Ask a Unitarian Universalist

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowHereThis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JustaServant said:
Sylvester measured his pulse and found that his heart beat at a rate of 80 beats a minute at rest. At this rate, how many days will it take his heart to beat 1,000,000 times?
😉
Click to expand...
This is a question that someone who has completed the eighth grade should be able to answer. It is grade school arithmetic.
1,000,000 beats would occur in 12,500 minutes if there are 80 beats per minute.
1 day has 24x60 = 1440 minutes
So 12500 minutes is equal to 12500/1440 days or about 8 days, 16 hours and 20 minutes.
 
PRmerger said:
Yes.

And Catholics were at the forefront.

All of this the fruit of the Judeo-Christian ethos that we are made in the image and likeness of God.
Click to expand...
Still trying to catch up with this thread, and I’ll have to get back to it as I have a 4-year-old who wants to play :D, but I thought I’d mention that MLK was the keynote speaker - also known as the Ware Lecturer - at the UU General Assembly in 1966. The Reverends David Cole, Alfred Hawkins, and Homer Jack (UU ministers, all), were with him during the bus boycotts in Alabama. Many UU ministers and congregants were arrested as part of the civil disobedience that was practiced. Yes, RELIGION was at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement, but it wasn’t just Catholics.

Here’s the text of MLK’s speech to the UU General Assembly.
archive.uua.org/news/2005/050115_ware66.html
 
ProudUU said:
Still trying to catch up with this thread, and I’ll have to get back to it as I have a 4-year-old who wants to play :D, but I thought I’d mention that MLK was the keynote speaker - also known as the Ware Lecturer - at the UU General Assembly in 1966. The Reverends David Cole, Alfred Hawkins, and Homer Jack (UU ministers, all), were with him during the bus boycotts in Alabama. Many UU ministers and congregants were arrested as part of the civil disobedience that was practiced. Yes, RELIGION was at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement, but it wasn’t just Catholics.

Here’s the text of MLK’s speech to the UU General Assembly.
archive.uua.org/news/2005/050115_ware66.html
Click to expand...
No one said it was “just” Catholics, in fact most of the clergy were from the Southern Baptist tradition. Also based on my own experience and reading of various literature, the UU (as well as Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans etc) were not nearly as liberal then with respect to doctrine as they are now. Virtually all of the mainline Protestant denominations, like Catholicism were pro life, even opposed to contraception.

I’m not sure of your actual point but today’s UU would not have much in common theologically with the Southern Baptist tradition that was a driving force behind civil rights.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
No one said it was “just” Catholics, in fact most of the clergy were from the Southern Baptist tradition. Also based on my own experience and reading of various literature, the UU (as well as Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans etc) were not nearly as liberal then with respect to doctrine as they are now. Virtually all of the mainline Protestant denominations, like Catholicism were pro life, even opposed to contraception.

I’m not sure of your actual point but today’s UU would not have much in common theologically with the Southern Baptist tradition that was a driving force behind civil rights.

Lisa
Click to expand...
No, she said that Catholics were at the forefront. And yes, they absolutely were, along with leaders of many different religions. With regard to the liberal history of the UUs, though, you are mistaken to a degree. The UUs (and the separate denominations that preceded the merger) have always been liberal for their time. In fact, one of the reasons for the merger was to create a stronger liberal religious voice (and liberal in this sense does not necessarily mean politically liberal, as one who is a religious liberal can be a political conservative). As far as being politically liberal, yes, UUs marched with MLK (Rev. James Reed was murdered in Selma), UUs were advocating for the conscientious objectors to Vietnam, they affirmed the rights of LGBTQIA individuals in the 70s (though we didn’t use as many letters at that time - that has evolved to be more inclusive), they ordained women and LGBTQIA individuals quite early on …

However, I do say that you are only mistaken to a degree, because yes, I would say that the UUs of the 60s were probably not as liberal (politically) as they tend to be now, because society in general was not as liberal (politically) as it is now.

