Slashdot Mirror

You really ought not to jump to conclusions. A church is primarily a social place, and there is a wide spectrum of places that use the term.

Mine in particular is a Unitarian Universalist church, whose philosophy boils down to "don't be an ass", and whose sermons are essentially open-ended discussions of environmental and social justice concerns, with an eye toward improving ideological freedom (for all ideologies), and a social hour between services.

As for the interviewer asking that particular question, I don't know what kind of church he went to. It never came up in the workplace again, and we have since gone our separate ways.

When I paraphrased his question for the Slashdot audience, I included the part about my own resume, intending to illustrate that the church aspect was not entirely unrelated to the rest of the interview, though it was unrelated to the job. The question had a personal and informal nature to it, and did not at all seem as though a particular belief was expected of me.

In fact, I actually took it in quite the opposite manner: This was a workplace where discussion is open for all subjects. That eventually proved to be very true, as I've seen open (and not always politically-correct) disagreement with managers and leaders, eventually changing the course of business in a better direction. It's a cultural thing, and treating the interview like a first glimpse of the workplace culture is a good way to start the employment relationship.

You really ought not to jump to conclusions. A church is primarily a social place, and there is a wide spectrum of places that use the term.

Mine in particular is a Unitarian Universalist church, whose philosophy boils down to "don't be an ass", and whose sermons are essentially open-ended discussions of environmental and social justice concerns, with an eye toward improving ideological freedom (for all ideologies), and a social hour between services.

As for the interviewer asking that particular question, I don't know what kind of church he went to. It never came up in the workplace again, and we have since gone our separate ways.

When I paraphrased his question for the Slashdot audience, I included the part about my own resume, intending to illustrate that the church aspect was not entirely unrelated to the rest of the interview, though it was unrelated to the job. The question had a personal and informal nature to it, and did not at all seem as though a particular belief was expected of me.

In fact, I actually took it in quite the opposite manner: This was a workplace where discussion is open for all subjects. That eventually proved to be very true, as I've seen open (and not always politically-correct) disagreement with managers and leaders, eventually changing the course of business in a better direction. It's a cultural thing, and treating the interview like a first glimpse of the workplace culture is a good way to start the employment relationship.

It's the entire basis of Calvinism. It's the logical outcome of having an omnipotent god who sends bad people to Hell based on their reactions to the world he made for them . Either he's playing by rules you can't know (Calvin's stance, where some people are just damned from creation and others are blessed according to an unknown judgement), or he's a cruel deity playing with people as toys (where "perverse" is a good word for it).

Personally I prefer the Universalist position: everybody goes to Heaven. Taking that a step further leads to the conclusion that the only judgement to be concerned about is that of other humans, so I just try to not be too big of an asshole. Fortunately, there's a church for that, too, more or less.

But hey, I'm an agnostic. I don't know anything for certain.

Well... the Buddhist and the Christian ministers are married, so of course they'll preach at the same church. On Palm Sunday, we had a guest speaker, who happened to also me our music director. After running into the sanctuary singing about being late for church, he wet his throat from a martini glass before speaking, and ended the service with a drum solo blending into a polka. The Christian minister danced in the aisle with one of our atheist members, before we all filed out of the sanctuary to go worship our sacred coffeepot.

I am being completely honest about all that, too.

My church is Unitarian Universalist. We don't care who you are, what you believe, or (generally) what your political preferences are, as long as you treat other people with dignity and respect. Our sermons usually revolve around taking lessons from ancient and modern philosophy, and applying them to our lives to help others and generally work toward a better society, with very loose definitions of "better". On special occasions, such as April Fool's Day, we'll adjust the service to focus more on that holiday. Services are followed by a social coffee hour, where we discuss the service and socialize.

That's certainly a silly assumption.

Until someone comes up with a religion that says it is OK to believe in "all the gods", your statement is nonsensical.

Unitarian Universalism, to which I'm a recent (agnostic) convert. One of the main tenets of the religion is that everybody can hold whatever beliefs they want. In my particular church, one of the ministers is Buddhist, one is Catholic, and one is agnostic. They have some very interesting sermons, usually focusing on some aspect of being a better person when interacting with society, rather than promoting devotion to any chosen deity. After the service, there's a coffee hour with socialization and open discussion, so the most sacred item in the church is the probably the coffeepot. Banjo help you if you take our coffee!

