TonioTimeDaily

Some people think that God is a feeling you carry deep in your heart,

Harold Howe, former U.S. commissioner of education and a Unitarian Universalist, jotted these words to his minister at church one day: "Here's a definition of a Unitarian Universalist: a person who can ask children, 'What is God?' and listen seriously to their replies. P.S.: I once went to Sunday school for about 7 years, but no one asked me 'What is God?' Instead, they told me."

Unitarian Universalists find value in listening to what our children are saying about God.

The children's words and illustrations were contributed by grade school students in religious education classes from the First Universalist Church in Minneapolis, MN; the First Unitarian Church in Memphis, TN; the Unitarian Universalist churches in Sarasota, FL and in Olinda, Ontario; and the First Parish churches in Concord and Milton, MA.

UUs’ thoughts on Jesus reflect the diversity of thought encouraged by our liberal faith. Our Principles include a commitment to “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning”; whatever one’s views, there is likely a UU who shares them. Yet we are more than our individual stories. Unitarian Universalism is a religion that claims many sources, including the deeds and teachings of great teachers, the inspiring wisdom in the world’s many religions, and our Jewish and Christian heritage. Clearly, Jesus has a place in this faith.

UUs may view Jesus as a moral exemplar, practicing the compassion, generosity, and mercy that he preached. In his own life and in stories like the Good Shepherd and the Good Samaritan, Jesus calls us to connect: to transcend pride and selfishness and choose instead to love and serve, to do good, and to care for each other.

For some, Jesus is a prophetic leader and an instrument of the divine. They may or may not believe Jesus was the son of God or was resurrected but share with Christians a conviction that his witness has the spiritual power to redeem mistakes and save lives. Many describe a personal relationship with him that strengthens and inspires. Jesus calls us to discover new life and truth by following him.

Others view Jesus as a reformer and dissident, an underdog and ally. He was executed as a political criminal because of his teachings, but his life made an impact, then and now. He called out injustice in his own community and in the government. He stood with and spoke up for the most vulnerable, and he challenged his followers to feed the hungry and visit the imprisoned. Jesus calls us to transform, to resist the unjust systems that divide us, and reshape them for good."

"Many people have questioned whether any concept of God can be meaningful in a modern, scientific world. Others, however, find the idea of God to be profoundly meaningful. Among Unitarian Universalists (UUs) and other religious liberals, conceptions range across a wide spectrum. Some reject God altogether and hold a strictly atheistic view of the universe. Others may use the term God to convey very different ideas, such as the creative power of evolution in the universe, or the power that makes transformation possible in our lives, or the ongoing power of love, or simply the ultimate mystery within which we all must live. And while few UUs think of God as a supernatural being, many understand themselves to be in some sort of personal relationship with God, however conceived. Many also stress the feminine aspects of the divine by invoking Goddess imagery and using metaphors such as mother or sister in place of traditional metaphors for God such as father or lord.

Theologians remind us that the symbol "God" can serve several important functions. First, it offers a vision of the highest values of truth, justice, love, and goodness toward which we strive. In this sense, it serves as a standard against which to measure ourselves and our achievements. Second, the concept of God can remind us of the relativity and limitations of our own ideas. Here, it serves as a corrective to our biases and a basis for critical reflection. Finally, by bringing together our highest ideals in a single symbol, the idea of God provides a focus for personal devotion or communal worship. These are among the many reasons why God continues to be an important and meaningful symbol for many Unitarian Universalists today."

—Rev. Dr. Paul Rasor, Editor

"I am not a religious person. But that does not mean I must start from scratch in the construction of my governing body of ethics and life's purpose.

As I scan the pantheon of philosophers, prophets, teachers, artists, moral exemplars, and sages from the ages, one figure stands out for me as particularly promising for our time. He is a figure of unusual wisdom and deeply moving strangeness who calls me to reconceive the orientation of my own life and the manner in which I engage my fellow humans. His story compels me to access my often-reluctant generosity and pull myself out of my self-centered worries and obsessions. This figure's inspiration has changed the way I treat the supposed nobodies whom I could easily get away with mistreating. His message and manner, I find, address our culture's maladies and malaises amazingly well, as they do my own.

