group instead of being expanded to the whole species.

VI. So will religious liberals opt for the political liberalism/progressivism based on the principles of love for others and compassion for the less fortunate, or will they prefer other leftist ideologies like Marxism? Or will they prefer the moderate rightist view of conservatism? Or will they prefer the extreme rightist view using the coercive power of the state to maintain the control of a small group of very rich persons? Or will they prefer the philosophy of Nietzsche with its glorification of the will to power and the individual's feeling of strength which results from controlling nature and exercising dominance over others? Or will they prefer the collective but still rightist view of Fascism or National Socialism?
A. I believe that the most likely view other than political liberalism/progressivism to be adopted by religious liberals would be moderate conservatism. In fact, it seems to me that the Unitarian-Universalist Association has a substantial number of members (Republicans) who adopt this viewpoint and who regularly complain about the extent to which their views are ignored within the denomination's publications.
B. It seems possible that some religious liberals, as they work out their own ideas of what the world is like and how we should live our lives, might even adopt views such as Marxism or something akin to Nietzsche's views which glorify the individual will to power and dominate.
C. Still it seems to me that religious liberalism with its Judaic-Christian tradition of compassion for the less fortunate and its commitment to reason as antidote not only to uncritical acceptance of some religious authority but also to egoism and emotional appeals to feelings of power and the use of violence will lead religious liberals to be more comfortable with political liberalism/progressivism than the other political ideologies I have discussed.