Try Unitarian Universalism.

Unitarian Universalist religion is non-creedal and follows seven principles http://www.uua.org/beliefs/principles/index.shtml
to try to make the world a better place. Not because there is some reward waiting, but because it's the right thing to do as a people.

Religion is helpful to build communities that come together to help make the world a better place. I'd be happy if atheists and agnostics also built communities to do the same.

"We have invaded places, but always with the idea of reforming that nation and giving it back to its RICH people."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

FTFY. :-)

You can possess markets and extraction areas without saying you are going to move your people in there...

See also:
    http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html
"How skillful to tax the middle class to pay for the relief of the poor, building resentment on top of humiliation! How adroit to bus poor black youngsters into poor white neighborhoods, in a violent exchange of impoverished schools, while the schools of the rich remain untouched and the wealth of the nation, doled out carefully where children need free milk, is drained for billion-dollar aircraft carriers. How ingenious to meet the demands of blacks and women for equality by giving them small special benefits, and setting them in competition with everyone else for jobs made scarce by an irrational, wasteful system. How wise to turn the fear and anger of the majority toward a class of criminals bred-by economic inequity-faster than they can be put away, deflecting attention from the huge thefts of national resources carried out within the law by men in executive offices. "

And:
    http://archive.uua.org/ga/ga99/238thandeka.html
"First, 80 percent of the wealth in this country is owned by 20 percent of the population. The top 1 percent owns 47% of this wealth. These facts describe an American oligarchy that rules not as a right of race but as a right of class. "

And:
    http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/

Interesting link to the Kirwin Institute. One page from there:
    http://kirwaninstitute.org/research/talking-about-race.php
"At Kirwan, we agree that all too often implicit and explicit race talk has indeed been used to divide and alienate. At the same time, we believe colorblindness, though sometimes urged by people and organizations with the best intentions, is a mistake--one with profound consequences. The critical question is not whether to use race, but how to talk about race in a variety of contexts. That question is an empirical one we engage in through a number of projects. In some cases we specifically examine how people talk about race and how such conversations impact their behavior. In other work we look at how issue "frames" operate. And in still other projects we look at the efficacy of using class-based or universal policy approaches to racial matters."

Thandeka says something related to your point on policy, too:
    http://archive.uua.org/ga/ga99/238thandeka.html
"My point is this. Talk of white skin privilege is talk about the way in which some of the citizens of this country are able to avoid being mutilated - or less metaphorically, to avoid having their basic human rights violated. So much for the analogy. Here are the facts about so-called white skin privilege. First, 80 percent of the wealth in this country is owned by 20 percent of the population. The top 1 percent owns 47% of this wealth. These facts describe an American oligarchy that rules not as a right of race but as a right of class. ..."

As did Shirley Sherrod (in the later part of the video related to the controversy, suggesting that racism was invented as a systematic institution to keep poor people of any skin color from cooperating):
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk

Howard Zinn says something similar in "A People's History of the United States":
  http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html
"How skillful to tax the middle class to pay for the relief of the poor, building resentment on top of humiliation! How adroit to bus poor black youngsters into poor white neighborhoods, in a violent exchange of impoverished schools, while the schools of the rich remain untouched and the wealth of the nation, doled out carefully where children need free milk, is drained for billion-dollar aircraft carriers. How ingenious to meet the demands of blacks and women for equality by giving them small special benefits, and setting them in competition with everyone else for jobs made scarce by an irrational, wasteful system. How wise to turn the fear and anger of the majority toward a class of criminals bred-by economic inequity-faster than they can be put away, deflecting attention from the huge thefts of national resources carried out within the law by men in executive offices."

On the general issues of "-isms":
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankism

Just a random thought. If basing your worldview on stories written thousands of years ago is problematic...what about basing your system of Government on a framework that was written a few hundred years ago?

