Religion is Important to Unitarian-Universalists

Though not as important as it is to many other Americans, the Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey discovers.  A healthy majority–61%–of UUs consider religion to be somewhat or very important in their lives.  On the other hand, 34% said that religion isn’t important.  The overall American population, meanwhile, considers religion important 82% of the time.  Here we begin to see some definite gaps between UUs and their neighbors.  Not only is there a big jump from the 61% of UUs to the 82% of non-UUs, but the UUs were the least likely of any religious group to consider religion to be important to their lives.  A majority still felt otherwise, but that’s nonetheless a significant finding.

UUism drops even further when we begin to look at practices, rather than beliefs.  61% of UUs may affirm that religion is important, but they certainly don’t think church is: only 31% attend services even as often as once per month, meaning that the only organized religious group in America with less regular corporate participation (even taking a very liberal definition of “regular”) than UUs are Reform Jews, at 22%.  But even that number is misleading, because Reform Judaism has strong traditions of family worship and much more explicit everyday individual shared practices that can substitute for group worship.  Meanwhile, 54% of overall Americans attend monthly or more often.

Actual number of UUs who attend church weekly or more than weekly: 15%, less than half of the 39% of overall Americans who attend regularly.

As with other Americans, Most UUs Believe in God

More data coming from the second part of the massive Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. Most Americans (92%), regardless of religion, believe in God in some fashion. This belief may be absolute or quite tentative, and God may be interpreted as anything from a white-bearded Bible guy to a “universal spirit,” but in one way or another God is a concept of enduring relevance to Americans.

This includes relevance to Unitarian-Universalists. 82% of UUs and their close liberal kin affirmed some level of belief in a God/universal spirit. Nearly half–49%–were absolutely certain in this belief, and another 24% were pretty certain. Only 10% fully rejected the concept–higher than the national average of 3%, but still not that huge a difference.

Other liberals also racked up big God beliefs. 96% of mainline Protestants, 81-90% of liberal Jews, 77% of Buddhists, and 92% of Hindus affirmed a belief in God/universal spirit.

Of course, this part of the survey also shows the flaws inherent in such enterprises. With no definition of God, and the profoundly broad and fuzzy concept of “universal spirit” included, this data becomes so diluted that its usefulness for some groups can be questioned. The Buddhists are a good example: Buddhism does not have any traditional doctrines that correspond well to “God” or “universal spirit” as the Pew researchers seem to have intended, yet they managed to get 77% of Buddhists to affirm such beliefs anyway. Worse yet, the Pew survey discovered that 22% of atheists believe in God, as well as a majority (55%) of agnostics! Surely this should send a red flag about relying too strongly on this part of the survey.

The problem arises when trying to use uniform questions to survey a gigantic and extremely diverse sample of people. Often, generic questions can usefully get at some data related to such a population–the questions discussed earlier on this blog are good examples. But the mechanism breaks down at points, such as when trying to apply ideas derived from a specific religion–in this case, Christianity, the core model for the Pew researchers–to other religions that explicitly take a different approach. God is not an important concern to Buddhists, and universal spirit could mean things like Buddha-nature, Amitabha Buddha, Dharmakaya, or even sunyata in some contexts–concepts that are utterly different from the usual Western notion of God and should not be put into the same category. Where this data is most reliable, then, is when looking at how groups close to the Pew researchers’ ideas answered–Christians, Jews, Muslims–and it quickly gets weaker and less reliable as we move away from these (large and important) populations.

The Large Majority of Americans are Religious Liberals

This is the third post in a series on the data of the Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey released today.  One of the most interesting findings is that a huge majority of Americans, in all religions except Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, are religious liberals.  That is to say, they affirm that there is more than one way to interpret their religion’s teachings.  68% of Americans agreed that their religion admitted multiple interpretations, including 82% of mainline Protestants, 53% of Evangelical Christians, 77% of Catholics, and 68% of Orthodox Christians.  Even the Mormons weren’t that far behind, with 43% explicitly affirming a liberal view.  89% of Jews took the liberal road, 60% of Muslims joined them, and the Buddhists and Hindus clocked in at 90% and 85% respectively.

Unitarian-Universalists “and other Liberal Faiths” proclaimed the liberal view 86% of the time, with 5% of these folks going in the other direction to state that there is only one correct way to approach their religion.

Most Americans are not Scriptural Literalists

More interesting data from part two of the Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey.  As reported earlier on this blog, most Americans from nearly every religion believe that other religions also offer a viable path to eternal life/salvation/etc.  A second significant finding is that a majority of Americans (58%) reject literalism in their approach to holy scripture.  In fact, only a third said that scripture (i.e. the Bible, in most cases) was literally the word of God, with most of them being Evangelical and/or black Protestants.

