Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[Jon_S_1]

Yes, that would be a logical extension of what I’ve said before, but under those circumstances, what need would there be for abortion, since the egg and sperm would probably just be combined outside the body as well? The woman would never even be pregnant in the first place.

Who said anything about living outside the womb “on their own”? All I said was that an actual child would be capable of surviving outside of the womb. That means without being literally attached to the mother’s body 24/7. It doesn’t mean totally on their own.

Maybe an end to abortion is closer than we think!

Artificial Shark Uterus: wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/artificial-shark-uterus/

 

[NowHereThis]

What do you think about the bible is it the word of God?, if it isn’t shouldn’t you denounce Christians as false

If the Bible is inspired, it is inspired in the same way that a poem about a sunset is inspired by that sunset. In other words, it expresses the writers and editors’ understandings of the absolute/divine/God. Those understandings may have motivated them to write, but that is not the same thing as some kind of superior intelligence directing them in their writing or preserving them from error or anything like that.

Different Christians have different understandings of how to interpret the Bible (including many who would agree completely with what I wrote above), so sweeping denunciations would be unfair. And I’d rather dialogue than denounce anyway.

 

[NowHereThis]

Yes, that would be a logical extension of what I’ve said before, but under those circumstances, what need would there be for abortion, since the egg and sperm would probably just be combined outside the body as well? The woman would never even be pregnant in the first place.

Who said anything about living outside the womb “on their own”? All I said was that an actual child would be capable of surviving outside of the womb. That means without being literally attached to the mother’s body 24/7. It doesn’t mean totally on their own.

That’s of course under circumstances where the couple is trying to get pregnant. In case of accidents, rape, etc. assuming there was technology to transfer the embryo, and someone willing and able to pay for it if the couple does not wish to or cannot afford it, then yes, there would be an actual child. The key is “someone willing and able to pay”.

 

[Adamski]

Why should the baby have to pay for the sins of the rapist father

 

[vsedriver]

A two year old child could survive outside the womb,

a 2 yr old child could not survive outside the womb without the support of their mother or a mother substitute.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

What we hold in common are values, not metaphysical statements. I’m not an atheist, but an atheist and I can agree that human beings should be treated as having inherent worth and dignity. UUs agree on seven common values:

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

As individual members, we can and do hold metaphysical statements as true, but we don’t have to agree about them in order to be a community. To borrow from another UU, there are Republican Catholics and Democratic Catholics, but nobody thinks of the Catholic church as “the church that doesn’t vote for anything”.

Not very universal if you don’t include people who believe in the opposite of such things. Why can’t warmongers or people you perceive as evil join? in fact why believe in those values at all? But why commune pointlessly with an atheist to do what exactly? the UU seems nothing more than a club house with pointless pretensions as to actually be a religion.

As for democratic catholics; I question not only the catholicity of anyone who supports abortion or homosexual marriage but also the Christianity of anyone supports such things.

 

[vsedriver]

So that having been said, where is the line between potential and actual child for me? That’s when the child can survive outside the womb (viability). That’s a meaningful line because now there is a way to distinguish between what the child is and, for example, a donated organ. Donated organs are living and they carry a distinct human genetic code. But they cannot survive without being attached inside a person, and a viable child can.

so the child is a child based on location? As long as the child is attached to the mother it is not a ‘real’ child? so if a mother gives birth and the child is still attached to the umbilical cord and she decides she doesn’t want the child she can kill it before it is separated fully from her and that would be ok? you would not consider that murder? Not even all children born or leave the womb full term are viable. Some need medical aid to survive. Would denying medical aid be murder? or just another form of abortion? Terminating a life that isn’t viable outside the womb?

So when do you become a human being? Are you not a human being the day before your birth and a human being the next day? Why does physical dependence make you not human? A human baby is not a growth or parasite. A human baby has a unique set of DNA separate from the mother. So in a sense a baby even in the womb is a separate human being not just a tumor or organ.