Basing things like government or your code of ethics on something that came before is fine, as long as you're not tied to what came before, and are free to modify it as needed. That's the problem with "fundamentalist" religions that want to stick to those old stories rather than acknowledge that morality changes with society. This is likely the reason that there are so many variations of the major religions. If you can't change the religion itself, you have to break away and form a new one that interprets things differently. So now we have Christian religions ranging from hardcore fundamentalism to sects like the Unitarians Universalists, which seem to have finally broken the chains of the religions their beliefs are based on. Of course this makes them hardly recognizable as a Christian-based religion, but I don't consider that a bad thing.

There is no such thing as a moderate when it comes to religion.

I take it you've never heard of the Unitarian Univeralists? I know they're not for everyone, but they are the very definition of a moderate religion.

From http://uua.org/visitors/6798.shtml:

• Principle 2: Justice by hammer, equity and compassion in human relations
• Principle 5: The right of conscience and the use of the hammer within our congregations and in society at large
• Principle 6: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and hammer based justice for all

Maybe AA (no, not the other one) should apply for tax breaks as an official religion.

Unitarian Universalism used to be a Christian denomination (actually two - Unitarian and Universalism) but after centuries of being called heretics we gave up on that. Now, we have all kinds of people in our churches - atheists, Christians, pagans, deists, and others. Basically we just agree on the Principles and Purposes, and beyond that we're free to believe what's in our hearts. Services very from church to church and actually from week to week, but in my church we usually have a sermon on an important topic - poverty, racism, the war, coping with loss, whatever our minister (or anyone else, really) thinks up. We also do a lot of singing in services, we have a hymnal that has a wide variety of songs, from secular humanist to spirituals to general songs about (a non-specific) God (God of love, not god of send you to hell because you don't believe) and a couple of Jesus tunes for Christmas Eve service.

UUA.org has more information about UUism, and they have have a thing to find churches in your area. If you have any more questions you can ask here or email me, I check the address in my profile. :)

Unitarian Universalism used to be a Christian denomination (actually two - Unitarian and Universalism) but after centuries of being called heretics we gave up on that. Now, we have all kinds of people in our churches - atheists, Christians, pagans, deists, and others. Basically we just agree on the Principles and Purposes, and beyond that we're free to believe what's in our hearts. Services very from church to church and actually from week to week, but in my church we usually have a sermon on an important topic - poverty, racism, the war, coping with loss, whatever our minister (or anyone else, really) thinks up. We also do a lot of singing in services, we have a hymnal that has a wide variety of songs, from secular humanist to spirituals to general songs about (a non-specific) God (God of love, not god of send you to hell because you don't believe) and a couple of Jesus tunes for Christmas Eve service.

UUA.org has more information about UUism, and they have have a thing to find churches in your area. If you have any more questions you can ask here or email me, I check the address in my profile. :)

Unitarian Universalism used to be a Christian denomination (actually two - Unitarian and Universalism) but after centuries of being called heretics we gave up on that. Now, we have all kinds of people in our churches - atheists, Christians, pagans, deists, and others. Basically we just agree on the Principles and Purposes, and beyond that we're free to believe what's in our hearts. Services very from church to church and actually from week to week, but in my church we usually have a sermon on an important topic - poverty, racism, the war, coping with loss, whatever our minister (or anyone else, really) thinks up. We also do a lot of singing in services, we have a hymnal that has a wide variety of songs, from secular humanist to spirituals to general songs about (a non-specific) God (God of love, not god of send you to hell because you don't believe) and a couple of Jesus tunes for Christmas Eve service.

UUA.org has more information about UUism, and they have have a thing to find churches in your area. If you have any more questions you can ask here or email me, I check the address in my profile. :)

There is a religion out there that doen't condemn any/everyone. It's called Unitarian Universalism http://www.uua.org/. It's based on seven principles, the first one being "Belief in the inherent worth and diginty of every person". Sometimes it's hard to find that "worth and dignity", but we try not to exclude people en masse . We probably don't fit your definition of 'major religions', but there are >150K of us out there. On another point, the town is Fishkill, and the name derives from the original Dutch settlers, but the meaning is as you said (fish river). Just my $0.02

Curious: Absent religion, where do you find any reason at all to believe that such a thing as a soul even exists? (yes, that makes the precarious assumption that by "I don't look to the Bible for spiritual enlightenment" you meant "I don't purport to believe in any sort of textual religion)

The problem is that in order to believe in god you have to take a very unscientific perspective on things.

