Key reflections from Helen Pluckrose’s keynote at the North American Unitarian Association (NAUA) Summit 2026
What holds a community together when its members do not share the same beliefs? Can a religious organization offer moral purpose and belonging without requiring agreement on theology, politics, or the meaning of a good life? These questions were central to Helen Pluckrose’s keynote at the 2026 North American Unitarian Association Summit. Known for her criticism of postmodernism and the Critical Social Justice movement, Pluckrose offered a message that extends beyond contemporary political controversies: we should define ourselves by what we stand for, not simply by what we oppose.
Her alternative is liberal humanism—a framework grounded in individual liberty, reason, evidence, pluralism, and our shared humanity. This vision has particular relevance for liberal religious communities seeking to bring together people who may disagree profoundly about religion, politics, moral descisons and ethics.
Beyond the Politics of Opposition
Pluckrose reflected on how opposition to particular religious and political movements can become an identity in itself. When we define ourselves primarily by what we dislike, we risk dividing the world into competing camps. Loyalty to our own group can take precedence over evidence, fairness, and principle. This danger exists across the political spectrum. Criticism of one form of ideological conformity can become hostility toward an entire political tradition or the people associated with it. The alternative is to begin with positive principles and apply them consistently, even when doing so challenges our own prejudices and those of our allies.
For a liberal religious association, this is an important challenge. Freedom of conscience, open inquiry, and human dignity must extend to those with whom we disagree, not merely to people who share our views.
Three Principles of Liberal Humanism
Liberalism protects individual liberty, freedom of conscience, open debate, equal rights, and government by consent. Humanism emphasizes human experience and well-being, drawing on reason, evidence, and critical reflection to understand the world and address suffering.
She identified three interdependent principles:
- Individualism recognizes every person as an individual with moral worth and fundamental rights. People should not be reduced to their race, sex, sexuality, religion, class, or other group identity.
- Pluralism acknowledges that people will disagree about religion, morality, politics, and the good life. A free society makes peaceful coexistence possible without eliminating differences.
- Universalism holds that fundamental rights and moral standards apply to everyone, regardless of identity, ancestry, belief, or social position.
Each principle depends upon the others. Individualism without concern for others can become selfishness; pluralism without shared moral standards can become relativism or tribalism; and universalism imposed without respect for individual liberty can become coercive. Together, they offer a framework for living with difference while maintaining both moral convictions and respect for others.
The Enlightenment Legacy: Progress Through Questioning
Pluckrose placed these principles in the historical development of modern liberal societies. The Renaissance, Reformation, Scientific Revolution, and Enlightenment gradually challenged unquestionable authority and advanced the importance of reason, individual conscience, and open inquiry. Scientific inquiry developed methods based on observation, experimentation, criticism, and revising conclusions. Enlightenment thinkers extended the importance of questioning authority into political life, helping establish principles such as freedom of conscience, equality before the law, and limits on government power.
The achievement was not the elimination of disagreement, but the development of ways to manage it without demanding uniformity. This remains an unfinished project. Liberal societies have often failed to apply their ideals consistently, excluding people because of sex, race, religion, sexuality, or social position. Yet the principles of individual liberty and universal rights have also enabled reformers to challenge those injustices.
Progress depends not on assuming that we have finally arrived at the truth, but on preserving our freedom to question assumptions and correct mistakes.
When Good Intentions Become Authoritarian
A substantial part of Pluckrose’s keynote addressed what she sees as the dangers of postmodernism and its influence on the Critical Social Justice movement.
She acknowledged that postmodern thinkers raised legitimate questions about how culture, institutions, language, and power influence accepted knowledge. Her concern was that some later applications turned these questions into rigid ideological frameworks in which certain interpretations became authoritative and dissent was discouraged.
