When Matthew Gatheringwater posted his essay "Tipping Points" over at Coffee Hour, he identified himself as a religious humanist. He referred to an essay by Mason Olds for a definition of religious humanism. When I read Olds, I believed that the Olds definition was too narrow, and that a broader definition might include some Unitarian Universalists who would experience themselves as excluded by the more narrow definition offered by Olds.
Today, Shawn Anthony at Lo-Fi Tribe offered a description of religious humanism this morning, prompting me try to draft something that reflects my hope for an inclusive, yet bounded definition.
Since all theology is autobiographical, I will share my personal perspective. I have been a Unitarian Universalist since the merger, having been raised a Unitarian with a liberal Christian take on Unitarianism. I have been formed by Cherokee spirituality. I would define my own stance as Christian humanist and profoundly "earth centered." One might gather from the above that I am suspicious of the hyper-rationalism and advocacy of a brave new world free of superstition attitude that is too often associated with humanism.
My take on religious humanism.
Human beings in relationship with other human beings created the religions of the world as responses to their experience of awe and mystery of the cosmos, and their experience of enchantment with the earth. Through their religions; human beings articulated stories, developed symbols, established institutions, and elaborated codes of right relationship for both their social order and for their individual lives. Thus the religions of the world are the gifts of the generations of the past, and it is each generations responsibility to both benefit from this wisdom and contribute their own wisdom to the future.
Images of God, the Abyss, the Sacred Other, the Holy and other ideas concerning the divine are products of the human imagining, and human beings have a responsibility for those images. Many religious humanists believe that these images point toward a reality beyond themselves, and many other religious humanists are skeptical of such claims, but religious humanists unite in rejecting the dualism that divides the cosmos into supernatural and natural.
Idolatry, for the religious humanist is worshipping that which human beings have fashioned as the holy, and too often results in the use of that manufactured god image as a tool to gain power over other human beings. Religious humanists are critical of images of the divine that dehumanize other people, that devaluate the natural world, that justify oppression, that elevate images of one way of being human over others to divine status, and that insist that divine has uniquely revealed truth to one religious group over others.
A critical stance has been central to the humanist orientation since its inception, religious humanism incorporates this critical way in its approach to religion. But criticism must also be directed at science and scholarship itself, which has too often been used as a tool by privileged and powerful elites to rationalize their own points of view. Scientism is a form of idolatry.
Many religious humanists believe in committing themselves to a particular religious tradition, and that engaging in its spiritual practices deepens and enhances their spiritual life. We know of religious humanists who participate and contribute to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and other historical wisdom traditions. Other religious humanists have committed themselves to a religious journey that seeks to be open to many sources of wisdom, these religious humanists shape a spirituality that is unique to their own experience.
Another Take On Religious Humanism
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Another Take On Religious Humanism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.peoplesobold.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/36
Clyde - A wonderful description. I appreciate it and you. I would, however, also suggest that what you describe is a Christian Humanism. Which shouldn't come as a surprise given the fact that you say as much in your 3rd paragraph.
The definition given by Olds is classic Religious Humanism.
I can understand and appreciate deeply Christian Humanism, but I personally would not align myself to it. I'm certain more than a few Religious Humanists would not either. That being said, I'm not sure if the Olds definition of Religious Humanism can be broadened to take on an appearance of a more specific Christian Humanism, can it? I'm not sure it even needs too. I can totally appreciate and value Christianity as a religion of its own from a purely Religious Humanist position. And I do. So, I have to ask, where and how is Olds' definition of Religious Humanism too narrow? If by too narrow you mean it needs to appreciate superstition and/or supernaturalism, then I do believe you are pointing to something other than humanism. If by too narrow you are suggesting the need for Religious Humanism to be enveloped by characteristics native to Christian Humanism, then I would have to suggest otherwise.
You also wrote, "Human beings in relationship with other human beings created the religions of the world as responses to their experience of awe and mystery of the cosmos, and their experience of enchantment with the earth."