There's an inconsistency in using science in your life but making an exeption regarding your religion.

There ARE religions that are more sensical though:

see: Church of Reality Unitarian Universalists or other atheist religions like buddhism

There are good alternatives! Also this Church

I've spent a fair amount of time in Utah, and I believe I've read everything Card's written on the subject of homosexuality (obviously I could be wrong, and I've never heard him speak on the subject).

Did Brigham Young wear black robes? How about Joe Smith? I've read his stuff too. No social experiments there, no sir.

Incidentally, my own church has accepted homosexuals freely, and has been in existence quite a bit longer than the LDS church. Strangely enough, we haven't been struck down by lightning bolts yet (apparently God is reserving that treatment for Mel Gibson's employees).

But no, I wouldn't dream of arguing with you.

"As a matter of fact, the GGP caused me to spend about 8.5 hours straight of reading up on the subject (as the history of religions is one of my pet interests)."

Good for you. Since ignorance about religion seems to be the rule here on slashdot, I applaud anybody of intellectual mind who considers religion to be worth studying at all.

"1. Your reply, although it purports to address the relationship of both Unitarian Universalism and Unitarianism with Christianity, ends up addressing only Unitarian Universalism."

That's because there is no modern Unitarian Church. In 1961, the Unitarian and Universalist Churches merged, hence UUism. Even before the merger, no Unitarian sect believed in the deity of Jesus. Belief in the deity of Jesus is a prerequisite of being accepted into a Christian church. That's why it's called "Christian", because they believe Jesus was Christ.

"2. The UUA admits to there being a historical link to Unitarianism, and refers to Unitarianism as a form of Christianity, right on their own website."

You seem to be genuinely confused. Nowhere in the linked page is Unitarianism referred to as a form of Christianity, and frankly, it'll be a cold day in hell when the UUA self-identifies as such. Can you please quote the passage from our website that led you to believe this?

The only connection that the UUA refers to between UUism and Christianity is here, when it says "Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;". Note, firstly, that this statement refers to the historical origins of our faith, not to it's present existance. Note, secondly, that this statement is referring to "teachings" rather than dogma or theology, and specifically only to those teaching which call upon us to love our neighbors as ourselves. In short, the ONLY part of Christianity which the UUA even acknowledges as an influence is three words - "love thy neighbor". It is also worth noting that this does not exist within the context of the 7 Purposes and Principles, which are the ONLY things UUs are REQUIRED to believe. In other words, you would be allowed to join a UU church without believing that our faith has historical roots in Christianity whatsoever (wheras you would not be allowed to join a Christian church without believing that Jesus was the Messiah). Thirdly, and most importantly, the teachings of Christianity drawn from by our faith are mentioned in the context of being WHOLLY EQUAL with teachings from Judaism, Humanism, and Paganism.

"3. Your final remark about Christians is a gross generalization, as there were (and are) Trinitarian (see my previous post) as well as Nontrinitariandoctrines, all identifying themselves as Christian."

Um, maybe you missed how the whole thing was underlined and linked directly to a wikipedia page. That's because this wasn't my remark, it was a direct quote from the wiki.

There are, in theory, non-trinitarian forms of Christianity. However, have you ever seen a Ebionite church? How about a Arian church? No? How about a Oneness Pentacostal Church? The fact of the matter is 99.9% of modern day Christianity is trinitarian. The trinity is accepted as dogma by the following denominations: Roman Catholic, Orthodox Christianity (Greek, Russian, etc), Anabaptists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, and the Church of Christ.

No, I'm afraid the only denomination which exists today that gives any credence at all to your assertion is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And you'd be hard pressed to find any mainstream Christian church that would ever agree that Mormons are Christians. One could not hold Mormon beliefs and be accepted into the congregation of a Christian church.

Again, I'm proud of you for doing as much research as you have. If you'd like to pursue it further, I recommend "A Chos

I beg your pardon!

As a matter of fact, the GGP caused me to spend about 8.5 hours straight of reading up on the subject (as the history of religions is one of my pet interests).

