Most liberal religion?

ray245 · Post by **ray245** » 2007-12-08 10:29am

Well...given that religion is not really meant to be liberal...

Which religion is the most liberal one?

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2007-12-08 11:43am

unitarian universalist are pretty liberal and alot of freedoms in what and how you believe.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2007-12-08 11:52am

Unitarians, the United Church, Episcopalian ism (sometimes), many 'New Age' religions (sometimes), neo-paganism (sometimes) - that about covers it for the West.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2007-12-08 01:37pm

I'd agree - unitarian universalist and (some) neo-Pagans are about as liberal as it gets.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2007-12-08 02:50pm

Liberal and Reconstructionist Judaism

Zor · Post by **Zor** » 2007-12-08 03:11pm

United Church of Canada.

Zor

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-12-08 03:44pm

Unitarian.

fusion · Post by **fusion** » 2007-12-08 07:12pm

Though some people don't take Flying Spaghetti Monster seriously, it can be call a real religion in some ways: Linky
So it is the most liberal religion.

Qwerty 42 · Post by **Qwerty 42** » 2007-12-08 09:03pm

Unitarianism is, more or less by definition, about as liberal as one can get.

Barring that, I've heard some good things about Quakerism. Is any of that true?

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2007-12-09 04:39pm

Qwerty 42 wrote:Unitarianism is, more or less by definition, about as liberal as one can get.

Barring that, I've heard some good things about Quakerism. Is any of that true?

For starters, Quakers are pacifists, which is associated with liberalism. I think most of them also have economically liberal attitudes.

I only know one Quaker - my aunt - and she's politically liberal. But so is the rest of my family, and so are the people she surrounds herself with (she's Harvard-educated, from Massachusetts) so it could be more a product of her environment than her religion.

In terms of Christian denominations, though, the United Church of Christ (which Obama belongs to) is very liberal, and a lot of American Episcopalians are pretty liberal as well. (Although not all - I knew a few Republicans while I was there.)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-12-09 05:05pm

Can a liberal subset of an arch-conservative religion be considered an example of a liberal religion? It reminds me of a quote I once heard, where it was said that "Individual muslims may be moderate, but Islam is not."

Similarly, there are many liberal Christians, and many groups of liberal Christians (after all, that's what a "denomination" is). But Christianity itself is arch-conservative.

Pelranius · Post by **Pelranius** » 2007-12-09 06:57pm

Don't Quakers have prohibitions against wearing jewelry and the like?

They did in the eighteenth century. I only recall that factoid because I remember reading a bibliography of James and Dolly Madison, the latter having been a Quaker.

Incidentally, weren't Hebert Hoover and Richard Nixon also Quakers?

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2007-12-10 01:07am

Darth Wong wrote:Can a liberal subset of an arch-conservative religion be considered an example of a liberal religion? It reminds me of a quote I once heard, where it was said that "Individual muslims may be moderate, but Islam is not."

Similarly, there are many liberal Christians, and many groups of liberal Christians (after all, that's what a "denomination" is). But Christianity itself is arch-conservative.

Well, no, I guess they can't. But I thought the liberal denominations of Christianity were worthy of note in the thread because they are examples of someone's religious belief leading them to a liberal outlook on life, and it happens in ideologically similar (and therefore self-reinforcing) religious groups. It's not an entire religion, but it's slightly different from having individual members of a religion who are moderate or liberal (like the Muslims you mentioned).

BTW, I found an interesting link or two on Quakers and their beliefs and political attitudes:
Quakers and the Political Process

Obviously it's a page (or a series of them) designed to make them look like they've been historically the "good guys", but it's interesting to see the kinds of things they claim credit for. Ending slavery and treating American Indians well, that doesn't really tell you anything. But they also claim to be strong environmentalists, and they say they have historically fought for women's rights and gone to bat for people who refused to take loyalty oaths. They've also got a statement about believing in equality of all people regardless of [insert usual non-discrimination list here]. Actually, sexual orientation and (dis)ability are absent from the list. The sexual orientation thing might just be that sexual orientation was not all that common on those lists in 2000, when the page was made. There's some rhetoric on there about equality being achievable only through social justice and helping poor people, which sounds like they're economically as well as socially liberal.

They say the following regarding simplicity:

While visible outward signs such as plain speech and plain dress are rarely used, Friends still advocate sufficiency, without excess. Today "plain" means keeping mental and fiscal proportion in a very material world. Quakers aim to focus on what is essential and eternal, by exercising spiritually-led restraint in their daily lives.

So plain dress and plain speech (which used to include "thee" and "thou", rather than "you" which used to be more formal) were used centuries ago, but no longer are. I assume plain dress included the jewelry ban, Pelranius.

They also claim both Hoover and Nixon, though they give this footnote regarding Nixon:

Some of Nixon's political policies and practices greatly disturbed many Friends (Quakers). To this day, there is disagreement among Quakers as to how much of a practicing Friend was Richard Nixon.

Then they say they try to see the inner God in everyone, so the makers of the page focused on Nixon's good points rather than his bad ones. Seems odd to me that anyone would want to claim Nixon, especially the Quakers, but whatever.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2007-12-10 02:27am

There are different ways in which a religion can be "liberal", too. Liberal in what sense, exactly? Economic? Political? Sexual? The monotheistic religions can often be interpreted as economically liberal for example, but politically and sexually? Forget about it.

Turin · Post by **Turin** » 2007-12-10 11:36am

Discombobulated wrote:Obviously it's a page (or a series of them) designed to make them look like they've been historically the "good guys", but it's interesting to see the kinds of things they claim credit for. Ending slavery and treating American Indians well, that doesn't really tell you anything. But they also claim to be strong environmentalists, and they say they have historically fought for women's rights and gone to bat for people who refused to take loyalty oaths. They've also got a statement about believing in equality of all people regardless of [insert usual non-discrimination list here]. Actually, sexual orientation and (dis)ability are absent from the list. The sexual orientation thing might just be that sexual orientation was not all that common on those lists in 2000, when the page was made. There's some rhetoric on there about equality being achievable only through social justice and helping poor people, which sounds like they're economically as well as socially liberal.

At one point in my life I was active in radical left-wing politics locally, and I had a lot of contact with Quakers in that time (Philadelphia being one of the areas with an unusually high Quaker population). Anecdotally, I can say the Quakers were one of the most liberal religious groups I've ever had contact with; in many ways moreso than the UU churches because they make a point of being heavily active in the political issues of the day. Whenever I've worked in issues of the environment, human rights, or education, they've nearly always had representatives present. I can't speak directly to their "official" attitude towards sexual orientation (because I honestly can't remember whether I've seen them at gay-rights events in Philadelphia I've been to), but at least all of the Friends I've known personally have had very progressive attitudes towards sexual orientation.

Turin · Post by **Turin** » 2007-12-10 11:40am

Ghetto addendum: I'd like to also point out that one of the reasons I found the Friends to be particularly appealing people to work with is that they never seem to proselytize, and speak to non-Friends in secular terms. Their arguments were never rooted in religious concepts, but in terms that could be shared in large mixed groups of Friends, black "community groups" (i.e. black nationalists), anarchists, communists, Greens, etc. That's the sort of political skill that I wish I'd understood better at the time.

TC Pilot · Post by **TC Pilot** » 2007-12-12 02:36pm

Methodists are one of the most liberal Christian groups I can think of. You can be gay, non-Methodist, or even non-Christian and still be welcome to participate. Women aren't barred from being ministers, there's no prohibition on taking communion, and there's enough charity work being done 'til you're sick.

As far as I know, basically the only requirement is that you're sincere.