Can an Atheist be a UU?

[Splarnst]

I think the author, Adam Lee, would do well to remember that UUism casts itself as a liberal religion and it's irrational to expect its members to be wholly uncritical of people who oppose all religion. He needs to remember that, for better or worse, he's compromising with his Catholic wife in attending a UU group.

And I think Buehrens would do well to distinguish between atheists and anti-theists, and to distinguish between people who write articles critical of religion and people who summarily execute believers and burn down churches, temples, and mosques.

 

[bicker]

According to Wikipedia, Adkisson targeted the UU church because it was "liberal" (and because one of his ex-wives had been a member). No reason to believe he was an atheist, much less than atheism motivated his violence.

Adkisson was specifically anti-atheist. His "manifesto" made that clear.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Another installment.

Atheism and Unitarian Unversalism: An Interlude

This guy is starting to get on my nerves. The conclusions he comes up with don't add up to me.

 

[HumanistUU]

I'm a long term atheist, UU member of about 7 years, and a reader of Adam's blog for a few years. I don't see his interpretation as completely off-base. Just reading Buehrens blurb in the last post without knowing any background, it would be easy to see it as innocuous. But I think it is pretty clear Buehrens does have issues with atheism. I should probably be careful trying to use this analogy, but I think it is valid. Let's say the statement was:

"Encounters and dialogue between religiously motivated radicals and gay activists remain important. America, 'the nation with the soul of a church,' cannot be changed by those who ignore the fact that many people find romantic feelings between two men to be icky and don't want to listen to arguments against homophobia."

Sure you could be generous and assume the speaker is just stating a fact. But if you had just had an exchange regarding some other statements from the same speaker that you also thought showed bigotry towards gay people. And instead of making some clarifying statements that provided context showing your interpretation of his remarks to be incorrect, he took the opportunity to list off several gay people who had committed crimes against humanity or just sent you a bunch of links showing acts involving men, feces, puke, etc. Then when you read the above "quote", you are probably going to read it in a less generous light.

Atheists are pretty much the most despised minority in America and the UU church has only fairly recently made the move to be inclusive towards us. It is not impossible and in fact it is likely that fear/hatred of atheists still holds strong amongst some UUs including those in leadership roles.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Atheists are pretty much the most despised minority in America and the UU church has only fairly recently made the move to be inclusive towards us. It is not impossible and in fact it is likely that fear/hatred of atheists still holds strong amongst some UUs including those in leadership roles.

Welcome to RF and thanks for joining the discussion. While I can't speak to America in General I can say that the three UU churches I've been a part of have not had any fear/hatred towards atheists. In fact, what I've seen is a fair amount of Christian bashing and a struggle to remain open and welcoming to our Christian brethern instead of Atheists and Humanists.

As for Lee's articles, its hard to tell what someone is thinking just from a blog article, that's why I invited him to join our discussion here, in hopes he could enlighten us further.

 

[HumanistUU]

That has been my experience as well. I feel very comfortable as an atheist within my congregation which IIRC has polled over 50% non-theist. But on the other hand, I've also heard from a UU minister that humanism is not a very welcome worldview in the seminary.

All I'm trying to say is just because atheism became officially recognized as compatible with UUism several decades ago, does not mean everyone has dropped their prejudices. And some even see statistics like 50% non-theist as a bad thing. It is more hurtful when someone espousing bigoted views appears to be a leader in good standing.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

That has been my experience as well. I feel very comfortable as an atheist within my congregation which IIRC has polled over 50% non-theist. But on the other hand, I've also heard from a UU minister that humanism is not a very welcome worldview in the seminary.

Well it is the seminary after all. You would expect it to be more religious than the churches themselves.

All I'm trying to say is just because atheism became officially recognized as compatible with UUism several decades ago, does not mean everyone has dropped their prejudices. And some even see statistics like 50% non-theist as a bad thing. It is more hurtful when someone espousing bigoted views appears to be a leader in good standing.

Very true and we should be diligent about eliminating bigotry while at the same time recognising that it is a process that takes time. We can celebrate the progress and keep up the fight at the same time.

 

[Storm]

I think UU varies too widely to draw a conclusion about how welcome Worldview X is in our congregations. Some are indistinguishable from Protestant churches, others anti-God, yet others primarily neopagan. I like the balance my own First Church strikes, but I think virtually any person who agrees with the Principles can find a comfortable home in theory. I say in theory because said person's spiritual home might sadly be out of physical reach.

 

[Quakerguy]

Yes it is possible to be an atheist unitarian universalist.

 

[HumanistUU]

Well it is the seminary after all. You would expect it to be more religious than the churches themselves.