If a man stabs a woman who is 9 months pregnant and the baby dies should he be charged with murder? or just assault?

I don’t know about you but I became a human being when my father’s sperm fertilized my mother’s egg and it divided. From the first moment of division I, a new human being, was created. For the rest of my earthy life, my cells will continue to grow and develop. When they stop growing, I’ll die. This is the whole lifespan of a human being. There is no ‘potential’ this or that. A human being is a human being from the moment that first cell division takes place and no one should have the right to kill that life.

 

[Country_Gal]

My mother in law, may she rest in peace, was a Unitarian. She was born in 1910to to a staunch Methodist family. Back in those days Methodists were very strict about conduct and dress.

She and her husband were very intellectual. They turned to Unitarianism. Edith also got her older sister Ruth into it.

I went with her several times. One thing I noticed was most members were White liberals. I used to read her flyers and other church literature she had sitting around. It was all very left winged and political.

I did not see much diversity in her church. I saw political group think.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Years ago I did enjoy antagonizing and agitating. But I learned and grew, and that’s what I’m doing here and elsewhere: learning and growing through dialogue with people of a variety of beliefs.

I wish this thread could be split into two threads - one to discuss UU in more general terms and with a broader scope, and the other for the UUs vs. Catholics on abortion debate that has taken a large amount of the focus. I too hold very pro-life views, and it’s bound to come up, but it seems like that particular aspect of the thread got really intense really quickly and, I don’t know, sort of became a side thread within the main thread . . . Maybe it would’ve worked better if abortion had been within a list of moral issues questions . . . oh, well. Just my ramblings.

 

[Boulder257]

I wish this thread could be split into two threads - one to discuss UU in more general terms and with a broader scope, and the other for the UUs vs. Catholics on abortion debate that has taken a large amount of the focus. I too hold very pro-life views, and it’s bound to come up, but it seems like that particular aspect of the thread got really intense really quickly and, I don’t know, sort of became a side thread within the main thread . . . Maybe it would’ve worked better if abortion had been within a list of moral issues questions . . . oh, well. Just my ramblings.

I don’t think anything precludes you from strarting a thread like that.

 

[NowHereThis]

(NHT, here’s where I go all intellectual Catholic apologist on you . . . I still wish others wouldn’t be angry and snarky, that’s not helpful . . . you seem sincerely trying to have a conversation and I’m willing to meet you on those terms)

As Catholics we believe that historically Jesus the Son of God established a Church and gave it the authority, as well as the guidance of the Holy Spirit (one of the three Persons of the Trinity) to “lead it into all truth.” We believe Jesus, the second Person of the Trinity, did this at the will of God the Father the first Person of the Trinity. Trinitarian belief is essential to our religion.

What I’m getting at is that we do believe that from the get-go, Christ established a Church that would search for the truth as His Body and guided by Him.

There is a presupposed unity in the Judeo-Christian belief that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, especially in their spiritual aspect, and therefore are equally subject to the need to search for and find the one Truth despite the fact that they do have different life experiences, gifts, and contributions to make to building up God’s Kingdom.

Catholics study how God has revealed Himself and His Truth throughout what we term “Salvation History.” As the Scripture says, we are many parts but all one body (cf. Romans 12:4, 1 Corinthians 12). So no one individual is an authority unto himself or herself, it’s in all of us together that the Body of Christ consists.

This in no way lessens the value of the individual and we are all certainly equally loved by God. But what does He want us to do with the life He has given us? Think of it as like an orchestra - you have your violinist, your pianist, your trumpeter, your percussionist, and so on. Together they make a symphony, provided they are playing in unity and following the direction of the conductor! :harp:

If each individual is seeking and thinks he or she has found truth, and then you gather them together, the result is more of a cacophony of individuals with contradictory and clashing hypotheses as to what truth is. They try, but can they truly succeed in figuring out how to reconcile these contradictions into a genuine harmony? Or perhaps they dodge the conundrum by simply having them coexist side by side, but then is there music, or silence, or noise, or what?