Rather than start another factflood, let me suffice to say this:
1. Your reply, although it purports to address the relationship of both Unitarian Universalism and Unitarianism with Christianity, ends up addressing only Unitarian Universalism.
2. The UUA admits to there being a historical link to Unitarianism, and refers to Unitarianism as a form of Christianity, right on their own website.
3. Your final remark about Christians is a gross generalization, as there were (and are) Trinitarian (see my previous post) as well as Nontrinitariandoctrines, all identifying themselves as Christian.

In the spirit of Universal Unitarianism, I wish you Peace, Love and Respect.

"The fact that Unitarians reject the notion of God being a Trinity doesn't mean they are not Christians."

Dude, seriously, stop embarassing yourself.

Reasons why Unitarian Universalists are not / Unitarians historically were not Christians:

1) UU's don't require belief that Jesus was the son of God
2) UU's don't even require belief that Jesus even existed
3) UU's don't require belief that God is a Trinity
4) UU's don't require belief that God even exists
5) UU's don't require belief in sin
6) UU's don't require belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible, or any other self-proclaimed holy book
7) UU's don't require belief in heaven and hell
8) UU's don't require belief that any church, including our own, has a monopoly on the truth

On the other hand, "Christians believe that God is a unity in Trinity, that is to say that God is one being "subsisting" in three divine persons, namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son (sometimes called the "Logos"), who pre-existed eternally with the Father, but became man at one point of time. The vast majority of Christian denominations (including Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and most forms of Protestantism) hold to the statements of the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed (in the form of the Creed of Constantinople, 381) as summaries of the essentials of the faith."

See also here, where I discuss related issues. Please educate yourself about what you're going to discuss before you discuss it.

"But, its pretty clear Christianity has done very little that is positive for Western culture and has done it vast harm."

Again with the oversimplification.

There has been, and continues to be, a vast disparity between the teachings of Jesus (really just thermodynamics on a human scale, conservation of energy as applied to human relations, etc) and the horrible twisted things that humankind has done with them. In this, Christianity is no different from any other religion. The Koran doesn't say to fly planes into buildings, but try telling the fundies that. The Bible doesn't say to have Crusades, but nobody cared.

The teachings of any religion, unfortunately, have very little to do with what humans choose to do in that religion's name.

That said, I think it's just incorrect to say that Christianity has done nothing positive for society. If it weren't for Christianity, specifically Protestantism and Methodism, chances are slavery would still exist here today. In many ways, Christianity was the first religion to espouse the doctrine that all people, no matter what caste or class or family background or race or gender, were worth God's love.

Christianity was the first to claim the inherent worth and dignity of every person. (Why yes, I am a UU, how'd you guess?)

I would like to go ahead and... disagree with you there.

http://www.uua.org/ - Unitarian Universalism: The Uncommon Denomination.

It is codified; it's been one of the UU's seven principles for at least 20 years:

http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html

"The inherent worth and dignity of every person" is the first one listed on that page. I've had a few discussions about whether that worth or dignity is mutable... personally I tend to believe not.

As for the broader topic of geek respect, I think American culture encourages us to crave and expect rockstar deference and worship, a kind of "respect" that goes beyond genuine or sustainable. So we had a respect bubble, now it's over, and for some of us at least there's still work to do. I can go out to redneck bars and call myself a computer geek and chicks don't fall all over me or ask what exactly I do. (Since the bubble began I've said, "Computer junk.") Before the bubble everyone would've shied away from a self-described computer geek.

This may not be as I want it. But I think it's as it should be.

Actually, proposing that to them really pisses off religious reich types. As near as I can tell between the frothing at the mouth, they object because first they lose their "special status" that the state recognizes for their blessings (never mind that they can still get the secular part of the status and benefits under a different name), and second because they can't stop homosexuals from joining churches which have no problem blessing gay marriages (like the (l)unitarians) and then saying "Yay! We're married!"

Worst of both worlds as far as the extreme social right is concerned.

My girlfriend would kill me if I got her this as a gift. Of course, it would be redundant, as I'd kill myself if I even thought of giving something like this to her as a token of love.

My wife says in response, "You're just Jealous!"

Seriously, my wife's the Star Wars nut in the family. We're Unitarian and her religious convictions (and to some degree mine) were shaped by this mythology.

Unfortunately, the "JarJar Factor" and the "concentration of midi-chlorians" B.S. changed the nature of the storyline and mythology to a large degree and we both don't like the direction it took.