Maybe, but this was a retired minister who clearly identified as Humanist. The way I remember the comment, it was more of a shift. IOW, it was easier to identify as humanist within professional UUism at some point in the past. That would be odd if the congregations were trending to a more non-theist population.

I've really enjoyed my association with my church over the last several years and a lot of that has come from the kids, who really display a very healthy skepticism. I've also been to other churches which have a much higher woo factor. I really hope UUism will continue to be as welcoming towards the atheists, these skeptical kids will turn out to be, in the future as it has been.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I've really enjoyed my association with my church over the last several years and a lot of that has come from the kids, who really display a very healthy skepticism. I've also been to other churches which have a much higher woo factor. I really hope UUism will continue to be as welcoming towards the atheists, these skeptical kids will turn out to be, in the future as it has been.

Me too, the kids are the best part. When I was in Houston I was an RE teacher for 3 years, here in Baton Rouge I'm an assistant teacher. UU kids are the best, they give me hope for the future.

 

[Storm]

Maybe, but this was a retired minister who clearly identified as Humanist. The way I remember the comment, it was more of a shift. IOW, it was easier to identify as humanist within professional UUism at some point in the past. That would be odd if the congregations were trending to a more non-theist population.

I've really enjoyed my association with my church over the last several years and a lot of that has come from the kids, who really display a very healthy skepticism. I've also been to other churches which have a much higher woo factor. I really hope UUism will continue to be as welcoming towards the atheists, these skeptical kids will turn out to be, in the future as it has been.

OK, my knee jerk reaction is to wonder how much things have changed since he was in seminary.

 

[flies]

Buehrens' quote is
<blockquote>Secularists, individuals, please take note! Encounters and dialogue between religiously motivated radicals and more secular activists remain important. America, 'the nation with the soul of a church,' cannot be changed by those who ignore or scorn religion. This book proves that in vitalizing stories</blockquote>
In other words, "Hey you atheists: your misguided project is doomed to fail unless you walk on eggshells".

Lee's reply:
<blockquote>This mean-spirited slur, similar to other caustic language we've heard from Buehrens, implies that atheists can never make meaningful contributions to any social reform effort. This is obviously false and historically ignorant: as I've mentioned before, American freethinkers have played a major part in the abolitionist movement, the battle for civil rights, the feminist movement - Margaret Sanger's motto, after all, was "No Gods, No Masters" - and many more.</blockquote>
while you may disagree about how "mean-spirited" or "caustic" Buehrens remarks were, there is no question that they are "obviously false and historically ignorant". To say that a nation that counts Thomas Paine among its founding fathers cannot be changed by those who scorn religion is fatuous.

I don't understand the beef that you all have with Lee's take on this issue. Lee is both a UU member/congregant/whatever and an atheist who scorns religion, so he surely feels the sting of Buehrens' prideful ignorance more acutely than you. Surely you disagree with him on issues beyond this.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I don't understand the beef that you all have with Lee's take on this issue. Lee is both a UU member/congregant/whatever and an atheist who scorns religion, so he surely feels the sting of Buehrens' prideful ignorance more acutely than you. Surely you disagree with him on issues beyond this.

Honestly, I think its the tone of his articles as much as the substance. I don't know Lee from anything more than these articles, nor do I know much of anything about Buehrens. The tone of the articles is that Lee takes offense that the entire UU world hasn't come to their senses, understood that religion is bad and become atheists. Maybe that's not what he intended but its the feeling that I got and I'm sure others did too. As for issues beyond this, I'm sure I would disagree with some and agree with others, same as anyone else.

 

[flies]

The tone of the articles is that Lee takes offense that the entire UU world hasn't come to their senses, understood that religion is bad and become atheists.

It seems to me that UU'ism does understand why "religion" is bad, and that this is in fact one of its defining characteristics. This is confusing because UU calls itself a religion, but in many ways it fails to meet the definition; it specifically rejects some of the defining characteristics: it lacks dogma and demands no particular supernatural beliefs. See Lee's earlier post (am blocked from linking directly www daylightatheism org/2009/09/uu-a-matter-of-definition html) for further explanation of this point.

Lee is of course offended at Buehrens' hateful remarks (as we all should be), but to say that he is offended that UU'ists refuse to discard their supernatural beliefs is way off the mark. What he's offended at is that the UU leadership promotes anti-atheist prejudice in its introductory materials, and that at least one member of the leadership is so retrograde in his own views, and that he thinks those views characterize actual UU practice. In the experience of Lee and other commenters (including those here), the sort of atheist-bashing that shows up in A Chosen Faith is not at all common in UU meetings. So, that portion of the text is not representative of actual UU practice.