That figure is Jesus.

Wait--Jesus? Didn't I just say I am not religious? Aren't I a little confused?

The problem is not confusion, I contend, but the lack of a label that describes the path that I have been on for a long time, and that many more might walk if the trailhead were properly marked.

I am, as it turns out, a secular Jesus follower.

The crucial adjective

In the fascinating conversations I've had since the book's release, I've fielded questions and comments that tug at the meaning of the words in that phrase: Can one really claim to be a Jesus "follower" without being a Christian? Who exactly is this "Jesus" who I am following? The divine Jesus? The apocalyptic Jesus? The sage and moral philosopher Jesus? And what does it mean to engage this complex figure in "secular" way. Is that in any way legitimate? Or legal?

A clue to answering these is found in the cover design of my book. Most of the title is rendered in elegant black letters of a vaguely gothic cast. In stark contrast, the word "secular" is printed in upper-case gold in jarringly plain sans serif letters. It's entirely appropriate that "secular" is made to stand out this way because, indeed, it's the word that changes everything--in the title, in the book itself, and in my idealistic quest.

About the first question above--can you legitimately claim to be a Jesus follower if you are not Christian?--"secular" is key to the answer. Obviously, I cannot claim the label as a Christian would. Nor am I trying. I am declaring myself to be a secular Jesus follower.

What follows from that are a series of logical extensions that begin to answer the next skeptical question--which Jesus? Not to be glib, but the answer quickly emerges: a secularly understood, secularly engaged Jesus. Which is to say, a secular Jesus follower is pursuing the aspects of Jesus that do not involve his religious utterances and behaviors or claims about his divine status.

But is anything left? Yes--a lot. As I explore in the body of my book, this secularly understood Jesus can be a source of inspiration, insight, and ethical input that is powerfully applicable and transformative today, wherever we are on the theological spectrum. Whether the issue is our anxiety, our racism, our violence, our sexual exploitation, or our self-centeredness, I contend that as we examine and implement the insights of Jesus, we deepen our lives and begin to make the world a fairer, more loving, more peaceful, and more compassionate place."

"Ireland:

Beginning in the late seventeenth century, the British government passed a series of anti-Catholic laws in Ireland known as the Penal Laws. The first of these was passed in 1695. This was followed in 1697 by the Bishops’ Banishment Act, and in 1704 by the Act to Prevent the Further Growth of Property. The Penal Laws were designed to force Catholics to the lowest socioeconomic status. For example, under the Penal Laws, Catholics were not allowed to own a horse worth more than five pounds. Furthermore, any Catholic who was offered five pounds for a horse was required to sell it. Catholics were also prohibited from possessing arms.

Only Protestants were allowed to hold political positions or allowed to practice law. Catholics were excluded from political power and they were not allowed to be members of a grand jury. Catholics were not allowed to vote in parliamentary elections.

The land laws also served to divide the Catholics by conferring extraordinary privileges on any member of a Catholic family who became a Protestant. For example, an eldest son could deprive his father of the management and disposal of his property by becoming a Protestant.

Bishops and members of Catholic religious orders were banished from the island. Ordinary priests had to register their names and parishes and were required to promise that they would uphold the law. Only one priest was allowed per parish. No new Catholic clergy were allowed to enter the country. Since bishops were required for ordination and with no Catholic education allowed, it was assumed that the Catholic clergy would die out within a generation. However, the laws were not rigidly enforced nor was there any attempt to promote the conversion of the Catholic masses to Protestantism. By the 1720s, Catholic priests and bishops operated fairly freely, but discreetly, in much of Ireland.

The United States:

The policy of the United States with regard to American Indians has assumed that “civilizing” the Indians so that they could be assimilated into American culture required them to become Christians, preferably Protestant Christians. The United States government actively encouraged and financially supported missionary efforts on Indian reservations. The period of time from 1870 to 1934 can be considered the Dark Ages for American Indian Religious Freedom. During this time, the active suppression of American Indian religions reached its peak.

