Believing what we 'want'

[hartlandcat]

One of the common misconceptions non-Unitarians often have of Unitarianism is that it encourages us to believe whatever we want to. I seem to remember this coming up on the common misconceptions thread last year.

However, I have increasingly heard this view coming from actual Unitarians as well. For example, last week, I went to the Annual Meetings of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches in Britain and Ireland, and in the service on the final evening, some children read out a poem they had written about the Unitarian ethos. I was surprised when it ended with an explicit reference to how we are encouraged to 'believe what we want'.

What do people here think about this? I will say that it bothered me, and that I disagree with it for two main reasons:

Firstly, I cannot accept that any and every belief has a place within the Unitarian movement. Support genocide, for example, I believe would be a fundamentally un-Unitarian view, since it would not affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person.

Secondly, although I understand that one of the main Unitarian principals is a free search for truth and meaning, I had always understood this also to be a responsible search. Otherwise, we might end up believing in what we might want to happen or be true, even if it doesn't have any basis in reason or experience.

So I suppose the question arising from this is — do Unitarians have to base their beliefs upon reason and/or experience, or can we just decide that we like something and believe in it anyway?

 

[uu_sage]

You're right; I agree with you a 100 percent. We as Universalists, Unitarians, and Unitarian Universalists cannot allow any belief to pass as legitimate in our movement. Mistreatment of living beings is unacceptable, blind faith, and accepting things at face value is unacceptable, believing one faith is right, and all others are wrong is unacceptable, censorship is unacceptable or to sum it all up any belief that seeks to deny love, justice, freedom, acceptance, or wholeness is unacceptable. Our beliefs must be viewed in light of reason and experience. We cannot simply believe it because an authority, institution, book, or person said it. Rather we must adopt beliefs if they make sense to the mind, the heart, and common sense. In many cases when beliefs go unexamined some horrendous stuff has taken place. In our dialogue within and beyond our movement we need to explain that while we are a free church that continually evolves we must not be complacent or apathetic in shining light on beliefs that can do some serious damage. May it be so.

 

[des]

I agree with this as well. I hear the same thing about UCC, that we are the church that doesn't believe anything or believes whatever we want. And it is the same basic idea, that because we take a progressive view of Jesus (and views differ on just how progressive that is), there are many views that are antithetical. And I think they are the same basic ones: for instance no UCCer will our faith is right and you are all wrong, that we tolerate injustice, and so on. In fact there is a fundamentalist UCC group. It drives me crazy. What drives me crazy is this is very fundamentally not UCC.
(For instance, they have started a group supporting churches that says homosexuality is evil. I think they should go to Southern Baptist, if they want to believe that.)

--des

You're right; I agree with you a 100 percent. We as Universalists, Unitarians, and Unitarian Universalists cannot allow any belief to pass as legitimate in our movement. Mistreatment of living beings is unacceptable, blind faith, and accepting things at face value is unacceptable, believing one faith is right, and all others are wrong is unacceptable, censorship is unacceptable or to sum it all up any belief that seeks to deny love, justice, freedom, acceptance, or wholeness is unacceptable. Our beliefs must be viewed in light of reason and experience. We cannot simply believe it because an authority, institution, book, or person said it. Rather we must adopt beliefs if they make sense to the mind, the heart, and common sense. In many cases when beliefs go unexamined some horrendous stuff has taken place. In our dialogue within and beyond our movement we need to explain that while we are a free church that continually evolves we must not be complacent or apathetic in shining light on beliefs that can do some serious damage. May it be so.

 

[applewuud]

...believing one faith is right, and all others are wrong is unacceptable, censorship is unacceptable or to sum it all up any belief that seeks to deny love, justice, freedom, acceptance, or wholeness is unacceptable. Our beliefs must be viewed in light of reason and experience. ...In many cases when beliefs go unexamined some horrendous stuff has taken place. In our dialogue within and beyond our movement we need to explain that while we are a free church that continually evolves we must not be complacent or apathetic in shining light on beliefs that can do some serious damage. May it be so.

"Religious freedom" is trivialized and de-energized when it is interpreted as "believe anything you want". Freedom is a responsibility. Our freedom is to examine the world and generate our best possible understanding of it, and of ourselves. We are NOT free to passively accept whatever ideas come our way; our responsibility is to put things to the test.

The challenge to Unitarian-Universalism (and to the United Church of Christ, and liberal religionists of every stripe) is to remain open to new or different ideas while holding up a high standard. We need to actively discriminate between pathways that are damaging or just dead ends, and those that are healing and life-giving. If our churches/fellowships aren't positive allies in making this exploration, we might as well all stay home and watch television.

