Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[ProudUU]

Oh, and I’ll believe those who call themselves “pro-life” actually pro-LIFE when they stop passing (or attempting to pass) laws to restrict access to food stamps, financial assistance, maternity leave, health care, public education, public housing, and so on and so on and so on. If you want to protect all these potential lives, then give them a shot at having an actual life, for god/es/ss’s sake. Otherwise, they’re just pro-birth.

 

[ffg]

Ah the assumption card. Used so often, yet misused twice as often.

How many times do we build up in our heads what others will think of us only to see the opposite reaction when we let truth and reality play out.

My favorite one in the last 15 years was when my wife drove our day old brand new van into the garage with the lift gate up.

She sent the kids to neighbors and was in the driveway scared as all get out for when I arrived home, only to see my reaction as a hug.

Sorry for your loss, glad you have an out here and feel comfortable enough to share.

 

[SteveVH]

It is incorrect to say that we believe in all things simultaneously.

That is not what I said. I said you cannot believe in all things simultaneously. The point is that you have members who believe completely different things yet all wish to congregate under one roof. So I stand by my statement. You have no set of common beliefs, therefore, as an organization, you have no beliefs.

Do you think Hindus, or believers in Native American religion and folklore, have any insights that you might find edifying?

Possibly. We believe that all faith traditions have truth to varying degrees. It is not the truth they possess, but rather the error that goes with it that is the problem.

Or are those folks lying too? Lying is saying something that you know to be untrue. If I said “The sun is purple”, I would be lying, as I know that it is not. Is there scholarship to suggest that Mohammed and Joseph Smith knew that they were telling an untruth? Is there a teaching in the Catheschism on this? Is it possible that they are mistaken, instead?

Well, you are throwing a whole bunch of different issues into the same basket.

Do I believe that Hindus and Native Americans are lying? No. I believe they are missing the truth revealed in and by Jesus Christ. Do I believe Muhammad was a liar? He was either a liar or he was misled by an evil spirit. As for Joseph Smith? Yes, I believe he was a liar from the beginning. But do I believe Mormon’s are liars? No. They were misled by a liar.

What all of this has to do with my previous statement that Jesus was either who he said he was or he was a liar I have no idea.

You mention “others of our organization”. I don’t think cheese speaks for all Unitarians. I think he was taken out of context, or mispoke. (To be clear, I like Cheese ). It is not accurate to generalize about all Unitarians because of this. I do not think you would agree with an argument that went “Well, StaunchCatholic57 said something indefensable in his post, so the Catholic position is clear”.

Well thank you for pointing that out. So, do you think that what one believes does matter?

 

[SteveVH]

Oh, and I’ll believe those who call themselves “pro-life” actually pro-LIFE when they stop passing (or attempting to pass) laws to restrict access to food stamps, financial assistance, maternity leave, health care, public education, public housing, and so on and so on and so on. If you want to protect all these potential lives, then give them a shot at having an actual life, for god/es/ss’s sake. Otherwise, they’re just pro-birth.

So if one is not in agreement with every liberal, socialistic government program out there then we are not pro-human rights? How about a job in place of food stamps and financial assistance? Would you be okay with that? It works a lot better.

The point has been made more than a few times on this thread that the greatest opponent of abortion in the world is the Catholic Church. At the same time the Catholic Church is the greatest provider in the world of food, shelter and other assistance to the poor.

We believe, first of all, in the dignity of every human being and are completely consistent in being pro-life from conception to birth. So your argument hold no water.

 

[LisaA]

Oh, and I’ll believe those who call themselves “pro-life” actually pro-LIFE when they stop passing (or attempting to pass) laws to restrict access to food stamps, financial assistance, maternity leave, health care, public education, public housing, and so on and so on and so on. If you want to protect all these potential lives, then give them a shot at having an actual life, for god/es/ss’s sake. Otherwise, they’re just pro-birth.