I agree with the first part of this statement, but the second is a bit difficult. I have difficulty believing that our ancient ancestors were enchanted, rather then terrified of the earth and its natural phenomenon. I think this is well illustrated in the fact that the majority of created religions included gods whom needed placated, daily, to ward of terrible troubles.
I understand where you are coming from, but I am unsure of the broadness within religious humanism you seem to be arguing for. It is already broad, save it's overarching non-reliance on certain aspects of the Christian Humanism you describe. I personally am in favor of new and relevant myth, story, mystery, poetry, and metaphor. I am not even remotely interested in superstition and/or an unbalanced combination of science and faith.
You capitalize Religious Humanism, and Mason Olds does as well. I did not. He is designating a group as Religious Humanists. Does that mean that there was no religious humanism before the group of thinkers that Olds mentions. I think that the historical evidence is otherwise, thus for me, religious humanism is a tradition found in many religions, not a group.
Christian Humanism begins hundreds of years earlier than the group Olds has in mind. There are also humanist oriented Moslems, Jews, Hindus. I would argue the original project that we now call Buddhism is humanist, rather than other worldly.
I strongly protest construction of a wall of separation between Christian humanism and other religious humanisms. Christian humanists have opposed superstitution and as I suggested in my post the world view that divides the cosmos into "supernatural versus natural" is problematic. There is one cosmos with dimensions that can not be reduced to the materialism that so fascinated the group that wrote Manifesto I.
The stories of the Cherokee's and other native Americans include no stories of gods that need to placated. I am told by those who know that African stories do not include such stories either. Perhaps this is a European thing, but the scary gods in pre-Christian religions appear in the period of kings and priests.
What do I find narrow about Olds? His begins: "I can offer here only the sketchiest outline of the most salient features of this distinctive approach to religion, which originated in the U.S. among Unitarians at about the time of the First World War." Thus for Olds, no one before WW I is included.
A little later Olds writes "Dewey employed the word God to designate the process whereby the actual is transformed into the ideal, but his friend and colleague Corliss Lamont maintained that Dewey used the term to avoid offending the sensitivities of friends who were theists. However, the word caused such controversy that he repented of having used it." Thus, the group that Olds champions as The Religious Humanists would not extend to even its leading members the right to use metaphors, symbols, and expressive language.
Olds goes on "The humanists were convinced that consciousness was totally dependent upon the brain; if the brain is dead, so are the mind and consciousness." Many humanists would argue that the universe itself is conscious, and that to locate consciousness exclusively in the human brain was one of those nineteenth and early twentieth century philosophical dead ends.
I could go on, in summary: Old defines a particular group in the early twentieth century with a particular philosophy as The Religious Humanists. Suddenly Channing or Emerson, or Tolstoy become not religious humanists, but because of their religious tradition the other. Do you argue that Christian Humanists are foriegners to the tradition that they nurtured and inspired? But they can be claimed when ever it is convenient? (You have these Chrisitan folks on one of your lists, so does Hoertdoefer.)
I have other objections to Olds definition. For me, Christian humanism participates in both the humanist and the Christian tradition, both traditions are older than Olds. However, if The Religious Humanists that Olds privileges are the culmination of thousand years old religious humanism tradition, it will die with the generation that created it.
Clyde - I appreciated the e-mail, and I too may sound polemical but it's just in the print. I too desire a good conversation.
Yes, I did capitalize RH as did Olds. No, that doesn't imply that there was no religious humanism before the group Olds mentions, but it does imply a development along lines of historical and cultural relativity. You capitalize Christianity, but you couldn't have done so during the early days of the primitive Jesus movement'S'. Does this imply that your Christianity fails to recognize earlier variations of it? No, I don't think so.
