Search This Blog

Pages

About Me

My photo
19 years old. Homeschooled, then went to a community college instead of high school. Currently at Hampshire College. http://www.facebook.com/NamelessWonderBand http://myspace.com/namelesswondermusic http://youtube.com/namelesswonderband http://twitter.com/NamelessWonder7 http://www.youtube.com/dervine7 http://ted.com/profiles/778985

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Commencement Speech

This is a speech I gave as the Distinguished Student when I got my Associates Degree:

Hello teachers, staff, fellow students, and parents and friends of fellow students. I’d like to thank my parents, P and E, for my existence and their love support, along with my grandmother B, who did so much to foster my intellectual development, and my grandparents C and C, all of whom provided me with so much love, knowledge, and support, and who I can’t leave out since they are sitting in the audience. I’d also like to give a shout out to my brother, M, and all my friends. And thank you, faculty and staff of NVCC, President Daisy Cocco De Filippis and Dean Mitch Holmes, for giving me this education, and this honor. I must admit I feel vaguely like Obama accepting the Nobel Peace Prize: I’m not entirely sure why I should have been chosen over any other student, and I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge all my fellow students who have worked and continue to work hard, both inside and out of class.
So, I should probably tell you all a bit about myself. I was homeschooled since the beginning of my education: I never went to public or private school. Mostly unschooled, I was free to pursue whatever I was interested in, although my parents certainly required that I learn certain subjects that may not interest me as much as others. But it wasn’t hard: I loved gathering information. I would wake up in the morning to a pile of assignments on the table: when I was done, my schoolday was done, which could take as little as a few hours or as much as several days. If I needed help, I would ask them.
However, there was a point where my parents could no longer help me the way they had, specifically in math. They reached a point where they were only giving me the odd-numbered questions out of textbooks, since those were the ones that had answers in the back. So when I was thirteen I started taking classes here, well, not here, but at NVCC. We chose NVCC not only because of the beautiful campus and the caring, professional atmosphere we felt from the staff, but also because of the school’s adept system for dealing with homeschoolers. I was not to be treated any differently from any other student: teachers didn’t even have to know my age (fortunately, at thirteen, I could pass for much older than I was). I only took College Algebra the first semester, but after that I started taking other classes that appeared interesting, and even though I still considered myself homeschooled, my education pretty much entirely took place at NVCC.
Perhaps it is just my own temperament, but I have had no bad classes at NVCC that I can think of. A couple weren’t excellent, but none were terrible. Most all of the teachers I have had cared about teaching, and were often thrilled to have a student as talkative and interested in the material as I was. This is probably a good time to mention some of the teachers who meant a lot to me. I almost feel bad about doing so: if I had a could without boring you, I’d mention every single teacher I had. But there are a few that come to mind: Sandra Pettinico and Anthony Prushnicki, the teachers I alternated between during my four semesters of trig and calculus, both clear, fun, and engaging, and the latter the most hilariously curmudgeony person I’ve known. Students of higher level Calculus definitely constitute something of an exclusive club, and my relationship with my fellow students and these two teachers probably constitute my closest and most favorite times in the classroom. Patricia Pallis, my English 102 teacher who through her love of my work helped me realize my abilities as a writer. Peter Benzi, my physics II teacher, with his dry humor and his intelligence. Richard Gard, head of the music department, who’s, well, you have to know him, and Kirsten Peterson, my infinitely patient one-on-one music composition teacher. Christine Mangone, head of the theater department, who I’ve never taken a class with come to think of it but who has been a wonderful, patient, caring director in the two shows I’ve done with her. And I’ll also add two teachers who aren’t at the school anymore: Mark Priest, my Music Theory II teacher, and Ed Wierzbicki, my Acting I and II teacher.
NVCC has prepared me for the rest of my education. It allowed me to explore my interests at an early age, which I certainly did to, some might say, excess: I have after all been a nearly full-time (I was usually a few hours short) student here for 5 years, and only got the last two requirements for a Liberal Arts degree out of the way this last semester. I have made friends, and even those friendships that didn’t last beyond the end of classes were some of the closest relationships with other human beings I’ve ever experience. I’ve had the opportunity to be in numerous shows, which is wonderful, since I never got that through school. This school has been my life for five years: it’s going to be hard for me to leave, although I take comfort in the fact that, being a student in both the theater and music departments, I’m just going to keep coming back, whether I want to or not. On the last day, I bought a large french-fries at the caf, and ate every single one, ‘cause as I’m sure you’re all aware, those things are ridiculous, and I may never have them again. I’m going to miss the friends who are still here. All in all, I’m going to miss this place.
So what now? I’ll continue learning. I have always felt that knowledge is an end of its own. We are, as human beings, incredibly lucky to be able to understand the world around us, and to take it’s materials and create something new. We are, as Carl Sagan said, a way for the cosmos to know itself. I have always felt that with these abilities that we are, as humans, lucky enough to have comes a responsibility, and responsibility to understand, to think, to create. Doing otherwise, we are turning our back on the universe that created us, and provides us with life and infinite mysteries to be discovered and explored. There is, I think, to much beauty in knowing to not know. However, not all are going to be interested in, or even capable of, this pursuit of knowledge. But if we are to learn more, we, as a species, must survive, and this survival is the responsibility of all. We must feed eachother, care for eachother, entertain eachother, understand eachother. As Carl Sagan also said, if you disagree with another human, let him be. In the entire universe you will not find another like him. I would add that if another human needs your help, help them, for once again, they’re like no other. This would be my message to all.
Thank you.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Sermon for Church: The Symphony of Science