Regardless, there are many women who appreciate the opportunity to be taken out to live theater like a unique one-man show, especially when it means being able to have a night on the town sans our 3 kids (all under age 3.5). Need I say more about this being an excellent birthday gift?

My wife, standing behind me, says, "Yah! And I loved it!".

-- Kevin

Wow, you sound just like a Unitarian. ;-)

This isn't a flaimbate or anything but why don't gays create their own churches which respect and tolerate gay marriage? I mean really, their are so many denominations as it stands one more couldn't hurt. Why not create their own denomination which recognizes their marriage on religious grounds?

Let's see... there's the Metropolitan Community Church (founded in 1968 specifically for gays), the Unitarian Universalist Association (a very liberal Christian sect that officially endorsed same-sex ceremonies back in 1984, and was performing them at a local level 10 years before that), and numerous other branches of Christian and other faiths that have recognized same-sex unions over the years.

The problem isn't religious marriage. Gays have had religious marriage for years. It's a non-issue. The problem is that the government refuses to recognize the civil, secular aspects of those marriages. It refuses to give them the little piece of paper that gives them things like hospital visitation rights, next of kin status, etc.

Unitarian Universalists

They'll take anyone ^_^

No, it's not. It is a religion built upon a recognition for the need for spiritualism and that faith is a deeply personal affair. Technically is it the merging of the Unitarian and Universalist churches, which both have their roots in very early medieval europe. Unitarians are actually one of the oldest derivatives of Christianity. Universalism followed a few hundred years later.

Do you have a scholarly study by someone unaffiliated with the Unitarians to back up that claim? If not, then the 1960s religion is a modern invention with as much historical lineage as modern wicca.

Funny, because my minister graduated from Harvard Divinity School, and UU ministers are recognized across the world and in every single state.

Scholarly acceptance or lack thereof doesn't mean that you are or are not a "religion." Neither does governmental recognition of individual ministers make UUism a religion.

A better term than religion would be "interfaith collaborative." If you don't have substantial core dogma then you aren't a religion. Every last single major religion DOES have substantial core dogma--something that answers the question "what do you believe" with a spiritual rather than political answer.

Characterizing the Principles and Purposes of the UUA as "we should all ge along" is akin to characterizing pagans as a bunch of goat-slaughtering freaks, or Catholics as a bunch of child-molesting, subservient, permanently-guilt-tripped, mindless idiots.

I'll thank you not to insult wiccans, druids, and individual "magickers" with a patently untrue slander, or the whole of the Catholic congregations with the actions of their priesthood.

As for the matter at hand, UUA's statement of principles (http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html)
see ms to be quite close to "we should all get along." And they don't set themselves up as a religion, but rather a house where religion can be learned and discussed in a, as I said origianlly, very good and non-confrontational way.

Incidentally, the religious freedom you enjoy today if you're in America is due almost entirely in part to the beliefs of Unitarians such as Ben Franklin;

Oh, for crying out loud.

I think I've heard everyone from agnostics to atheists to humanists to pagans claim the Founding Fathers as a member of their minority. If what you espouse is true and right and good, then you don't need an appeal to fame to justify yourself.

I respect UUism for what it is, and I think it's a good movement even if it's inherently flawed (but only by being TOO 'good'.) I do not consider it a religion, but that doesn't mean that I think that you're insulting and demeaning it with your half-thought arguments and weak allegations of historical authority.

The Unitarian Universalist religion is nothing like esperanto, and I consider that comparison an insult to my religion.

Like the ethnic background of the United States(commonly called the Cultural Melting Pot), UUism draws all the good bits from many of the world's religions. Esperanto was developed by one nutjob who took some bits of latin and mixed it with the world's languages.

The similarities end there. The UUA is governed mostly by democracy, whereas Esperanto has been mostly the vision of one man. Unitarian Universalism is practiced by millions; Esperanto is spoken by maybe a couple thousand people. Unitarian Universalism embraces other religions (save the parts which interfere with the UU principles and purposes- mainly, stuff like "all non-believers are heathens" and such). Esperanto is based around the assumption that your language isn't good enough, you need to be speaking Esperanto. Lastly, UU's don't go around preaching about their religion very much, which is why most people don't know of it, or don't understand it; there are no UU advocates, much less missionaries; the UUA rarely even takes positions, it's so unimposing. Esperanto advocates, meanwhile, just can't shut up about how good Esperanto is, and are constantly trying to force it on people.

