Beliefnet Discussions - Beliefnet.com

UU is no longer a haven for humanists

This forum has moved!
Same people, same great conversations, new location.
Please join us in the new Beliefnet Community.

<Prev | Next> First Page | Last Page

This is a read-only area.

Messages: 1 - 16 (43 total)

	bhaktiman 6/6/2006 1:54 PM	1 out of 43
	Let me give some history here for those who may not know. (BTW, I was involved with the UUA since the late 1980's as a young adult back when they were still loyal to their humanists who were a numerical majority at that time. I left later once the UUA became "humanist hostile" and I experienced this in a number of UU congregations, not just one.) Outside of the New England and Southern areas of the U.S., most Unitarian Universalist churches and fellowships from the Midwest to the West were historically humanist from the early 20th Century onward. It is no accident that a good number of the signers of the Humanist Manifestos I and II, as well as the founders of the American Humanist Association (AHA), were Unitarian Universalist ministers or laypeople. In fact, the reason that Ethical Culture (American Ethical Union or AEU) never made much effort to expand outside of the East Coast was that they did not want to compete with the western Unitarian Universalists who were viewed as decidedly humanist. There have been articles in the UUA's official magazine over the past several years basically demonizing and castigating humanists. And this attitude was supported by the UUA President who allegedly was a former humanist who "embraced" supernaturalism as a psychological means of dealing with the death of his child. Of course, it is the right of any organization to move into a different direction so the UUA has the right to orient themselves towards the irrational, supernaturalist fringe groups. The UUA views this as simply a means of growth (which means the humanists were basically sold out by the UUA for money). This approach has brought them new members (mostly neo-pagans and New Ager types) but at the cost of alienating the humanists. It is foolish though for humanists to continue to support, financially or otherwise, and organization that no longer supports them just because of a historical relationship between the UUA and AHA. In reality, any remaining humanist dominant congregations of the UUA should consider switching allegiances and affiliations to the Ethical Culture (AEU) as the AEU is consistently supportive of the humanist worldview and do not view it as "deficient", unlike how the current UUA views humanism. Selling out to be "tolerant" of all types of irrational nonsense will simply leave little humanist and rationalist heritage for our children. Therefore, the UUA being a "hodgepodge" with a lot of irrational nonsense is NOT the closest thing you would find to a Humanist Church. An Ethical Culture Society IS a Humanist "Church" (and obviously so would the Churches of Freethought in Texas). In fact, all of the groups I mentioned have social activities, discussions and other events that fulfill the function of a Humanist community (for those who do not like the term "church"). Fortunately, humanists no longer have to settle for the watered down theism-lite of the UUA and it is about time. Humanism will only flourish once humanists start to cut the ties from the increasingly irrational UUA.

	rmthinks 6/6/2006 3:35 PM	2 out of 43
	Bhatkhiman, I tend to agree with you that the UUA is moving in a more new age/pagan direction eventhough I am not a humanist but a theist. This is one reason I finally left the UUA after 10 years in the 90's. I always admired UU's for taking liberal political stands against the religious right, but spiritually I felt nothing there and the mish mash in services they want now ends up with no one happy as can be seen by humanists like you not being happy anymore. I don't know where the UUA is headed, but it stopped being Unitarian a long time ago. I think you are probably right and humanist congregations would better be served by joining with other humanists like in American Ethical Union. I am just glad I am not there anymore at my former local congregation that has never been able to get its act together and figure out what they wanted. Good luck to you! Robert

	bhaktiman 6/6/2006 4:06 PM	3 out of 43
	Here are some links for humanists as far as "churches" or communities (if you do not care for the term "church") other than the UUA. The options for humanists can depend on where you live. The American Ethical Union (also known as Ethical Culture Societies) is most active on the East Coast with a smaller presence in other areas of the country (such as Austin, TX and Los Angeles, CA). But you need to check their webiste to see if your area is covered. They also have a Member-At-Large program. Here is their website: http://www.aeu.org Also, check out the American Humanist Association which has local chapters with social activities and discussions: http://www.americanhumanist.org/index.html Another avenue if you are close to any metropolitan areas are the Center for Inquiry which was founded by Paul Kurtz who started the Council for Secular Humanism. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/ http://www.secularhumanism.org/ There are also other options such as various Atheist Alliance chapters which offer similar social opportunities. (And if you live in Texas, there are the North Texas and Houston Churches of Freethought). http://www.atheistalliance.org/ All of these offer social activities, discussions, etc. that many presume could only be found at a UU Church.

