What Makes UU A Religion?

[Storm]

I'm bored, so I thought I'd respond in more detail.

Originally Posted by Ebonmuse

First of all: My fiancee and I have been attending our local UU church for over a year; we've both signed our names in their membership book, and the minister is performing our wedding in a few months. So, if anyone still thinks that I'm ignorant about Unitarian Universalism, let's put that to bed right now, thanks.

You should know better, then.

Regarding Buddhism and Taoism and whether they're religions, my answer is "it depends". Some sects of Buddhism and Taoism explicitly do teach belief in the supernatural - like Pure Land Buddhism, or the Taoist sects that teach worship of the Jade Emperor - and those certainly do qualify as religions. Others, like Zen Buddhism, don't include a supernatural component, and I would argue that those are not religions, but are more like philosophies.

That's not your call to make. They're accepted as religions by anyone who doesn't have an ax to grind.

I think the only definition of religion that makes sense is "an organized system of belief in the supernatural" - and by that definition, Unitarian Universalism is not a religion, which was the argument advanced in my post. You can use a different definition if you like, but I've yet to see such a definition that wouldn't also sweep up a variety of groups and causes that people pattern their lives around and advocate passionately, yet are clearly not religions. (If I make it my life's work to follow the exploits of the New York Yankees, is baseball my religion? If I'm a fervent vegetarian and actively promote that lifestyle to everyone I meet, is that my religion? What if I belong to a chess club that has games on Sundays? A book circle?) My definition cleanly excludes such marginal cases.

Reductio ad absurdum does nothing to impress me.

Relevant definitions of religion:
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

UU clearly qualifies, as do the Eastern religions mentioned.

As far as UU's seven principles, I acknowledge that they have some affinity with religious creeds - but the key difference is that a creed is a statement of belief, whereas the seven principles are guidelines for action.

The Principles are both. If you don't believe, you will not act in support of said belief.

As I said, you can justify the UU principles to yourself in any way you like. By contrast, a religious creed like the Nicene Creed or the Islamic shahada is clearly a set of propositional statements about reality. To put it another way, the difference between a church creed and the UU principles is the difference between "is" and "ought".

I've already given the definition of a creed, must I do so again? No one is arguing that our creed is theological in nature, but it is a creed nonetheless.

ETA: You're new here, so allow me to explain a point of forum rules: no debate is allowed in the DIRs, even by members of the relevant religion. We're verging on breaking that, so if you care to respond to this post, I would suggest starting a spin-off thread in an appropriate area.

[applewuud]

About the "creed"...
One of the commonly-accepted meanings of the word "creed" is that it is a statement that is required to be affirmed by every member of the group, e.g. a required test of belief. The Principles and Purposes are explicitly not a creed in this sense, and there was much debate when they were adopted by the UUA fearing that they would turn into one. Many individual UU churches have in their bylaws a statement that "no creedal test shall be required for membership". We are free to disagree and debate the Principles and Purposes, not locked to them; they can be amended like the Constitution.

Yet, we need to have a common statement that clarifies our mission, and the 7 principles do a nice job of that, and the Sources do a nice job of explaining where we've come from, our heritages. We're attached to them now, to the point that the last GA voted down an attempt to revise them.

As for religion: linking the term to supernatural belief doesn't work all that well, academically. (For some people, the Yankees ARE their religion, unfortunately We would just criticize it as not being ultimate enough, unlike the higher belief in the Red Sox.)

About "religion"...
Religion is about values, your ultimate concern, and being in community with others who share most of those values. UUs can't prove the inherent worth and dignity of all people, any more than Christians can prove the divinity of Jesus. We can't prove that the democratic process is better than authoritarianism. That is why it is a faith, not a science. A religion is a belief system about the nature of the universe; most UUs believe the world is miracle enough as it is, without non-natural occurrences piercing the veil. There is still much room for mystery, without supernaturalism. Supernaturalism itself could well be the result of natural workings of our very complex and peculiar 3-part brains, and while a valid human experience, not outside the natural order.

[xkatz]

If you can say you are a Universal Unitarian or that you go to a UU church, then I think it's safe to say it's indeed a religion. Also to add on, a religion is a system of beliefs that can be incorporated formally or informally and religion doesn't necessarily have to include the super natural (at least that's what think it means)

[Apion]

Since we're dealing with definitions and cultural practices, Geertz' take on religion may be the most appropriate.

"A religion is (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."

Does the UU fit that description?

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Apion

Since we're dealing with definitions and cultural practices, Geertz' take on religion may be the most appropriate.

"A religion is (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."

Does the UU fit that description?

Arguably, but who is Geertz, and why should I lend him more authority than the dictionary?

[bicker]

The dictionary was written by biased humans. I remember reading a definition of "abortion" in a dictionary that labeled it categorically as immoral, when we know that reasonable people disagree about that.

If you (the generic "you") choose to affix any specific status to something that is a matter of personal perspective, like "religion", then it is nothing short of mental masturbation to impose your own personal precepts regarding what is "religion" onto those who do not share your personal perspective. That would be no different from me imposing a requirement that you understand the nature of ATSC and QAM, and the differences between the two, in order for you to be considered "intelligent".

Arbitrary and capricious distinction, in matters such as this, just demonstrate arbitrariness and capriciousness, not distinction.

[Apion]

Originally Posted by Storm

Arguably, but who is Geertz, and why should I lend him more authority than the dictionary?

Did you already exhaust Google?