As a UU I am apalled.

Jainism? Sikhism? Shinto? Hinduism? Bhuddism? Taoism? Zoroastrianism?

Four of the above do not formally recognize the existence of One True God, so your question makes no sense.

Speaking as a pantheist and a Universalist Unitarian, your question doesn't work for me either. You may as well ask if my neoteric ether has transflogistanized! (uh, I don't know the answer to that one either, perhaps somebody else does.)

However, if I twist my mind back into the contorted, tiny blinders of my fundamentalist christian childhood, I think I can answer your question from that perspective. I imagine the same answer would work for fundamentalist Judaism or Fundamentalist Islam, which seem to work pretty much the same way. Here goes: "YOU ARE EVIL!!!! YOU HAVE WICKED THOUGHTS!!! YOU MUST BOW DOWN TO THE MAJESTY OF THE ONE TRUE LORD!!! YOUR FLESH MUST BE MORTIFIED!!! KILL THE UNBELIEVERS!! KILL!! KILL!!"

Was that the answer you were looking for?

Organizations like the Unitarian Universalist Association -- known for its politically correct constituency -- were quick to rename "webmasters" to "web weavers" for this exact reason. All said, perhaps a good thing; however, it does require a shift of convention and a grain of salt. The shift of convention is necessary for those terms which explicitly conjure bad feelings; the grain of salt for those which are simply ridiculous.

Symantec also blocks, on my corporate network, the Unitarian-Universalist website. Their explanation? SexEd. Not even just sex...but SexEd. I've already lost faith in them.

also happens to forbid the government from promoting atheism.

Ain't that a relief

When the government promotes monotheism it is religious opression of Native American beliefs. The constituion forbids it.

Oppression? what is stopping the Native Americans from still practicing their religion? They are not being prevented from doing any such thing. THey are not being persecuted for their polytheistic beliefs so where exactly does the oppression come in again?

"not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."-- Encyclopedia Brittanica

Nitpick: Not all of the Founding Fathers were made up of the first 6 Presidents of the US as there were more than 6 Founding Fathers for one thing. I'm sure there are some Presidents who aren't Christian although I'm sure there are very few.

How about George Washington? Oops, not Christian.

Yes he was. The phrase "under God," so much a part of our nation's tradition and so familiar as part of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, was used by George Washington when he learned that the United Colonies had declared themselves an independent nation.

John Adams maybe? Nope.

Not really but he did believe in having religion. He recognized the abuses, large and small, that religious belief lends itself to, but he also believed that religion could be a force for good in individual lives and in society at large. His extensive reading (especially in the classics), led him to believe that this view applied not only to Christianity, but to all religions.

Perhaps Benjamin Franklin? No.

You aren't quite right. I had been religiously educated as a Presbyterian; and tho' some of the dogmas of that persuasion, such as the eternal decrees of God, election, reprobation, etc., appeared to me unintelligible, others doubtful, and I early absented myself from the public assemblies of the sect, Sunday being my studying day, I never was without some religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and govern'd it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter.

Maybe you meant Thomas Jefferson? Sorry.

sorry, u are wrong "To the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."

Or James Madison? Nope.

Does not say either way but as you can see Madison says what you people can't seem to figure out in the phrase you often quote from the Constitution. He does not want you to lose your rights just because of your religion. It does not mean that the gov't can't have or make religious references. As chairman of the House conference committee on the Bill of Rights, Madison's original draft was among the most ambitious: "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship...nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed...." Though somewhat less expansive in its protections, the final version--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" --clearly bears the Madison stamp.

Dyslexic moderators, or just unable to concatenate unit and arian?

In a previous post, someone mentioned that if you are religious you should join a church. If you are not already a member of a organized religion, you might want to try finding a Unitarian Universalist church near your destination. They usually have lots of activities and sermons that are are not focused on a particular belief system. I know a lot of interesting and geeky people who are Unitarians.