content="text/html; charset=utf-8">

I did a paper last semester on Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. As I continued to write the paper late into the night, what began as a last-minute attempt to squeeze out the minimum of 5 pages turned into a 10 page monster. I blame Beethoven. There were so many little things to pick up on, so many elegant ways in which everything fit together, in which the entire piece was planned. For some, perhaps, this would reduce the joy of the music. Not for me. For me, every time I hear that piece, it will mean even more to me. Understanding it makes it even more sublime.

Music has a peculiar power of the human spirit. It can make us feel things in ways nothing else can. Especially words. The most inane poetry can reach us deeply if made into music. I mean, really, “in the desert you can remember your name, ‘cause there ain’t no one for to give you no pain”? Because of its power, music has often been the vessel for important messages, that can resonate with you in entirely new ways. Such was the case when I first saw one of the videos of “The Symphony of Science”. I have always had a deep sense that there’s something profoundly spiritual about a scientific understanding of the natural world, yet when I watched “The Unbroken Thread” it hit me powerfully. It probably helped that it was near midnight. But also the words of scientists expressing their deep reverence for the universe, put to music, had a stunning effect.

This reverence is one I share. People have commented that the language I and those such as Carl Sagan use to describe our feelings about the universe are suspiciously similar to that used by religious people to describe their experience of god. They are absolutely right. The difference is that we take God out of the picture. Why can’t we admire the universe not because we view it as the work of God, but because it is simply something worth being admired? I feel that the natural, material world is so full of mysteries and beauty that it is almost a waste to concern ourselves with spirits and angels and gods. This is the hypothesis I’d like to put before you: that there is nothing beyond the natural, material world. No spirits, no gods, no karma, no qi. I call it a hypothesis because I honestly do not know enough to say for certain that such phenomena do not exist. But I want to show why, for me, they are unnecessary for filling the spiritual need.

Let’s start close to home. Really close to home, in fact. Let’s start in our heads. Put your fists together like this. Your brain is slightly lager than this. An utterly insignificant lump of jelly, when you get down to it. Yet there’s something bizarre about this lump of jelly: it contains you. Everything about you. All your memories, the maps of where you’ve been, your personality, your perception of me. It contains our ideas. If you are an artist, it produces your creations. If you are a writer, it is capable of inventing and keeping track of entire worlds, worlds with other personalities in them, vast fantasy landscapes contained within this small lump of matter. Think about it. Really think about it.

Think about how, when you look at the night sky, you are looking at the source of every particle in your body. Every ancient particle. You are made out of matter that has existed since nearly the beginning of time. You are constantly exchanging that matter with the universe around you. At a subatomic level, there is nothing, really, separating you and the rest of the universe. Think about how the little dots you see are stars many, many times, sometimes thousands of times larger than our earth, which is so huge we cannot even perceive it as round. Some ofwhat you see are galaxies, which are collections of billions of these starts, which look close together in a picture, but are really light-years apart. A light year is about 6 trillion miles.

Think about each individual cell in your body. The complex machinery, honed over years of evolution. And we can’t even see them. We are made of trillions of them. Think about all the other intricate machines that constitute life. (give examples)

Think about the pebble you kick down the street. How that pebble is also made of particles that have been around for nearly eternity. How it’s made of minerals that were forged in the collision of dust particles and rocks that created our earth, burped up from the inside of our earth, and hewed by billions of years of geology.

Think about a rainbow. How it is a product of photons produced by nuclear fusion deep within the sun, which take thousands of years to push their way to it’s surface, finally escaping and zipping across millions of miles of space, before colliding with water droplets in the atmosphere and getting refracted into all sorts of different wavelengths, then traveling through the air to your eyes, where the hit your retina and produce electrical sensations that travel to your brain and are perceived as color, and then spread out and activate your capacity for pleasure, for memory, for imagining the entire cosmic play I just described.

