So you’re saying it’s like the ChiDope Fest I’m going to Saturday? 
Arnold - no higher power. God is optional. In fact, between congregations (and even within most) you will find considerable disagreement on whether and how much the minister should even use the term “g/God”.
Dangerosa listed pretty much everything I could raise. So I’ll briefly tell you my story.
Mrs D and I are both longtime devout atheists. Personally, I probably wouldn’t have attended any church if I didn’t have kids. When they were very young, I had an idea that I would conduct some kind of comparative religion course for them, to avoid indoctrinating them in my beliefs, and to inform them as to the sociological and historical relevance of religions. Also, raising kids I think it helps to have some sort of framework for discussing and reinforcing basic morality. We got Bennett’s Book of Virtues and read it regularly, but it didn’t seem quite enough. And, of course, I never got off my lazy butt to research and organize my comparative religions course.
When my kids were beginning school, they asked if they could go to a neighborhood vacation bible class. We said, “Sure,” figuring it couldn’t hurt. You know, learn bible stories, sing songs and do crafts, etc. Well, the 1st day they came home crying because the fuckheads told them their mom and dad were going to burn in hell, as would they if they didn’t accept Jesus as their personal savior. That was one sign that we were not a good fit for our neighborhood (we since moved), which had a pretty high concentration of pretty fundamental christians.
A friend of mine was researching religions (he was veering more conservatively from his upbringing) and suggested UU to me as something I might be interested in. We have been attending for the past 5 years.
The sense of community is a big thing. Mrs D and I live in a largely Republican community. Most of our neighbors attend Christian churches, and seem to look with disfavor upon those who don’t. We have experienced considerable homophobia associated with scouting. For these and other more subtle reasons, we found it very distressing that we did not feel part of the “community” in most of the organizations/functions available in our area. At our church, we are not only welcomed, but treated as though we have something valuable to contribute. Maybe it is a sign of weakness on our part that we need/appreciate this, but it floats my boat.
It also is useful in that people tend to be less judgmental if they know you go to a church. They are usually too ignorant to know what the different religions (and often their own) represent. Not that I bend over backwards to cater to others, but my family has to live in this community. I don’t personally see the need to unnecessarily alienate my neighbors.
The UU religious education curriculum for kids is, IMO, pretty great. My kids have learned about the old and new testament. A comparative religions course had them study up on a different religion each month, and then attend services at the various mosques, temples, churches. My eldest is now beginning a couple of courses on sexuality which I think are great.
I don’t know where you will find a group more tolerant of different views, and more welcoming of intelligent debate, than a UU congregation. It is really pretty damn hard to offend a UU. You know the old adage about avoiding talk about religion or politics. When UUs get together, those are among the first topics broached. In my experience, it is unusual for UUs to think less of you because you disagree with them. I may be wrong, but my impression is that many other people are not content to acknowledge that you differ from them, but they believe they are better than you for it. Just my potentially fallible opinion.
Finally (for the sake of this already too long post) I don’t think it hurts to spend an hour or so a week essentially thinking about ethics and morality. Maybe someone more disciplined than I could accomplish this through individual study and reflection, but I appreciate the prodding.
Thanks for the question, and thanks for tolerating my rambling.
Well, that pretty much sums up UU RE classes. 
Still, you say “Unitarian” and people think you’re the Moonies. Try to explain, and you get, “Oh, it’s a cult,” “Oh, that doesn’t sound like a real religion,” a blank stare, or, as an old friend was told, “Oh, you worship trees.” :rolleyes:
This is the best part of the coursework. I wish I’d had something like this when I was younger - certainly helps teach tolerance and understanding, IMHO.
I’ve also understood that the sexuality courses were top-notch.
Why do you think I’m here on the SDMB? 
Even in high school, before I found UUism, I was known as “Esprix the Unoffendable.”
That’s too funny!
