This kinda gets at some of what I intended to suggest. I’m not sure the blissful acceptance of rock-worship is as consistent with a “free and responsible search for truth and meaning,” as those folk who are doing the heavy lifting.
Hey, I’m all for whatever makes you happy (so long as it doesn’t harm me.) But I don’t believe that can be applied across the board in a congregation, where choices continually need to be made concerning limited resources.
Do you really want to contribute your resources to an organization, where the cumulative knowledge and thought of several millenia is placed on a completely equal basis with “Bob’s got a rock in his pocket!”?
Wisdom is as light, and its source shineth of its own accord. If you need to designate a Holy Book to distinguish the holy from the unholy, and a structure of dogma to establish the brilliant so folks will know it from the, errm, rocklike, perhaps you also need some little flashing signs pointing at sources of light, saying
<——Light
But then you’d need another book in which it is written that the first book is a book of wisdom, wouldn’t you? Otherwise, why grant it creedence when it says that such-and-such constitutes holy wisdom?
Then of course you’d need a third book to authenticate the second, and so on.
If your revelations and spiritual insights are of more value than “Bob has a rocket in his pocket” (whatever that might mean), here is a place you can share them, with no structural prerequisites standing in your way. If they are any good, presumably your audience, composed of your peers, will be able to discern that for themselves, yes?
For comparison’s sake, consider the content that is protected as officially holy by the various institutionalized religions and tell me again how it’s an improvement over “Bob has a rocket in his pocket”.
Well, they were under the happy effects of something, but everyone was quite sober. To be honest, I don’t think I could assemble a nicer bunch of folks if I tried.
There’s another option: Reform Judaism. It doesn’t actively seek converts, but it certainly welcomes them. “Tikkun olam” – repairing the world – is a close cousin to UU’s agenda of social justice. Intellectual inquiry is encouraged; the old joke “Put two Jews in a room, and you’ll have three opinions” also applies to UUs. I always thought of UU as being halfway between liberal Christianity and Reform Judaism.
If you’re a theist, there’s another option: Reform Judaism. It doesn’t actively seek converts, but it certainly welcomes them. “Tikkun olam” – repairing the world – is a close cousin to UU’s agenda of social justice. Intellectual inquiry is encouraged; the old joke “Put two Jews in a room, and you’ll have three opinions” also applies to UUs. I always thought of UU as being halfway between liberal Christianity and Reform Judaism.
My parents just joined the UUs. It’s probably worth mentioning that they are often very much focused on social causes. If helping people is your thing, then they do that.
When we were looking at possible churches many years back, we actually visited a temple and spoke with a rabbi. Place and guy had a ton going for them. We felt we could have fit in well, but the deal breaker for us was that there was no way around that God requirement!
So it has the religious function of. . . a philanthropic sing-along book club and tea-society? So my impression that it’s for compassionate people who miss “church” on a social and personal level but don’t believe in much of the stuff commonly tied with such activities is correct?
As a UU member, does it offend/irritate you at all when you explain it to someone who gets genuinely a tad confused and asks “but. . . but [sputter] but why bother?” or do you just smile and nod and say “exactly”?
The UU that was (in my undergrad when I was at big state university, not small state university) close to me was full of Wiccans and had a very high percentage of gays/lesbians in attendence. The Christian Unitarians have their own website. I came across it about a year ago. I will look for it if I have time. I think most of the groups within the UU have their own thing going on.
Not all UU congregations call themselves “churches” - I was in favor of my church losing that designation, but was in the vast minority. Having been raised RC, believe me, there is not a single aspect of church that I miss.
IME, the majority of folk who “get genuinely confused” simply find it completely foreign, and a little scary, to think that life could go on just fine without an elaborate mythology involving supernatural beings, and some post-death reward/punishment. Many people have simply never considered the possibility of a non-divine basis for morality.
Even tho I reject the idea of God/gods, that does not mean I could not use a little guidance and support once in a while. Why do you feel the it necessary to mock such needs as a “sing along book club and tea-society”? Even tho I assume you wrote that light-heartedly, it is very common for christians to dis UU practices and beliefs. Yet they would bridle should we point out what we consider shortcomings of their religion.
And “churches” have traditionally provided community - far exceeding the worship of a particular deity. Many christians I know seem to be far more interested in the social aspects of their church, and display very little knowledge of their specific church’s philosophy and history. I am always a bit confused why “churched” people seem to resent non-theists or others of a liberal religious bent from partaking of the same benefits.
Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship: www.uucf.org (I hope.)
Most UU, um, churches I know call themselves Fellowships, rather than Churches.
IME, UUs discuss the “why are we here” question. They discuss how to make the world a better place for everyone. Going to my local UU Fellowship is a lot like going to the Presbyterian church I grew up in - only without the requirement to believe a certain creed, or give precidence to a particular Deity.
You might try going to your local fellowship and getting the experience first-hand. Most UUs don’t bite unless invited, and most won’t bother you unless you want to be bothered (again, IME).
The jokes, I think, are revealing. One UU guy told me that if a Unitarian is walking along the road and comes to a crossroads, one way leading to Heaven and the other way to a discussion of Heaven, the Unitarian will always go to the discussion. He asked me a riddle:
Q. Why are Unitarians such bad hymn-singers?
A. They’re always reading ahead a few lines to see if they agree with the words.
(Tell this one to Unitarians, and watch them laugh and say, “I really do that!”)
Of course, you gotta be careful: mock Unitarians too much, and you might wake up one night with a question mark burning in your yard.
Well now, that’s a little unfair. The fourth principle calls for"Free and responsible search for truth and meaning."
Believing that Bob’s rock is the key to salvation just because I think it seems cool would not be adhering to that principle, IMHO, but if there was wisdom to be had there, then we wouldn’t turn our noses up at it.
I’m fairly sure that as far as members of the UUA go, most are theists of one stripe or another.
The rock came from Dangerosa’s parody.
IME, it is all too common for UUs to emphasize “free”, while neglecting the requirement of “responsibility.” Simply put, not all ideas are created equal. If you define your religion as accepting anything that “makes you feel good,” requiring little or no analysis, IMO, that is little better than no-religion. Just an anything-goes feelgood support group.
I’m not entirely sure of that, and seeing as we are in GD you might wish to try to find a cite.
My understanding is that there has historically been considerable tension between the Humanists and theists in Unitarianism and Universalism and - since what 1961? - UU. In recent years, theism certainly seems to be in the ascendency, with Sinkford being unapologetic about his bias towards “faith.” I suspect that trend as a marketing ploy, aimed at attractind disaffected yet not rigorous christians, but I have been accused of cynicism in the past…
I’d say that it’s also common for folks of other faiths to swallow whatever makes them feel good without subjecting it to analysis. Just as it’s much easier to call oneself a Christian than it is to intelligently and thoughtfully act as one, many folks call themselves Unitarian Universalists because they like the community, like the politics, or like the pet rocks. Which is fine. It doesn’t mean that that is what the religion is about, though.
I’ll try to dig something up cite-wise. It’s true that atheism recently has been having a relatively tough time being recognized honestly by the larger organization (which would lead me to assume that more UUs are theists/pan/polytheists than athiests).
I will say though that Humanists are not necessarially athiests, and my assumption (and I’m pretty sure I’ll be able to dig up a cite… give me time ) is that atheists/agnostics are a minority within the UUA, which is what I meant by my sentence, though I may not have stated it clearly.
“FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.”
) is that atheists/agnostics are a minority within the UUA, which is what I meant by my sentence, though I may not have stated it clearly.