	Kimrdhbsms 6/7/2006 4:51 AM	4 out of 43
	I disagree. While the humanists are no longer the majority in UUism, they are still respected. The problem is that everyone wants to be the main focus -- so by trying to really be diverse, we satisfy no one, and as a matter of fact, just make everyone angry. Everyone sees themselves being given short shrift, but most UU ministers try very hard to be inclusive of all types, being very very aware that there are all types in the congregation. Also, I think you are off base in asserting that anyone who isn't a humanist is a supernaturalist believing is unbelievable things. First of all, the originator of Humanism was a Catholic priest of deep faith. One does not need to be an atheist to be a humanist. Beyond that, not all theists believe in the Big Guy In The Sky god. There are lots of varieties of belief and agnosticism and atheism too. (Aren't Existentialists atheists without being humanists? or do I just think that because the person who introduced me to E was clinically depressed?)

	cheesefeet 6/7/2006 6:57 AM	5 out of 43
	I agree that UU has become sort of a useless mish mash. Welcoming everyone but satisfying few. Not enough intellecutualism and rigor for the humanists, and not enough spirituality for the theists. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that I felt really summed up the current state of UU.."Boldly Going Nowhere!" It is probably just a stage, and UU will end up going back one way or the other. If it truly wants to end the "revolving door" syndrome, it will have to give people a reason to stay, something to believe in, whether it be a humanist or a theist something, but it needs to dish up more than cotton candy. There is a strong tradition it can use as a foundation, or it can choose a new star to reach for, but I get the sense that it better either swim fast for home or blast its rockets toward the future, because right now it is really floundering in muck. My husband had a friend who went to a two year college...for 5 years. he took every course they offered. He couldn't make up his mind what he wanted to focus on. He knows a little bit about everything, but not enough to be gainfully employed at anything. 15 yrs later he is still doing temp work. I know they say that not all who wander are lost...but some...really are lost. cheesefeet

	bhaktiman 6/7/2006 11:39 AM	6 out of 43
	To Kimrdhbsms: You are welcome to your opinions which seem to be all about deflecting valid criticism, but I read the actual articles in UU World and have seen the battles in UU congregations (4 different congregations in fact) between the influx of new UU pagans/New Agers and the "dry, boring" humanists as they called them. Your claim of respect may apply to individual congregations but certainly not to the crappy treatment humanists get from the UUA denomination as a whole and especially the UUA President. Two, there is a world of different between "Catholic humanism" and modern humanism which springs from a philosophical naturalist worldview. I suspect you know that so you are using a straw man argument. Three, from a philosophical naturalist standpoint there is no strong evidence to support the evidence of any type of supernaturalism whether traditional theism, panentheism, polytheism, spiritual monism, or classical pantheism. They are all unsupported and unverified beliefs based on "faith" (in other words, "nonsense"). Actually most existentialists are also humanists. And of course, not all atheists are humanists (which is another straw man argument and has nothing to do with how UU betrayed the humanists). Most of those other atheists are Objectivists and generally would have nothing to do with UU as they would object to your altruistic ethics. Again, the UUA has the right to move in whatever direction and be as crappy as they like. Humanists need to stop giving the UUA a free pass simply due to past history (which is why many of the humanists who stayed with the UUA have remained).