I am unsure how the mere citation of historical precedence can be used a litmus test for ideological priority. Besides that, I'm unsure as to how a holistic Religious Humanism (capitalized) can be further benefited by becoming inherently religious in expression, as contrasted to it's already present recognition of pluralistic religious expression. You seem to be arguing for the incorporation of religious expression, rather than the recognition of pluralistic expressions and the benefits (and detriments) inherently contained by the host religion(s). I'm not sure I see the benefit, apart from a personal spiritual satisfaction.
Also, I never proposed the "construction of a wall of separation," as you called it, between Christian humanism and Religious Humanism. I did voice my disagreement concerning the morphing of Religious Humanism (as Olds' described it) into a Christian humanism, or Buddhist humanism, etc. Why? I see no point or benefit in such a change. If Religious Humanism is holistic, it already lifts these expression up as necessary and beneficial to humanity. Again, the only benefit I personally see in such a morph is a private spiritual one.
The stories of the native Americans and African may not include stories of gods that needed to be placated, but the long, long history which you cite as a precedence for primitive forms of humanism is laden with them. Also, you cite the "scary gods in pre-Christian religion," as if the singular God perpetuated by Christianity over the centuries wasn't scary at all. I will willingly admit yours may be a benevolent being, but this is not the historical template. it also is not limited to kings and priests, but to primitive tribes the world over who thought a mountain slide, volcano eruption, or famine was an angry god looking for a sacrifice.
Clyde you also point out that: "...the group that Olds champions as The Religious Humanists would not extend to even its leading members the right to use metaphors, symbols, and expressive language."
I agree with you on the problematic symptom displayed here, but not with your choice of remedy. Does a proper and holistic implementation of metaphor, symbol, and expressive language mean that Religious Humanism (proper) would become the Christian humanism foundational to your personal theology? I'm not so sure Religious Humanism would have to do any more for Christianity, or any other humanly beneficial religious expression, then it already does if it were to depart from Olds' group and embrace metaphor, symbol, and expressive language. i personally embrace story, metaphor, symbol, and expressive language, but I wouldn't consider myself anything but a Religious Humanist. So, where is the benefit?
You Write, "Olds goes on "The humanists were convinced that consciousness was totally dependent upon the brain; if the brain is dead, so are the mind and consciousness." Many humanists would argue that the universe itself is conscious, and that to locate consciousness exclusively in the human brain was one of those nineteenth and early twentieth century philosophical dead ends."
Well, I'm not sure who think the universe (energy and matter) is conscious, but I don't. If it is conscious it should be mad as hell at the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or seriously depressed as a result of it's slow demise. I'm a monist. I believe when the brain dies, the personality dies too. What you are pointing toward here is a supernatural after-life. I just can't convince myself to believe in that, and if that is what you are suggesting Religious Humanism should entail, I trust it would be a difficult sell to most Religious Humanists.
You also ask, "Do you argue that Christian Humanists are foreigners to the tradition that they nurtured and inspired? But they can be claimed when ever it is convenient."
No, I never said anything even close. I did say that I find no benefit in the attempt to make Religious Humanism into Christian humanism, when Christianity, as an independent religion of its own, is already well celebrated, supported, and argued for by a holistic Religious Humanism which embraces story, metaphor, symbol, and expressive language.
Basically, I'm asking what it is that you personally want from Religious Humanism that isn't already there, and why?
Shawn,
My project is not to expand Religious Humanism to become Christian Humanism, it is to redefine the word religious humanism to be more inclusive. The religious humanism that I speak of includes Jewish Humanism, Hindus of a humanist inclination, Christian humanism and Buddhists and is not finalized by Corliss Lamont.
Why not Mason Olds as last word? Because he assumes that it is okay to exclude the use of god language within religious humanism, because he claims it is tenet of religious humanism to assert the idea that the brain emits consciousness, rather than consciousness being inherent in being, and because he defines religious humanism so that those religious humanists who came before his group are excluded. Mason Olds excludes Channing, and Emerson who created religious humanism in our tradition. He would exclude Henry Nelson Wieman, Martin Buber, George Tinker. He would exclude Clyde Grubbs. I say, Mason Olds is has drawn a circle that shuts me out, heretic, rebel a thing to flaut, but love and I had the wit to win, we drew a circle that took him and lots of humanists in.