I was going to bet money that you’d pull that canard out as well. As I said, there are reasons for abortion, just no valid reasons if you truly support human rights as do I. As SteveVH noted, the Catholic Church is simultaneously the strongest opponent of abortion and the greatest provider of support and resources to those in need. I can tell you are far to the Left as you assume that the government is to provide all of these benefits rather than considering that the first department of health education and welfare is the family, followed by the community, local, state and then national social services organizations and charities. The reality is that any pregnant woman who wishes to keep her baby will have no difficulty in obtaining the kind of financial and even emotional support she needs.

I wonder if you have ever met with, worked with, volunteered for or helped these pro-life people whom you disdain and demean. You might be surprised to find that the same people who are pushing for pro-life legislation are also volunteering at crisis pregnancy centers, mother and child centers, adoption counseling, and clinics that provide healthcare for poor women (abortion is not healthcare). As I have said multiple times, what attracted me to the Church was not just talking the talk but walking the walk. The Church, the clergy and laity believe in the inherent dignity of life from conception to natural death. And we do all we can to support it.

I am very sorry you had to make the choice for abortion. I firmly believe that the vast majority of women make the decision based on the same kind of false assumptions that you have provided as reasons for abortion. It is not that the women are uncaring or unfeeling, I think they, like me, just do not realize what they are doing. I imagine had I been in your position at age l7 I would have made the same “choice.” But it would have been a choice based on a lack of knowledge and understanding. I am thankful every day that this didn’t happen to me when I didn’t understand the sacredness of every human life.

Lisa

 

[CHRISTINE77]

So if one is not in agreement with every liberal, socialistic government program out there then we are not pro-human rights? How about a job in place of food stamps and financial assistance? Would you be okay with that? It works a lot better.

The point has been made more than a few times on this thread that the greatest opponent of abortion in the world is the Catholic Church. At the same time the Catholic Church is the greatest provider in the world of food, shelter and other assistance to the poor.

We believe, first of all, in the dignity of every human being and are completely consistent in being pro-life from conception to birth. So your argument hold no water.

I agree. Catholic Relief Services and other Catholic charities do so much for the poor. We don’t think just because someone is poor or disabled that they are worthless, far from it. They are the treasures of the the church. Jesus was always the spokesman for what the secular world calls worthless segments of society. Often, so-called “humane” liberals think that the poor and indigent children would be better off dead. They would rather the poor had abortions than bring their children into the world.

 

[LisaA]

I agree. Catholic Relief Services and other Catholic charities do so much for the poor. We don’t think just because someone is poor or disabled that they are worthless, far from it. They are the treasures of the the church. Jesus was always the spokesman for what the secular world calls worthless segments of society. Often, so-called “humane” liberals think that the poor and indigent children would be better off dead. They would rather the poor had abortions than bring their children into the world.

Yes with their founder Margaret Sanger wishing to rid the world of “human weeds…”
Lisa

 

[SteveVH]

So if one is not in agreement with every liberal, socialistic government program out there then we are not pro-human rights? How about a job in place of food stamps and financial assistance? Would you be okay with that? It works a lot better.

The point has been made more than a few times on this thread that the greatest opponent of abortion in the world is the Catholic Church. At the same time the Catholic Church is the greatest provider in the world of food, shelter and other assistance to the poor.

We believe, first of all, in the dignity of every human being and are completely consistent in being pro-life from conception to birth. So your argument hold no water.

That should have read ** from conception to the moment of death**.

 

[mek42]

That is not what I said. I said you cannot believe in all things simultaneously. The point is that you have members who believe completely different things yet all wish to congregate under one roof. So I stand by my statement. You have no set of common beliefs, therefore, as an organization, you have no beliefs.

The seven precept of UU have been laid out in this thread a great number of times. That is their common belief. So people with different faiths want to get together and congregate to help each other learn about that which is unobservable. Didn’t the Pope recently discuss people of multiple faiths working with each other? Was he mistaken?

 

[PRmerger]

I missed that post, sorry.

When a fetus can live separate from the host (in other words, at viability [which, yes, changes with the advent of medical science], and I use the word “host” because it’s not always the mother who is carrying the fetus, such as in the case of a surrogate), then it is no longer a “potential” life, in my view. But, since almost all abortions occur before this point, it’s really moot. 3rd trimester abortions are very rare, and they aren’t being chosen by women who think, “You know, I’ve come this far, but meh, I decided I don’t want this baby.” They’re almost always performed because of severe fetal anomalies or to save the life of the mother/host.