	KittyMcConkie 6/7/2006 6:28 PM	7 out of 43
	Bhaktiman, To quote the beginning of your first post: "Let me give some history here for those who may not know." Now I will give you some history that you evidently do not know. I have been a UU for 50 years, since I was very young. I have belonged to congregations in the east, midwest and the west. In 1956, John Dietrich, was one of the founders and major spokemen (modern: spokesperson) for the humanist movement in early twentieth-century Unitarianism. The following quote is an exerpt from a letter written in 1957, a year before his death. It begins, "The fact is that my philosophy and religion have undergone considerable, if not drastic revision. I realize now how my utter reliance upon science and reason and my contempt for any intuitive insights and intangible values, which are the very essence of art and religion, was a great mistake; and the way I cut mankind off from all cosmic relationship, denying or ignoring every influence outside of humanity itself was very shortsighted and arrogant. I have come now to believe that we cannot ignore 'the power behind phenomenon' or God, if you please. I still hesitate to use the latter term because of the crude connotation which it suggests to most people; but much reading and mature reflection have convinced me of the reality of a spiritual power in the universe." Noted in the paper -- A LASTING INFLUENCE: an exploration of the Theist-Humanist debate in Unitarian Universalist History by the Rev. Stephen M. Schick for the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, May, 1986. One congregation I was part of in the east, one in the midwest, two in the southwest had much of the same philosphy. These were people who were exploring or beginning a path of spirituality in the 1960s. That was long before you were even an adult. There are few "Pagans/New Agers" in any of these congregations. In my current church we have only 2 or 3 services a year for which the CUUPS group is responsible. I belonged to four other congregations in the southwest, CA and AZ, who had been hijacked by the humanists. Two of those have died and replaced by people who wanted a more spiritual path and formed a church with the help of the District Executive and the District Board. Two others have called ministers who agree with their need to explore a spiritual path. Many humanists whom I have encountered are arrogant. They argue and insult people whose beliefs are different than their own, and as I observe, just as you have done. In our congregational covenant we do not do that. Our covenant precludes any offensive insult to another member of our congregation. All communications are spoken to the person who may have offended someone and that is done by the offended party in a respctful manner. Communications are not spread all over the congregation. I have not interpreted any articles in the UU World that have demonized or castigated humanists. As I recall, Rev. Sinkford's son did not die, but was hospitilized and unconscious. Why would you say something unless you know it is true? Remember, the Unitarians were originally theists in the 1800's, and not humanists! Read Ralph Waldo Emerson's Divinity School Address. The UUA did not move in a differant direction but the members of Unitarain Universalist congregations are the ones moving their individual congregations and the Association in a differant direction. All changes of this nature are voted on in individual congregations or by the delegates at our UU General Assemblies. I have been a voting delegate to many of these Assemblies. Have you? The UUA did not 'sell out' for money! What are you talking about? I will add a new post quoting the Rev. A. Powell Davies, who was a minister in Washington, D. C. when I lived in that area in the late 50's. He was NOT a humanist. Please be more accurate about the information that you post. It is certainly appropriate to disagree but we do not need to be disagreeable and insulting. Kitty

	bhaktiman 6/7/2006 7:38 PM	8 out of 43
	Okay Kitty, Let's have this out. I simply don't care if you have been a UU for 50 years or have been a UUA delegate. It is NOT relevant to my existence. Your wrote: "...who had been hijacked by the humanists." Historical documentation shows that while Unitarianism is originally theistic, as shown by the history in New England and the South, the fact (that you conveniently ignore) is that the MAJORITY of UU congregations in the West were founded by humanists and thus WERE NOT HIGHJACKED. We are referencing history from the early 20th Century after the demise of the Free Religious Association (do you even know what that is?). Your wrote: Many humanists whom I have encountered are arrogant. They argue and insult people whose beliefs are different than their own, and as I observe, just as you have done." You insult humanists by calling them arrogant (and having a biased and bigoted impression of them as a group?) and do not expect them to respond in kind??? Gee, and you wonder why there is a battle between humanists and theists. Again I understand that the UU membership moved away from humanism. Theists (who had been HARBORING RESENTMENT of humanists in the UUA for a LONG TIME) saw this as the time to "wrestle" control of UU congregations away from humanists. It was not done with sensitivity or understanding. And you wonder why humanists are angry and upset at folks like you. But the lack of sensitivity just like you have shown and that has been demonstrated by many UU's, including Sinkford, shows many UU's to be hypocrites in terms of tolerance, sensitivity, and understanding. In other words, the so-called principles of UU are not true for many UU's. So UU's should get off their high-horse pedestal that they place themselves on. I simply have no more respect for the UUA. You wrote: "As I recall, Rev. Sinkford's son did not die, but was hospitilized and unconscious. Why would you say something unless you know it is true?" That is the information going around, but I gladly take your correction into account. In any case, it means that Mr. Sinkford devolved into irrational supernaturalism as a result of a health crisis of his child. In other words, supernaturalism continues to be a coping mechanism for those who have difficulty facing reality.

