#38696: — 09/04  at  12:50 PM

Since the Unitarians have no dogma, just what exactly does that mean? Couldn't literally anybody qualify as a Unitarian using such criteria?

People are still confusing the Unitarianism of Jefferson's time with modern Unitarian Universalism. In Jefferson's day, Unitarians were theists who believed that Jesus was a moral authority with divine nature.

The modern UU having "no dogma" is in many ways an outgrowth of Universalism, the Christian doctrine that all will eventually be saved; that no-one will ultimately be consigned to hell. Working from that axiom, a focus on thinking the right things in order to escape punishment becomes moot, and has wound up being set aside in UU teaching.

Wikipedia has fairly good entries on Unitarianism, Universalism, and Unitarian Universalism.

#38708: — 09/04  at  02:17 PM
Literally anybody willing to donate money to the church.

#38711: — 09/04  at  02:30 PM
UU is neither a religion nor even a belief system. It is a place for smart lapsed Jews and Episcopalians to go on Sunday while their friends are in church. In the UU fellowship halls educated liberals discuss books, movies, politics and religion without ever forming an opinion or coming to a consensus on any topic for fear of offending others. UU is religion lite. It is the step lapsed Jews and Episcopalians take before finally reaching the ledge. Please don’t misunderstand, we all should be UUs. There might be less pain and suffering in the world, but let’s not call it religion. Religion requires the belief in some supreme being and something approaching rites, rituals and creeds. UUs borrow liberally (no pun intended) but have few of their own.

#38716: — 09/04  at  03:02 PM
we've actually had four Unitarian presidents (both Adams',

Well, since being slightly quibbly on this whole subject seems to be okay, I'll just point out that John Quincy Adams never considered himself a Unitarian like his father. In much of their correspondence, the elder Adams would jovially seek to "convert" JQA to his Unitarian beliefs. JQA never seemed to think his father was "damned" for his beliefs, and never seemed to identify with a particular sect of Christianity, but nevertheless meant something different when self-identifying as "Christian" then his father did. (His father being a proponent of Jesus as virtuous teacher.)

#38720: pdf23ds — 09/04  at  03:33 PM
"There might be less pain and suffering in the world, but let’s not call it religion."

"Religion" is such an incredibly poorly defined term, and differs so much between different religions, that I don't see why the Unitarians calling themselves a religion is really such a big deal. While Unitarian churches may bear a lot more resemblance to social clubs than any evangelical church, (though not always that much,) I imagine they fulfill many of the same meatier purposes, like providing a social support network for its members, being part of the community, providing a place to meet likeminded people, etc. And let's face it: for most people, that's all "religion" really is.

#38736: Jim Harrison — 09/04  at  05:29 PM
Lots of us who don't believe in God do believe in religion. For example I don't think you should put Uncle Ernie out in the trash when he dies. Birth, marriage, and death deserve appropriate ritual. But one need not accept peculiar metaphysical theories to value tradition and community.

#38738: — 09/04  at  05:39 PM
Jim and pdf, I don't disagree, I just like English and logic. A religion requires a belief in a supreme being (or more than one). What you are describing is a funeral parlor, the Rotary, a notary and a frat house. I like UUs — hell, I was one. It is a great group. It just isn't a religion. It's a social club for smart liberals. That's not a bad thing — but let's be accurate.

#38746: Ben — 09/04  at  07:05 PM
A religion requires a belief in a supreme being (or more than one).

Don't confuse yourself. A religion is merely a conglomeration of bullshit of at least sufficient critical density to form stiff peaks in your mixing bowl, which exists to solve the problems it creates, and which causes its adherents to feel equal parts happiness and shame. Wagner's right. Sponsorship of ANY "state religion" REGARDLESS of how prog, liberal or inclusive you believe it to be is totally hare-brained.

#38768: HP — 09/04  at  11:21 PM
Q: What's the difference between Unitarianism and Dracula?

A: One comes from Transylvania and avoids crucifixes,* and the other is a novel by Bram Stoker.

Hmm... 16th century Transylvania: Catholics, Orthodox, and Muslims, all of them still engaging in the mutilation of corpses in the belief that dead people cause sickness and crop failure. Kind of makes Unitarianism seem like a real triumph of rationalism, considering they're still digging up corpses in Translyvania even after decades of Godless communism.

NB: I'm not a Unitarian, but it's mostly because I think the music would make me crazy, and I like to sleep in on Sunday.

* crucíficës?

#38784: — 09/05  at  06:26 AM
A religion requires a belief in a supreme being (or more than one).