Fair enough.

So this prompts a lot of questions for me to you as a UU.

I’ll start with these:

-since you believe that it becomes an actual life at viability, do you question the mother whom you are protecting when you walk into the abortion clinic? That is, do you say, “May I ask, how far along are you?” I would think that this would be a** very, very important** question to ask. Because, of course, you would agree that when it is an actual life, taking her to the abortion clinic would be killing an actual life. And that would be as heinous and wrong to do as it would be to assist the mother in killing her 2yr old toddler.

-on a philosophical level: how do you offer an assignation of moral value to a life (actual or potential) that is based on technology? How does human worth and dignity become predicated on technology? That is: do you not see a problem with saying that a life is worthy of dignity at 24 weeks gestation in 2013, but it would not have been an actual life, worthy of dignity, at 24 weeks in 1970?

Since we seem to often have to take things to the extremes, if we force women to carry fetuses they do not wish to carry, then why shouldn’t we force people to be life support machines for born people? Why shouldn’t we force people to donate kidneys in order to save a born person? After all, you can live with one kidney, and there’s a long waiting list of people who need them.

If I had done some act/behavior/practice which directly resulted in the single kidney of a person, then I would, indeed, be compelled to donate my kidney. After all, it was the result of my behavior that this person has a single kidney.

Wouldn’t you?

I don’t think any person’s - man or woman - medical decisions are mine to make. It’s none of my business.

Killing is always our business. Just like I would never say, “If you want to kill your toddler, it’s none of my business.”

 

[LisaA]

The seven precept of UU have been laid out in this thread a great number of times. That is their common belief. So people with different faiths want to get together and congregate to help each other learn about that which is unobservable. Didn’t the Pope recently discuss people of multiple faiths working with each other? Was he mistaken?

Here they are:
***The seven precepts of Unitarian Universalism are:

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

I think the comments are with respect to the huge variation in how these are interpreted. What in heck do these mean? They are so nebulous and unspecific. I think it would be difficult to find ANYONE who would, on the face of these precepts, find them objectionable. But as they say the devil is in the details and I think that for many liberal religions, the belief system is positively Protean.

For me “the inherent worth and dignity of every person” would mean you would never support abortion. But obviously for UU’s there is a completely different meaning of the word “person” which does not include unborn persons. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth: does this (as has been asked) mean you accept everything? every belief? every spiritual path? How about use of peyote or hashish or other psychotropic drugs as a way to spiritual growth? Timothy Leary thought this was a pretty darned good route! Free and responsible search for truth…whose truth? My truth seems to be far from the truths held by people of different faith traditions.

A UU friend joked that “We’re the church of what’s happening now!” In other words various causes become primary…maybe women’s rights, gay rights, environmentalism. But all such decisions seem human based rather than looking to the Divine for guidance and over riding principles.

That being said, knowing UU’s I think they LIKE this nebulous set of principles versus something like Catholic Social Teaching or more importantly the Nicene Creed which are pretty specific. This is not being pejorative, it is just my observation as a former UU and also based on some of the posts on this thread. In contrast I suspect many UUs and other liberal based faithful do not want “to be told what to do…” which is how something like Catholicism is often characterized…although I beg to differ!

 

[PRmerger]

Truth matters in SOME things, of course. But there is no truth when it comes to religion.

Is “But there is no truth when it comes to religion” a truth that matters, ProudUU?

And is there truth when it comes to morality?

And who decides whether something is an issue to which truth matters or an issue to which truth doesn’t matter?

It’s all faith. It’s all personal beliefs. You may think you have found the truth, so fine, yay for you. I’m not going to tell you your beliefs are wrong or insincere

So you wouldn’t try to convince your adult daughter that her belief in Santa Claus is a delusion, even if it made her a better, kinder person?

 

[Lochias]

And I used to think I wasn’t pro-choice. Then I realized that the laws being made to restrict that right were misogynistic to their core. My heart DID change. Just not the way you would like it to.