Some people are scared to think about it. For some reason, they believe that to understand beauty is to kill it. Those such as John Keats accuse Isaac Newton of unweaving the rainbow by explaining it. Why should discovering the intricate, elegant laws that underlie the world make it any less beautiful? If an artist attempts to portray the meaning of a rainbow, it is beauty: if a scientist attempts the same thing, it is somehow ugly. If someone can appreciate the wonder and beauty of a scientific worldview, they are somehow seen as a little weird: a nerd, an egghead. So many people don’t want to hear about the fascinating underpinnings of everything they experience, about the new ideas that scientists are constantly coming up with. The scientist is often the fool on the hill who sees the world going round, but who no one wants to listen to. I must admit, I am not entirely sure why. Because while people may think that because I live in a world understood it must be dull or dry, nothing could be further from the truth. I live in a world that constantly amazes and fascinates me. I am never without a source of stimulation if I want it: not when I can consider the mysteries of my brain, not when I can look at the sky and imagine space stretching out into infinity, with pricks of light that are galaxies incomprehensibly huge, not when I can feel my connection with everything around me. Not when I can look at the familiar as though it was unfamiliar, as something new and exciting. Science let’s us look a little more deeply into things. It isn’t a methodology or collection of facts. It’s an attitude. It’s an appreciation that beauty understood is even more beautiful. To understand the symphony of science is only to make it more sublime.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

More Ally Stuff: Uganda

Uganda is considering legislation that would make homosexuality illegal, give life sentences to those who engage in homosexuality, and the death penalty to those who do it multiple times or have AIDS:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Uganda_introduces_anti-homosexual_legislation
http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf

Monday, December 7, 2009

English Paper: Unitarian Universalism

This is a paper I wrote for my English class. A lot of the works cited are websites, by the way.

I have an interesting, if not nowadays unusual, religious background, although the “conclusion” of my spiritual journey is not usual. My family was never religiously homogenous. My mother was once very Christian, though of the liberal, Congregationalist variety. My father has never been particularly religious (though never atheistic): he’s too independently minded for that. When we moved down to Connecticut, we became chronic church-hoppers, rarely staying in one place for more than a year or so before we gradually stopped going (my father never went); and then, after a period of sleeping in on Sunday mornings, my mother would feel the need and find some other church. I gradually became less and less religious, and eventually found myself in the middle ground between Atheism and Agnosticism, which is where I remain. My mom also gradually became less religious at a rate which was parallel to, but behind, my own. My brother has always been and is pretty much where I was and am, although more laid back than myself. Where this all ended up—the religiously diverse family, the church-hopping, our own spiritual progressions—was with a family that had some vaguely religious sentiments, with varying degrees amongst its members, and yet still wanted to share our lives with a community.

My religious beliefs were, as I said, atheistic/agnostic, with a prominent strain of philosophical universalism[1]: I felt all points of view, if not correct, did at least have something to offer. I also discovered, when happening upon the Wikipedia entry on the subject, that I was a Humanist. Overall, like many people, I was already a Unitarian Universalist—but I didn’t know it.

I don’t remember exactly the order of the events that brought us to the church we attend. One such event was that my grandmother, who lives with us, began going. Another is that we read some columns in the Religion section of the newspaper by the minister of the church about such topics as gay marriage, and her sentiments resonated with us. The end result of it was, my mother, my brother, and I attended the church for awhile, with my brother and me hooked pretty much instantly and my mother taking a bit longer, uncertain at first about the lack of a specifically God and/or Christianity orientation. Eventually we also managed to bring our dad along. Once he started coming regularly, there was no turning back: this was the first church (since the one we went to when we lived in Maine, which my dad had attended for the community and the music) we could attend as a family. We quickly became close with the minister’s family. We had found a religious home.

We became deeply involved in the congregation very quickly, to the extent that the old curmudgeons one find in any church complained that we were “doing everything.” Our entire family is very musical, so we became a staple of the congregation’s musical life (incidentally, it was partly through the church’s musical program that we managed to get our father to come). I got very involved in the Youth Group, and after the minister’s son, who had kept things going, left, I became the de facto leader of the group, holding it together and working to build it into something more than it was at the time. My mother and I were nominated and approved as members of the board (me as the Youth Liaison)—necessitating, incidentally, a suspension of the bylaws as we had not been members for the specified period of time. In numerous ways, our coming to the church was coincidental with a new period of change in the congregation—which had been, quite frankly, troubled—and we were there as part of all that was happening (for all I know, we helped cause it). Anyways, the church has become a staple of our lives and something with which we are deeply involved.