While the government had always supported missionary efforts, conversion of Indians and suppression of Indian religions took a new dimension with the implementation of President Ulysses Grant’s Peace Policy in 1870. Under the policy, a single Christian denomination would become responsible for administering all Indian programs on each reservation and would have a monopoly on proselytization. There was no concern at this time for either the existence or validity of any Indian religions. In fact, Indian religious leaders were seen as barriers to progress and could be jailed for expressing their religious concerns."

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_spirituality (that's me.)

"My Secular spirituality is made up my search for meaning outside of a religious institution; it considers my relationship with the self, others, nature, and whatever else I considers to be the ultimate. Often, the goal of my secular spirituality is living happily and/or helping others. My African black spirituality is the 24/7 union, and discussions I have with my grandma Clara and my ancestors in my pure heart (I honor both of those heavy influences in my life.) I think out loud hoping that a creator or creators hear me, my form of prayer I assume. It's appalling to me that social justice, fellowship, discipleship, suffering for Jesus and outcasts like me, being rejected for Jesus and outcasts like me, and losing it all for Jesus and outcasts like me are dismissed by many in the church. I am also appalled by them accepting being milk instead of being meat."

- Antonio Myers

"Christian Colonialism:

The verb “to colonize” can be described as the process of appropriating a place or domain to establish political and economic control. Throughout history, nations have invaded not only their neighbors’ lands, but also territories clear across the globe for their own use.

During the practice, the dominant nation attempts to colonize not only indigenous peoples’ domains (territorial imperialism), but also their minds, their customs, their language, in fact, their very way of life. In countries with a historical legacy of colonization, and even in those without this history, members of dominant groups have accumulated unearned privileges not accorded to others.

Though the official terms “colonization,” “colonizer,” and “colonized” may have changed somewhat, nowhere in the world have we experienced a truly post-colonial society. Imperialism remains, though at times possibly in less visible forms.

In 1455, Pope Nicholas called his Christian followers to “to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans,” take their possessions, and “reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.”

This edict known as the Doctrine of Discovery gives license to the genocide of black, brown, and non-Christians across the world. It was the stimulus for Columbus’ travels and is based on Christian white supremacy.

Beginning the first day Europeans stepped foot on what has come to be known as “the Americas” up until this very day, decisions over who can enter the United States and who can eventually gain citizenship status has generally depended on issues of “race.” U.S. immigration systems have reflected and have served as this country’s official “racial” policies at any given point in time.

Europeans on the North and South American continents established their domination based on a program of exploitation, violence, kidnapping, and genocide against native populations.

For example, the “Puritans” left England to the Americas to practice a “purer” form of Protestant Christianity. They believed they were divinely chosen to form “a biblical commonwealth” with no separation between religion and government. They tolerated no other faiths or interpretations of divine precepts. In fact, they murdered and expelled Quakers, Catholics, and others.

The “American” colonies followed European perceptions of “race.” A 1705 Virginia statute, the “Act Concerning Servants and Slaves,” read:

In 1790, the newly constituted United States Congress passed the Naturalization Act, which excluded all nonwhites from citizenship, including Asians, enslaved Africans, and Native Americans, the later whom they defined in oxymoronic terms as “domestic foreigners,” even though they had inhabited this land for thousands of years. The Congress did not grant Native Americans rights of citizenship until 1924 with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act, though Asians continued to be denied naturalized citizenship status."

"I’ve outgrown the furrowed-browed warnings of a sky that is perpetually falling.

Most of all though, I’ve outgrown something that simply no longer feels like love, something I no longer see much of Jesus in.

If religion it is to be worth holding on to, it should be the place where the marginalized feel the most visible, where the hurting receive the most tender care, where the outsiders find the safest refuge.

It should be the place where diversity is fiercely pursued and equality loudly championed; where all of humanity finds a permanent home and where justice runs the show."

"That is not what this thing is. This is Fox News and red cup protests and persecution complexes. It’s opulent, big box megachurches and coddled, untouchable celebrity pastors. It’s pop culture boycotts and manufactured outrage. It’s just wars and justified shootings. It’s all manner of bullying and intolerance in the name of Jesus.