Now, I assert that the cosmos is creative and conscious, but that is not supernaturalism. (It is metaphor, but so is "matter and energy.") Supernaturalism assumes the cosmos has a natural dimension and a supernatural dimension. Process theology does not assume that, nor does Native American theology, nor do Asian cosmologies, and the new physics all of which observe that awareness is a more apt modeling of reality than "that dead thing out there" can ever be. Early twentieth century thinkers like Corliss Lamont and Mason Olds don't reflect that understanding, they are have a materialist cosmology.
When you say "What you are pointing toward here is a supernatural after-life" you are wrong." I know where I point. I am pointing to whole cosmos, not the specks of consciousness that are individuated being. My consciousness is an instance in the whole, and while that statement is not materialism, it is simply not true to say that that is supernaturalism.
There are two ways of being monist, one can argue that cosmos is material (energy being matter speeded up), and that what little consciousness exists is an instance of matter. Or one can argue that the cosmos is (metaphorically) consciousness and what we take for matter is a manifestation of that consciousness. Both points of view are compatible with science, although materialism has had more and more difficulties with the data of late.
You say few Religious Humanist who would accept this idea! Perhaps that is a limit to Religious Humanism, but there are many Unitarian Universalists who do are religious and humanist who do accept it, and would be included in my definition. (My defintion does not privilege consciouness or materialism, Mason Olds does.)
And BTW, there are the physicists who have suggested what I am arguing, as well as the process philosophers who have worked on these ideas for decades....I am surprised by your facile rejection, this is contemporary theology, science, and philosophy. In a future post I will suggest readings from Unitarian Universalist theologians, and process thinkers who are "monists," and who are not Christians, and who reject materialism.
Thank you for pointing out my capitalization of Christian, I think I will become a christian instead. Seriously, I do own my participation in a tradition, I do not accept a lot of the mythos,. Thus, I have come to use terms like Christian Humanist, much kinder to the saints I say than claiming this old sinner to be Christian. I am a Unitarian Universalist new physics, process and Cherokee guy, who has been formed by christian humanism and religious liberalism who is trying to expand the circle. I experience you assuming you know something about my theology based on that label Christian, it is a rich tradition but I can't take personal responsibility for either it, or your image of it, so I will simply say, €˜excuse me.' I experience you arguing with what you think I believe rather than what I believe. Supernatural after life indeed.
I will post at soon on Native American responses to the cosmos before class society, no placating the gods in those communities that did not develop an elite class. That doesn't mean people were not in awe of hurricanes, or floods, but they considered the Holy to be Holy, and not the dispenser of good and bad. So one celebrated the creation, one didn't manipulate it. Idolatry can be found among the Aztec and Mayans who had elites to be placated. I can't comment on that other hemisphere.
Clyde - Forgive me if I misinterpreted your thoughts on the mind/body problem. Please clarify: Where then does human consciousness go if it does not die with the brain? Also, if human consciousness does not die, then does it live - wherever it goes - forever?
Also, I'm no espouser of process theology. I personally don't think it is an authentic view of reality. Other, more intelligent folks would disagree and I respect their position deeply (the seminary I attend has a faculty full of Claremont School of Theology alumni, which is the center of the Process Theology world).
I would fight for the existence of Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, etc., humanists, I've been saying that the whole time! I just don't see the need to expand a Religious Humanism which already recognizes and celebrates their respective religions. If anything, your obvious zeal would find a serious purpose in the secular humanist ranks, where religious language and tradition are unarguably banned at the door.