	bhaktiman 6/7/2006 9:28 PM	9 out of 43
	Kitty, in terms of your quote from Dietrich, I don't care if he had a fall from grace. Many folks facing their mortality revert into irrationality and attempt to justify it. That's a psychological phenomenon. But actually I should thank you as you have demonstrated my point and perhaps we can at least agree upon the conclusion if nothing else. Humanists should leave the UUA to the UU theists. In general, UU theists have viewed humanists as arrogant and with disdain. Humanists respond to the UU theists in kind. In general, it is a bad idea in the real world to try to have humanists and theists in the same religious organization. It only ends up in conflict as the two contrasting worldviews are irreconciliable. Humanists have long discovered that "language of reverence" even if originally meant metaphorically (which is how some of the early religious humanists used it) tends to lead to supernaturalism coming through the back door. "Language of reverence" as propounded by Sinkford will always lead to the humanist influence being squeezed out. AND THAT IS THE INTENT. Humanists would be much better served transferring their allegiance to Ethical Culture (American Ethical Union) and building that up, rather than staying with the UUA which has moved in a different direction and no longer really values them. Since Kitty views many humanists as arrogant, then certainly she would agree that they may be better served elsewhere.

	KittyMcConkie 6/7/2006 11:17 PM	10 out of 43
	My experience is that MANY (as I said), not all, humanists are arrogant. Not all, I said, "many". I would definitely agree if persons with humanist leanings are unhappy in a UU congregation they need to leave. I would say that about Pagans, theists, agnostics, atheists, mystics, Christians, etc., or whomever is unhappy in a UU congregation. I would also suggest they not spread their venom all over the internet. Believe it or not, UUs are NOT everything to everybody, so those who are unhappy need to leave! I have never heard such vitriol come from other groups about humanists as I've read on this post against theists. It is the PREFERENCE of individual members who are changing the face of Unitarian Universalism, so do not blame that on the UUA! We are just going back to our roots! I believe you miss the point that this more spiritual shift is happening at the local level. That is why UUism is growing. People want a church that helps them to explore their questions about life, such as, "Who am I?" "What kind of life do I want to live?" "What can I give back to my family, friends, church, my community, since I am grateful for so much? What values do I want my children, relatives, friends, my community to know that I stand for and work for?" "What is it that gives meaning to my life?" Instead of whining, belly aching and biching, those who are disenchanted with UUism, need to do something else positive in their lives. The humanist organizations you listed would be a good way to start. I think there was another point or two I wanted to address. I'll reread the posts and perhaps post again. Kitty

	shawmutt 6/8/2006 5:49 PM	11 out of 43
	I find it humorous that you accuse others of setting up a strawman when your entire original post is, in fact, setting up a strawman. If you don't like UU or the UUA, there are two options, change or leave. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, so you can tear me apart on a debate (I'll pat you on the back beforehand), but I do have a bit of common sense. Griping in this forum does nothing but bolster your ego. Last time I checked choices in the UUA were made democratically, make your voice be heard (where it actually will make a difference) or don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. The minister in our church is a humanist and lifelong UU, and we have humanists within our congregation. Based on my experience, I disagree with your opinion. While I understand that, because of the many differences and lack of dogma, UU may evolve over time, I don't feel threatened by the changes or feel that I will be thought less of because of my beliefs.

	cheesefeet 6/9/2006 9:28 AM	12 out of 43
	Choices are supposedly made democratically, but such has not been my UU experience. (Don't worry I didn't let the door hit me on my way out) I regularly served on comittees, devoted a tremendous amount of my creativity and time and effort to my cong, only to have the work of the committee repeatedly overthrown, ignored etc by the real leaders of the congregation. The dozen or so who really made all the decisions in spite of what anyone else did or said. I was not alone. I hear the same thing over and over and over. "We" decide this...but somehow..that is never what actually happens. And, maybe you forgot to read the heading when you clicked the mouse, but this is the UU debate forum. So accuse those who aren't UU cheerleaders of ego problems or venting their spleens or whatever, but is this not the proper forum to bring up legitimate concerns? Or is this UU style debate? the kind I became familiar with in my church...speak the party line...or don't speak at all. UU makes all kinds of claims about being able to look at all sides of an issue etc. etc, but then is not so good about living up to them. The one thing UU is not open to is conflict. It happens. Instead of dealing with things, and making decisions, and being honest about how the decisions are made...UU avoids the issues by being "open" to everything. It says..."that's ok", and then silently goes on smiling through clenched teeth until the annoyance goes away. I would have tons more respect for UU if it actually stood for something besides...diversity. Having a lot of people together in a room who have nothing in common but a general discomfort with organized religion...does not constitute a purposeful, progressive group. Be something, dammit!