What’s the old joke? If you could choose between Heaven and a discussion of Heaven, UUs would choose the latter…
Well, that’s certainly the way I feel, and I think I’ve demonstrated that time and time again on the SDMB. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
Agreed. Even my minister once told me that there’s been more than one church service she’s gone to where she ignored the sermon but watched the squirrels playing outside the window. It doesn’t matter where the inspiration comes from, as long as it comes. (She also once told me that she spent some time during her studies with the Quakers, and although she appreciated the hour or so of quiet reflection every week, she ran out of things to think about after about 10 minutes. :D)
Esprix
IME, it is relatively rare for folks to question what UU stands for in casual conversation. Had one women (7th Day Adventist) say a while back, “It doesn’t really matter that we go to different churches, because we all believe in the same God anyway.” To my credit, my uproarious laughter was all internal.
Moreover, both Unitarianism and Universalism were historically theistic. Because they were both non-creedal, however, they were liberal and ever evolving. And it is only relatively recently that their respective unbrellas expanded sufficiently to incorporate agnostics and atheists.
Yeah, the sexuality courses are great, ceptin they spend too much time talking bout them thar homo-sekshuals. (Smilie-impaired). Last Sunday my 12-year-old’s class brought in CDs and discussed the sexual nature of many of the lyrics. My daughter may be on the naive side, but she was amazed to find just about every Brittany Spears song (for example) was about sex. Her class right now is exploring sexual streotypes and influences. Which I think is of value for kids at that age. I think it must be pretty tough for kids on the brink of sexuality to not have a place to get information and discuss things. And to be supported just in case you feel different than the norm. Sure, we all want our kids to talk to use first about such things, but I don’t think my kids are unique in not eagerly initiating some discussions. In our church, I believe the sexuality curriculum (OWL-Our Whole Lives, formerly AYS-Abpout Your Sexuality) begins either in the spring or next year for my oldest.
Another anecdote, my 2 sisters attend a Catholic church. Apparently this year they decided to adopt an extremely fire-and-brimstone curriculum. My one sister who teaches RE there told my other sister to check out who her kids’ teachers are because, in her words, there were “a lot of whackos” at the organizational meeting. I thought that was so depressing, to think you might have to essentially deprogram your kids from religious education classes. Compared to my experience, where some of my best friends are teaching my kids’ classes. In fact, my one sister is looking into changing parishes, she is so displeased with developments at her church. Makes me appreciate my experience all the more.
I don’t think I’d feel welcome in a place where anything is believed, and after looking over the Unitarian Universalist Association
Principles and Purposes page (which Dangerosa has already quoted) that thought was reinforced. Simply speaking, there are things that UUA apparently “covenant[s] to affirm and promote” that I don’t want to affirm and promote.
I’m not trying to be offensive, but it doesn’t sound like a “real religion” (which, I should point out, would be a point in its favor with me, but that’s neither here nor there…).
I don’t see how any of those definitions fit UUA, as I understand it to exist.
Unitarians seem to be among the least-wacky of religions. But it’s still a religion, and I simply have no need or desire to BELONG to a religion.
The beliefs in “Jewish and Christian teachings . . . Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life . . . religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith . . .” have nothing to do with my life.
I’m not a “joiner.” I don’t belong to clubs or organizations. If Unitarianism welcomes outcasts from other religions, I say bully for them! But I see absolutely nothing to impell me to join ANY kind of spiritual gathering.
Amok - you can debate the definitions however you wish. Mrs D and I recently questioned our minister when he repeatedly referred to our “worship.” Mrs. D suggested that word implied a divinity. Our minister provided his definition which did not. You may wish to use another term if you wish.
Same with church, religion, services, god, or any other number of terms. I think they provide a common frame of reference. UUs are concerned with spirituality (which in itself must be defined). I think suggesting terms such as “meeting house” in some ways devalues the sincerity and legitimacy of what UUs do. I acknowledge that I questioned the appropriateness of some such terms. But I have failed to find terms I consider more appropriate, and prefer to expend my efforts on other concerns.