Psychologically, and you’ve probably heard this before, it seems to me that UUs generally are folks with authority issues. What do you think?

Psychologically speaking, there are good reasons to distrust authority. It can turn well-adjusted college students into sadistic prison guards, or everyday average people into torturers.

For UUs, power, legitimacy, authority…whatever you want to call it, it flows from the bottom up, from the consent of free individuals coming together in a covenant, rather than hierarchically from the top down. That’s why even the social justice statements of the UUA aren’t binding on individual congregations unless they are specifically adopted in a congregational vote.

 

[NowHereThis]

Why should the baby have to pay for the sins of the rapist father

I only mentioned rape as an example of how conception might occur the old-fashioned way in a scenario where embryos could live in artificial wombs right from the start.

 

[NowHereThis]

Not very universal if you don’t include people who believe in the opposite of such things. Why can’t warmongers or people you perceive as evil join? in fact why believe in those values at all? But why commune pointlessly with an atheist to do what exactly? the UU seems nothing more than a club house with pointless pretensions as to actually be a religion.

As for democratic catholics; I question not only the catholicity of anyone who supports abortion or homosexual marriage but also the Christianity of anyone supports such things.

“Universalism” is in our name because Unitarian Universalism was formed in 1961 by the merger of two denominations: The American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America. Even though UU isn’t a Christian denomination anymore, those two denominations were at one point. Universalists are Christians who believe that everyone will be saved.​

People who disagree with one or more of the seven principles can still join, it’s just that the more principles they disagree with, the more uncomfortable they will probably be.​

The values of the seven principles reflect two central paradoxes of being human: we’re individuals who need community to flourish, and we’re alive and aware of having to die. Because we have a limited amount of time to live, that raises the question of how best to make use of the time we do have. Because we need each other, that raises the question of how we can live together without dishonoring our existence as individuals.

The seven principles are an attempt to answer these questions and reflect these realities. They were voted on. They can be voted on again to revise them, if we choose.​

So what can an atheist and I do together? Well, as that great theologian Prince once declared, “Ladies and gentlemen, we are gathered together to get through this thing called life.”

 

[NowHereThis]

so the child is a child based on location? As long as the child is attached to the mother it is not a ‘real’ child? so if a mother gives birth and the child is still attached to the umbilical cord and she decides she doesn’t want the child she can kill it before it is separated fully from her and that would be ok? you would not consider that murder?

No, it’s based on whether the child needs that womb and umbilical cord to survive. If the mother gives birth at full term, the child does not need the umbilical cord anymore. Temporarily still having it wouldn’t change the “actual child” status.

Not even all children born or leave the womb full term are viable. Some need medical aid to survive. Would denying medical aid be murder? or just another form of abortion? Terminating a life that isn’t viable outside the womb?

Viability can include “surviving with the aid of machines or other medical assistance.” That’s because the woman’s body is no longer involved. If her control over her own body isn’t at issue, there is no reason for an abortion. And denying the infant medical aid would be treated just like denying medical aid to an adult, which emergency rooms are already prohibited from doing.

So when do you become a human being? Are you not a human being the day before your birth and a human being the next day? Why does physical dependence make you not human? A human baby is not a growth or parasite. A human baby has a unique set of DNA separate from the mother. So in a sense a baby even in the womb is a separate human being not just a tumor or organ.

At viability. Donated organs have distinct human DNA, but that doesn’t confer personhood on them. So the difference between an embryo and a donated organ is that the embryo has the potential to develop into a child. But being a potential child and an actual child are not the same thing, any more than being a potential adult gives you the right to vote like an actual adult. Viability is when the potential child becomes actual because no longer needs the mother’s body to survive, and thus can be considered a separate individual with its own rights.

If a man stabs a woman who is 9 months pregnant and the baby dies should he be charged with murder? or just assault?