I already agreed with your summarization of the move to discard religious language by the group that Olds champions as "The Religious Humanists." I also said I personally embrace story, metaphor, symbol, and expressive language, but I wouldn't consider myself anything but a Religious Humanist. So, what would you have me change? That is where our discussion leads, IMO. I'm not characterized by Christian Humanism (ala M. Buber), I am a Religious Humanist who critically examines all religions for benefit and detriment, celebrates the most beneficial, and embraces story, myth, metaphor, science, and reason. Is this enough, and can it be properly referred to as Religious Humanism (capitalized, of course)?
Also I look forward to your posts regarding Native American responses to the cosmos and natural phenomenon. I already agreed with you regarding the few historic religions which weren't built around the necessity to placate angry gods/God. The whole of human religious history is, however, laden with religions which found their fulcrum teetering on the concept of angry, malicious gods/God.
Thank you sir for discussing this with me.
Shawn,
I don't know where individual conscious goes when the body dies, but if conscious is a characteristic of being there is a very good possibility that that particular center of consciousness ceases to be a center and it ceases to be. But then it may "rejoin" the whole, some Buddhists argue that we are deluded when we think that our consciousness is separate. Emerson speculated about an oversoul. I think that I will let the mystery be. I am agnostic about questions about which we can have no experiential knowledge.
Process theology and empirical theology have had a major influence on Unitarian Universalist thinking, the largest group of ministers are not theist in the way that word is used in theology and philosophy but rather pantheist, or panentheist in the way that word is used in process theology and empirical theology. These folks are functionally "religious humanists" in the UUA, but may find it hard to say that because of the restricted definition that excludes "Religious Humanism" to no god folks. Again you may not be a process fan, but should they be included?
Buber is a Jew, he is no Christian humanist.
My purpose is to offer a definition of religious humanist that would include both the god as symbol of the creative cosmos types, and god is not a useful word anymore types. I don't exclude theists, but I haven't see a theism proper that wasn't supernaturalist. I suppose if one argued that God was a power so outside the universe, so transcendent, that we could say nothing about God and everything we do say is human imagination, that would be a theist who met my criterion of recognizing the human origin of ideas about divinity.
I am not asking you to change, I am trying to create a definition that includes both of us. The last paragraph says some religious humanists are involved in a tradition and some aren't. That includes me. That includes you. You react negatively to enchantment as a source of religion. I can live without that idea. I'll write a book, post it, preach it.
You seem to have found the definition Christian, I think it would allow Jewish, Christian and Buddhists to feel included and not exclude non theists and Universal religionists. If you disagree, why?
Brother Clyde -
I am also agnostic about issues which we have no experiential knowledge of, but isn't this exactly where the idea of a surviving consciousness points, be it separated and rejoined to the whole at a later date, unless it is a form of consciousness of which "we" (if the pronoun can even be used at this point) are not conscious of? This thread of thinking is becoming pretty abstract, I know. The point I'm making there is tangible, I think. ;P
You write, "I am not asking you to change, I am trying to create a definition that includes both of us."
Me too, thus the long and difficult conversation. I think our conversational difficulty rests between my personal presumption that your humanism (and other hyphenated religious specific humanisms) is already included, and your belief that it is not. I guess I'm approaching it from a Secular vs. Religious Humanism perspective. I interpret Religious Humanism to be much more conducive to religion, spirituality, and religious language than Secular Humanism. I'm having a difficult time understanding the issues you cite within it.
Forgive my misplacement of M. Buber (I I-It'ed when I should have I-thou'ed).
You wrote: "My purpose is to offer a definition of religious humanist that would include both the god as symbol of the creative cosmos types, and god is not a useful word anymore types."
Wow. That would be something to see. I think both of these sides are represented in this conversation, no? I'm venturing, so please correct me if I am mistaken. If you can toss out a definition we both would camp on, I think you will have succeeded splendidly. I also agree with your thoughts regarding theism proper, and the concession you have made to include theists who understand God as "a power so outside the universe, so transcendent, that we could say nothing about God and everything we do say is human imagination." I think that would be considered philosophical theism, to which even I have great sympathy for, as a result of its pragmatic agnosticism.