One term that is inappropriate is “mass,” which i in occasion mistakenly and unthinkingly used as a hangover from my catholic upbringing. One thing UUs agree on is the non-divinity of Christ. Tho a good percentage of UUs (different in different geographic locales) consider themselves “Christians,” I do not believe their use of the term comports with the mainstream christian definition. Definitional differences can be clarified and overcome.
Eve, what can I say to convince you? Your addition would certainly be enough to drag dropzone away from his Norse beauties! Plus, each new member is given a beautiful string of matched pearls to adorn their swanlike neck. Dress appropriately!
Amok, perhaps they don’t, but as Dinsdale pointed out, we really lack another term. Suffice to say that the IRS considers Unitarians a religion, that Unitarians refer to themselves as such, and that, as Esprix pointed out, they are hard to offend - so you can call them a quasi-religious-liberal-social-club-dedicated-to-exploring-the-concept-of-spiritualism" and you won’t offend too many of them (and some would agree with you). Generally, I like to respect a persons beliefs enough that if they think they are practicing a religion, its good enough for me, even if I might not agree with the terms of practice (ala Scientology.)
I’m not a UU person, but I don’t think you’re correct that “ALL” UU folks do not believe in the divinity of Jesus…certainly the creed mentioned earlier in the thread does not EXCLUDE (or require) a divinity believe in Jesus.
I’m not sure that that there is a “mainstream” definition of Christianity beyond a belief in the divinity of Jesus.
The 2 people I know who are UU, also believe in a divine Jesus…
beagledave - I figured that observation might get a response when I posted it (I learned all I know about debate from Wildest Bill!) Thanks for picking up on it. I’ll do my research, gather my thoughts, and respond in a bit - probably tomorrow morning.
FWIW, here’s one site
Thank you for your answer Dinsdale. I guess you’re our resident UU expert! I did notice that you said «God is optional.»
But the Principles and Purposes that Dangerosa posted include the statement
«The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:
…
Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
…»
That would seem to indicate to me that there is a belief in God implied in the UU «creed». I suppose that belief is emphasized to a lesser degree by some of the congregants.
Eve, you say «I see absolutely nothing to impell me to join ANY kind of spiritual gathering.» As a single adult, I would agree with you. But if (when) I have children, I would like to expose them to some kind of religion, if only for reasons of general culture. I think also that in the mostly religious society in which we live most people will be approached at some time by «missionaries» and it will help them to have some knowledge of religion so they can discuss the issues.
I humbly disagree, Arnie. My sister and I were never exposed to any religion when we were kids, and we are both the better for it. Left us to make up our own minds as adults whether we wanted to have anything to do with religion at all.
Arnold, certainly no expert - I just have a big mouth, and the time to exercise it.
I believe the distinction is between believing in God/Christ, and respect for the “teachings” expressed in the Bible and other sources. Note the immediately following statement concerning “humanist teachings”. I also suspect the statement to which you refer could be directly traced to the origins of Unitarianism and Universalism, both of which were non-creedal, but espoused a belief in a divinity. (Probably an artifact of UU’s much vaunted respect for the “democratic process.”)
For this reason, I have problems with some of the representations of historical persons such as Jefferson and many others, as UUs. First, there was no UU before 1961. Second, historical persons may have been either Unitarians or Universalists, but prior to the mid-19th century or so, both Unitarians and Universalists pretty universally believed in a supreme being. It just was not codified in a creed.
Like I said, I’ll do some more research later today/tonight to make sure I represent the UUA’s position accurately, and not just my own (possibly incorrect) interpretation of that.
I am very confident, tho, that a belief in God, let alone any particular manifestation of God, is not required. That said, I don’t believe you will find any express UU statement prohibiting a belief in the divinity of Jesus. My interpretation, however, is that such a belief is contradictory to the basic principle advocating a “free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” The reliance upon reason is a major element of much of UU. And, IMO, a belief in the divinity of Jesus is a matter of faith, not reason. Note I am not saying faith is less valid than reason, I am simply stating that it is different. And UU is NOT a faith-based religion.
If you attend a UU service, you may come away with the impression that we truly worship the coffee-maker, which contributes to lively caffeine-fueled conversation between and after services.