Feeling estrangement from these things is a good thing.

For the past two decades I’ve lived within the tension of trying to be in the thing and not be altered by the thing, but that tension has become too great. Ultimately, it’s a spiritual compatibility issue.

It’s getting harder and harder to love all people and still fit into what has become organized Christianity, so rather than becoming less loving and staying—I’m leaving.

I’m breaking free from religion for the sake of my soul.

I’m not sure practically what that looks like, but I can feel myself consciously and forcefully pulling away; creating distance between me and a system that can no longer accommodate the scale of my God and the scope of my aspirations.

Jesus said that the Spirit moves where it pleases, and with it go those in its glorious grip. In my heart and in the hearts of so many like me, that Spirit is boldly declaring its emancipation from the small, heavily guarded space that wants to contain it, and taking us out into the wide, breathtaking expanses of unfettered faith."

"What can I get you girls?" It's one of the first things my friends and I always hear when we're ordering something in a restaurant or bar. Men of all demographics use the phrase, as do a lot of women. It's become so common that I don't even flinch at it anymore, even if it's something I don't particularly love hearing. If you really think about it, though, addressing a grown-ass woman as a girl is pretty problematic, and it's about time we considered nixing the word from our vocabulary entirely. 

Let's get technical for a second and talk about the definition of "girl." According to Dictionary.com, "girl" means "a female child, from birth to full growth," or "a young, immature woman." That basically rules out most women reading this, since we're adults. Regardless, our society loves tossing around the term "girl," no matter how old the women they're referring to are. We hear it in all kinds of contexts — in songs on the radio, from friends and family, and even at work from our superiors. Most of the time, the term is used endearingly, but that doesn't make it any better. It harbors a larger meaning which reflects just how much our society fails to respect women.

Here are five problems with calling women girls.

1. It Makes Women Into Children

A girl is a person under the age of 18 who still lives with their parents. So when you use that term in reference to a successful woman who has worked hard to get where she is today, you're ignoring her accomplishments and diminishing her maturity. It also implies that she needs to be looked after or taken care of, like a silly tween who needs guidance from her camp counselor.

Keep in mind that the dictionary defines "girl" as "a young, immature woman," so if you constantly hear your boss or partner speaking about you and other women this way, that says a lot about how much they value you — and it isn't right. You don't deserve to be infantilized by anybody, unless you like being called a girl.

2. It Has Creepy Sexual Undertones

When a woman is catcalled on the street by a random guy, the leers tend to be kicked off with some variation of "Hey, girl!" In run-of-the-mill romantic comedies, the protagonist always talks about "getting the girl." Similarly, in the famous (and hilariously accurate) Mad TV skit "Can I Have Your Number," Darrell tries to coax Yvonne into giving him her number by insisting, "Don't be insecure, girl. Work that ponytail!" In other words, men use the term "girl" when they're crudely hitting on women or objectifying them — all while infantilizing them. It also sexualizes actual girls."

By the way, I am for the human rights, civil and political rights, and economic, social, and cultural rights of secularists. 

"What do Unitarian Universalists believe? • Every individual should be encouraged to develop a personal philosophy of life. • Everyone is capable of reasoning. • We do not need any other person, official or organization to tell us what to believe. • We should be able to present religious opinions openly, without fear of censure or reprisal. • All people should be tolerant of the religious ideas of others. • Truth is not absolute; it changes over time. • Everyone should continue to search for the truth. • Everyone has an equal claim to life, liberty and justice. • People should govern themselves by democratic processes. • Ideas should be open to criticism. • Good works are the natural product of a good faith.

Which values do you hold highest? We regard the highest values to be integrity, caring, compassion, social justice, truth, personal peace and harmony. Advancing these values is a major purpose of our congregations.

How would you characterize your religion? Not only do we have a hopeful and optimistic attitude about life, we believe strongly that humans have great potential to recognize right, correct wrongs, find solutions and make this a better world. Rather than feel bound by human weaknesses and frailties, we emphasize human strengths. We believe people have the strength, power and intelligence to make good things happen. You might call it a “can do” religion.