Perhaps you, reader, are wondering at this point what Unitarian Universalism is. Unitarian Universalism can be hard to understand, even for many Unitarian Universalists. If someone asks us what we believe, we are hard pressed to give an answer. This is because we are not held together so much by a common set of beliefs—although there are some common beliefs we profess to share—as by common goals: to grow spiritually and philosophically and help each other do the same, to provide community, and to do what we can to improve, or at least help, humanity, the world. And the two beliefs I feel are central to our faith are that every person should have the ability to judge for him or herself what is truth, and the value and dignity of every person. We acknowledge and respect the many religious and philosophical sources of our faith.[2]

Beyond that, there are many beliefs within even my own congregation: we have Humanists, Agnostics, Christians (although most would not ascribe to a belief in the resurrection), Pagans, Wiccans, Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, and many belief systems that don’t have a name because they were developed by the person who holds them. Politically we are pretty much overwhelmingly liberal, yet there are a few in our congregation who are conservatives, even staunch conservatives. However, almost all of us are critically-minded, individualistic, spiritual, and philosophically universalist.

For me personally, being a Unitarian Universalist helps me be individualistic about my beliefs by, perhaps paradoxically, providing me with a community. I can have a measure of security when standing up for my own beliefs. I have somewhere to go on Sunday morning where I can feel I belong, where I am surrounded by like-minded, understanding people. The Youth Group has become one of those few places where I feel I completely fit in, where I can be entirely myself.

Unitarian Universalism gives me the opportunity to share my spirituality and spiritual experiences with others. This brings me to yet another aspect of Unitarian Universalism that is of great importance: we do not believe one has to believe in God, gods, and afterlife, or even a “spiritual realm” to be spiritual—to have spiritual experiences, to experience ecstasy in the wonders of the world. One can believe in any of these things, but one does not have to.

Being surrounded by people of many different viewpoints and backgrounds has enriched my own understanding. I am constantly given opportunities to absorb points of view that I can either absorb into my philosophically universalist framework; or confront, in the process of with I develop a greater understanding of my own views.

Being a Unitarian Universalist gives me something to be committed to. I am committed to Unitarian Universalism. I am committed to spreading its message, not to convince people to join us, but to reach out to people, like me, who were already Unitarian Universalists before they had even heard of such a thing. I am Atheist, Humanist, Rationalist, and many other -ists. But first and foremost, I am Unitarian Universalist.

Part 2

When asked to explain Unitarian Universalism, many UUs begin with the history of our religion. Part of the reason stems from a difficulty in formulating exactly what UU is, as ours is a non-creedal religion. Yet I think that taking a historical perspective in explaining UU is valid in and of itself, as, because of our lack of creed, we are an evolving faith. It’s therefore inaccurate to try to state exactly what we are: a fuller knowledge comes in describing how we got where we are today. Also, by describing our background to those unfamiliar with our faith, we convey a sense of history, and tie ourselves to the stream of religious thought.

Our history begins with two decidedly Christian religious movements: Unitarianism and Universalism. Both took root in the United States, and these American varieties were responses to Calvinism (which holds the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God, including the doctrine that humans are predestined to go to either Heaven or Hell). Unitarianism was usually the religion of the urban elites, whereas the appeal of Universalism was more populist and rural; one expression I’ve heard is that Unitarianism was a religion of the head, while Universalism was a religion of the heart. Unitarianism is usually acknowledged as the major force in our history, so it is with it that I will begin.

Theological Unitarianism is the belief in God as one being, with a rejection of the Trinity. Jesus is viewed as either a very special human with supreme moral authority, or as a supernatural being separate, subservient to, and created by God. There is usually an emphasis on rationality, critical thinking and reading, concern for the matters of this world instead of the next, and freedom of thought in regards to religious matters.

There were precedents to Unitarianism in the earliest forms of Christianity: in fact, Unitarians believed that they were restoring the original concept of Jesus, before it had been corrupted by Trinitarianism. The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke, so called because they describe the same events) and the early letters of Paul, for example, are vague on the question of Jesus’ divinity, and seem to claim that God declared him his son either when he was baptized or because he was such an exemplary human being (Armstrong; personal interpretation). Early Christians had heated arguments about the nature of Jesus in relation to God, with several different theologies put forth, and the question was not decided until the establishment of the Nicene Creed in 325, and even after that it simmered for 50 years, until the revisions to the Creed made in 381. This Creed was a rejection of Arianism, based on the theology put forth by Arius which held that Jesus was a special type of being and God’s greatest creation, but separate from God himself. After the final establishment of the Nicene Creed, Unitarianism went almost entirely extinct (Fisher).

Then Gutenberg invented the printing press.

