Maltese_Falcon91
Hey, Kita-Ysabell, I really don't know much about Unitarian Universalists... but I did look it up, and this is the definition I got. If it's incomplete, or I somehow misread it, please let me know.
Wikipedia.org
Unitarian Universalism is a religious denomination characterized by support for a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning".[
1] Unitarian Universalists do not share a creed; rather, they are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth and by the understanding that an individual's theology is a result of that search and not obedience to an authoritarian requirement. Unitarian Universalists draw on many different theological sources and have a wide range of beliefs and practices.
One of the most difficult things about Unitarian Universalism is that it is both insanely hard and stupidly easy to explain. Trying to explain it to a life-long Catholic in Guatemala, in Spanish no less? Not gonna happen. Wikipedia entry? One of the less accurate ones, but
only because only one of the seven principles was included in the overview. Here's all seven:
The Seven Principles (from www.uua.org)
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
Maltese_Falcon91
So... you like thinking for yourself and coming to your own conclusions? Well, so do I. I really,
really like it. But, at the same time, I don't really think you have any right to be offended when somebody comes up with a truth you don't necessarily agree with.
It's not really a matter of thinking for oneself. There is a strong rationalist tradition within UU, but that... isn't what defines it. UU is about taking those hippy-looking Seven Principles and saying that they are
sacred. Not important, not ideal, not good sense,
sacred. In
exactly the same way that a monotheistic religion considers God to be sacred. That's what makes it a religion and not a political movement.
So here's how the OP violates and insults each of those principles in turn:
The inherent worth and dignity of every person: Well, we start off with that "pious cretin" bit. You might say that I did the same thing, but whereas I phrased it so that an asshat is something that someone (and in fact, anyone) can
be, the OP phrased it so that a pious cretin is something that certain people always
are. What's more, I intentionally chose a word that, while clearly negative, doesn't have a whole lot of meaning and used contextual clues to define that word to mean exactly what I meant it to.
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations: See above. I do understand getting frustrated with someone and ranting or writing a rant in response. That should be self-evident. But turning around to a
writing forum and being like, "Here's what I wrote, isn't it awesome?" is something a bit different. I hope the OP showed more respect in-person than they did here. What's more, the OP advocates that other people take up their abusive tactics, extending the chain of disrespect and hypocrisy.
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations: Well I certainly hope the OP isn't a UU, or I'll eat my bumpit. So I guess they get off on this one.
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning: Despite the "everyone should believe what they wish" line, the overall message of the OP is that religion should be abolished. That doesn't sound like a very free search for truth and meaning, and as for responsibility, well. Responsibility means holding your theories accountable for their implications. It means going out and exploring the ideas you're trying to refute. It means being rigorous about the internal logic of your arguments. It doesn't mean doing these things flawlessly, but it means not being proud about failing to do them.
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large: So what does
this have to do with what's wrong with the OP? This principle is about trust in humanity. It's about being very careful about saying that an idea held by a large group of people is somehow holding them back, and that they should be liberated (forcefully if necessary) from that idea. While the OP's implication that there is a silent majority of "closet non-believers" seems to agree with the ideals of democratic process, the OP says that such non-believers must take
leadership roles, not those equal to believers. In effect, the OP advocates
reversing, rather than abolishing, the totalitarianism that they claim religion supports.
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all: Peace, liberty, and justice are conditional upon practices which, as outlined above, the OP advocates against. World community? Sure, but probably one resembling that in Aldous Huxley's
Brave New World.
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part: This is mostly about hippy-dippy environmentalism. But it's a particular brand of environmentalism from which a large part of the more spiritual aspects of UU arise. But the
absolute trust in SCIENCE, a human activity, to solve
all problems, and the justification that human interests are the
only interests to be taken into account? That's a discussion for a thread in which logic is not DOA.
I don't expect everyone to hold these principles in equal reverence. See Principle #4. But breaking at least five out of seven in one go is right out. That goes beyond "equal reverence" and into "you, sir, need to reconsider your approach, because this one sucks."
And, remember that the OP is saying all these nasty things about
religions, of which UU is one.
So yes, I
do feel that I have a right to be offended by that post, as a Unitarian Universalist.
Maltese_Falcon91
My personal beliefs probably conflict with what you believe. If you wrote up an essay detailing how you thought the Nietzschian concept of god being dead was stupid, and that the people who believed it would lead happier lives if they embraced whatever it is you believe, well I wouldn't be offended in the slightest. I might debate that point, but I'd
never take it as a personal insult, and call you an asshat.
Haha, that is
so not something I would write an essay about. I mean what I do believe (it's complicated) is such that "god is dead" is a statement that wouldn't likely be something that I'd refute, for a number of reasons including the context of the statement and the fact that I like the idea of the death of the author. Please don't ask. It's not important.
But if I
did write such an essay, I would laud you for not thinking it offensive. As you have given the subject of my hypothetical essay, there's nothing offensive about it. It's not about holding the same beliefs, it's about being genuinely respectful in communicating them, which the OP
does not do, as I have outlined above.
And about that "asshat" thing. Let's play a game of contextual definition!
Asshat(n. as defined by me): a state of being rather than an inherent property, a hypocrite, ignorant, offensive, intellectually dishonest
Religion(n. as defined by the OP): the polar opposite of science, a belief in an ultimate truth, a mythology, monotheism, totalitarianism, cowardice, mind control, something divorced from belief, a hindrance to our future, a lie, the polar opposite of reason
Now, which one of these contradicts not only itself, but its dictionary definition?
Maltese_Falcon91
Kita-Ysabell
Science neither opposes nor replaces religion.
Where are you getting this idea that science never opposes religion from? It happens all the time, and is a reality that both atheists and theists have to come to terms with.
I'm getting it from Bertrand Russell and his discussion of the importance of philosophy. Although even his definition of science is... lacking. Science is a model. Religion is a point from which we hang a pendulum and say, "from this, all." Science may refute a literal interpretation of the Bible, but it can never refute a metaphoric one. Religion is not mythology, though it may be involved in one. So on and so forth.
Note that I am saying this from the perspective of a very stripped-down religion.
150
200
100