And I’m not pro-abortion. I think it’s a terrible choice to have to make. But sometimes, it’s a necessary choice. I seriously contemplated suicide when I got pregnant at 17, as I have very anti-choice parents who still to this day, nearly 20 years later, do not know I had an abortion. Had the choice of abortion not been available to me, I may have simply taken my own life. Thank the god/de/ss that choice was available.

You were a baby in your mother’s womb, once. Thank goodness that they did not think as you do.

Also, if you don’t believe in the truth of any religion, you’re really only thanking yourself that the choice for killing a child existed.

 

[Lochias]

Oh, and I’ll believe those who call themselves “pro-life” actually pro-LIFE when they stop passing (or attempting to pass) laws to restrict access to food stamps, financial assistance, maternity leave, health care, public education, public housing, and so on and so on and so on. If you want to protect all these potential lives, then give them a shot at having an actual life, for god/es/ss’s sake. Otherwise, they’re just pro-birth.

Suffering happens in all lives. The fact that all of us will, at some point, suffer in our lives is no excuse for killing human life in the womb.

 

[PRmerger]

Proclaiming the above would go against the 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 7th core principles.

Not really. Not if the white supremacist didn’t see people of other races as actual life. Only potential life–if they had a skin color that lacked melanin, they would feel they were worthy of the above core principles.

So first the UUs would have to have a core principle about what is considered a human person.

They don’t have that. Which means that any belief on who is human and worth of life is permissible. Which means that the white supremacist would be free to worship and and proclaim his truths at your church.

That is the logical conclusion of your core principle paradigm.

 

[PRmerger]

A win for ecumenism! (You’re ok with ecumenism with us heathens…? Don’t want to get you in trouble!

I am always ok with ecumenism, provided it is not wrought at the expense of truth.

Thus, I would very much “ecuminate ” with a white supremacist, as long as he was not permitted to say, “My belief that the white man is superior to all other beings is as valid as your truth that ALL human persons are worthy of dignity and respect.”

And I would very much ecuminate with a UU, as long as she was not permitted to say, “There is no such thing as Absolute Truth”.

 

[PRmerger]

After some thought, I don’t think your characterization is accurate. I simply do not think that God has proclaimed as many things as Catholics do.

So let’s talk morality here. Do you believe that God has a moral law that has been revealed to us? That is, it is his will that women not be enslaved, and that all races are of equal dignity?

 

[PRmerger]

Just some food for thought. A fertilized egg is a potential fetus. A fetus is a potential infant. An infant is a potential toddler. A toddler is a potential ten year old. A ten year old is a potential teenager. A teenager is a potential adult.

Love this! :clapping::bowdown:

 

[Darryl_B]

And I used to think I wasn’t pro-choice. Then I realized that the laws being made to restrict that right were misogynistic to their core. My heart DID change. Just not the way you would like it to.

And I’m not pro-abortion. I think it’s a terrible choice to have to make. But sometimes, it’s a necessary choice. I seriously contemplated suicide when I got pregnant at 17, as I have very anti-choice parents who still to this day, nearly 20 years later, do not know I had an abortion. Had the choice of abortion not been available to me, I may have simply taken my own life. Thank the god/de/ss that choice was available.

Not much point in thanking God or Mother Earth or whatever it is that you don’t know. You need to thank mans inhumanity to man for abortion.

Were you going to have a boy or a girl? What would you have named them? If that child was alive today and almost graduating university would you look back and say I would have been better off without you, or would you be there at their graduation, get a photo together and remember the wonderful times you had together? Would you be proud at that moment or resentful?

 

[nmgauss]

Not much point in thanking God or Mother Earth or whatever it is that you don’t know. You need to thank mans inhumanity to man for abortion.

Were you going to have a boy or a girl? What would you have named them? If that child was alive today and almost graduating university would you look back and say I would have been better off without you, or would you be there at their graduation, get a photo together and remember the wonderful times you had together? Would you be proud at that moment or resentful?

What is the difference between contraception and aborting a one-day old fetus? Both have the consequence that there are fewer mouths to feed. For an already overburdened planet, I think this would be beneficial not only to the current population but to the future population. I can’t understand the difference between facilitating a fertilized egg to miscarry and never having the egg fertilized.