Unitarian Universalists Complain About Atheist Ads

AAAAAAAAAAARGH…as a UU, I’m embarrassed by that reaction. We should know better!!!

I think there are valuable lessons here. First of all perceptions are important. Whatever message you’re trying to convey can get easily lost if you are perceived poorly.

While I disagree with the UU’s and don’t share their perception of the ad, I do understand that they can easily perceive it differently. UU’s are at least nominally a religion. I can understand how ads seeking freedom FROM religion could be offensive to them.

The other thing I have a hard time understanding is if the FRFF is advocating for separation of church and state why not approach that issue directly rather than beating some religion strawman.

Wait, I just looked at the “six bus ads” link. You’re really saying those aren’t hostile to religion? I think I have a different definition of hostile than the average atheist. They’re funny, they’re true, but I can totally see why people wouldn’t like them.

I still want to see the actual ad though.

Sorry Kate, I don’t *know* you 😉 I should have written every Unitarian I’ve met in person (including the one who said she “felt sorry” for my kids because they were being raised without any faith).

My mom briefly took us to a Unitarian church when I was a kid and as far as I can tell, it’s religious. We’ve also always said “Unitarian”. Maybe that’s a regional thing?

Well, the one thing about UUs is that we’re hugely diverse in belief or lack of belief. Congregations can range from very theistic in flavor to very humanist. Our own minister was rejected from several congregations because he “believed in God too much”. But there is a humanist/atheist group within our fellowship, as well as a Christian group, and I think even a Buddhist group. So there are UUs like me, who are strongly atheist, and others like the one you met who felt sorry you weren’t raising your children “right”.

The Unitarians and the Universalists merged awhile back, so while people often say “Unitarian” for brevity, it tends to piss of the Universalists. 😉 So “UU” is fine for short. I think it might be a regional thing.

@Kate – Oh, when did they merge? That would have been, um, early 80’s that I went? Was it after that? I had no idea it was two things merged together. Maybe we’re just too lazy to say it all, lol!

A few years ago I was looking into local UU churches (looking for a sense of community) and they were all too religious for me. First of all, they’re all called “church” (I have no idea if that is everywhere or just here). On the websites they list “sermons” and “ministers” and the whole thing. Maybe I’m just letting the terminology put me off but it really didn’t feel right to me.

We also briefly tried Ethical Culture as kids. *That* didn’t feel churchy but again, maybe it’s where you are.

@Justin – “They often look at me like I’m silly to not believe in SOMETHING. But they accept me.”

Your first part up there, that wouldn’t be good enough for me.

Oh, just went to the local UU website and they have “worship services”. I do get that they are atheist friendly, but it really seems like a religion to me.

The ads are not hostile to religion. They simply showcase famous people who happened to be atheists.

They showcase famous atheists, yes, but what the the UU readers are complaining about are the statements being showcased. The McQueen quote is unambiguously anti-religion. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to want ads omitted that are at odds with the message of their privately-owned (I assume) publications. I thought Ullrich’s response was spot on.

My preference would be for the FFRF to be more defensive than offensive. I think there’s a huge population that might listen if the message was just 1) “Don’t allow any particular religion to be preferred in government” and 2) “Atheists exist”. They may sour on the message if the tone is overly confrontational.

The American Unitarians merged with the Universalists in the early 60s, but there are still European Unitarians who are not Universalists. That said, the UUs are not a monolithic organization as people tend to think. While most UUs are pretty liberal, there are UU congregations that are more on the conservative side, considering themselves Christian first and eschewing atheism and new-agey pagan stuff and the like that you find in the more liberal UU congregations.

Shannon@

They’re funny, they’re true

In the spirit of wasting bandwidth, my take:
Dawkins: 100% agree.
Dickinson: I disagree that faith is a fine invention
McQueen: If you put the ball and chain on yourself, are you still a slave? I don’t know. Maybe if the others, also chained, would kill/mutilate/rape/ostracize you if you didn’t wear it too? At what dilution does the punishment for not wearing the ball and chain become so inconsequential that you’re no longer really a slave? When you get kicked out by your parents? When your granny frowns at you for not bowing your head during the blessing?
Twain: 100% agree.
Darrow: 100% agree.
Hepburn: Agree with the sentiment, but find the wording sloppy.

Pustilito, thanks. Yeah, for whatever reason, I’ve always heard “Unitarian”. I had no idea that wasn’t right.

The ones around here are definitely atheist friendly and full of non-Christian stuff too. They definitely seem to be modeled after churches and the language sounds religious to me, but then they have Buddhist holidays, Wiccan ceremonies, etc. So they are definitely inclusive! I don’t mean to insult them and do think they are cool (I’m not anti-religion myself). It’s just that they are too religious for *me* at this point in my life.

