This grows out of a liberal religions thread where I’ll admit my religion and its practices seem a bit wacky.
I’m a Unitarian Universalist, born and raised. Belief in God is optional in my church. We were performing gay weddings twenty years before they became a political issue.
There are good reasons why we make our choices. It takes a little time to communicate where we’re coming from. So since liberal religions are usually quiet I’ll field some questions here.
I’m not after your soul - I don’t have a hell to condemn you to - although naturally I have some fondness for the beliefs I share.
Is it true that you Unitarians sing so badly because you’re always reading two verses ahead in the hymnal to see if you agree with the words?
Is it true that if you Unitarians come to a crossroads, and one road leads to heaven, and the other road leads to a discussion about heaven, y’all will choose the discussion every time?
Is it true that if I keep making derogatory comments about you Unitarians, I may just wake up one night to find you burning a question mark in my front yard?
In order to be defined as a religion, shouldn’t the organization take some stance on the metaphysical? Otherwise, isn’t it just a philanthropic organization like the Shriners?
If the Shriners met on Sunday morning, sang hymns, took up a collection, called their leaders ministers, established an ordination process, held Sunday School, and married people in their buildings, then I suppose they would be a religion too.
The UU organization does take a stance on the metaphysical. It’s a very challenging stance for those who take it seriously.
But rather than go into that now, I’d like to ask where your notion of defining religion comes from.
Didn’t your mother ever tell you not to answer a question with a question?
I found an interesting definition of special metaphysics:
The source of the quote is immaterial, as I am merely trying to get across the concept, and we can call it a potato for all I care.
Anyway, it is my understanding that UU does not take a stance on special metaphysics. Although I think they do actually take a position on the branch of metaphysics concerned with ontology (the branch concerned with being, such as monism and pluralism), that isn’t the same. Philosophers take positions on ontology all the time, and they don’t feel the need to call it theology.
Putting aside the the IRS’s definition of what constitutes a church (including holding sunday school, having an ordination process, etc.) A religion requires some sort of divine revelation which, fundamentally, requires faith and is “above” proof. Typically, this divine revelation has to do with special metaphysics, although, admittibly, that is not always the case.
So, my question is what divine revelation does the UU church put its faith in?
No, my mother never told me that. Apparently you ignored yours too.
Once a religion acquires a few centuries of history and a pedigree of political, literary, and artistic achievement it generally chuckles or roars at challenges to its legitimacy. I prefer to chuckle.
Maybe it’s time to modify your paradigm. I still wonder where you found it.
BTW “what divine revelation does the UU church put its faith in?” is a significantly different question from, “In order to be defined as a religion, shouldn’t the organization take some stance on the metaphysical?”
If the purpose of the thread is to ask you questions, and then you refuse to answer those questions, this thread won’t last very long.
That is called a “Fallacious Appeal to Age.” It is a logical fallacy, like ad hominem attacks and begging the question.
I admit, I have no basis is asserting the truth of my definition other than that I believe it is consistent with the common understanding of the concept. My guess is if people were to take a poll that asked: “What makes a religion?” more people would check off “divine revelation” as being more important than, say, the IRS checklist (here http://www.t-tlaw.com/cf-14.shtml ). At the very least a non-trivial percentage of people snicker at the idea of a religion that doesn’t have any divine revelations to call its own. Don’t you have anything to say to us?
True enough. I spent a bit more time authoring the second response than I did the first.
That’s different from saying that an international organization of people that calls itself a religion, conducts itself as a religion, contributes to society, has existed for a long time, and is universally recognized as a religion (Pencil Pusher notwithstanding) is indeed a religion.
Also of interest: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Getting away from ontology, I’d assert there are some metaphysical positions Unitarian Universalism takes. On the historical side, we arose from Unitarianism and Universalism. The former idea is essentially a disagreement with the conclusions of the Council of Trent about the doctrine of the trinity. The latter is a positive expression of the belief that hell doesn’t exist.
Most of the contemporary UUs I know would add some caveats to those ideas, such as: “Jesus had a lot of good ideas, but this idea of him being the son of [some putative] God sounds like a fantasy[except maybe in the sense that all people have a spark of the divine inside of them, however you define that concept…]” Or “A truly loving God [if such a being exists] wouldn’t punish anyone to eternal torment for failing to believe in him [or her or it or them]. At any rate, if I were going to worship something, I’d rather do it out of respect than out of fear. But did you read the dying monk’s description in Dostoyevsky’s The Brother’s Karamazov? Now there’s an interesting notion…”
Foremost, to my understanding at least, Unitarian Universalism places the responsibility for seeking wisdom on its members. That’s an awesome responsibility but no member needs to go about it alone. We share ideas from the Book of Matthew, the Rig Veda, Bob Marley Lyrics, or the morning newspaper.
Are there any denominations or…ummm…groupings of the UU church that are less liberal than the average, and/or that have more of a libertarian bent? Because I might be tempted to join such an organization…
Weird_AL, check your local fellowship or church. Or, better yet, check out the Conservative Forum for UUs (“dedicated to bringing together Conservative and Libertarian members of UUA congregations so that we may speak with a unified voice”) UUs are fond of subgroups that are exploring particular aspects of religion, spirituality, social justice, and political/social/economic/other action. (refer to the oft-quoted joke about discussions about heaven, above)
As for unifying spiritual principles, I think of the principle of ‘seeking’ as a spiritual one, and one that is reflected in the ‘revelations’ basis of both the U and the U sides. UUs welcome seekers. Seeking a greater Truth on a spiritual path is an act of religion, not philosophy. Therefore, UU is a religion, in more than the IRS sense. It is also a church, in the sense that it is a community of people with related and overlapping (if not identical) spiritual/religious beliefs and often with related values and moral and ethical beliefs, who gather to share and support one-another in their spiritual development.
Certainly, there are those within the UU ‘fold’ who participate at the level of philosophy rather than religion, but who value and relate to the community and the values/morals/ethics that are part of the (previously linked) principles. The same can be said of many religions, I think - there are people who do not technically believe all or part of it, but find the values worthy and the community important to their lives. We’ve got more open acceptance of those members, so they show more. :shrug: That doesn’t mean that they are the only kind of folk we have.
(btw, I’m a UU with Pagan and Quaker leanings, daughter of a UU minister, and married to a Quaker - raising our kids Quakers, probably with UU leanings. Just call me a “Pagan UniFriend” raising “Quakitarians”)