The Bible was no longer the sole property of the clergy; and when people read the Bible for themselves, they found that many of the teachings of the Church had no Biblical basis. It was also during this time that Martin Luther set the Protestant Reformation in motion, influencing Henry VIII of England and the French legal scholar John Calvin, developer of Calvinism. Because of these related developments, Protestant sects began appearing and splitting off from each other everywhere, led by those who read the Bible for themselves and were emboldened by the Reformation to disseminate their ideas. One such man who read the Bible for himself was a Spanish doctor by the name of Miguel De Servet, also known as Servetus, who through his readings came to the conclusion that there was no Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity, and published a book defending this interpretation, “On the Errors of the Trinity.” This work forced Servetus to go into hiding, where he was eventually found and executed in Geneva, Switzerland, on the orders of John Calvin. However, he had influenced a number of people with his ideas, amongst them a fellow physician Giorgio Biandrotta, who himself influenced other Italians and a Hungarian minister by the name of Ferenc David. David set up a Unitarian church in Transylvania, and converted that country’s king, John Sigisimund. Instead of using this opportunity to have his church declared the national religion of Transylvania, David convinced the king to declare freedom of conscience in religious matters. This was one of the first countries in Christian history to officially declare religious liberty. Unlike Arianism, this Unitarianism declared that Jesus was a man, though of a special sort; it also tended to reject the concepts of Original Sin and, by logical extension, Vicarious Atonement (that Jesus died as payment for our sins). Sadly, after Sigisimund died, David was sent to prison for heresy, where he also died. However, the Church he founded is still a major denomination in Transylvania (Fisher; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, “Unitarianism”).

By the 18th century, many intellectuals were reading the Bible and coming to Unitarian conclusions, including the philosopher John Locke, the physicist, mathematician, and scholar Isaac Newton, who devoted much of his later life to Biblical analysis, and Joseph Priestly (Fisher), an English polymath and theologian who “discovered” air, had a major effect on both English and American Unitarianism, and was a close friend of Benjamin Franklin’s (Johnson; Robinson 21-23).

While in England Unitarianism remained mostly below the surface, in America, specifically Boston, it became one of the leading liberal religious movements. This Unitarianism began as a reactionary movement against the Great Awakening, a religious movement which was extremely Calvinistic, fundamentalist, and emphasized extreme and irrational religious experience. Against this movement stood those, like Charles Chauncy, that emphasized human free will, critical thinking, above all, rationality in religious matters. This movement simmered until the 1810s, when a remarkable preacher by the name of William Ellery Channing began preaching and writing from a liberal religious viewpoint, and came to a head when he delivered the sermon “Unitarian Christianity” in 1819. This sermon embraced the term Unitarian, originally a derogatory term used by the more conservatively religious, and set the stage for the formation of a denomination. Churches began to split between the Unitarians and the Puritans, and one such split in a congregation in Dedham, Massachusetts gave a major boost to the growth of Unitarianism. In an important turn of events, the Unitarian faction of that congregation won the church building and property, which set a precedent allowing other such Unitarian splinter groups to gain control of the Church buildings (Fisher; Robinson 3-5, 9-37; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, “Unitarianism”). Amongst those who were Unitarian or admired Unitarianism were such Founding Fathers as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the latter, though never officially a Unitarian, stating “I trust there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian” (qtd. in Robinson 23).

Unitarianism produced its own rebellion, Transcendentalism. Associated with such figures as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Theodore Parker, and Henry David Thoreau, this movement emphasized intuitive experience of the divine in nature. Jesus was demythologized to an extent beyond that of even the most extreme liberality. It was this individualist and anti-establishment movement that would set the stage for the Humanism of later years (Fisher; Robinson 5, 75-83).

Unitarians became deeply involved in the Abolitionist movements and the Union cause. This cause helped to unite the Unitarians, and Henry W. Bellows, who did much work in the abolitionist and Union cause, saw this as an opportunity to establish Unitarianism as a national denomination, forming the National Conference of Unitarian Churches in 1865. While these attempts to organize Unitarianism were successful, uniting so many individualists and free-thinkers was not easy. These dissidents (successfully) fought any establishment of an official creed by the NCUC (the constitution of the organization, while stating common beliefs of Unitarians, stated that “nothing in this constitution is to be construed as an authoritative test” [qtd. in Robinson 122]) and even formed their own organization, the Free Religious Association, which was a prominent breeding ground for Secular Humanism (Fisher; Robinson 5-7, 83-122).

