lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
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.The 54% number is recent. Humanists no longer dominate. The peak of their domination was over 50 years ago.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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 wouldn't call the disagreement passionate, at least not on my end. But am glad that we are still sisters and brothers in faith.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: