What is the Golden Triangle as proposed by OS Guinness?

According to author and social critic Os Guinness, the Golden Triangle of Freedom is a concept explaining how liberty, virtue, and faith are interconnected and necessary for a free society to be sustained. The principle, which he detailed in his 2012 book -  A Free People's Suicide, argues that these three elements must be in a constant, reinforcing cycle. 

 

The three interconnected points of the triangle are: 

• Freedom requires virtue. A free society depends on the moral character and self-restraint of its citizens. Without individual and collective virtue, people will not govern themselves, leading to a need for increased external control by the state. Guinness, and the Founding Fathers he references, believed that a republic of free people would fail if its citizens lacked the moral backbone to sustain it.

• Virtue requires faith. For Guinness, virtue must be grounded in something beyond self-interest or social convention. The founders believed that a religious conviction—or "faith" in a higher moral authority—provides the necessary foundation for citizens to be virtuous, even when it is difficult. This faith provides the ultimate motivation for moral behavior.

• Faith requires freedom. True, heartfelt faith cannot be coerced; it must be voluntarily chosen. Freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are therefore essential for individuals to develop and practice their faith authentically. This ensures that faith is not a product of state control, and the virtuous behavior that follows is sincere. 

 

The self-sustaining cycle 

Guinness describes this relationship as an ongoing cycle, like a recycling symbol: 

• Freedom allows people to choose their faith.

• That faith provides the foundation for virtue.

• Virtue allows for self-governance, which maintains freedom. 

 

Guinness argues that breaking any part of this triangle will cause the system to collapse. For example, if a nation loses its virtue, it will inevitably lose its freedom. Conversely, if it loses its religious freedom, the foundation for virtue will be weakened, eventually leading to a loss of overall liberty. He asserts that modern societies risk losing their freedom precisely because they have neglected the underlying virtues and faith that originally supported it. 

 

Faith - beyond religious affiliation:

Within Os Guinness's Golden Triangle of Freedom, faith is defined as an individual's "habits of the heart"—the core convictions that provide a framework for moral decision-making and are not dependent on external coercion. He emphasizes that this concept goes beyond formal religious affiliation and can apply to people of all ultimate beliefs, including secular ones. 

 

Faith as core commitment and inner conviction:

• A foundation for virtue: For Guinness, faith represents a person's deepest "heart commitments" that guide their life and produce virtuous behavior. As the Golden Triangle suggests, virtue cannot be sustained on its own; it requires a compelling, underlying conviction to motivate moral action. Without this foundation, virtue becomes a matter of mere utility, social convention, or external coercion, which is insufficient for a truly free society.

• A transcendent framework: Citing both American founders and earlier political thinkers like Montesquieu and Tocqueville, Guinness argues that a sense of moral obligation must be tied to something bigger than the self. Whether theist or atheist, an individual must have a worldview that provides a larger sense of purpose and discourages self-interest from overriding collective responsibility.

• The origin of meaning: Guinness asserts that all people, regardless of their religious beliefs, have a fundamental "will to meaning." For secularists and atheists, this sense of purpose is still a matter of ultimate belief that serves the same function as religious faith in providing a moral compass. However, Guinness challenges secularists to demonstrate whether an atheist worldview has historically been able to build an equally enduring foundation for virtue and freedom.

• The need for freedom: A core aspect of Guinness's definition is that true faith must be freely chosen. This is why freedom is the third point in the triangle: genuine faith cannot be coerced by the government. The founders understood that the most important duty—a person's obligation to their creator or their ultimate convictions—must be a matter of conscience. Any state-mandated orthodoxy corrupts both freedom and the very nature of faith itself.

​

Threats to the Golden Triangle:

What societal trends does Guinness identify as threats to the Golden Triangle of Freedom?

Based on his writings, particularly A Free People's Suicide (2012) and Last Call for Liberty (2018), Os Guinness identifies several societal trends that threaten the Golden Triangle of Freedom. He argues that a culture built on the original American Revolution principles of "1776" is being eroded by a newer, more destructive vision of freedom inspired by the French Revolution's "1789". 

​

Key threats identified by Guinness include: 

1. The rise of expressive individualism

Guinness warns that modern society has embraced a form of freedom focused on expressive individualism. This concept prioritizes personal feelings and desires over moral obligation or the common good, leading to: 

• A denial of the community: An overemphasis on individual wants leads to the atomization of society, replacing shared community with isolated individuals.

• Identity formed from within: People view their identities as being defined by their internal thoughts and feelings rather than a connection to a larger moral or communal framework.

• Undermining of self-restraint: As Guinness states, freedom's greatest enemy is freedom itself. Without a moral or faith-based foundation for self-restraint, freedom is squandered through self-interest, leading to a need for more external control by the state. 

2. The advance of aggressive secularism 

Guinness critiques the shift toward aggressive secularism, which seeks to remove religious expression from the public square. He identifies three approaches within this trend that endanger religious liberty: 

• "Reducers": Individuals who seek to replace broad freedom of conscience with a narrower "freedom of worship" that confines religious practice to private life. Guinness argues this is a form of control, noting that "every dictator will allow freedom of worship... as long as you keep your mouth shut".

• "Removers": Those who aim to completely eliminate religious discourse and influence from public life and policy.

• "Rebranders": Those who equate the anti-discrimination language of civil rights with religious convictions, thereby reframing moral beliefs as a form of bigotry. 

3. The decline of civic education 

Guinness notes a decline in the kind of civic education that historically nurtured responsible citizens and helped integrate diverse populations into a shared national life. This has led to a generation with little understanding of: 

• The constitutional design of the republic.