The first half of the twentieth century saw a vigorous debate between the Humanists and the more traditionally religious in Unitarianism about the importance of God, with the Humanists ultimately coming out on top, although the traditional Humanist image of the goodness and progress of man was challenged by the two World Wars (Fisher; Robinson 7-8, 143-157). It was also during WWII that the modern symbol of Unitarian Universalism, the Flaming Chalice, was developed. It was originally the symbol of the Unitarian Service Committee, which assisted those escaping Nazi persecution (Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, “Our Symbol”). Unitarians were deeply involved in women’s suffrage, the formation of the United Nations, and the early Civil Rights movement.

We come now to the time of the merger, so let’s first explore the history of Universalism. Theological Universalism is the belief in universal salvation—that a loving God would not send anyone to eternal hell. In some versions of Universalism, hell does exist, but it is only temporary, a place where one becomes cleansed through suffering so that he/she can enter heaven. The Universalists were traditionally more theologically homogenous and more orthodox—they believed in Biblical authority and Christ’s divinity and atonement—than the Unitarians, although they too eventually drifted away from a Christian emphasis.

Like Unitarianism, Universalism has precedents in the Christianity of Biblical times, and Universalists also believed that they were restoring the original teachings of Christ and the early church fathers. Once again, there is Biblical evidence to support their claims. Some early Christians who held Universalist views were St. Clement of Alexandria, who wrote “[s]o He saves all; but some He converts by penalties, others who follow Him of their own will, and in accordance with the worthiness of His honor, that every knee may be bent to Him of celestial, terrestrial and infernal things (Phil. 2:10)” (qtd. by Christian Universalist Association), and his student St. Origen (Christian Universalist Association).

During the Reformation, various sects that held more or less Universalist views sprung up in Europe, including the Anabaptists, Moravians, and Quakers (Christian Universalist Association). However, Universalism did not really come into its own until a series of English Universalists, such as John Murray and Hosea Ballou, brought their beliefs to America in the 1700s. It is interesting how these Universalists turned Calvinism on its head: essentially, it held that ALL people were “predestined” to go to heaven. The Universalists fought against the system of tax support for churches, part of a rebellious tendency that was a defining feature of their history, and were very active in prison reform and Abolition. They were the first denomination, in 1863, to ordain a female minister, Olympia Brown (who incidentally was a former minister of the church I attend, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Greater Bridgeport). In the early 20th century, this emphasis on social action and a new interpretation of the meaning of “Universalism” began to shift the denomination away from a Christian outlook, though this shift was slower than it was amongst the Unitarians. This new interpretation of the name of the faith emphasized the universality of religion instead of any particular theological position (Christian Universalist Association; Robinson 3-7, 47-73, 123-141; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, “Universalism”).

The idea of a merger of the two denominations had been floating around since the 19th century. However, theological and class differences (as stated earlier, the Unitarians tended to be much more rich and influential) made this infeasible, as did the fear amongst Universalists that they would be subsumed by the more powerful and influential Unitarians. By the 60s, however, the denominations had grown very close in theology and outlook, and in 1961 they were merged, forming the Unitarian Universalist Association[3] (Robinson 168-174). The emphasis in the early days of Unitarian Universalism, and one of the motivations behind the merger, was social action. UUs were extremely active in the Civil Rights movement (a number of UU ministers were killed for their efforts), gay rights and feminism. There has been an ongoing debate within UU about its role in politics and pacifism (Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, “Unitarian Universalism”).

In the 1980s, UUs worked to clarify their spiritual views, resulting in the formulation of our Seven Principles and the Sources of our faith:

We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote

  • 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.

The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:

  • Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
  • Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion and the transforming power of love;
  • Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
  • Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
  • Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;
  • Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual trust and support. (Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, “Our Principles”)

From its merger, UU has been fraught with spiritual difficulties, unsure of its status as a Christian organization[4], or even one that acknowledged the importance of “God”. Soon, though, the movement was dominated by the Secular Humanism it had inherited from its Unitarian side. However, because of its inclusive nature, UU has embraced many of the New Age spiritual movements of the century, often providing the environment these religious movements needed in order to grow. Humanists have reacted with alarm to the increasingly spiritual emphasis and irrationality they feel the denomination has been embracing over the past 20 or so years, including groups that accept beliefs in magic, tarot readings, visions, etc. Some feel we are becoming the religion that we are often dismissively characterized as, a religion where one can believe whatever they want, and no one is allowed to criticize anyone else’s beliefs. A related issue is to try to determine what exactly it is that holds our denomination together. A firestorm erupted when our latest president, William Sinkford, implored that the UUA “reclaim the holy”, and described the UU mission in explicitly religious and God-affirming terms. Once again, the Humanists, Atheists, and Agnostics feel that they are being left out in the cold on the wave of a trendy new spiritualism (Eckstrom; Haught; Higgins; Lee).