The hard part is: at some point, that means being willing to state that some faiths are "more right than others". Every faith has its paradoxes, and this is ours. We inherently dislike faiths that are judgmental, but ultimately we do have to make a judgment.

There's a hymn in Singing the Living Tradition: "Once to every soul and nation, comes a moment to decide, in the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side."* Too often liberal religion is "sloppy agape", not willing to engage in honest conflict. Perhaps more accurately, we're willing to take a clear stand in political conflicts (to excess, if you read some threads), but we have "left the field" when it comes to theological conflicts. We'll preach and march against toxic political beliefs, but too often when it comes to toxic religious beliefs, UUs aren't willing to challenge them...until a bunch of people commit ritual suicide or fly planes into buildings. :sorry1:


*the full original text and music is at http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/n/oncetoev.htm; it was written as a protest against the war with Mexico! By James Lowell, a good Boston antislavery Congregationalist, Des...

 

[des]

This is an awesome post and properly froogled.
I think it is easier for us to be critical, ironically, of toxic Christian beliefs than toxic other religious beliefs. I find this particularly the case with Islam. And I have found it on this forum itself. I find myself constantly, apparently, in a little struggle of my own
against anti-Islamic views, esp if they veer to prejudice and so on. But after reading very many posts, I have to admit that I find some Islamic views (and I am I not discussing the more violent politicized Islam-- as I don't really think it is Islam) but I find these every bit as toxic as toxic Christian ones. Funny thing that I really didn't know that until I started reading awhile. I suppose once you take a book (or an idea), any book (any idea), and you declare it is the Truth with a capital T, then every other book (or idea) is by definition wrong and almost evil. It took reading the actual posts people wrote vs my own knowledge (which maybe wasn't enough) to get that idea. B

I consider myself an anti-slavery Congregationalist.
BTW, that hymn gets, in the Christian version, very very well bloody with the martyrs bloody feet and so on. I can't find it in the first line index of the hymnal as I only recall it as once to every *man* and nation. I'm sure we don't sing it that way. And it isn't soul and nation either in ours. I'd like to find it, as I didn't know it was written about the war with Mexico.


--des

"Religious freedom" is trivialized and de-energized when it is interpreted as "believe anything you want". Freedom is a responsibility. Our freedom is to examine the world and generate our best possible understanding of it, and of ourselves. We are NOT free to passively accept whatever ideas come our way; our responsibility is to put things to the test.

The challenge to Unitarian-Universalism (and to the United Church of Christ, and liberal religionists of every stripe) is to remain open to new or different ideas while holding up a high standard. We need to actively discriminate between pathways that are damaging or just dead ends, and those that are healing and life-giving. If our churches/fellowships aren't positive allies in making this exploration, we might as well all stay home and watch television.

The hard part is: at some point, that means being willing to state that some faiths are "more right than others". Every faith has its paradoxes, and this is ours. We inherently dislike faiths that are judgmental, but ultimately we do have to make a judgment.

There's a hymn in Singing the Living Tradition: "Once to every soul and nation, comes a moment to decide, in the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side."* Too often liberal religion is "sloppy agape", not willing to engage in honest conflict. Perhaps more accurately, we're willing to take a clear stand in political conflicts (to excess, if you read some threads), but we have "left the field" when it comes to theological conflicts. We'll preach and march against toxic political beliefs, but too often when it comes to toxic religious beliefs, UUs aren't willing to challenge them...until a bunch of people commit ritual suicide or fly planes into buildings. :sorry1:


*the full original text and music is at http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/n/oncetoev.htm; it was written as a protest against the war with Mexico! By James Lowell, a good Boston antislavery Congregationalist, Des...

 

[uufreespirit]

This topic is one of my main ongoing rants, as visitors to my "Faith of the Free" Yahoo group, and companion message board will attest. One of the categories in a new essay I'm doing at the message board is called "Free But Not Cheap." (The essay is tentatively titled "Religion Lite--Or Religion Liberated?," by the way.) One of my main points is that freedom (at least as seen religiously) is best viewed as an "enabler"...as a means toward some larger ideals or goals, rather than as an end in itself.

Anyway, I also agree that this is a great thread. The very fact that we're discussing this, I take as an encouraging sign.