Catholics and Mainline Protestants both rejected literalism 66% of the time, with Orthodox Christians (62%) and Mormons (61%) right behind them.  Non-Christians were even less literal-minded: Hindus rejected literalism 71% of the time, Buddhists tossed it 77% of the time, and Jews rejected it a whopping 80% of the time.  On the other end, Muslims were on the fence, accepting literalism 50% of the time but also with 44% taking a more liberal approach.

Unitarian-Universalists and close kin rejected literalism 81% of the time (interestingly, 5% did say the Bible is the word of God, to be taken literally), and in fact within that number nearly all (76%) went further and said that the Bible was the work of men and not the word of God.  Thus most Americans are toward the liberal end (58%) and thus somewhat close to UUism in scriptural attitude, yet not so far as to agree with the 3/4 of UUs who say the Bible is not in some way the word of God (only 28%).

Most Americans are Universalists

Part II of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s massive “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey” was released today. Among the important findings is that the large majority of Americans agree with the core Unitarian-Universalist ideal that there are multiple valid religious paths. In the language of the survey, 70% agreed that “many religions can lead to eternal life,” while only 24% agreed that “my religion is the one, true faith leading to eternal life.” Even conservative religions were surprisingly likely to agree that their way was not the only way: 57% of Evangelical Christians, 79% of Catholics, and 56% of Muslims all took a universalist perspective, and even significant numbers of Mormons (39%) did too. Note that Muslims are very clearly under-counted by this survey, so their numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Among the liberals, the numbers were of course even higher. Unitarian-Universalists and close kin came in at 93% (with just 2% actually believing UUism to be the one true path). Liberal Christians scored the same, at 93%. Reform Jews topped that with 96%, and were beaten in turn by Conservative Jews at 97% (if that confuses you, just ignore the antiquated names–the Conservative denomination of Judaism is in fact and always has been a liberal form of Judaism, just not as progressive as Reform). Just behind them were Buddhists at 96% (note that Buddhists and Hindus are also under-counted in this survey), while New Agers lagged slightly at 90%. The winners: Hindus, who at 99% managed to out perform everybody else. Orthodox Christians turned out to be liberals of a sort too, at 72% accepting other religions, and members of historically-black Christian churches also turned in a majority in the “accepting” category, with 59%.

Least accepting: the Jehovah’s Witnesses, at a mere 16% agreeing that other religions could be valid. Atheists, agnostics, and their kin were not asked, for fairly obvious reasons.

Is this survey perfect? No, of course not. For one thing, many people won’t relate too well to the language about “eternal life,” though in context I think most folks will understand they can interpret that to mean “my religion’s ultimate goal, whatever it may be.” Non-English speakers, especially Asian immigrants, are dramatically under-represented in the Pew survey, which particularly affects Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians. And the low sample size of Muslims vs. what we know of the actual numbers of Muslims in the United States suggests that a significant percentage chose not to participate, perhaps alarmed by being questioned on the phone by a cold-caller about their religious sentiments in the wake of post-9/11 government surveillance of this population. Also, Hawaii, where Buddhists are the second-largest religion, was simply left out of the survey. Oops.

Nonetheless, these are important numbers. They show that Americans as a whole are significantly liberal in their religious sentiments, even in groups traditionally considered to be staunchly conservative. A major contributing factor is America’s ever-increasing diversity, which puts people of various religions into daily contact with one another, gradually eroding stereotypes and fears about “the other.”

Universalist Quote of the Day #91

“However, rebukes and sneers or even ridicule are weapons against which earnestness and determination are proof. Thus I went on trembling, but undaunted, through the theological school and passed the ordeal of ordination which was somewhat bitterly contested. In spite of the prophecy of an opposing student that ‘if she sought an appointment to preach there would be a gradual turning up of noses,’ I found a pastorate immediately and have never once met the appalling reception predicted by the student. But on the other hand, after some forty-eight years of almost continuous preaching, I can say that on the whole, I have met a most favorable and kindly reception in both the East and the West and feel convinced that no profession is so well suited to women in their various relations of wife, mother, or housekeeper as the ministry.”

–Rev. Olympia Brown, Acquaintences, Old and New, Amongst Reformers. Milwaukee: S.E. Tate Publishing Company, 1911: 30-31.

Does Unitarian-Universalism Have Principles?