In her account, movements seeking to challenge established power can develop their own prescribed beliefs and penalties for disagreement. People who question prevailing interpretations—even interpretations concerning their own experiences—may be accused of misunderstanding themselves or reinforcing oppression. Pluckrose’s broader argument was that good intentions do not guarantee liberal outcomes. Efforts to protect vulnerable people can become illiberal when they deny individuals the freedom to think, speak, and make choices for themselves.
For liberal religious communities, this raises important questions. How can we challenge discrimination without treating disagreement as evidence of bad character? How can we take people’s experiences seriously without placing any individual or group beyond criticism? And how can we pursue justice while protecting freedom of conscience? These questions do not require us to dismiss inequality or institutional power. They require us to address them through evidence, compassion, open discussion, and a willingness to examine our own assumptions.
The Answer Is Not Another Form of Intolerance
Pluckrose was equally critical of authoritarian reactions against progressive identity politics. Some populist movements on the right, she argued, reproduce the habits they oppose: reducing individuals to group identities, rejecting inconvenient evidence, and demanding conformity to a preferred vision of society.The same principle applies to freedom of speech. If we defend free expression only when our own views are threatened, we are defending our interests rather than a consistent principle.
Pluckrose’s central distinction was therefore not between the political left and right, or between the “woke” and the “anti-woke.” It was between those who accept individual liberty, pluralism, and open inquiry and those who seek to impose their beliefs while silencing dissent. The solution to authoritarianism on one side is not authoritarianism on the other. It is a consistent commitment to liberal humanism—challenging illiberalism within our own communities while cooperating with others who value freedom, reason, and our shared humanity.
What Does This Mean for Liberal Religion?
Pluckrose returned to the Summit’s central question: how can liberal religion help create a more loving world?
Religious communities can offer meaning, fellowship, ethical reflection, and opportunities to serve others without requiring uniformity of belief. They can welcome people who disagree about God, morality, politics, and the good life while remaining committed to principles that make respectful coexistence possible.Although religion is often associated with unquestionable authority, Unitarian traditions demonstrate that religious community can coexist with doubt, individual conscience, reason, and continuing inquiry.This offers a distinctive contribution to public life: community without conformity, and moral seriousness without authoritarian certainty.
For the NAUA, this vision connects directly to the challenge of articulating principles that provide direction without becoming a creed. Shared principles can establish an ethical foundation without requiring members to reach identical conclusions on every issue. They can guide how we treat one another, resolve disagreements, and work together despite differences. The task is not to abandon conviction or pretend all ideas are equally sound. It is to recognize our own fallibility and preserve the conditions that make learning possible: open inquiry, respectful disagreement, and criticism. Tolerance does not mean indifference; it means recognizing that coercion is not the answer to every disagreement.
Building a Broader Coalition
Pluckrose concluded with a call for a broad liberal humanist coalition encompassing believers and atheists, progressives and conservatives, traditionalists and those who challenge tradition. Members need not agree on every political, religious, or moral question. What unites them is a commitment to individual liberty, universal rights, pluralism, reason, evidence, and the peaceful management of disagreement.
For liberal religion, this is both an opportunity and a responsibility. We can create communities where people encounter different ideas, develop friendships across divisions, and work together on shared concerns without demanding ideological uniformity. That work begins at home. It asks us to examine our assumptions, welcome thoughtful criticism, resist dividing people into virtuous allies and irredeemable opponents, and extend the same principles to those with whom we disagree.The future of liberal religion may depend less on finding a single set of answers than on sustaining communities where questions can be asked honestly, differences explored respectfully, and people can cooperate without surrendering their independence of thought.
For the NAUA Summit 2026, Pluckrose’s message offered a compelling vision: a liberal religious community united not by uniform belief, but by the principles that make freedom, understanding, and shared humanity possible.
Helen entertained questions from the Zoom audience at the conclusion of her talk. A few of these questions and Helen’s response are appended to the video recording below.
Video Recording of Helen’s Keynote
Complete text transcript of Helen Pluckrose’s presentation.