That the UU leadership continues to promote this stuff is therefore a legitimate cause for alarm.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

What he's offended at is that the UU leadership promotes anti-atheist prejudice in its introductory materials, and that at least one member of the leadership is so retrograde in his own views, and that he thinks those views characterize actual UU practice.

So we are clear, what do you consider promoting anti-atheist prejudice? I get the feeling that Lee considers any consideration that religion is legitimate is considered anti-atheist. Are we all to become Atheists in order to not offend you?

 

[flies]

This material is quoted in Lee's original post linked to at the start of the thread. This is the problem that Lee identified. Dr Rieux has an exhaustive list of appearances of anti-atheist bias in UU texts somewhere. Click around on his (sadly defunct) site and you'll find it.

Looking at the religious aspects of many intergroup conflicts, at the violence carried out by zealots in the name of religion, some people conclude that the world would be safer "religion-free." They may even try living this way themselves. But too often they only practice a form of self-delusion. Nature abhors a vacuum and so does the human spirit. As C.S. Lewis said, the opposite of a belief in God is not a belief in nothing; it is a belief in anything. Sweep the demon of religion out the door and, like the story in the Gospels, you may only succeed in making room for an evil spirit worse than the first — this one accompanied by seven friends (Luke 11:24-26; Matt. 12:43-45). Zealous atheism can perform this role of demonic pseudoreligion.

I'd say referring to atheism as a demonic pseudoreligion is a pretty powerful example of anti-atheist prejudice. The promotion occurs where the UU organization advertises this book as an introduction to its principles. www_uua_org/beliefs/4721_shtml (still can't link out, replace _ with .)

 

[Storm]

This material is quoted in Lee's original post linked to at the start of the thread. This is the problem that Lee identified. Dr Rieux has an exhaustive list of appearances of anti-atheist bias in UU texts somewhere. Click around on his (sadly defunct) site and you'll find it.

I'd say referring to atheism as a demonic pseudoreligion is a pretty powerful example of anti-atheist prejudice. The promotion occurs where the UU organization advertises this book as an introduction to its principles. www_uua_org/beliefs/4721_shtml (still can't link out, replace _ with .)

Except that that's not what was said....

I've been following your posts, and every example you've given has been twisted in your "translations." If you're looking to be offended by pluralism, UU is not the faith for you.

 

[flies]

The quotation speaks for itself. If you have an alternative interpretation from mine, I believe it is incumbent on you to explain why you disagree rather than just attacking me.

What Beuhrens said is that if you dispose of religion (either from your own life or from society in general), you're likely to get something much worse. He says "zealous atheism" may constitute such a "demonic pseudo-religion". His point amounts to this: atheists who have no use for religion are asking for trouble. He's saying a significant percentage of atheists ("too often") practice a demonic pseudo-religion.

If you're looking to be offended by pluralism, UU is not the faith for you.

My point, Lee's point, is that UU is apparently not the faith for Buehrens, given his stance on atheism. Do you really think that the above quotation is a fair representation of a pluralist faith, one that embraces atheists?

Buehrens is effectively excluding "zealous atheists" from UU, but he does more than merely define them as an out-group. He condemns atheists (not all, but many) as being deluded and demonic. It appears that to be an atheist whom Buehrens would not condemn, one must approve of the religious enterprise in general.

 

[Storm]

The quotation speaks for itself. If you have an alternative interpretation from mine, I believe it is incumbent on you to explain why you disagree rather than just attacking me.

1) I didn't "attack" you.
2) Yes, it does speak for itself... until you twist it.
3) You realize debating in this area is forbidden?

What Beuhrens said is that if you dispose of religion (either from your own life or from society in general), you're likely to get something much worse. He says "zealous atheism" may constitute such a "demonic pseudo-religion". His point amounts to this: atheists who have no use for religion are asking for trouble. He's saying a significant percentage of atheists ("too often") practice a demonic pseudo-religion.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

My point, Lee's point, is that UU is apparently not the faith for Buehrens, given his stance on atheism. Do you really think that the above quotation is a fair representation of a pluralist faith, one that embraces atheists?

Which one?

Buehrens is effectively excluding "zealous atheists" from UU, but he does more than merely define them as an out-group. He condemns atheists (not all, but many) as being deluded and demonic. It appears that to be an atheist whom Buehrens would not condemn, one must approve of the religious enterprise in general.

No, he isn't. And I remind you again that this is a DIR. It's not the place for debate, and CERTAINLY not the place for bashing.