	KCarson 6/9/2006 9:44 AM	13 out of 43
	I find it interesting that some of the posts imply the UUA has some kind of doctrinal authority over what UU's believe. This is hardly the case, though I suppose you could argue that the UUA sets a tone as "the" voice for the UU movement. The UUA is an association of our congregations and has no authority in congregational polity. This concept (not the UUA) goes back even as far as the early days of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. I also see in some of these posts a common pitfall among the myriad subcultures that make up UU today. Namely, there is a tendency to oversimplify and categorize (i.e. label) the complex beliefs of our members by those who disagree or feel marginalized. For example, humanism means different things to different people. Some people see it as the rejection of anything unscientific. Others, like myself, see it as the belief that human life and dignity are of extreme value. I consider myself a humanist and a nontheist, but I also consider myself a Christian ... that sends some UU's into a tailspin of disbelief. I find no need for supernatural beliefs in my desire to work for the establishment of the "kingdom of God" on earth. God, in my view, represents the highest ideals and values of humanity -- the way the world should be. I definitely want to see UU's embrace their Christian roots, but this doesn't require a return to supernaturalism. Most UU's haven't bothered to keep up with trends in progressive Christianity (or any other religion), so they are unaware that all Christianity doesn't require supernatural "faith". I think this all reiterates the need for a definable UU theology as identified in the 2005 Commission on Appraisal report. This doesn't mean a creed, but we need more substance than the Seven Principles. This problem was left hanging at the merger in 1961 and has never been adequately addressed.

	KittyMcConkie 6/9/2006 4:40 PM	14 out of 43
	KCarson, I appreciate your thoughtful response and agree with so much of what you wrote. I see in many of these posts that these are people are demanding and who appear to expect more from their individual congregations than they do from themselves. We have had members with this mentality. They don't want to work to make the changes they would like to see, but they continue to complain. I see where local congregations have failed to educate members about UUism and, of course, some persons are not interested! If members understood this religion better their expectations would not be so demanding! We have such a diverse congregation and we have very little conflict. We have developed a covenant that members agree to in their communication with other members. It does take work to make this happen. It is also a slow process to bring about change as we all should know. When the merger took place in 1961 I expected so much from this association that has still not been acomplished! I was very young and naive and am now more realistic in my expectations. But I continue to work for that change. It may never happen but I will continue to work. I hope that the UUA begins with the 2005 Commission on Appraisal report, as you suggested. I have a sermon from many years ago where the minister spoke about humanism. She addressed many differant kinds and this is her defination of Religious Humanism. "It emphazies the religious way of life; beliefs born of the modern scientific age and centered upon a faith in the supreme value and self--perfectibility of human personality; is open to different kinds of religious experience; asserts that we live in a world of mystery; doesn't know if there is a God. (Proponents: Lester Mondale, John Dietrich, Curtis Reese.) She also spoke of Naturalistic Humanism, Theistic Humanism, Existentialist Humanism and Liberal Humanism, all in the category of Contemporary Humanism. With all of her descriptions we could all possibly fall into any one of those categories! Kitty