Murder.

 

[NowHereThis]

My mother in law, may she rest in peace, was a Unitarian. She was born in 1910to to a staunch Methodist family. Back in those days Methodists were very strict about conduct and dress.

She and her husband were very intellectual. They turned to Unitarianism. Edith also got her older sister Ruth into it.

I went with her several times. One thing I noticed was most members were White liberals. I used to read her flyers and other church literature she had sitting around. It was all very left winged and political.

I did not see much diversity in her church. I saw political group think.

Shouldn’t you be impressed that they managed to achieve that kind of unity without a hierarchy or a pope?

 

[Boulder257]

Shouldn’t you be impressed that they managed to achieve that kind of unity without a hierarchy or a pope?

How hard can it be to maintain unity if “everything goes?”

For that matter, what are they all united in?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Shouldn’t you be impressed that they managed to achieve that kind of unity without a hierarchy or a pope?

I’m not sure you can call it unity. To say we agree to disagree is not really a united voice. Not to mention that this organization is 50 years old not 2000. I am certain it will dissolve relatively soon and be seen as a fad of the times like thousands before it.

 

[NowHereThis]

How hard can it be to maintain unity if “everything goes?”

For that matter, what are they all united in?

White liberal political group-think, apparently.

 

[Jon_S_1]

White liberal political group-think, apparently.

Political survey of Unitarian Universalist ministers.
by Philocrites
One of the books I picked up at the AAR conference this weekend is Pulpit and Politics: Clergy in American Politics at the Advent of the Millennium, which includes chapters on the political engagement of ministers in 18 different denominations — including Unitarian Universalists. John C. Green of Akron University reports on a spring 2001 survey of 1,011 ministers serving UU congregations; 65.9 percent of the ministers responded. The results?
Party identification
Strong Democrat 56%
Weak Democrat 11%
Independent, lean Democrat 22%
Independent 7%
Independent, lean Republican 2%
Weak Republican <1%
Strong Republican 1%
Presidential choice in 2000
Al Gore 81%
George W. Bush 2%
Pat Buchanan 0%
Ralph Nader 15%
Other 1%
Did not vote

1%
Political involvement
What kinds of political activities do UU ministers consider appropriate?
Take a stand while preaching on some moral issue 99%
Participate in a protest march 97%
Contribute money to a candidate, party, or PAC 89%
Commit civil disobedience to protest some evil 86%
While preaching, take a stand on some political issue 86%
Publicly (not preaching) support a political candidate 50%
What kinds of political activities do UU ministers engage in?
Urged their congregation to register and vote 66%
Contacted a public official about an issue 62%
Prayed publicly about an issue 35%
Took a stand from the pulpit on some political issue 34%
Prayed publicly for political candidates 5%
I didn’t find any surprises in this data, although I’ll be very interested to look at how UU ministers compare to ministers in the other “liberal” denominations. It would be very interesting to ask a random sample of UU church members these same questions about ministerial political involvement and see if there’s any disconnect between lay and clergy response.
Source: John C. Green, “Unitarian-Universalist Association,” Pulpit and Politics: Clergy in American Politics at the Advent of the Millennium, ed. by Corwin E. Smidt (Waco: Baylor Univ. Press, 2004): 273-284.
Copyright © 2005 by Philocrites | Posted 22 November 2005 at 1:28 PM

philocrites.com/archives/002335.html

 

[NowHereThis]

I’m not sure you can call it unity. To say we agree to disagree is not really a united voice. Not to mention that this organization is 50 years old not 2000. I am certain it will dissolve relatively soon and be seen as a fad of the times like thousands before it.

We can agree to disagree, and to agree, and to keep talking, and to learn, and to grow, and to respect, and to do all this together. That’s our unity. And its the merger that is 50 years old. The predecessor denominations were formed in 1825 (American Universalist Association) and 1778 (Universalist Church of America).

Granted, that’s not 2000 years, but still very respectable.