I’ve also noticed that *most* religions aren’t monolithic like people think. For example, I find it interesting to see what Americans are doing with Catholicism – if they keep going, they might have to splinter off because American Catholics don’t really fit the Papal view of what they should be. So it’s not surprising that more (generally) liberal groups like UUs are different church to church.

Having read the ads now thanks to Hemant’s update, I can see why some religious people would be offended by these ads.

“I don’t believe in God because I don’t believe in Mother Goose”? Yeah, that could be offensive.

I think the FFRF could have picked a better ad to run in a UU magazine. I’m not a UU myself, but my wife and I do go on occasion if the topic that week is interesting, and there are a lot of diverse beliefs there. Any ad that could be seen as denigrating “faith” in a such a circle could be seen as a bad idea.

The FFRF and the UU are natural bedfellows, but it is a relationship that has to be carefully built up. Additionally, the image painted by many of the FFRF could worry many UU members. Not that the image is accurate, but that is hardly the point.

They should apologize for offending anyone as that was not their intent, and run a lighter ad, like the “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.” That would have been more appropriate for their crowd.

As an atheist who spent seven years as a UU, I find this story entirely unsurprising. Within the past twenty years, UU congregations have become vastly less welcoming places for atheists and other kinds of religious skeptics. It has become common to see fangs-out malice directed at atheists by prominent ministers and national Association administrators; the two most recent Presidents of the UU Association have publicly preached horrendously nasty and/or exclusionist notions about atheists, and UU World magazine has published outrageous attacks on us.

At this point, it seems to me that UU atheists–and, indeed, there are thousands of them–are in a position very similar to gay Republicans. As an atheist who left UUism because of its total failure to rein in bigoted attacks by its clergy and administrators on nonbelievers, I don’t understand why any atheist would contribute money to people who continually marginalize and dehumanize us.

Looking at the religious aspects of many intergroup conflicts, at the violence carried out by zealots in the name of religion, some people conclude that the world would be safer “religion-free.” They may even try living this way themselves. But too often they only practice a form of self-delusion. Nature abhors a vacuum and so does the human spirit. As C.S. Lewis said, the opposite of a belief in God is not a belief in nothing; it is a belief in anything. Sweep the demon of religion out the door and, like the story in the Gospels, you may only succeed in making room for an evil spirit worse than the first—this one accompanied by seven friends (Luke 11:24-26; Matt. 12:43-45). Zealous atheism can perform this role of demonic pseudoreligion.

– Rev. John Buehrens (UUA President 1993-2001), in A Chosen Faith (1998), the Association’s best-selling “classic Introduction to Unitarian Universalism”

For an atheist to expect CHURCHES to pander to the a-theistic search for truth and meaning is like hiring a dental hygenist with no arms to do your cleaning, and expecting her to do a good job of it.

– UU minister, Norwell, Massachusetts

I thought UU was a belief in belief type organisation and while they tolerate atheists they don’t tolerate suggesting that their beliefs are like fairy tales or not true, if you’re an atheist you have to keep your views to yourself. I’m pretty sure Butterfly McQueen wasn’t referring to the UU, or the slavery her ancestors suffered.

I am deeply offended by the ad copy, which suggests that anyone who believes in God thinks that fairy tales are true, and that such a belief is tantamount to slavery.

Those are interesting interpretations. Clearly this person is an idiot.

These ads are definitely hostile to religion, the UU are correct, for sure. Unquestionable.

Greta Christina wrote:

And they absolutely have the right to refuse ads that run directly counter to that viewpoint.

I think it goes further. If I can paraphrase a big tenant of UU, it basically says “If someone believes something different from you, that’s cool. Just don’t be a dick about it.”

So these ads kind of go against the whole UU groove, which is more “don’t be a dick about religion”. It’s not the atheism that offends. It’s the dickishness.

I got a chuckle from a quote from the wikipedia page on Unitarian Universalism.

Unitarians and Universalists often have had common interests and communication between them. In the often-quoted words of Thomas Starr King, pastor of the San Francisco Unitarian Church at the beginning of the civil war: “The Universalists believe that God is too good to damn them, and the Unitarians believe they are too good to be damned!”

Well, teammarty, the ad WAS asking UU members to donate money to the FFRF.

So asking someone for money while you’re saying “fuck you” to them is kind of the definition of stupid.

CatBallou,

Did you leave out a word or two? Because she clearly refers to her ancestors. What am I not getting?

She is not saying the slavery she is free from is the same slavery of her ancestors. She is talking about the importance of being free from control. “Slavery” isn’t just one thing that happened in tropical plantations, it comes in varied forms. The blogger who complains about the ads gives no context of the quote, and to many people “slavery” commonly means just that specific kind.