Ron

(ref. groups.yahoo.com/group/Faith_of_the_Free, and FaithoftheFree.informe.com)

 

[jamaesi]

I think it is easier for us to be critical, ironically, of toxic Christian beliefs than toxic other religious beliefs. I find this particularly the case with Islam. And I have found it on this forum itself. I find myself constantly, apparently, in a little struggle of my own
against anti-Islamic views, esp if they veer to prejudice and so on. But after reading very many posts, I have to admit that I find some Islamic views (and I am I not discussing the more violent politicized Islam-- as I don't really think it is Islam) but I find these every bit as toxic as toxic Christian ones. Funny thing that I really didn't know that until I started reading awhile. I suppose once you take a book (or an idea), any book (any idea), and you declare it is the Truth with a capital T, then every other book (or idea) is by definition wrong and almost evil. It took reading the actual posts people wrote vs my own knowledge (which maybe wasn't enough) to get that idea. B

Would you mind expounding on that for me?

 

[des]

Jamaesi asked me to explain this. That's why I'm quoting myself.I don't think it is quite so wonderful, must not have been if she took offense from it.

As a former more traditional Christian, I find it is easy to be critical of toxic aspects of Christianity. But there are toxic aspects of most religions, even the most benign perhaps. But I am loathe to criticize other faiths, esp ones I am less familiar with. I am certainly loathe to criticize Islam, esp since I don't know that much about it. The other reason, is that there is a very nasty current streak of anti-Islamic rhetoric, which I see expressed a lot in this forum and in many other places as well. I certainly do not wish to encourage it, and would never discuss these ideas in an open debate forum.

The toxic aspects of Christianity are things like: belief that there is only ONE truth, their's; substitutional atonement; Original sin; a physical hell where those who are not Christian go,etc etc. I can name them off as I am quite familiar with them. It is going to be harder to name aspects of any other faith that I might consider toxic, as I am not so familiar.

However, since reading a LOT of posts in the debate section, I find some posters (much more than others-- for instance you and Djamali, I find discussing aspects of Islam that I see as wonderful and beautiful, but I don't find this entirely uniform).
But I find certain posters particularly who post aspects of Islam (pretty much identical to the more fundamentalist Christian posters btw) posting views that seem to express a single Truth that is highly constrained. And even saying that you and Djamali aren't really Muslims since you don't share these identical ideas, but say that Islam can change for the times. I don't really wish to name names. I don't know of specific posts, but the posts in question say things like those who aren't Muslim (in their understanding) are totally wrong and will go to a physical hell. Also I don't care for the views of anybody that quotes any sort of scripture in all caps. I don't know, call me old fashioned, but I believe that in net terms that would be screaming scriptures.
I have seen fundamentalist Christians and conservative Muslims shouting scriptures at each other. That's dysfunctional or something!

I'm sorry if I offended you. I just meant that there are aspects of all religions, I couldn't think of anything I have read here that I considered quite in the same light as fundamentalist Christian and, I don't know if you can really use the term, but fundamentalist Muslims. I'm sure they exist, I just haven't seen them.

The reason I am excluding politicized Islam (as expressed by Osama Bin Ladin, say) is that I am pretty sure that while it is toxic (just as the more extreme fundamentalist Christians such as those shown in Jesus Camp), it is such an aberration of the true message of Islam (or Christianity) as to not really be in the same league. Jesus, for instance, did not ever preach little children taking up arms against others. Just as Mohammed did not preach taking up arms and murdering thousands of civilians-- in fact quite the opposite.


Does that explain things better?


--des

This is an awesome post and properly froogled.
I think it is easier for us to be critical, ironically, of toxic Christian beliefs than toxic other religious beliefs. I find this particularly the case with Islam. And I have found it on this forum itself. I find myself constantly, apparently, in a little struggle of my own
against anti-Islamic views, esp if they veer to prejudice and so on. But after reading very many posts, I have to admit that I find some Islamic views (and I am I not discussing the more violent politicized Islam-- as I don't really think it is Islam) but I find these every bit as toxic as toxic Christian ones. Funny thing that I really didn't know that until I started reading awhile. I suppose once you take a book (or an idea), any book (any idea), and you declare it is the Truth with a capital T, then every other book (or idea) is by definition wrong and almost evil. It took reading the actual posts people wrote vs my own knowledge (which maybe wasn't enough) to get that idea. B



--des

 

[applewuud]

Jamaesi, an example of a toxic theology you quite properly challenged was the Muslim who posted that Muslims who marry non-Muslims are fornicators. From a fundamentalist, "sola scriptura" viewpoint, that poster wasn't "wrong". From our viewpoint (and the viewpoint of moderate scholars), the poster was wrong because he's dividing the community into the saved and unsaved. But it takes theological work to establish the basis of our view.