• The principles of freedom articulated by the founders, such as the interdependence of freedom, virtue, and faith.

• The need for citizens to govern themselves morally for the system to survive. 

4. The ascendancy of cultural Marxism 

Guinness argues that certain trends of the radical left represent a form of cultural Marxism that threatens freedom. He describes how this ideology: 

• Weaponizes victim groups: Instead of focusing on individual dignity, it uses group-based identities of oppressor and victim to create social and political conflict.

• Emphasizes power over principle: Rather than leading with moral principles, political movements are increasingly driven by power dynamics and resentment.

• Rejects traditional frameworks: This mindset explicitly opposes the Judeo-Christian values that Guinness believes are foundational to Western freedom. 

5. The corrosion of character in leadership 

A consequence of neglecting virtue is that competence and skill become prioritized over character in leadership, both public and private. The founders, in contrast, believed that a leader's character was paramount. When this inner moral compass is lost, leaders with power are more likely to abuse it for personal gain.

 

Freedom of Worship vs. Freedom of Conscience:

According to Os Guinness, the crucial distinction between "freedom of worship" and "freedom of conscience" is that freedom of worship is a narrow and inadequate liberty confined to private life, whereas freedom of conscience is an expansive, robust liberty that applies to all of life, both private and public. Guinness argues that the reduction of religious freedom to mere freedom of worship is a dangerous trend that threatens the foundations of a free society. 

 

1. Freedom of conscience 

Guinness refers to freedom of conscience as "soul freedom," which he considers the authentic and full expression of religious liberty envisioned by America's founders. 

• Public and private application: Freedom of conscience covers every area of life. It is the right to hold, express, and act upon one's deepest beliefs—religious or otherwise—in both private settings and the public square.

• A foundation for society: As a "first freedom" and a human right, Guinness argues that freedom of conscience is foundational for a civil public square. It allows for the full spectrum of beliefs to be expressed, debated, and applied to society, and it encourages respect for the different convictions of others.

• Protection for all: This robust freedom protects the conscience of every individual, regardless of their belief system. It ensures that everyone has the right to follow their convictions, so long as those convictions do not infringe upon the equal rights of others. 

2. Freedom of worship 

Guinness describes freedom of worship as a diminished and easily manipulated form of religious freedom. 

• Confined to private spaces: This definition limits religious practice to the private sphere, such as a place of worship, effectively preventing a person's faith from influencing their public life, profession, or civic engagement.

• A tool of control: Guinness warns that even dictators allow for some degree of freedom of worship, meaning people can believe whatever they want "in their head, between their two ears, as long as you keep your mouth shut". This shows that freedom of worship can be co-opted by the state to control public behavior, as it does not include the right to act on one's beliefs publicly.

• A departure from the founders' vision: Guinness argues that reducing religious freedom to freedom of worship fundamentally misinterprets the American founders' concept of liberty and moves toward the secularism of the French Revolution, which sought to remove religious influence from public life. 

3. The dangers of the reduction 

The trend toward limiting religious freedom to mere freedom of worship is a significant threat to the Golden Triangle of Freedom. When faith is pushed out of the public square, it can no longer provide the transcendent moral framework needed to cultivate public virtue. Without a widely shared foundation of virtue, self-restraint declines, and the state's power must expand to maintain order, thereby eroding overall freedom. 

 

Reducers, Removers, and Rebranders:

Os Guinness uses the terms "reducers," "removers," and "rebranders" to categorize the various approaches within aggressive secularism that he believes are undermining religious liberty, and specifically freedom of conscience. He argues that these trends are a serious threat to the Golden Triangle of Freedom by eroding the public role of faith and morality in a free society. 

 

1. Reducers 

Guinness identifies "reducers" as those who seek to shrink religious freedom down to a very narrow "freedom of worship". 

• What they do: They advocate for policies and legal interpretations that confine religious practice to the private sphere, such as a person's home or a house of worship. They argue that faith is a personal, private matter and has no place in public life.

• The danger: This redefinition of liberty, according to Guinness, is a tool of control. He warns that even dictators permit freedom of worship "in the sense of allowing you to hold any belief in your head... as long as you keep your mouth shut". This approach removes the ability for faith to inform and motivate a person's public action and conscience. By separating belief from behavior, reducers undermine the very link between faith and public virtue that sustains freedom. 

2. Removers 

"Removers" are those who seek to purge all religious expression and influence from the public square. 

• What they do: They advocate for a "naked public square" by eliminating any religious discussion from public discourse, policy-making, or education. They aim to enforce a strict secularism that treats religion as a relic of the past, incompatible with modern society.

• The danger: This approach is far more radical than mere reduction. By erasing the public and political relevance of religion, removers dismantle the very idea of a civil public square where diverse, deeply held beliefs can be openly debated. This creates an environment where only secularist worldviews are considered legitimate for public engagement, silencing millions of people and weakening the free exchange of ideas necessary for a healthy republic. 

3. Rebranders 

"Rebranders" are those who co-opt the language of anti-discrimination, particularly from the Civil Rights movement, and apply it to religious convictions. 

• What they do: They reframe moral beliefs derived from faith as a form of bigotry or discrimination. For example, they may accuse a person or organization of being discriminatory for acting on a long-held religious conviction, effectively rebranding a moral stance as bigotry.

• The danger: This strategy weaponizes anti-discrimination law to penalize religious practice and force conformity to secular values. It creates an incentive to abandon sincere religious belief for fear of being publicly shamed or penalized. In doing so, rebranders undermine the freedom of conscience itself and use legal means to enforce a new, secular orthodoxy, which is the exact opposite of the robust religious freedom the American founders championed.