For a church with such a history of involvement in Civil Rights and social equity, and which so values multiculturalism, UU faces the fact that it is overwhelmingly white and rich, not only in numbers but also in culture. There is tension over how far we want to go to reach out to ethnic and poor groups, how the needs of those groups should be faced within our congregations, and other such issues (“Racial, multicultural tensions still best Unitarian Universalists”).

Possibly the biggest challenge for modern UU, and indeed the challenge that contains all of the other challenges, is growth. UU is a religion of people who have left other religions or grew up with no religion at all: not many of our members were raised UU. Unfortunately, many of those people define themselves as UU but are not official members: 629,000 adults as of 2001, four times as many as were in official church rolls(Dart).

However, beyond these people who identify themselves as UUs but aren’t in any official relationship with the UU congregations, there are the possibly vast number of people who “were Unitarian Universalists all along and never knew it”, to quote a popular phrase amongst new UUs. And it is in reaching out to these potential members that we face our greatest challenge, a challenge that incorporates our lack of an official creed, the debate between Humanism and Spiritualism, and our struggles with multiculturalism. It was in an effort to reach out that President Sinkford asked that the holy be incorporated into our principles(Eckstrom). How much are we willing to adjust our culture to bring in those who aren’t white and wealthy? How far are we willing to stretch to accept people of more unusual beliefs, or more traditional beliefs that go against the Humanism that has dominated out movement?

It is my belief that in order to survive we have to focus on the goals that I feel are central to UU, as described in Part 1: to grow spiritually and philosophically and to help others do the same, to provide community, and to do what we can to improve, or at least help, humanity and the world. I believe that to grow spiritually and philosophically one has to accept criticism of one’s own beliefs and to allow those beliefs to be held up to the light of reason; I also believe helping others to do the same involves offering that criticism. I think that this would allow the Humanists and Spiritualists to live together respectfully while preventing us from being a religion of believing anything one wants.

Of course, we can’t sit in discussion groups all day discussing our beliefs. We also need to act in the world. An effort to do such not only keeps us strong and healthy, but also increases our visibility. And visibility is, I think, our biggest problem. People simply do not know that we exist. We are, I think, too careful about seeming overbearing that we do not evangelize as we should. I don’t mean evangelize to try to convince people to come to us. I mean evangelize simply to “spread the good news”, to inform people who may want to be a UU if they only knew about and understood us. UUs themselves need to be more visible. I’ve been told that there are UU politicians who do not have their names appear on the public church rolls, that keep their religion secret. There are numerous UU actors, musicians, writers, thinkers, and historical figures (some already mentioned here) that we never hear about: or, if it is mentioned that they are UU, it is only in passing[5].

I think our message is too important to be kept in the dark, away from those who may need it. That’s why I proudly say that I am a Unitarian Universalist, and try to educate others on what we’re about. Perhaps this assignment has helped me to do just that.


Works Cited

Armstrong, Karen. A History of God. New York: Ballantine Books, 1994.

Christian Universalist Association. The History of Universalism. 17 December 2008. 3 December 2009. .

Dart, John. “Churchgoers from elsewhere. (Surveys: 'UUSIM' Unique).” The Christian Century. 5 December 2001:8(2). Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

Doerr, Ed. “Humanism and unitarian universalism.” The Humanist. March-April 1998: 37(2). Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

Eckstrom, Kevin. “UUs asked to reclaim 'the holy'. (News).” The Christian Century. 14 June 2003: 13. Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

Fisher, Chris. A Brief History of Unitarian Christianity. 31 August 2004. American Unitarian Conference. 3 December 2009. .

Haught, James A. “The Unitarian Quandary: Is religious humanism running the humanist religion?” Free Inquiry. Fall 2002: 48(2). Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

Higgins, Richard. “A Heated Debate Flares in Unitarian Universalism.” The New York Times. 17 May 2003: B6. Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

Johnson, Steven. Interview with Stephen Colbert. The Colbert Report. Comedy Central. 5 March 2009.

Lee, Richard Wayne. “Strained bedfellows: pagans, new agers, and "starchy humanists" in Unitarian Universalism.” Sociology of Religion 56.n4 (1995): 379(18). Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

Lewis, Jone Johnson. Famous UUs. 11 Novemeber 2006. 7 December 2009 . Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

“Racial, multicultural tensions still best Unitarian Universalists.(News).” The Christian Century. 24 July 2007: 16. Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

Robinson, David. The Unitarians and the Universalists. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1985.

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. Our Principles. 18 November 2009. 3 December 2009. .

—. Our Symbol: the Flaming Chalice. 25 November 2009. 3 December 2009. .

—. Unitarian Universalism. 25 November 2009. 3 December 2009. .

