Unitarian Universalism

Unitarian Universalism is an American religious community which origins are to be found in Christianity. It is a minor religion as around 500 thousand people follow it. If some of its aspects are similar to Christianity, others are very specific to UU. In this post, these similarities and differences will be dealt with, as well as the daily practice of that belief among the faithful.

From an historical point of view, it is important to highlight that Unitarianism and Universalism both come from Christianity but were, at the beginning, different beliefs. Unitarian churches first appeared in Europe in the middle of the 16th century. The name of that faith is based on the uniqueness of God. He is unique. He is a single unity.

Universalism, on the other hand, emerged in the 18th century in the United States. Its main belief is that the “Universal Salvation will take place through Christ”. According to that belief, all creatures and individuals are linked to one God and they will all “reconcile to this God in the end”.[1]

It is in 1961 that both faiths merged into a single on, Unitarian Universalism. At the beginning, it was quite similar to Christianity. But this religion has also been inspired by other religions over time, so that today, believers may consider not having any link with Christianity. This can be seen in their rituals, which are actually not specific to Unitarian Universalism. Indeed, their rituals are borrowed from many other beliefs. Moreover, there is no Pope whatsoever. There is no authoritarian figure to obey and there isn’t any formal creed. If there is no dogma to follow, they nonetheless have seven principles to abide by. The most relevant are following:

·         “The inherent worth and dignity of every person”

·         “Justice, equity and compassion in human relations”

·         “A free and responsible search for truth and meaning”

·         “The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all”

These principles are based on six sources. Some of them are to be found below:

·         “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”

·         “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”

Therefore, each Unitarian Universalist church is diverse from another. Every one follows its own rules. The number of sources on which they base their faith shows as well that, to Unitarian Universalists, the Holy Bible is not the only text to follow. They respect it, but are far more critics towards it than Christians. They consider it as a mythology rather than “the Truth”.

As a conclusion, it seems that Unitarian Universalism is quite a liberal faith as they don’t have any authoritarian figure or dogma. Taking this into consideration, Unitarian Universalists freely practice their religion by occasionally adopting the rituals they like in other faiths and are not restricted to one single dogma. The influence of Unitarian Universalism at a national scale is quite irrelevant as it unites only a small group of people.

---

[1] Unitarian Universalist Association, http://www.uua.org/

Don't Ask Don't Tell

 

"It may surprise some of you to learn that homosexuals are allowed to serve in today’s United States Military. They can serve, but they can’t engage in homosexual activities while in the military, nor can they tell anyone about their sexual preference. To do either is a basis for involuntary discharge. That’s the backbone of the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law." That is what Rod Powers, a retired Air Force First Sergeant with 22 years of active duty service said in one  article on the usmilitary.about.com website in May 2010.

"Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was the official United States policy on homosexuals serving in the military from December 21, 1993 to September 20, 2011. 

The policy forbade military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while excluding openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. The policy prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." 

The act prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from revealing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specified that service members who disclose that they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct should be discharged except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces".

The "don't ask" part of the DADT policy specified that superiors should not initiate investigation of a service member's orientation without witnessing disallowed behaviors, though credible evidence of homosexual behavior could be used to initiate an investigation. Unauthorized investigations and harassment of suspected servicemen and women led to an expansion of the policy to "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass."

The policy was banned in September 2011. After years of debate and months of final preparations, the military can no longer prevent gays from serving openly in its ranks.

With the lifting of the ban, the Defense Department published revised regulations to reflect the new law allowing gays to serve openly. The revisions, such as eliminating references to banned homosexual service, are in line with policy guidance that was issued by top Pentagon officials in January, after Obama signed the legislation that did away with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The lifting of the 18-year-old ban also brings a halt to all pending investigations, discharges and other administrative proceedings that were begun under the law passed during Clinton's administration.

The ban of the policy opens the path to a new way of looking at gays, lesbians or bisexuals; who are now not considered as people with fewer abilities anymore. The abolishment of the DADT freed the way for the settlement of a more gay-friendly world.