Finally, we may need to make some distinctions UU in America vs elsewhere, say Transylvania. But I doubt anyone really wants to get into that (tho, especially at this time of year, it is fun to trace your religion back to Transylvania!) “Behold, the children of the night!”
Dinsdale and Dangerosa, after mulling it over a bit, I think I’ll have to agree with you. I do think there is enough difference between “traditional religions” (religions that do fit the definitions I posted) and UUA (as I understand it) to warrant using another word for UUA and organizations like it (if there are others). Unfortunately, there is no other word or (short) term that seems to fit (about as close as I came was “spiritual philosophy”, but that didn’t seem to accurately capture the feel I was going for), so unless one is coined and enters into popular usage, “religion” will have to do.
Along those same lines, I seem to recall recently scanning something suggesting Hinduism might not be appropriately considered a “religion” as traditionally defined. At the risk of flaunting my ignorance, is it possible zen buddhism might similarly fall short? But I doubt many people make such fine distinctions in common conversation.
When Mrs. D confronted my minister about “worship” he said you would find a “non-divinity” definition “in good dictionaries.” I suspected it might be a Howard Cosell type thing, the way Howard used to use the 8th, archaic definition, instead of the several more widely used ones. But when I failed to find his proffered definition in ANY dictionary, I told him and he restated, “as the term worship is used in religious texts.”
It strikes me as possible that terms such as religion, church, etc., may have a slightl;y different definition in religious scholarship than in general usage. Anyone able to comment on that? As a lawyer, I know that certain terms, say consideration, may have specific implications non-lawyers may not appreciate.
I don’t know, and don’t really care what his definitional sopurce is, however, as long as I understand what he means. Similarly, it bothered me when he referred to his belief in God, but upon questioning, he described himself as a “process theist,” a term I find a little troublesome, although I don’t disagree with the explanation he provided for it.
This is the minister’s first year at our church. I am glad I had these couple of instances to make me aware of the need to listen closely to what he says, and to subsequently question him concerning word usage. Seems to maintain my attention in a way that might not happen if he were merely reflecting “my” beliefs in “my” terms. (At least that’s the mindfuck I’m assuming until he REALLY pisses me off!)
At the risk of sounding ignorant (which I am in this regard), I don’t know all that much about Hinduism or Buddhism. However, I’m not sure why Hinduism would not fit into the traditional defintions for a religion. As far as I know, the Hindu religion would fit in 1a of the American Heritage definition (which is what I posted before) in that Hindus believe in and worship supernatural powers (gods). Buddhism, in general, is something I’ve wondered about as far as being a religion (under the traditional defintions). As I understand it, Buddhism evolved out of Hinduism and while they do not deny the existance of the Hindu gods, they hold no special reverence for them. As such, Buddhism would probably not fit under defintion 1a.
However, I think it would fit under point 3 that I posted, and while reading that sentance I wondered if it hadn’t delibritly been inserted to include Buddhism in the definition of religion. How the differences between the various sects of Buddhism (Theravada, Mahayana, Zen, and any others) might effect this question, I’m afraid I don’t know.
No language is static, and it appears to me that the English word ‘religion’, which originally was applied to only the western religions which the speakers of the language were primarily familiar with, was not a perfect fit with the eastern religion of Buddhism, but since people refered to Buddhism as a religion, definitions eventually followed the common usage. It may be that something similar will happen with the definition of ‘religion’ and UUA.
Sorry to resurrect this ancient thread, but I have a very deep, meaningful question about Unitarian-Universalist Churches that cannot go unanswered.
Namely:
Are Unitarian-Universalist churches a good place to go if you want to pick up chicks?
(No, seriously!)
I’d say yes. Much higher chance of meeting open-minded women there than at a traditional church.
On the other hand, there is also a higher chance that a woman you meet there will be a lesbian…I still think it would probably be better in the long run.
Naw, man. We covered this. For hot churchgoing chicks you gotta get in touuch with dropzone.