Well, the UU are recognized as a religion - thankfully! - where I am. I say thankfully because the laws here say that if you are married by a minisater you can get married anbywhere, but a civil ceremony can only take place in a registered marriage venue. Wanting to get married in a place of my own choosing, my fiance and I approached a UU minister. Result? On Saturday he married us - in a wholly nontheistic, yet legal, ceremony

FSM bless the UU, say I! (Ramen)

#38789: — 09/05  at  07:07 AM
Yo, First, I agree with HP about UU music. UU choirs violate most city noise ordanances.
Second, Ben said, "A religion is merely a conglomeration of bullshit of at least sufficient critical density to form stiff peaks in your mixing bowl, which exists to solve the problems it creates, and which causes its adherents to feel equal parts happiness and shame."
I think I said that a few posts up with my Freud reference. When you create answers to solve the problems you also create AND call it religion — the created answer is always: god.
When you identify problems or questions and work to discover and verify the answers you call it: science.
The two are uncomfortably close together. Only that pesky little test and verification thing divides the two.
It is that closeness that makes them interesting and often, for some people, tries to turn religion into a science.
UU is not a religion. Pastafarianism is — Ramen.

#38798: — 09/05  at  08:11 AM

#38736: Jim Harrison — 09/04 at 05:29 PM
Lots of us who don't believe in God do believe in religion.

Believe in religion? Why, I've seen it!

#38738: Shyster — 09/04 at 05:39 PM
A religion requires a belief in a supreme being (or more than one).

Technically, no. Those darn Buddhists keep messing things up. I think most people would also categorize the Raelians as a religion (specifically, a cult), but they are technically atheist. They believe in space aliens instead of anyone answering to the name of 'God'.

#38800: — 09/05  at  08:23 AM
I think that when you scratch a Buddhist (I don’t know why you would want to do that) they believe that we are all part of god. We still have a supreme creator and source of life and afterlife. As to the Raelians: “space aliens” — you say potato I say poTAto.
By the way, "space aliens" sounds a lot like the creators in Intelligent Design. Has anyone notified Dubya that he may well be a Raelian?
Despite all of these arguments UU is still not a religion for anything other than tax purposes and that raises a whole different theory of god.

#38880: — 09/05  at  03:58 PM
Gosh, Shyster, how kind of you to drop by and let us know who's got a real religion and who doesn't. As an atheist, a Buddhist, and as someone who was raised in the Unitarian church, I would like to tell you that getting to see your contemptuous, dismissive attitudes is a lot like getting to see your excretory organs: I already knew that you had them. You didn't need to pull down your pants and prove it.

#38992: — 09/06  at  05:25 AM
Gee, Alex, that’s soooo mature. I feel sufficiently bitch-slapped to slink away and cry.
Before I go, this discussion started with the tongue-in-cheek recommendation that UU be considered as the state religion. I, among others, offered the suggestion that UU was not a religion. As a former (and probably future) UU I suggested that UU has no creed or dogma and recognizes no specific supreme being. I also suggested that all of those things were necessary for a “religion.”
Now, you come along and say that you can call it a religion if you want to. Of course you can. You can legally name your son Mohammed Ali if you want to — it won’t make him heavyweight champ.
One last thought: As I slink away with my pants down — bite me!

#39043: — 09/06  at  11:02 AM
I haven't been able to run this down, and it might be apocryphal, but it's too good to resist, so here goes.
A visitor came to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the Supreme Court Justice. His generally unsentimental view of human life and its general insignificance in whatever grand scheme of things there might be was well known to those who knew about such things, and the visitor wa surprised when the visit was cut short by the Holmes's need to attend a Unitarian service. The visitor expressed surprise, but Mrs. Holmes explained: "In Boston, you have to be something, and a Unitarian is the least you can be."

#39069: — 09/06  at  01:15 PM
I haven't been able to check out this story, so it may be apocryphal, but it's too good, so here goes:
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes received a visitor at his Beacon Hill home and they engaged in a wide-ranging discussion. Holmes pungently expressed his characteristically unsentimental view of human life and its neglible part in whatever grand scheme of things there might be, but had to cut the visit short so he and his wife could attend a Unitarian service. When the visitoe expressed some astonishment that Holmes was a Unitarian, his wife, no mean wit herself, explained: "This is Boston. In Boston you have to be something, and a Unitarian is the least you can be."

#39071: — 09/06  at  01:23 PM
I haven't been able to verify this possibly apocryphal story, but it's too good, so here goes:
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Homes entertained a visitor at his Beacon Hill home, expressing in a wide-ranging conversation his characteristically unsentimental view of human endeavor and its neglible role in whatever scheme of things there may be. After a while, he cut short the visit so he and his wife could attend a Unitarian service. When the visitor expressed surprise that Holmes was a Unitarian, his wife, no mean wit herself, explained: "This is Boston. In Boston you must be something, and a Unitarian is the least you can be."