The Koran says what it says, and so does the Bible. There are difficult passages in all of them. But contextual criticism, which places a passage in the context of the Prophet's life and other actions and writings, requires a lot of scholarship and years of responsible study, which we don't often hear in the West. Liberal scholars try to avoid the error of over-literalism: a particular Biblical or Koranic passage applied to an event in a particular time and context, and may not be applied literally in isolation to contemporary situations.

For example, Leviticus clearly sanctions a man being stoned to death because he gathered firewood on the Sabbath. Do contemporary Jews stone people to death who fill a gas tank or go to Wal-Mart on Saturday? :no: Of course not. Why? It would be immoral to do so now.

Here's an example of a liberal interpretation that tries to keep faith with a growing moral understanding, without throwing the text out the window: At the time the stoning took place, the Jewish community was just in the first days of establishing the Sabbath in a world where it was an unknown custom and Jews were a small tribe among many others. The man who was stoned to death wasn't just trying to keep warm, but doing something openly and flagrantly to undermine the young Jewish community. The context was completely different than it would be 3,000 years later, after centuries of having an established community and tradition.

Having said that, Unitarians in the 19th century made many such intellectual interpretations, trying to "keep" some kind of relationship with scripture written thousands of years ago. The humanists just turned their backs on the whole need for that...and as a result liberal scholarship and criticism from UUs faded away. Now, in our encounter with fundamentalists of every stripe, I can see the value of having a good background with those "old" ideas.

I was happy last week to see the PBS series "America at the Crossroads" featured a very well-versed Muslim imam who's teaching the ideas of tolerance that have a long tradition in Islam. We don't know enough about that, and sadly, don't seem to get much of that on RF.

Along those lines, I'm concerned that Djamila seems to have disappeared, after posting some links to videos that show Muslim pop singers, and being attacked for them being "non-Muslim". Where did she go?

 

[jamaesi]

des-
Don't worry, I wasn't offended in the least, just curious. I like to hear what "outsiders" think about Islam- it helps me think about it, myself.

Applewuud-
To put the "Muslim woman cannot marry a nonMuslim man" idea in perspective... I can completely understand how, when Islam was founded, there would be pressure for a Muslim woman to marry a Muslim man. It was through Islam that a woman was guaranteed human rights and equal treatment. NonMuslim women would come to Muslim courts to be treated fairly in areas such as divorce. Islam was very revolutionary in the rights it gave to females. Back then I would be loathe to marry a nonMuslim man.

Now... this just isn't the case anymore in most countries (and it's also the opposite in too many "Islamic" countries). I wouldn't have to be married to Muslim man to be assured that I would have equal rights even though I was a wife. Of course, this opens up the whole can of worms interfaith couples have to deal with but that's another issue.

It's just... you have a brain and you use it and you get called a "kaffir" for not just burying your head in the sand and going along with whatever is going on, good or bad. Just frustrating.


I don't know if you'd be interested, but No God But God by Reza Aslan is an excellent book about understanding the past and future of Islam.



I can't really say where Djamila has gone off to, but I sure do miss her around here.

 

[michel]

I am curious now; would a UU "group" refuse access to any follower of any particular religions ? (I have always understood that it embraced - though has no focus on - any particular belief system?)

 

[lilithu]

I am curious now; would a UU "group" refuse access to any follower of any particular religions ? (I have always understood that it embraced - though has no focus on - any particular belief system?)

Namaste, Michel.

No UU group that I know would refuse community with someone just because they are a follower of a particular religion. And if they did, I would have an issue with them. BUT, a UU group might refuse community with someone if they held beliefs that violate our fundamental values - such as our belief in the inherent worth of each person. For example, there are Christians who believe that God's love extends to all. And there are Christians who believe that all non-Christians are going to hell. We would not have a problem with someone just because they're Christian (there are many Christians in my UU congregation) but we would probably have a problem with someone who keeps telling most of our members that they're going to hell.

Does that make sense?

Almost every religion is complex enough such that there are followers who interpret it through the eyes of love and inclusion and there are followers who interpret it through the eyes of division and exclusion. We only have a problem with the latter.

 

[des]

Hi,

Whew! I didn't think I was being offensive, but one does have to be careful as to how those ideas might relate to "insiders". It is one thing to attack the more literalist views
of *Christianity". After all, I do get beat up with them by my brother! However, I don't have any personal involvement with Islam.