My wife (a liberal Christian) and I were married by a UU leader, and we attended a small UU congregation in a predominantly blue-collar region when our first kid was very young. I have several atheist friends who are UUs and I know a UU leader who is supportive of the local atheist group in which I am very active.

That said, I would really like to know what UUs have in common if some are Christians, some are Pagans, some are Buddhists, some are atheists. Could it be that what they have in common is a general humanism that all humans share? If so, why don’t they call themselves “humanist” congregations, and abandon the supernatural?

I contend that some UUs like being part of a “church” because it helps them fit in socially into the general community…after all, they are “churchgoers” and most Christians don’t know the first thing about the UU “faith”, so they assume that UU is a Xian denomination. I know this was the case in that blue-collar area. They WANTED the community to ASSUME the group was Christian. And the congregation had an elderly organist who played awful organ music, just like in Xian churches. But the “sermons” or whatever they were called were usually the most boring and knee-jerk liberal “environmental” and “bleeding heart” diatribes and the like.

If atheists had their own facilities (and didn’t call themselves atheists), they could probably draw a lot of people away from UU. But atheists aren’t known to spend a lot of money on establishing “communities”.

As for the ad, yeah it was probably too critical of religion to appear in even a UU magazine.

Hemant, your blog has a problem with Unicode.

I’m an atheist, a member of a UU church, and I just joined the FFRF after seeing this ad. Not that the ad convinced me; I knew about the FFRF already. It was just the final impetus for me to get around to joining.

I don’t know about other UU churches, but I’ve never heard Jesus referred to as deity in the one I attend. Sometimes religious traditions are referred to, but I’ve never heard a prayer to a deity. Maybe it just depends which UU church you visit.

And I agree with Shannon, the word “church” doesn’t seem quite right. I just can’t think of a better one.

As I recall, the Unitarians expelled Humanists and Atheists in the first half of the 20th century, or they left for incompatibility reasons. I’d have to search it. The compatability between atheists, humanists and the UUs as of then became like the false compatability of science and religion. The UUs went docternally, with religion(feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken on their doctrine). These complaints by the religious UUs don’t surprise me, only disappoint.

In the early sixies as a child I was taken to Unitarian ‘sunday school’ but didn’t go often, but vaguely remember fairy tales of jesus. I’ve since been friendly with some who go on secular issues. I was surprised to discover in my adulthood that they’d become so goo-goo god/spirit/mystic talking, and only feel welcome there as a guest.

To me there is science, philosophy/ethics. The rest is myth/fairy tales/fiction and harmful magical thinking.

I don’t see that atheists have much ground to complain here. The ads are hostile to religion (I’m a little baffled as to how anyone could claim that they aren’t). But even if they aren’t, so what? It’s a private magazine. If they decide that innocuous pro-atheist ads, or ads for the Democratic party, or ads for pork products, aren’t consistent with UU values, that’s their right, I don’t see whats wrong with that. “Atheist monthly” can in turn decide whether they feel like running innocuous Christian ads or not. If a governmental agency decides not to run atheist ads, I’ll get worked up about freedom of speech, and separation of church and state, but a private magazine has the moral right to decide what ads are consistent with their values.

The irony here is that my wife and I considered attending a UU congregation here in Maryland when we first moved here.

We decided against it after visiting the church and reading through their list of events.

They were waaaay too anti-religion for us. Spent most of their time Christian-bashing it seemed.

Greta wrote:

If I can paraphrase a big tenant of UU, it basically says “If someone believes something different from you, that’s cool. Just don’t be a dick about it.”

So these ads kind of go against the whole UU groove, which is more “don’t be a dick about religion”. It’s not the atheism that offends. It’s the dickishness.

I think I pointed out at some length, above, that the Unitarian Universalist Association and its administrators (and clergy and house magazine, UU World) continually violate that “ten[e]t” with regard to atheists.

Take, for example, this lovely passage from UU Rev. Forrest Church, also printed in UU World (the same magazine that just declared it should have censored the FFRF ad):

Life is a miracle that can’t be explained without explaining it away. Our most profound encounters lead inexorably from the rational to the transrational realm.

Many leading scientists are far ahead of us in this regard. Some recent discoveries in physics and cosmology make no apparent sense according to known canons of rationality. Probing the mysteries of the universe and the mind, researchers on the cutting edge of knowledge find themselves moving freely between the rational and transrational realms. Where does that leave the poor camp followers, who believe in science but don’t embrace mystery? Having traded God for truth, they are left with neither.

– Rev. Forrest Church, “Universalism: A Theology for the 21st Century,” UU World magazine, November/December 2001)

When it comes to atheists, it certainly appears that the “don’t be a dick” rule doesn’t apply, huh?

