At 50, Unitarian Universalists examine mission

[rug]

A recent Sunday service at the First Unitarian Church of Baltimore ended with an apology.

Laurel Mendes, a neo-pagan lay member who led the service, feared that a reference to God in the hymn “Once to Every Soul and Nation” might have upset the humanists in the pews. So, Mendes explained to the congregation that religious doctrine had been duly scrubbed from hymns in the Sunday program.

.“I didn’t want to make anyone uncomfortable by reciting something that might be considered a profession of faith,” Mendes, 52, said after the service. “We did say ‘God,’ which you don’t often hear in our most politically correct hymns.”

Welcome to a typical Sunday in the anything-but-typical Unitarian Universalist Association, a liberal religious movement with a proud history of welcoming all seekers of truth — as long as it’s spelled with a lowercase “t.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/at-50-unitarian-universalists-examine-mission/2011/07/05/gIQA5Iqg5H_story.html

[MineralMan]

1. Ah, well, the UU might not be the best church for you, I guess.

It's not for me, either, but then I'm an atheist. They accept atheists, but they're a little too gullible for my tastes, so I don't attend.

Whenever I want to experience a religious service, I like to visit a local Russian Orthodox church during one of their services in Church Slavonic. I get the experience and the liturgy, with only a general understanding of the words that are spoken. Since I have a modest knowledge of Russian, I can follow the liturgy without it distracting from my experience.

[rug]

3. I admire them but I'm Catholic.

[customerserviceguy]

2. UU's have puzzled me for years

I guess it's for people who like to play 'church', without having to believe any dogma. Me, I'd rather watch TV on Sunday mornings.

[eppur_se_muova]

4. Q: What is a Universalist Unitarian ?

A: An atheist, lacking only courage

[Odin2005]

5. Are you calling me a coward?

:eyes:

[kwassa]

6. It was a good article, read it in the Post.

As an ex-Unitarian, I thought the author nailed it.

[dmallind]

7. meh. Good enough if you like that kind of thing I guess

but other than filling in a social gap for those who want to cling to some kind of wishy-washy vaguely spiritual do-goodism I'm not sure what it's for. Why would anyone need to sing hymns and listen to sermons to embrace an inclusive wish for a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning"? Why is such an activity the province of a group or congregation anyway? But I am viewing them through a subjective lens of my own. Useful or not to me, there are worse thigs to get together and think about on a Sunday morning for those who prefer collective ritusl in their "search for truth and meaning". The few UU groups I have come across get a bit too new-agey for my taste (codified by at least a couple of their "sources"). Other that I find them blameworthy, whimsically, only for some confusion when I tell people who question the source of secular morality that personally I follow universalized utilitarianism. Especially when I lived in St Paul, where the UUs have a strong following, I would have to explain the difference.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

8. Secular humanists need a community too.

I have known atheists, agnostics, the baffled and confused, pagans, new age types, and generally just people who are sick of Christianity.

The congregations vary in their makeup too. A suburban church is different than an inner city church.

I met my sweetie at a large UU church 17 years ago. We are both secular humanists, and it works.

I was once the music director/piano player at a UU Fellowship. I enjoyed that I could pick any appropriate music to play, and did not have to observe that artificial distinction between "sacred" and "secular" music.

If it's good stuff, it's sacred IMNSHMO.

[skepticscott]

9. But why

the desperate need to call it a "church"?

[Dorian Gray]

10. Why

would you say they have a desperate need? It's a word that describes a certain fellowship that people are familiar with. Many of the congregants probably were raised in a church environment, so it's a familiar structure and terminology.

[skepticscott]

11. It's a word that describes a religious fellowship

There are a lot of terms they could adopt to describe a group of people who get together to discuss ideas that have nothing to do with god, blind faith in the supernatural, or religion. And yet people who claim to have rejected all that still choose to call it "church", rather than anything else.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

12. The only church that does not have a creedal test.

That is important to a lot of us.
I would not stand up and say "I believe in god the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth...." because I would be LYING.

Lying does not fit into my moral code as a secular humanist.

Some people don't understand the fact that the UUs do not have a creedal test, and have tried to convince me that Christians do not have a creedal test.

B.S. :rofl:

[kwassa]

14. Episcopalians do not have a creedal test.

Just sayin.

Actually, nobody tests people in most denominations.

It isn't No Layperson Left Behind. No test of people at different ages at all. Unlike our school system.

This creedal test doesn't exist, in most cases.

and just saying from personal experience, Episcopalians cover a huge range of beliefs, many having influences that have nothing to do with Christianity.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

17. Christians always have a certain set of mandatory beliefs.

As in The Apostles Creed which is the one I learned growing up Presby.

There are slight variations in the wording between denominations, such as: Methodists remove the "he descended into Hell"; Lutherans substitute "the holy christian church" for "the holy catholic church" because they don't realize that small c catholic means "universal".

Christians must believe in: Original sin, substitutionary atonement by Jesus Christ, that Jesus is the son of god, and that god is a holy trinity of father, son and holy ghost.

I thought an Episcopalian was smart enough to not throw that crap at me. I was wrong.

[kwassa]

19. uh, no they don't.

The very word "Christian" has many, many definitions, and there is no agreement on exactly what the word means. You use one common yardstick, but there is no requirement to believe all that is in the Apostle's Creed.

Like I said before, there is no test. None.

Here is an article about the many definitions of the word "Christian".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn1.htm

and excuse me for not being too bright about this, I can't help it, I was brought up Unitarian.

[trotsky]

23. Which is why it's so funny when you try to tell us who is or isn't a Christian. n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

24. I stand by my post #17.

I should have made book on what post number would be one where some Christian would tell me there are no belief requirements to be a Christian. :wtf: :wtf:

:rofl: :rofl:

Sad.

