Language of Reverence

[lilithu]

The 54% number is recent. Humanists no longer dominate. The peak of their domination was over 50 years ago.

No disputing that UU was dominated by Humanists at one time and less so now. I'm just saying that there have always been other voices. We have not been so entirely anti-religious for so long that we would be inventing from scratch. And as I said, many UUs come to us from other traditions. In my congregation we have Christians, Jews, Pagans, Buddhist, Hindus and atheists. I myself come to UU with Christianity and Buddhism in my background, with a temporary detour through Paganism. For me, prayer and ritual are not something that I have to reinvent after generations of absence.

I think this is equivocating away from the point of the discussion. Yes, people self-identify in mystifyingly inconsistent ways, but there is still important take-aways from the reality of the results of the surveys. Big things, like that the dominence of Humanism has substantailly been mitigated over the last 50 years, for example.

I don't find it to be either mystifying or inconsistent. To be humanist (with a little "h") does not preclude being a theist, even a classical theist. (It does seem to preclude Calvinism, however.) To be agnostic does not preclude theism either.

My point was that the polls likely do not show these nuances. I would bet that if you add up all the things that UUs identify as, it comes to much more than 100%. I bet that many theistic UUs said "yes" when asked whether they identify as humanist.

I think you'll get a whole mess of objection to your assertion that all UUs are Humanists. Humanism has very specific tenets that many UUs simply don't agree with. In the aforementioned UU history and theology class we're taking, only a small minority are Humanist. I think at least half of the class would take you to task, with substantative foundation for their objections, for even suggesting that they were Humanists.

Well that shows how different UUs are from congregation to congregation. In my congregation I have yet to meet a UU who objects to being called a humanist (little h). I've gotten a raised eyebrow here and there but when I explain what I mean by humanism - human welfare and human agency - everyone has agreed.

True, but you've highlighted one reason why many of us are not Humanists (see the phrase I underlined in your quote). Some believe that a human-focused belief system is too arrogant. Others feel that it ignores overriding considerations that go beyond the human race. People can agree or disagree with the folks who hold those views, but cannot deny people have those views and that such views invalidate them from consideration as Humanists.

I believe in the interdependent web of existence of which humans are only a part. Nonetheless, I am a humanist. Humanism to me does not mean humans above all the rest of creation. It means that human welfare should never be subordinated to an idea, whether it be a view of God, or communism, or nationalism, etc. It means a belief in human agency - that whatever our problems, it is our responsibility to address them. That includes environmental problems. I do not see humanism as the "worship of humans" - the elevation of humans above all else. I do however agree that there have been strands of Humanism (with a big H) that come close to that.

Indeed. Though I think we can revel in the idea that we can disagree with each other, so passionately, in this context, and still be brothers and sisters in faith. :angel2:

I wouldn't call the disagreement passionate, at least not on my end. But am glad that we are still sisters and brothers in faith.

 

[blackout]

Irreverance is actually PART of my personal "religion".

How would UU reconcile this, if I were one of their congregation?

 

[J Bryson]

Irreverance is actually PART of my personal "religion".

How would UU reconcile this, if I were one of their congregation?

First, they'd laugh. Then they'd come up with jokes equally or more irreverent. Then in two weeks, you'd find yourself somehow facilitating a post-sermon irreverence discussion group.

 

[lilithu]

Irreverance is actually PART of my personal "religion".

How would UU reconcile this, if I were one of their congregation?

My personal approach to religion mixes equal parts reverence with irreverance. I've never seen that to be at odds with UU. In fact, it's very much in keeping with UU. We recognize that there is something greater than just us, and religion is the human response to that something greater. At the same time, we recognize that religion is but the human response, not the transcendent Itself, and thus not to be taken too seriously. :angel2:

 

[bicker]

Irreverance is actually PART of my personal "religion". How would UU reconcile this, if I were one of their congregation?

A more important question is whether a religious faith can ever reconcile reverence and (specifically) "irreverence". I think it cannot.

 

[bicker]

First, they'd laugh. Then they'd come up with jokes equally or more irreverent. Then in two weeks, you'd find yourself somehow facilitating a post-sermon irreverence discussion group.

Well, that assumes that the irreverence is meant as "jokes".

 

[J Bryson]

Well, that assumes that the irreverence is meant as "jokes".

For the sake of the mild joke I made, I worked under that assumption, yes.

 

[lilithu]

A more important question is whether a religious faith can ever reconcile reverence and (specifically) "irreverence". I think it cannot.

I see UU as holding several paradoxes simultaneously.

It is a religion where it definitely helps to be uncomfortable with uncertainty. :angel2:

 

[bicker]

True, but there's got to be a limit, right? Can a single religious community reconcile full-bore, fire-and-brimstone Southern Baptist Christianity, and Nietzscheanism?

 

[J Bryson]

True, but there's got to be a limit, right? Can a single religious community reconcile full-bore, fire-and-brimstone Southern Baptist Christianity, and Nietzscheanism?