And excuse me–exactly how is the FFRF ad “being a dick”? The thing quotes six prominent people expressing dissent (and, if you insist, hostility) toward religion. I don’t see a “dick” there; I see six perfectly understandable and defensible assertions, and the point the FFRF is making is that important and thoughtful people, both in history and in the present day, have dissented strongly from religion. That’s not “being a dick”; that’s being honest about who we are!

Why is the ad so disgusting? Why does it deserve to be silenced–by an organization that claims to “affirm and promote a free and responsible search for truth and meaning”?

And I have to admit I’m flabbergasted that Greta “Atheists and Anger” Christina, of all people, is chiming in in defense of an organization that is here directly discriminating against atheists and our ideas. What the hell, Greta? This church does not deserve your support.

And you know what else? I think we need to have some goddamn perspective about this [hostility] business. I mean, I look at organized Christianity in this country — not just the religious right, but some more “moderate” churches as well — interfering with AIDS prevention efforts, trying to get their theology into the public schools, actively trying to prevent me and Ingrid from getting legally married, and pulling all the other shit I talk about in this piece.

And I look at atheists sometimes being mean-spirited and snarky in blogs and books and magazines.

And I think, Can we please have some goddamn perspective?

[….]

Are you really looking at all of this shit I’m talking about, a millennia-old history of abuse and injustice, deceit and willful ignorance — and then on the other hand, looking at a couple of years of atheists being snarky on the Internet — and seeing the two as somehow equivalent? Or worse, seeing the snarky atheists as the greater problem?

If you’re doing that, then with all due respect, you can blow me.

– somebody (“being a dick”?)

My point is, you can be combative. But understand when you’re being combative against religion in the magazine OF A RELIGION, you’re kind of going into someone’s house and pissing on the rug.

The magazine took the money. So someone thought it was okay. But know what you’re doing. These ads aren’t innocuous.

Oh, goodness–that was a horrible misattribution indeed.

In that case, I have serious egg on my face WRT Greta.

My severe apologies, Greta. Mea culpa.

I fired off an email to Scott letting him know I’m a UU and FFRF and appreciate the ads.

Now, why would you BOTHER putting an ad in a magazine that was going to offend most of the readers?

Because it contained important ideas that deserve to be published, and because (given the UUA’s supposed principles) there are no legitimate grounds for offense. That ad is only offensive to people who have bought into atheophobic bigotry. The FFRF should ignore bigots.

Those quotes, however, *ARE* offensive to anyone with any amount of faith….

Oh, the poor darlings! It must be so awful to read somebody saying something unkind about an idea you hold. Should we send the complainers lots of hugs and kisses to console them?

News flash: there is no human right not to be offended. And your acceptance of religious privilege–the very thing that keeps atheists a marginalized and despised minority–is very ugly.

you’re not going to gain members that way.

You’re demonstrably wrong. As the FFRF has pointed out, they’ve already gained members as a result of that ad.

Try again.

Vincent wrote:

Is the demographic split between warm + fuzzy theists and atheists shifting in the UUA to make atheists even more marginalized in their ranks?

As an atheist who spent seven years (2001-08) as a member of a UU church….

Yes.

Our resistance to religious language gets reflected, I think, in the struggle that so many of us have in trying to find ways to say who we are, to define Unitarian Universalism. I always encourage people to work on their “elevator speech”-for when you’re on the 6th floor and you’re going to the lobby and somebody asks you, “What’s a Unitarian Universalist?” What do you say? You’ve got about 45 seconds. Here’s my current answer: “The Unitarian side of our family tree tells us that there is only one God, one Spirit of Life, one Power of Love. The Universalist side tells us that God is a loving God, condemning none of us, and valuing the spark of divinity that is in every human being. So, Unitarian Universalism stands for: one God, no one left behind.”

– Rev. William H. Sinkford (Unitarian Universalist Association President, 2001-09), sermon, “The Language of Faith,” January 12, 2003 (boldface added)

For the record: One Robin Edgar got thrown out by the Montreal Unitarians for his peaceful public protest against the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry that he was subjected to by the far from friendly, indeed the intolerant, insulting, and outright *hostile* and abusive Atheist leaders of the Unitarian Church of Montreal.

You are quite right Alex. It is in fact nothing new for the U*U power structure to censor or excommunicate critics and dissenters who U*Us choose the fate of portraying as heretical or blasphemous people. Outrageously hypocritical Unitarian*Universalists aka U*Us will even go so far as to have such “heretical” people unjustly arrested on trumped up criminal charges in order to try to suppress a peaceful public protest. . .

I am a UU and I was really happy to see that they initially published the ads. And I’m sad to see that they took them down after a few religious mental cases bellyached.