One of the proposed Congregational Study/Action Issues that will be discussed at General Assembly later this month is “Ethical Eating: Food and Environmental Justice.”  In the official proposal is a section that describes the issue’s significance to UUism.  Here is what it says:

“Unitarian Universalists have a vision of environmental justice. One of our principles acknowledges “the interdependent web.” Others affirm the importance of human rights. Together our principles form one holistic statement that helps to define liberal religion.”

Leaving aside the actual issues of economic justice and environmental degradation that the CSAI is concerned with, let’s just take a look at the language of this proposal.  Simply put: does Unitarian Universalism have principles, as this statement claims?  The principles being cited here are those of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, which in its bylaws includes a set of principles that acknowledges “the interdependent web” and affirms the importance of human rights.  But are these the principles of UUism, or of the UUAoC, a specific organization within UUism?  And do these principles enunciated by the UUAoC indeed create a statement that helps define liberal religion?

This is intended as an open question.  What do you think?  Are the UUAoC principles also the principles of UUism?  Why or why not?  How do you go about determining the principles of UUism?  In what way are UUs responsible for holding to this “holistic statement” and the principles that underlie it?

Universalism Opposed to Profane Swearing

“Universalism Opposed to Profane Swearing”–that’s the title of today’s Universalist Quote of the Day (#90).  This short essay comes from The Southern Pioneer and Gospel Visiter, a 19th century Universalist periodical that was published out of Baltimore and Richmond, Virginia.  The United States used to be full of Universalist publications, including the South, but there are far fewer of them today.

Creating Congregational Histories

The Unitarian Universalist Historical Society has released a great new reference for people interested in chronicling the history of their beloved congregations. “Creating Congregational Histories” is a long-form essay adapted from UUHS Director Barbara Coeyman’s workshop at the 2007 GA in Portland. Dr. Coeyman takes you step by step through the process of researching and writing the history of your congregation, from initial thoughts about what history is and why we pursue it, to nuts-and-bolts processes of ferreting out data and arranging it. She also includes a bibliography of useful print and online resources for the budding or long-time congregational historian to take advantage of. Check it out!

Universalist Quote of the Day #90

“In a pamphlet, recently published in Boston, against Universalism, the author adduces, among others, the following argument, to prove Universalism insincere:

‘A second circumstance, which discredits Universalist sincerity, is that they commonly swear othodox oaths. Of this fact every body is aware. Let them get angry and you hear nothing but hell, the devil, and damnation.’

Verily! this demon, profanity, which has been so long and justly fathered upon his Satanic Majesty, is now formally claimed and acknowledged by his own proper and legitimate parent, Orthodoxy! We have, indeed, ever known the resemblance to be that of a parent and child, but of this acknowledgment, we never had the faintest expectation. But it is so, and we are glad to see it. It is acting according to the ancient principle, ‘Give the devil his due.’

The habit of profane swearing may now be attributed to its true and acknowledged source. It originated, as appears, in the principles of that religious faith which teaches that God will eventually inflict the most aggravated, and endless curses upon his enemy. Wherever this faith has been received as the truth of God, its believers of course, have considered themselves the friends of God, and consequently views the objects of their own hatred to be equally obnoxious to the divine displeasure; and hence have been led to imprecate, with the most reckless malignity, the severest curses of God upon the objects of their mutual displeasure. As all profane oaths have originated in this way, they are the peculiar property of this faith, and are, therefore, according to the popular usage of the term, properly denominated ‘ORTHODOX OATHS.’

When Universalists descend to the use of these oaths, they are most certainly insincere. Universalism acknowledges no such curses as this faith anticipates; a sincere Universalist, therefore, cannot imprecate them. No man can sincerely and consistently practice profane swearing, but a believer in the sentiment above noticed. Such an one,–since all oaths originate in this sentiment,–may do it in perfect consonance with his religion. But the inconsistency of a swearing Universalist is apparent. For since Universalism has no oaths, but is opposed to profanity, he must abandon altogether its principles, and adopt those of his religious opponents, and as this author says, swear their oaths. He is never induced to do this, except when the worst principles of his nature are called into exercise. ‘Let them get angry,’ says our author, ‘and you hear nothing but hell, the devil, and damnation.’ True; when a man is angry, then he resorts to the principles of orthodoxy. These are a sure refuge for the vengeful and malignant passions of his nature, and here they are fed and fattened, and pampered, until they break out in ‘orthodox oaths.’

Reader, hast thou faith in the doctrine of Universal and triumphant grace?–then never suffer they passions for a moment, so to counteract the beneficent tendency of thy faith, as that thou shalt be induced to adopt the angry spirit of partialism, and so imprecate its dreadful curses upon thy fellow creature.”

–S.P. Skinner, The Southern Pioneer and Gospel Visiter, Volume 1, Number 11 (September 1832): 259-260.