Almost as much fun as making book on what post in which someone will bring up the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and say "Oh, but they are not Christian!".

:rofl:

[kwassa]

26. Stand away. I am sorry I don't fit your definition

and millions of others don't, either.

[trotsky]

30. Yet this has never stopped you from defining atheists as you see fit.

And you don't see a problem with that.

[trotsky]

29. As you should!

But that's been kwassa's game for a long time, he thinks it gets him out of the NTS quagmire.

[GliderGuider]

25. Really? I thought a belief in God was fairly mandatory among most Christian sects.

Along with the belief that Jesus was more than just some wise desert dwelling dude.

Unitarianism? No such expectations. If you believe in a god or two, no problem. If you're an atheist, no problem. The only requirement is that you have to like panel discussions and coffee.

[kwassa]

27. I think most do believe in God.

which is why I go to a church where the G-word is allowed.

[GliderGuider]

13. The one I was a part of during my youth just called itself a "Fellowship"

It was as hard-core a bunch of atheists as you could hope to meet - mostly profs and staff from the local university.
They got together because everybody needs a community, and there's precious little community in sitting at home on Sunday watching teevee.
The fellowship was also a focal point for a lot of social-justice activism. Many of the members were socialists, and there was a lot of volunteer activity.
It also helped that they had a community of the like-minded where they didn't need to defend their (lack of) beliefs from every bubba with an attitude, and could explore the deeper issues of life, the universe and everything.

[kwassa]

15. Why not an ethical society?

I find it humorous that atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists need to follow the form of a Protestant church service while following none of the content. Why are they singing hymns at all?

Create your own thing.

[trotsky]

16. Why do you care?

Does it upset you so much?

[sudopod]

21. Because his God has the copyright. nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

18. Ever heard of Ethical Culture, started by Felix Adler???

Somebody thought of it before you did.
There is a famous one in New York City on the west side of Central Park.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Culture

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ethical_Culture

[kwassa]

20. I mentioned it because I've seen one, here in DC.

http://www.ethicalsociety.org/

[sudopod]

22. Haha, let's all hate those people who do things differently than we do!

*Points and laughs*

(/this thread)

[kwassa]

28. huh?

[Pterodactyl]

31. I once attended a UU wedding and it was pretty much as described in the article.

They borrowed a bunch of rituals from other beliefs and mixed them all up in a hodgepodge without any meaning other than the show of mixing things up. The minister seemed to avoid espousing anything and took care to not mention God. He even referred to himself as a "minister of religion". I read through the literature in the lobby and it seemed wishy-washy and thin. Being a Christian myself the whole thing seemed a little odd. I mean, my faith claims to teach me things about the way the universe works and what it's all about and the UU attitude was yeah, sure, whatever... that's cool. It seemed highly amorphous and subject to the whims of humans. I was left wondering what the appeal was.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

32. I am an atheist and officially a UU.

In Houston, where they have Unitarians and lots of other religions, I used to go to a Mahayana (Chinese) Buddhist temple. They had an English speaking group and I enjoyed it immensely.
It started with walking meditation. Then they took a break.
Then we sat around the room and one of the monks or nuns would talk about one of the sutras and hand out copies of it. They would read it aloud and we would have a discussion about it.

Buddhism tries to explain the world and that our reality is not real.
It boils down to the four noble truths and the eight fold path and the middle way.
I have read some of the sutras and they are difficult reading, probably because English cannot explain the concepts in Pali and Sanskrit.

Buddhism does not require a god or faith, which also appeals to me. Christians think that Buddha is worshipped as a god. He is not.
He was a rich Hindu prince in Northern India. his father tried to shelter him. eventually he went outside the palace walls and saw poverty,sickness and death. He became enlightened at the age of 35. He died at age 80 from bad mushrooms. As soon as he died, all his teachings which had been memorized by his followers, were written down on palm leaves and preserved in Pali, predecessor of Sanskrit.

He was asked "Are you a God?" "No." "Are you a man?" "No." "What are you?" "I am awake."

He was awake but insisted he was not a god. There are spirits such as the hungry ghosts which the animists believe in. Buddha also said that women could be enlightened just as much as a man.

Prince Siddhartha, Gautama the Buddha, took Hinduism, removed the gods and distilled it to dharma (truth), karma and reincarnation. I study Hinduism and Buddhism because I am sick of the Abrahamic religions and people have tried to drill Christianity into me. I find huge faults of many kinds in it because I studied it. Religion classes were mandatory at the Presbyterian University I graduated from, and I have great respect for the professors because the religion professor, especially, expanded my understanding of the big picture of religion --why we invented it (according to Freud we needed a sky daddy protector) and why we have rituals and symbols.
Found out about Jung and Joseph Campbell who are important to the study of religion.


I don't know if Buddhism is "right" or "True" or "correct", but it makes some sense.

[Pterodactyl]

33. As a Christian, I never thought of Bhudda as being worshipped as a god.

From what I read on Wikipedia, he is considered a god in some non-Western religions. I did not know that!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

34. The xtians around here think he is worshipped as a god.

That is because they only know what their ignorant preacher tells them, which is that all other religions are BAD. They would never read a book of facts. Facts are bad.

Seriously, my neighbor said "BUDDHISM IS VOOOOOO DOOOOOOO!!!!" and crossed her fore arms up in front of her face to protect her from my evil pagan statues.

I put up a six foot privacy fence on the north part of my yard so I wouldn't have to look at her house full of ignorant people. I might have to nail 27,000 baguas on the house and trees to reflect the bad juju she projects.

She, before that, was in my house on the same visit (first and last) and I opened my piano and played a few measures of a Chopin waltz I've known since I was ten years old.

Her response: "SHOWOFF!"

What an insulting thing to say. she hates people who study hard and have discipline.