In a previous post, someone mentioned that if you are religious you should join a church. If you are not already a member of a organized religion, you might want to try finding a Unitarian Universalist church near your destination. They usually have lots of activities and sermons that are are not focused on a particular belief system. I know a lot of interesting and geeky people who are Unitarians.

One problem is the vast number of sites which, for various reasons, don't label appropriately - usually either because they don't label at all or intentionally try to keep ahead of the censorware.

Another problem is that any set of rules will result in miscategorization, while whitelist/blacklists are neither scalable nor do they satisfy the desire for local control of categories.

I'm the concerned parent of a 5 year-old (who uses "google" as a verb), a trained teen sexuality educator, and I'm extremely anti-censorship. As you may guess, I'm occasionally conflicted on this topic. Basically, I've come to the conclusion that for my family, what I'm looking for is a tool that lets me filter out the bulk of the egregious crap (porn, hate, violence, ads) for casual use.

I'd even be satisfied with a warning rather than a hard filter in non-blacklisted cases: "Warning: the requested page will probably make your little head explode - follow this link if you really want to got there or click here if you want someone else to check it out for you".

Not quite sure I follow you... wouldn't eliminating "very expensive agencies", and vastly reducing the police force, and prison infrastructure, SAVE money?

The War on Drugs costs 40 billion dollars a year. I don't have a link to back this up, but IIRC, I read somewhere that marijuana convictions account for roughly half of that.

Religion these days is largely about keeping things consistent. Heck, 100 years ago, they were still using Latin routinely in Roman Cathloic services! Lots of people are attracted to religion because it provides a feeling of continuity/oneness with the past. As such, it's a difficult thing for a "futurist" to talk about sanely.

Yet, I think something will surface as a "catch all" religion for people who would simply be Atheists otherwise.

That has already been done a couple of times.

so maybe new "religions" will spring up that focus on maximizing the life we live now

That too.

Getting ready to leave work, so I don't exactly have time to look at your link to "deists" is it anything like a Unitarian?

Because Paine, Adams, and Jefferson -- most definitely Jefferson -- were all Unitarians.

The canonical treatise on the concentration of corporate power in the media is Ben Bagdikian's excellent The Media Monopoly.

We need real alternatives to the corporate gerber, and one real alternative is Public Access Television. For those that don't know what this is, it is a system whereby the cable provider allocates channel space, and provides studios, equipment and training to *anyone* to create their own TV shows. A fairly complete list of these facilities is here: http://www.openchannel.se/cat/. Educate yourself about Public Access, petition your local city government to require it (if you don't have it), and MAKE YOUR OWN TV SHOW! (It's real fun!)

Keep in mind that for these corporate media companies to operate, they generally must obtain the grant of a franchise from your city government. These franchise agreements have a term limit (like 10 years), and ensures a bit of local control w/r/t taxation (franshise fee), and that the franchise operate in the public interest.

Now remember that in the USA, government is created by the people, and the government charters or franchises these media companies. A creates B and B creates C... Get it? The people ultimately sanction the corporations, and thus, they must operate in the public interest.

So, while you're petitioning your city government to provide Public Access Television, be sure to remind them that it is their duty as public servants to make sure these monopoly franchisees operate in the public interest, like the Terms of Use "Agreement" , where YOU the user must usually "consent" to monitoring, such that you won't engage in any sorts of illegal speech (whatever the hell that is), that you won't run servers, etc. This stuff is NOT PROPER SUBJECT MATTER for a common carrier to require in contracts with customers, especially when they are the only game in town (monopoly) AND that they are supposed to be operating in the public interest, as they were created by the government which "derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed", to quote TJ.

• Who's running for the school board, and where is my polling station?
• Where's that Taste of the Town food fest being held?
• Where can I find a Unitarian church, and do they have a web page describing themselves?
• Is it true my office is on a toxic waste site? (Yes. Don't lick the dirt.)

• Participants building up individual identities. You know who you're talking to.
• High signal to noise ratio.
• A magic number of posts -- too many drives people away; too few is just an announcement list.
• Enough of a focus that you have something to talk about. I've seen very general lists, like "This is a list for the town of X" on eGroups, that fizzle out for lack of something to say.
• A few alpha-posters that invest time into high-quality posts.