Yes, but I think that our strength has always been in attempting to find where opinions and perspectives can reconcile, rather than the rather obvious places that present insurmountable difficulties. Not saying that we shouldn't be aware of them, but rather that our time and energy can be better spent elsewhere.

 

[lilithu]

True, but there's got to be a limit, right? Can a single religious community reconcile full-bore, fire-and-brimstone Southern Baptist Christianity, and Nietzscheanism?

Hey, I didn't say that we can reconcile all kinds of reverence with all kinds of irreverence! :angel2: While I love Nietzsche, there are definitely kinds of irreverence that I think are objectionable - such as intentionally defiling other people's sacred objects and traditions. I'm just saying that we can and do embrace both things that are considered reverent and things that are considered irreverent.

 

[J Bryson]

We may cut the Bible apart, but we won't tread on it.

 

[blackout]

Hey, I didn't say that we can reconcile all kinds of reverence with all kinds of irreverence! :angel2: While I love Nietzsche, there are definitely kinds of irreverence that I think are objectionable - such as intentionally defiling other people's sacred objects and traditions. I'm just saying that we can and do embrace both things that are considered reverent and things that are considered irreverent.

I like turning symbols/symbolisms in all kinds of directions.
Changing perspective- Seeing new things there- Laying superstition low.

Would the physical representation of that
in say an upside-down pentacle or cross
be considered unacceptably irreverent by a UU group?

I don't consider such a thing irreverent at all.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

 

[bicker]

We may cut the Bible apart, but we won't tread on it.

A distinction that is often only significant to us. :-\ Indeed, I suspect there are many people of faith who would consider the pick-and-choose approach we apply to be more objectionable than wholesale dismissal.

 

[blackout]

A distinction that is often only significant to us. :-\ Indeed, I suspect there are many people of faith who would consider the pick-and-choose approach we apply to be more objectionable than wholesale dismissal.

Well I am a picking, choosing, Self in-terpreter,
so that bodes well with me.

(I'm seriously considering checking out the local UU.
I currently have no friends or social life here. :no: )

 

[J Bryson]

A distinction that is often only significant to us. :-\ Indeed, I suspect there are many people of faith who would consider the pick-and-choose approach we apply to be more objectionable than wholesale dismissal.

Well, sure. Although I prefer the term "reason and choose" to "pick and choose". There are parts of the New Testament that are with value, and I'm not going to toss them out just because I'm skeptical of the magic shows, gay-bashing in the letters, and doom-and-gloom paranoid schizophrenic hallucinations of Revelation.

 

[EverChanging]

I like turning symbols/symbolisms in all kinds of directions.
Changing perspective- Seeing new things there- Laying superstition low.

Would the physical representation of that
in say an upside-down pentacle or cross
be considered unacceptably irreverent by a UU group?

I don't consider such a thing irreverent at all.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

I think its acceptable if you don't intend to insult others' paths, symbols, etc.

 

[blackout]

I think its acceptable if you don't intend to insult others' paths, symbols, etc.

Fair enough.

That would hardly be Universally Uniting.

 

[lilithu]

I like turning symbols/symbolisms in all kinds of directions.
Changing perspective- Seeing new things there- Laying superstition low.

Would the physical representation of that
in say an upside-down pentacle or cross
be considered unacceptably irreverent by a UU group?

I don't consider such a thing irreverent at all.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

I can only answer for myself, as no one has the authority to speak for all UUs. It would depend on your intent. If you were turning crosses and pentacles upside down in order to hurt or offend Christians or Pagans, that is a kind of irreverence that I cannot condone. But if you were turning the symbols upside down because that has a meaning for you that is thought-provoking and leads to expansion of understanding, I would think that was pretty cool.

Personally, I cannot see what is to be gained by turning crosses upside down. But I acknowledge that there might be some situation where it is legitimate. What happens much more often in UU circles is that a certain bit of scripture gets reinterpreted. The reinterpretation may be seen as irreverent, even sacriligious to some people. But for the UUs who are engaged in the reinterpretation it is simulaneously reverent and irreverent. Irreverent with regards to accepted norms and dogma, yes, but reverent in terms of truly engaging with scripture, making it real and relevant for them. It was when I read Rebecca Parker's reinterpretation of the Eden story, and realized that UU was a tradition that not only condoned but encourages reinterpretation, that I finally embraced Unitarian Universalism.

 

[lilithu]

A distinction that is often only significant to us. :-\ Indeed, I suspect there are many people of faith who would consider the pick-and-choose approach we apply to be more objectionable than wholesale dismissal.

Yes, there are many who find it more objectionable. The problem, however, is that we all pick-and-choose from what's in the bible. Even the fundamentalists, biblical literalists pick and choose. They just deny that they are doing it. The only people who don't pick-and-choose are those who reject the bible wholesale. And I don't have much respect for them because there are parts of the bible that are definitely worth lifting up.