Sources :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071802561.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/20/national/main20108690.shtml
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/millegislation/a/dontask.htm

Ground Zero mosque...

Does the fact of building a mosque near Ground Zero fit into the melting pot or the salad bowl model of American culture? Do Muslims adapt to a country that is not theirs, or do they try to impose their beliefs and ways of living? Do American people put them in a "terrorist box" because of what happened on the 9/11? 

I think those are interesting questions to think about. To discuss them, I am going to analyze two very different and opposed points of view : the one from people that are non-Muslim, and the one from Muslims that live in a country with no islamic belief trend.

As far as non-Muslims are concerned, wether they are Christians or not, the melting pot model seems to be the rule, but in a bad way. Indeed, people (and by saying “people” I mean people in general, not only religious entities) often consider what is different from them as bad. The construction of the mosque near Ground Zero is considered as a personal attack to the country because, even if there are a lot of different cultures in the US, it was not a Muslim country when it was shaped and still is not. So, people are reacting very strongly to what they call an “invasion” of Islam in their country. A poll

Now, as far as Muslims are concerned, it is generally thought that, when they go to another country, they prefer sticking to their own beliefs rather than adapt. For example, women keep wearing headscarves while it is not the norm. This would fit into the salad bowl model, but again, in a bad way.

Through centuries, we have seen how cultures could melt together and adapt to each other in order to form a new one, a mix  that results in a harmonious new way of living that respects (more or less) the values of the ancient ones. Belgium is a great example of it: people from germanic and latin cultures living together in peace is something wonderful, even if sometimes difficult. That is not the case for most of Muslims, who strongly defend their own values without wanting to know more about the others’. That kind of behavior is often considered as narrowness of mind and is vividly criticized by those who think that you have to adapt to the place you go to and live in, not the contrary. 

Of course, all those things I spoke about in this post are the thoughts of many people, but not of everybody. I am sure there are citizens of the United States and of the world that are not against the building of that mosque near Ground Zero, people that are aware that Muslim is not synonym of terrorist, and that giving Muslim a place to pray will calm down the anger instead of amplifying it.

Let's imagine all the people living life in peace...

Harmony Lumeau

Sources:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/113747-poll-public-strongly-opposes-ground-zero-mosque-

http://www.bonkersworld.net/the-ground-zero-mosque/

http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/

If you're going to San Francisco... ♫

If I were to move to the USA, I would certainly go to San Francisco...

First of  all, because the weather is quite great: real seasons, not like in Belgium where it is rainy everyday of the year. There, they have chilly winters and quite hot summers, and spring and autumn are like they should be: with blossoming trees for one and crispy red leaves for the other.

Then, the sea and the beach are within reach, and it should be very funny to go there and surf after class ends. Living by the shore must be something invigorating, breathing everyday iodine from the sea. Moreover, this panorama must provide kind of an energy, a motivation to inhabitants, compared with the grayness of Belgium that often makes us grumpy... Not seeing anything but grey buildings makes me sad at times.

Also, I have to say that I grew up with an image of the USA, and specifically of California, as a place where teenagers and young people are having fun all the time, going to big, awesome parties, with thin, tanned and blonde girls and surfer boys... Tough I know this kind of representation is a huge cliché I have to admit that it was, and still is, one of my "american dream". To live my teenage years there would have been fabulous, and I still hope that I will have the opportunity to go there before turning 30 to make up for lost time!

As far as jobs are concerned, I'm really looking forward to be working as an interpreter or a translator, but I know there are quite a lot of nature reserves there, and as nature and ecology are two of my biggest passions, I think that, if I were to move to the USA, I might be looking for a job in this section.

So, I know there are a lot of things I still don't know about the USA and its culture; stereotypes to dismantle and regions to learn about, but still, I think that I would absolutely love to go live there, even if it is not "party all the time"...

Harmony Lumeau