	cheesefeet 6/10/2006 8:50 AM	15 out of 43
	I agree wholeheartedly that UU needs a definable theology. It has to be something, not just a little bit of everything. I gave 6 1/2 years of devoted service and effort to my UU congregation...I served on numerous comittees, boards, planning groups etc. I served as chair, I served as dishwasher, setter up of chairs. I watched the kids, I led services, I laughed, cried and tore my hair out. I wanted it to work. I tried to be part of what made it work. I did not run to these debate boards after 3 months of not getting my way. I never demanded "my way", I would have been satisfied with "a way". Instead we chased our tail. There was never a clear direction to go in, or a rule of thumb to fall back on...because it was UU, and we are open to everything. We couldn't even reasonably expect people to fulfill their commitments because. "It's UU" And everyone would remind us that being UU is like herding cats, and we'd all laugh...and try to make things happen for a bunch of people who wanted to eat at the buffet but never prepare a dish. So, you can, offhandedly imply that I am one who does nothing but complain, but never actually worked for change, but that does not make your implication correct. I don't understand UU mentality as I experienced it in my congregation. I am a person who thrives on finding something I can believe in and be committed too, and then busying myself with the work of fulfilling that committment. I am confused by UU in person. On paper...it looks like the greatest thing going. And it has a proud history of strong people affecting important change, and I was happy and proud to have found such a place, but in actuality, all I found was a lukewarm puddle of misplaced pride. If this is a UU forum, and a UU debate board, is this not a reasonable forum in which to bring up concerns reguarding UU? Isn't it reasonable to expect that I am sharing UU concerns with other UU's? Is this not one more way to possibly effect change? Yet it feels so much like the discussions in my church. If I say something that is not pro-UU...then someone nudges the person next to them..."she's one of THOSE..who only complains..." Yeah, I was one of those fools, after church on sunday, washing everyone's coffee cups and cleaning up the RE rooms while everyone else had gone off to finish their weekends. I was one of those who was foolish enough to think that speaking up might make a difference. I was one who believed in the dream enough to waste over half a decade of my life trying to make it come true.

	KittyMcConkie 6/10/2006 10:16 AM	16 out of 43
	cheesefeet, I hear what you are saying, and have been saying. I've been there and done that, also. My point is that your former congregation is not ALL UU congregations. I spent 25 years working in this congregation before change happened. Our last Search Committe realized we needed change and selected a minister in whom they had the confidence that she would help us change. After about a year she began a process where we would be able to 'hear' each other. We had a discussion on a very delicate issue. She had 5 chairs set up in a circle prior to our discussion. This dialogue went on all day one Sat. and several Saturdays later. When we began to discuss a topic and there was a lot of disagreement she would ask the people who claimed they had not been heard, and who had opposite views, to come into the circle. They were asked again to explain their position. They all spoke and were asked again if they had been heard. She repeated this several times. We heard them and we heard them and we heard them! Those who disagreed them came into the circle -- and we heard them and we heard them and we heard them. After three Saturdays, within about a 2 month period, we finally voted on the issue and other issues followed. Even though we had 80% agree several of these members are still bitching about the outcome! Several have left. They don't recognize that the minority is no longer controlling the agenda, which happened for many years. It is called the 'tyranny of the minority'. Another congregation I belonged to was so oppresssive that 31 of us worked with the District Executive and formed a new church. There was much rancor, but it was worth the effort. The old cognregation has about 40 members and the new one has 180! And this is a town of about 40,000! So, it can be done. But, if that was not possible in your church, I agree that your only hope was to leave. But, then let it go! And be happy where you are. Your former UU congregation is the one who lost. I wrote a letter to a minister in a congregation where a couple who were friends began to visit. They went to several services and thought they were invisible -- no one spoke to them. Then they went to a Fri. night movie. After the movie, there was no discussion. People moved chairs to their former location and left. No one said, "How are you?" "Nice to see you here". "Go to hell." "Did you like the movie?", etc. They have never gone back to a UU Church -- our loss! But, we've have not heard any more about that time in their lives -- since they have gone on with their lives! Nothing can be done for that church they visited! I did not know it but the minister I wrote to had already left about a month before I wrote the letter! Who knows who received it and what they did with it. The thing to do is to let it go! That is over and done with. I suggest you do the same. We cannot change YOUR proir congregation and we know the angst you went through. But, we cannot do anything about it and, evidently, your prior congregation cannot do anything about it either. Unfortunately, they are in a difficult situation. Rejoice you have found another denomination! I am happy with UU. I have my own beliefs, which, as far as I know no one else has. I am certainly satisfied with that. If you need to have a more definable theology then it is great you have found that in your new church. Kitty

<Prev | Next> First Page | Last Page

This is a read-only area.