—. Unitarianism. 25 November 2009. 3 December 2009. .

—. Universalism. 25 November 2009. 3 December 2009. .



[1] Different from the historical Christian Universalism which was incorporated into Unitarian Universalism.

[2] Our goals, beliefs, and sources are encapsulated in the “Seven Principles” (notice: Principles, not rules) and “Sources of our Faith” developed by the Unitarian Universalist Association. My statements are my own interpretation of what Unitarian Universalism is all about.

[3] However, organizations continued and continue to exist which are specifically Unitarian or Universalist, and more explicitly Christian, such as the American Unitarian Conference and the Christian Universalist Association that I cite.

[4] There is an organization within the UUA for UUs of a Christian outlook, the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship (UUFC).

[5] Ray Bradbury, Christopher Reeve, Pete Seeger, Kurt Vonnegut, are just some of the names of contemporary UUs; Millard Fillmore, William Taft, Adlai Stevenson, Louisa May Alcott, P.T. Barnum (a former member of my own church), Ambrose Bierce, e. e. cummings, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Beatrix Potter, Carl Sandberg, Frank Lloyd Wright, Clara Barton, and a sizable number of our Founding Fathers are a few of the names of Unitarians and/or Universalists one finds in history (Lewis).

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Sad

Alright, no high-minded philosophy for this post. Maybe later, on this subject, but not right now. It is 1:22 AM, and it seems pretty much certain that marriage rights for all people were rejected in Maine. :(

Friday, August 21, 2009

A Short Essay on Morality with Respect to Groups. (my respects to Bertrand Russell)

Humans are tribal animals. This is apparent in primitive societies, and it is apparent in our society. We have a deep seated need to attach ourselves to some group (and often to exclude and regard with suspicion those separate from our group). I myself happily associate myself with a number of groups.

Morality's fundamental purpose is in promoting the welfare of whatever group with which we are concerned, including the "group" that includes our individual selves.

However, we need to recognize that these groups into which we divide ourselves are arbitrary and dependent on custom, if we are to survive. What we need to do is determine which ways of dividing humanity into groups have objective significance. From a moral standpoint, these should be the only ways of dividing up humanity that should be of any importance.

I'll define a grouping with objective significance as one whose boundaries are more clearly and distinctly defined than any other way of grouping; where there is very little fuzziness and almost no examples of something that is "in between" the two groups. This leads to three groupings that have objective significance:
The Individual
Man or Woman
Humanity as a Whole
Now "Man or Woman" would not have moral importance as it is merely biological distinction, and although women and men are on average different, there is overlap in their abilities, needs, wants, etc...everything that is important to morality. Therefore from now on the only groups whose welfare we should consider when contemplating moral questions are those of the individual and of humanity as a whole. I feel that these two groups are equally important: humanity's needs don't in general override those of the individual, and the individual's needs don't in general override those of humanity.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Justice or Revenge?

So the whole thing with the Libyan bomber in Scotland got me thinking about "justice". For instance, some relatives of the victims are saying things like "he showed no mercy to the hundreds of people he killed, so he deserves no mercy"--a fairly common notion in regards to "justice". But is such a sentiment a good thing?

Let's make clear what we're talking about. There IS a meaning of justice with which I have no issue: the justice that demands that people be not be treated wrongly. I.e., a "just" trial, "justice" for those who were enslaved, etc. This is what I'll call "positive justice": at it's core is the assertion that those who have been dealt pain deserve to be given pleasure. But there is also "negative justice", which is the type of justice I wish to discuss: the assertion that those who have dealt pain deserve to have pain dealt to them. Now, it could also be argued that this form of justice is positive in the sense that it gives pleasure to those who have been dealt pain to know that the person who dealt them pain suffer. This assertion has two difficulties:
  1. Justice implies "rightness", and it is not always true that what we want is "right". We can't be true that people's desire for pain to be caused to those who caused them pain is "right".
  2. Imagine we could take, say, Hitler, and, without expending any effort or money, have him taken care of at a luxury resort. However, we tell the world that he is being cruelly punished, and it is somehow absolutely impossible that anyone will ever find out the truth. Therefore, everyone gets the pleasure of knowing that he is suffering (ref. Bertrand Russel). Chances are, considering this hypothetical situation, most people's immediate reaction is that justice has not been served.
Therefore negative justice is more than positive justice in regards to those who the subject wronged.

However, at its fundamentals, this type of justice is absolutely identical to revenge: A caused pain, therefore A deserves to be dealt pain. The only difference is that justice is assumed to be enacted by or in regards to some authority or principle (the Law, God, Karma, Moral Accounting, etc.). This makes it "right".

I don't see how such a sentiment can be a good thing.