Does liberal theology necessitate liberal politics?

[Elijah John]

It seems an observable tendency that theologically liberal churches and scholars are more often than not are politically liberal as well.

Example, the Unitarian Universalist Church.

Quite tolerant of a wide array of theologies, but almost entirely politically liberal. No theological orthodoxy, but a political one.

And historical Jesus scholars such as John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg. Both progressive Episcopalians, both theologically liberal and politically liberal.

For debate.

Why this tendency? Does it follow that if one is theologically liberal, that one must be politically liberal as well?

If so, why so?

[bluethread]

It is only reasonable that one would support enacting public policy that coincides with ones philosophy. Therefore, those who see there deity as omnibenevolent and egalitarian, would support similar public policy. However, that does not make them immune to the problems that arise from those public policies.

[Divine Insight]

For debate.

Why this tendency? Does it follow that if one is theologically liberal, that one must be politically liberal as well?

If so, why so?

I personally wouldn't bother with the term "liberal" at all. In fact, to use that term seems to imply a political position.

What is often being called "liberal" is actually a humane and compassionate view of the world. These religious sects you mention tend to value equal rights for all people. The idea that all men (and women) are created equal and therefore deserve equal respect and rights.

If you want to call that a "liberal" position be my guest. Just don't lose sight of what principles are actually being represented here.

The other sides of the coin is "fundamentalism" (not conservatism). Conservatism is also a political position, not a religious position. Although many conservatives support "Traditional Values" and the traditions they support often come from religious fundamentalism.

So I suggest that you are simply confusing humane and compassionate ideals with liberalism. Although it most likely is true that even politically liberal positions tend to also be more humane and compassionate then conservative views that are based on religious fundamentalism.

Keep in mind that religious fundamentalism often supports much bigotry regarding the value of various humans. It tends to not recognize human rights across the board. Instead it uses traditional religious fundamentalism as an excuse to exclude, or devalue those who do not support a particular view of religious dogma.

Obviously religious and political views are often closely tied because people tend to use their religious views as a basis for their political views. So while some people can separate these two concepts, others cannot.

[bluethread]

What is often being called "liberal" is actually a humane and compassionate view of the world. These religious sects you mention tend to value equal rights for all people. The idea that all men (and women) are created equal and therefore deserve equal respect and rights.

It is a "humane and compassionate view" according to them. The concept that all are created equal is not an absolute. The ideas of "equal respect and rights" also presume a limited context. Men and women, for example, are unequal in many respects, and to treat them as equal in those respects is neither humane nor compassionate. It would probably be more accurate to bypass the value judgement and just say that what one calls "liberal" really refers to the premises of "equal respect and rights". That said, those who believe in omnibenevolence tend to support egalitarian public policy.

[JP Cusick]

It seems an observable tendency that theologically liberal churches and scholars are more often than not are politically liberal as well.

Example, the Unitarian Universalist Church.

Quite tolerant of a wide array of theologies, but almost entirely politically liberal. No theological orthodoxy, but a political one.

And historical Jesus scholars such as John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg. Both progressive Episcopalians, both theologically liberal and politically liberal.

For debate.

Why this tendency? Does it follow that if one is theologically liberal, that one must be politically liberal as well?

If so, why so?

My view is that the politics has overwhelmed the Churches, and so it is the liberal politics which over rules the liberal Theologies.

The same with conservative politics - that they rule over the conservative Churches.

Religious denominations have lost their political influence, because the politics took over the religions.

The separation of church from State - did not keep the State separated from the Churches.

If the people had a real faith in God that required the people to follow God - then the Churches would go back to being a powerful force for better government.

[Divine Insight]

What is often being called "liberal" is actually a humane and compassionate view of the world. These religious sects you mention tend to value equal rights for all people. The idea that all men (and women) are created equal and therefore deserve equal respect and rights.

It is a "humane and compassionate view" according to them. The concept that all are created equal is not an absolute. The ideas of "equal respect and rights" also presume a limited context. Men and women, for example, are unequal in many respects, and to treat them as equal in those respects is neither humane nor compassionate. It would probably be more accurate to bypass the value judgement and just say that what one calls "liberal" really refers to the premises of "equal respect and rights". That said, those who believe in omnibenevolence tend to support egalitarian public policy.

In that case the Bible cannot represent an omnibenevolent God, because the Bible clearly does not allow for equal respect and equal rights between men and women.

In fact, it starts off in Genesis having the Biblical God decreeing that the man shall rule over his wife and her desire shall be to serve him. So it starts off with extreme inequality basically proclaiming that wives should be slaves to their husbands.

The Bible doesn't stop there. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

So if omnibenevolence = egalitarian public policy, then the Biblical God cannot be omnibenevolent. So supporting omnibenevolence would be to blaspheme against the will of the Biblical God.

[JP Cusick]

So if omnibenevolence = egalitarian public policy, then the Biblical God cannot be omnibenevolent. So supporting omnibenevolence would be to blaspheme against the will of the Biblical God.

So why do you keep pushing that nonsense of "omnibenevolence" when it is not true?

Are you trying to argue that God must be "omnibenevolence" or else God is not real?

Benevolent is just a matter of opinion and of perspective.

We lock people in jail, and execute other people, and Jesus got hung on a cross - so where is the omnibenevolence?

It does not exist - God exist yes - but the nonsense does not.

[Divine Insight]

So if omnibenevolence = egalitarian public policy, then the Biblical God cannot be omnibenevolent. So supporting omnibenevolence would be to blaspheme against the will of the Biblical God.

So why do you keep pushing that nonsense of "omnibenevolence" when it is not true?

Are you trying to argue that God must be "omnibenevolence" or else God is not real?

Benevolent is just a matter of opinion and of perspective.

We lock people in jail, and execute other people, and Jesus got hung on a cross - so where is the omnibenevolence?

It does not exist - God exist yes - but the nonsense does not.

Isn't that basically what I said?

So if omnibenevolence = egalitarian public policy, then the Biblical God cannot be omnibenevolent. So supporting omnibenevolence would be to blaspheme against the will of the Biblical God.

Apparently you agree with me.

[JP Cusick]

Isn't that basically what I said?

So if omnibenevolence = egalitarian public policy, then the Biblical God cannot be omnibenevolent. So supporting omnibenevolence would be to blaspheme against the will of the Biblical God.

Apparently you agree with me.

It is not blaspheme - it is just wrong.

And no - omnibenevolence does not equal egalitarian public policy.

And egalitarian is not sound doctrine either.

[Divine Insight]

Isn't that basically what I said?

So if omnibenevolence = egalitarian public policy, then the Biblical God cannot be omnibenevolent. So supporting omnibenevolence would be to blaspheme against the will of the Biblical God.

Apparently you agree with me.

It is not blaspheme - it is just wrong.

Wrong says who?

If you are claiming that it is wrong according to the will of God, then to support omnibenevolence would be to blaspheme against the will of God.

And no - omnibenevolence does not equal egalitarian public policy.

Sure it does. There would be no benevolent reason to discriminate against anyone without good cause. And all an egalitarian public policy requires is that no one is discriminated against without good cause.

And egalitarian is not sound doctrine either.

Why wouldn't it be? What do you think egalitarian means?

All it means is that people should be treated equally unless good reasons can be shown why they shouldn't be.

What's wrong with that?