And yes, I would agree with you that UUs would have almost nothing in common theologically with the Southern Baptists, but that doesn’t mean that UUs were not VERY involved with that fight, because they most definitely were.
 
ProudUU said:
Yes, RELIGION was at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement, but it wasn’t just Catholics.
Click to expand...
Oh, no one was positing that it was “just Catholics” at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement. 🤷
 
ProudUU said:
No, she said that Catholics were at the forefront. And yes, they absolutely were, along with leaders of many different religions. With regard to the liberal history of the UUs, though, you are mistaken to a degree. The UUs (and the separate denominations that preceded the merger) have always been liberal for their time. In fact, one of the reasons for the merger was to create a stronger liberal religious voice (and liberal in this sense does not necessarily mean politically liberal, as one who is a religious liberal can be a political conservative). As far as being politically liberal, yes, UUs marched with MLK (Rev. James Reed was murdered in Selma), UUs were advocating for the conscientious objectors to Vietnam, they affirmed the rights of LGBTQIA individuals in the 70s (though we didn’t use as many letters at that time - that has evolved to be more inclusive), they ordained women and LGBTQIA individuals quite early on …

However, I do say that you are only mistaken to a degree, because yes, I would say that the UUs of the 60s were probably not as liberal (politically) as they tend to be now, because society in general was not as liberal (politically) as it is now.

And yes, I would agree with you that UUs would have almost nothing in common theologically with the Southern Baptists, but that doesn’t mean that UUs were not VERY involved with that fight, because they most definitely were.
Click to expand...
Again you are arguing against points not made. That Catholics were at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement does not claim either that they were the ONLY religious denomination nor the most important, only that they had been there since the beginning.

Further no one said UU’s were NOT involved. Again you argue against points not being made by anyone.

I just don’t get your point. With whom are you arguing?

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
Again you are arguing against points not made. That Catholics were at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement does not claim either that they were the ONLY religious denomination nor the most important, only that they had been there since the beginning.

Further no one said UU’s were NOT involved. Again you argue against points not being made by anyone.

I just don’t get your point. With whom are you arguing?

Lisa
Click to expand...
I’m not so much arguing as I am simply pointing out that there were many religious leaders standing with MLK. The original quote was, “Yes. And Catholics were at the forefront.” All I was pointing out was that one could substitute “Catholics” with just about any other religion in that statement and it would still be true. We may not agree on much, but we can agree that our religious traditions stood together at that time in history. 🙂
 
ProudUU said:
We may not agree on much, but we can agree that our religious traditions stood together at that time in history. 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, yes.

But saying so is superfluous. It would be like coming to this thread and saying, “But cyanosis means blue!” Ok. Has anyone here been arguing that cyanosis means red?
 
What was the point of mentioning in this thread that Catholics were involved in civil rights?
 
mek42 said:
What was the point of mentioning in this thread that Catholics were involved in civil rights?
Click to expand...
An argument was being presented that atheists are more moral.

We responded that it was religious people who were at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement in the US.
 
PRmerger said:
An argument was being presented that atheists are more moral.

We responded that it was religious people who were at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement in the US.
Click to expand...
Was it posited that no atheists were involved in the movement?
 
PRmerger said:
Well, yes.

But saying so is superfluous. It would be like coming to this thread and saying, “But cyanosis means blue!” Ok. Has anyone here been arguing that cyanosis means red?
Click to expand...
Saying Catholics were at the forefront was superfluous. You chose to make that statement. I simply made an amendment to your statement.
 
So, it would be fair to agree that people of almost all creeds, excepting KKK types, obviously, but including those of no creed, were involved in civil rights and then we can move on?
 
mek42 said:
So, it would be fair to agree that people of almost all creeds, excepting KKK types, obviously, but including those of no creed, were involved in civil rights and then we can move on?
Click to expand...
Yes, please. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top