I think I had some of this in mind Applewuud, I just couldn't think of any specific examples. But yes, I remember this one. I also remember how Djamali has been attacked many times (and you, Jamaesi, a few) for taking on supposed non-Islam ideas. This is EXACTLY the way literalist Christians attack progressive Christians. They beat them over the head with the idea that they aren't Christian so often that people like me don't even like the word "Christian" anymore.

I'm not sure that this is really even about Islam or Christianity, but about the way various religions have dealt with modernity. In fact, I have heard that the fleeing to fundamentalism is the fleeing away from modernity. I saw something, I think it might have been this Crossroads series on how moderate Islam in Indonesia with its very tolerant ideas (something I think, from my understanding of Mohammed, would have pleased the prophet) giving way to fear, the cloistering of women, and so on, and attacks on Hindus in Bali. In this country, fundamentalist Christians, have made women feel that they belong in the home and that men are in charge and are attacking gays and lesbians, and I think encouraging violence. Many of the customs of in Islam that are so clung are old tribal customs back from over a 1000 years ago.
So I'm not so sure you'll find out how others view Islam from my comments.

I have read "No god but God". I think Reza Aslan is fascinating. The book is extremely well written, and some old beliefs about Islam that I keep hearing bandied about are just plan not true. I also saw him debate Sam Harris, who usually comes across very glib and articulate. But he wasn't much of a match for Aslan's superior breadth of knowledge.

I very much miss Djamili too, not quite sure how to spell her name.
I think she was put down a lot, though I loved reading her posts.

--des

des-
Don't worry, I wasn't offended in the least, just curious. I like to hear what "outsiders" think about Islam- it helps me think about it, myself.

Applewuud-
To put the "Muslim woman cannot marry a nonMuslim man" idea in perspective... I can completely understand how, when Islam was founded, there would be pressure for a Muslim woman to marry a Muslim man. It was through Islam that a woman was guaranteed human rights and equal treatment. NonMuslim women would come to Muslim courts to be treated fairly in areas such as divorce. Islam was very revolutionary in the rights it gave to females. Back then I would be loathe to marry a nonMuslim man.

Now... this just isn't the case anymore in most countries (and it's also the opposite in too many "Islamic" countries). I wouldn't have to be married to Muslim man to be assured that I would have equal rights even though I was a wife. Of course, this opens up the whole can of worms interfaith couples have to deal with but that's another issue.

It's just... you have a brain and you use it and you get called a "kaffir" for not just burying your head in the sand and going along with whatever is going on, good or bad. Just frustrating.


I don't know if you'd be interested, but No God But God by Reza Aslan is an excellent book about understanding the past and future of Islam.



I can't really say where Djamila has gone off to, but I sure do miss her around here.

 

[des]

I think usually people going into a UU church have a vague idea that this is not a traditional church and really wouldn't go into one if they felt uncomfortable with that idea. We have had people come into our UCC congregation though, and I think they did not know what they were getting into and are shocked. It has happened a few times. I think the biggest thing is the welcoming of gays and lesbians. I've never actually seen anyone walk out though.

I would guess that people have walked out of UU churches but probably right at the beginning.

--des

 

[lilithu]

So I suppose the question arising from this is — do Unitarians have to base their beliefs upon reason and/or experience, or can we just decide that we like something and believe in it anyway?

I don't know if I would say that Unitarian (U)s HAVE TO base their beliefs upon reason and/or experience. Altho I have to say that I have yet to meet a U/U who doesn't value these highly. I'm much more comfortable articulating what we CANNOT do rather than what we HAVE TO do. So, as you say, a U/U cannot believe that genocide is a good thing. A U/U cannot believe/support anything that demeans the worth of others.

Beyond that, if a U/U wants to believe in a pink invisible unicorn that leaves nuts for chipmunks and squirrels in the winter, such a belief would defy both reason and personal experience imo (at least I've never seen such a thing) BUT I wouldn't say he or she would be violating the spirit of what it means to be U/U. For me, the primary concern is ethical. As long as the beliefs do not lead to or condone the harm of others, I'll try to leave them be.

I do not know any UUs who believe in said pink invisible unicorns, but I have met a few UUs who believe in ETs and ghosts and faeries and other things in which I do not believe. I don't particularly like it - imo it makes us look a little nutty - but I acknowledge that for non-theist UUs my belief in God makes us look a little nutty, so hey. We're a colorful bunch of nuts.