What world-wide goals and values does the Unitarian Universalist Association promote in its Statement of Purpose and Principles? • Every person is worthy and should be treated with dignity. • People should treat each other with justice, equality and compassion. • We should accept the differences that tend to separate us. • Everyone should have the freedom and responsibility to search for the truth. • We should strive to use democratic processes both within UU congregations and the world at large. • We should work for peace, liberty and justice for everyone. • We should acknowledge and respect how interdependent every one of us is.

What do UUs and humanists have in common? Because ours is a very humanistically-oriented religion, most UUs regard themselves as humanists in one sense or another. But, like the term God, humanism also means different things to different UUs. Basically, humanism means that we humans are responsible for our destiny for better or worse and we cannot rely on an outside power or deity to determine our individual or collective fate. Humanism is also an affirmation of the power of the human mind and the human spirit. There are both secular and religious humanists. Secular humanists do not believe in any kind of deity; they find little, if any, value in 7 religious language, stories, myths or symbols of any religious tradition. The religious humanist, while holding to the above definition of humanism, does not completely disavow the idea of God. Usually defining God as a power deep within themselves, they also find certain messages or themes in religious stories that provide them with understanding and guidelines for human living. There are both secular and religious humanists within our church family, and we make room for both."

When it comes to sex, I am always evolving, never stagnant! I am going to have my safe, sane, and consensual fun with " safe and sane groupies" and "safe and sane fans". 

"1.  Being Present.

The most predominant and fully articulated characteristic of great sex among our participants was of being “fully present” and “totally absorbed in the moment.” They described utter immersion and intensely focused attention. It is as though everything is happening in slow motion and to allow it to continue, one must simply trust in the experience.

* * * *

Participants spoke of heightened bodily sensations and awareness while turning their minds off. They were fully embodied, in touch with sensory experience . . . and “attune themselves to each moment.” They spoke about letting go so that they could surrender to bodily experience itself: “My body is moving but I’m not moving it.” It is as though they choose to be swept away, giving themselves over to “an overload of sensations.” It involved, “Reaching the point where arousal overcomes thinking,” and “I stop the running commentary in my head … I don’t have to think about where to place my hand -it just goes there.” Another laughed, “The first clue that it’s great sex is that you’re not wondering if it is or not. In fact, you’re not thinking at all! You recognize it after the fact.”

Participants pointed out almost universally that, whereas other kinds of sexual interaction may be physically satisfying and emotionally fulfilling, this quality of being entirely alive in their bodies with no mental interference was the hallmark of great sex. They spoke of the fluidity of great tension building in their bodies interspersed with the willingness to release. One described it as, “an ongoing orgasmic state, even without orgasm.”

2.  Authenticity

Being present was inextricably linked for most participants with a second component of being themselves, feeling free to be themselves with their partners, and being relentlessly honest with themselves. Honesty and openness to one’s own desires were critical elements in several ways: Firstly, they serve as prerequisites for having great sex; that is, one cannot typically communicate one’s desires without some knowledge of them.

Secondly, the feeling of being uninhibited and un-self-conscious was freeing and energizing. “The trick is to stop getting in your own way.” Thus, participants spoke of feeling uninhibited, of having chosen to turn off their own filters, and being free of self-censoring. Giving authentic expression to one’s erotic desires opened up unforeseen possibilities in the encounter with oneself and the partner(s). As one participant said, “It gave me my voice.”

Thirdly, the act of being emotionally naked with a partner or partners was in itself exquisite. The emotional power of being genuine, being seen and known authentically was described repeatedly as a gift. “I am at my most powerful when I am at my most vulnerable – that is when I feel my greatest strength. I am completely stripped bare and if they can reach in and grab it and play with it, I love it!”

* * * *

Many participants mentioned self-knowledge as a pursuit, a journey, and a goal in their lives and regarded extraordinary sexual experiences as a vehicle for personal growth and adventure. For them, sexual encounters provide a unique and treasured opportunity for growth, for welcoming of unknowns, with the partner acting as a catalyst to effect self- discovery. As Townsend (1971) wrote, “I’m looking for that free ride to me, I’m looking for you.”