You ask: "You seem to have found the definition Christian, I think it would allow Jewish, Christian and Buddhists to feel included and not exclude non theists and Universal religionists. If you disagree, why?"
Clyde, it's not so much the Christian, it's the idea of Religious Humanism proper, which includes a slew of different religions and traditions. The "Christian" identification is only present in this conversation because it's your tradition, albeit wonderfully modified from popular Christian connotations (this I respect deeply). If I were in the same conversation with a Buddhist Humanist he/she would be asking me why I have found their definition to be Buddhist. That is, however, not the point I am trying to make, obviously badly. I feel Religious Humanism (contrasted to Secular Humanism) already - or should - celebrate a variety of religious humanisms without having to be blended into any particular one, thus losing its identity proper. So, when you say that you, your spirituality, your choice of language, etc., is not included, I say it damn well better be! If it is not, we are not talking about a holistic Religious Humanism, but a truncated and diseased ideology that has no chance for success. However, for me to do this properly, I feel as though Religious Humanism must remain proper, or other religious humanisms specifically rooted in faiths will be left out. Unless, of course, we form a religious humanism composed of a dizzying variety of faith rituals and spiritualities. A Religious Humanism characterized by such will simply implode into its own diversity, sooner or later. I guess I am looking down the road a bit. I think Religious Humanism (and the UUA for that matter) needs a centering/rallying point, or it flutters trying to be everything for everyone, when in fact it could be just that, if approached minimalistically at first and expanded under one big, pluralistic, spiritual umbrella.
I respect your knowledge, and have much to learn from you. Please do not interpret my dialogue here with you as anything but my attempt to do so. This sort of discussion is hard translated in blog print. Peace my friend.
Shawn,
Concerning my concern for a definition of religious liberalism inclusive of both those who use god as symbol and those who see god as useless term. I offered in my statement this morning;
" Images of God, the Abyss, the Sacred Other, the Holy and other ideas concerning the divine are products of the human imagining, and human beings have a responsibility for those images. Many religious humanists believe that these images point toward a reality beyond themselves, and many other religious humanists are skeptical of such claims, but religious humanists unite in rejecting the dualism that divides the cosmos into supernatural and natural."
So I can embrace that. Can you?
It is not enough to claim religious humanism embraces the world's religions, and offer Mason Olds definition that rejects the understandings of religious humanists who find meaning in those traditions. I would observe that most UUs are religious humanist, but many UUs reject the term. Why? Because the term is defined in a way that excludes them. Mason Olds describes religious humanism in a way that makes me say, "not me."
This morning you offered a description that was personal, it was good, but it didn't consciously try to include other points of view. Your effort inspired me to articulate something that included those who "are skeptical of such claims." If I were making a personal statement it would have been much stronger. Personally, I think God language points to a reality at the heart of the creative cosmos that invites us to transcend ourselves. That is personal theology and has no place in a statement intended for inclusion of diverse religious humanists. But for God talk users to unite with religious humanists who don't use god talk, it must be acknowledged that the words are human construction, but some of us believe that they are pointers to what we call divine. We must do and acknowledge that others reject that idea. Thus my statement.
Are you implying that my attempt at definition is Christian not because of anything that it says, but because I wrote it? Is it your contention that only a UU who has no philosophy, no theology, no spiritual practice can be inclusive? Most UU ministers spend their time ministering to a broad range of UU opinion.
Religious humanism is an orientation. The UUA is a faith community. While I believe the UUA can and will support a variety of spiritual practices, intellectual preferences, it is my hope that that an inclusive definition of religious humanism can provide common ground for a majority but not all UUs. For example, a hypothetical UU who believe that they have a secret knowledge of God and the true path would have a hard time with my definition.
So consider my humble effort a first draft.
Brother Clyde -
You ask, "So I can embrace that. Can you?"
I have and will continue to reject dualism of that sort. The natural, for me personally, is as supernatural as it gets. So yes, I could unite with religious humanists who look for a reality beyond themselves, marked out by the phrases you cite. I, however, use some of those phrases myself (see my photo gallery, for example), which illustrates well my continued point throughout this conversation concerning a holistic humanism which makes much room for the religious-language represented by a variety of faith traditions, but is disciplined enough to sustain an independent identity to be rallied around by all faith traditions.
You also ask, "Are you implying that my attempt at definition is Christian not because of anything that it says, but because I wrote it? Is it your contention that only a UU who has no philosophy, no theology, no spiritual practice can be inclusive? Most UU ministers spend their time ministering to a broad range of UU opinion."
No, I am saying that your attempt at definition is Christian because you said as much in the third paragraph of your original post.
I, in my last statement, was only trying to make clear my point concerning Religious Humanism proper as compared hyphenated humanisms based upon faith tradition specifics, which, again, are not detriments by any stretch of the imagination; ironically they just aren't inclusive enough, given the richness of each faith tradition out there, to be a rallying point for all, unless Religious Humanism proper is transformed into a dizzying array of religious ritual, tradition, and expressions. As for the second part of your question, no, it is not my contention that a UU have no philosophy, theology, or spiritual practice to be inclusive. A human being lacking any of these would be a dead one. It is impossible to not have a philosophy or theology and subsequent spiritual practice.
Also, I am well aware of the broad range of UU opinions ministered to by our clergy. I do happen to attend a UU congregation, and have held service over those broad opinions a few times - and received wonderful remarks from a broad range of folks. In fact, my continued point in this conversation has been focused on securing these broad opinions in the most pragmatic manner possible. I happen to enjoy the Wiccans, Christians, Buddhists, Bahi, atheists, the spiritual seekers, etc., who gather beneath the UUA umbrella. I happen to wish they all stay and unite into a cohesive religious liberal bunch.
I have heard, however, over the past few weeks, a lot of talk about what is needed to secure the Association's future, and talk about finding a rallying point, but much of the talk was emanating from personal theologies, admittedly or not, and not much of it would prevent one group or another from becoming upset or even discarded. I believe we need a rallying point that is acceptable to all and disciplined enough to stay proper, lest it spiral into a poor version of diversity. I want to experience authentic diversity and a healthy range of broad opinions. That is why I am a religious liberal and a religious pluralist and will never be afraid to use the words.
You wrote, "While I believe the UUA can and will support a variety of spiritual practices, intellectual preferences, it is my hope that that an inclusive definition of religious humanism can provide common ground for a majority but not all UUs."
The definition you seek could provide a common ground for all UUs, if it remains proper.
I have my own faith language, based seriously upon the Gospel language, myth, and imagery surrounding the historical Jesus and the "Kingdom of God" he pointed toward. This remains with me because of my academic history and a faith tradition past. You could probably refer to me as a Religion of Jesus of Nazareth Humanist, for lack of a better hyphen, who finds the value his humanism looks for beneath the much larger umbrella of Religious Humanism proper. I realize, however, that I can hold onto these beliefs deeply while practicing a disciplined Religious Humanism proper for the sake of authentic pluralism, broad range of opinions, and community with like-minded, but different, others. Besides, in the end, the action is what matters, the rest is mere semantics.
Finally, "So consider my humble effort a first draft."
I have a pile of crumpled up paper three feet high beside my desk, I'm still trying to complete that first draft. ;)
"Many religious humanists believe that these images point toward a reality beyond themselves, and many other religious humanists are skeptical of such claims, but religious humanists unite in rejecting the dualism that divides the cosmos into supernatural and natural."
Clyde, you just defined Neo-Paganism.
Lioness,
I don't know about Neo Paganism. Cherokee's find the idea of a supernatural versus a natural to be madness. Its all holy, every speck of dust.