I think you confusingly mis-portray Cudenec's "Toward an Anarchist Metaphysics" (an excellent article by the way). When he talks about Universalism he is not talking about religion, much less an organized religion (UU) but is talking about a metaphysical concept that has it's roots in philosophy.
Associating it with UU obscures the beauty and meaning of universalism he so eloquently lays out.
Fair enough! That's a valid distinction. Wouldn't want to conflate the different meanings of universalism...
I could add a third, actually - universal can mean "applying to everyone equally regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, or class", as in "universal human rights" or "Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Taoism are universalist religions, Judaism and Hinduism are not".
I'm thinking of the caste system when Hinduism isn't universalist, but I guess everyone is subject of the Law of Karma so I guess it could be considered universalist if you're considering reincarnation.
After calling UUs possibly the most anarchist denomination of Christianity, I realized that the Quakers would a contender for that distinction as well... And Im sure theres a whole host of Christian-animist syncretisms all around the world that I dont even know about...
Yes, my first thought when you said UU could be the most anarchist denomination was: "Wait a minute! Doesn't UU have paid ministers and pulpits??? Quakerism rejected all that more than 300 years ago." (Caveat, some Quakers influenced by Methodism adopted pulpits and ministers, as well as standard Protestant theology. Others--traditionalists and unprogragammed Quakers--retained the old form of "silent worship" and free ministry as inspired by the Spirit.)
yes, okay, Quakers win. No argument here! UUs might be in the top ten though! Personally, I'm not opposed to having people earning a livelihood as ministers or clergypeople... if you want someone to do something full time, they've got have someone providing them with the means of sustenance.
It's not about the pay, its about having someone special stand up in front of everybody else on a regular basis telling them what to think. Quakers rejected ministers because they believe in "that of God in every person" (which I imagine universalists do too, but they still have a special person doing most of the talking.) In Quakerism, every person has an opportunity to be heard and they seek unity by waiting on the Spirit and by listening to the expressions that each brings forth.
I think Travelling Friends (a kind of itinerant ministry) may have traditionally received special treatment (hospitality, etc.) among Quakers, but they were not there every First Day telling everyone else what to think, and they were not like travelling evangelists whose message takes up the entire space.
BTW, modern day Unprogrammed Quakers do generally have an affinity with UU because of a common tolerance and acceptance of diversity and a leftist orientation.
I think that we need to realize that prior to the "Enlightenment" many social functions were served by the clergy - from marriage counselling to conflict resolution to many functions now performed by lawyers, notaries public, etc... If such functions are to exist, I think it would be better that they be performed by people trained in moral philosophy. Just saying.
I think it's the worst idea to have people who are full-time members of the clergy. Better clergypeople than lawyers!
You've reminded me that I'd like to learn more about the Quakers though. I should attend some of their services and decide how I feel about their way of doing things only after that... I really like the Quakers I've known.
Unfortunately, the majority of Quakers fell for the 2020 psyop, and before that refused to look at the evidence of the 9-11 psyop, though a few did and were outspoken about it. That’s what I meant about the co-opted left. Quakers and UU are leftist, and they were sucked in by identification with “leftist” and Democrat politics.
I checked on the local Unitarian chapter, and was disgusted to find that they "strongly recommend" all participants in the in-person services have accepted the latest greatest needle infections, er, injections.
I once spoke at a Unitarian Universalist church in Ottawa (which is how I know anyone about the UUs)... I was involved with the Occupy movement and the UUs invited some of us to talk about what we were doing there... I was welcomed in a really nice way and people listened to what we had to say...
But yeah, most churchs of whatever liberal, ¨progressive¨ persuasion still exist in Canada mostly drank the Kool-Aid... which shows to me that they believe the CBC more than in their religion... As far as Im aware, the Mennonite Church (which I grew up in) didnt say a peep when ministers were getting locked up for holding church services. Shameful.
Ahhhh very disappointing! I was blown away when I found out that the Jehovahs Witnesses, who have fought many court cases for the right to prevent doctors from giving their kids blood transfusions, went along with the whole psy op... If anyone would have had a well established legal right to refuse unwanted medical intervention on religious grounds, it would probably be them... Makes no sense to me... youre against potentially life-saving blood transfusions but not completely unnecessary experimental biotech? Someone please explain how in the hell that makes sense...
How devastatingly witty! Thanks for your input. But the market on anarcho-tyranny has already been cornered by the ¨anarchists¨ who supported lockdowns, vax mandates, etc... And here at Nevermore Media we like breaking new ground. But please send deets for the New York Slime position! I need some money.
I think you confusingly mis-portray Cudenec's "Toward an Anarchist Metaphysics" (an excellent article by the way). When he talks about Universalism he is not talking about religion, much less an organized religion (UU) but is talking about a metaphysical concept that has it's roots in philosophy.
Associating it with UU obscures the beauty and meaning of universalism he so eloquently lays out.
Fair enough! That's a valid distinction. Wouldn't want to conflate the different meanings of universalism...
I could add a third, actually - universal can mean "applying to everyone equally regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, or class", as in "universal human rights" or "Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Taoism are universalist religions, Judaism and Hinduism are not".
I'm thinking of the caste system when Hinduism isn't universalist, but I guess everyone is subject of the Law of Karma so I guess it could be considered universalist if you're considering reincarnation.
If I were interested in being part of an organized religion, the UUs would be up high on the list
After calling UUs possibly the most anarchist denomination of Christianity, I realized that the Quakers would a contender for that distinction as well... And Im sure theres a whole host of Christian-animist syncretisms all around the world that I dont even know about...
Yes, my first thought when you said UU could be the most anarchist denomination was: "Wait a minute! Doesn't UU have paid ministers and pulpits??? Quakerism rejected all that more than 300 years ago." (Caveat, some Quakers influenced by Methodism adopted pulpits and ministers, as well as standard Protestant theology. Others--traditionalists and unprogragammed Quakers--retained the old form of "silent worship" and free ministry as inspired by the Spirit.)
yes, okay, Quakers win. No argument here! UUs might be in the top ten though! Personally, I'm not opposed to having people earning a livelihood as ministers or clergypeople... if you want someone to do something full time, they've got have someone providing them with the means of sustenance.
It's not about the pay, its about having someone special stand up in front of everybody else on a regular basis telling them what to think. Quakers rejected ministers because they believe in "that of God in every person" (which I imagine universalists do too, but they still have a special person doing most of the talking.) In Quakerism, every person has an opportunity to be heard and they seek unity by waiting on the Spirit and by listening to the expressions that each brings forth.
I think Travelling Friends (a kind of itinerant ministry) may have traditionally received special treatment (hospitality, etc.) among Quakers, but they were not there every First Day telling everyone else what to think, and they were not like travelling evangelists whose message takes up the entire space.
BTW, modern day Unprogrammed Quakers do generally have an affinity with UU because of a common tolerance and acceptance of diversity and a leftist orientation.
I think that we need to realize that prior to the "Enlightenment" many social functions were served by the clergy - from marriage counselling to conflict resolution to many functions now performed by lawyers, notaries public, etc... If such functions are to exist, I think it would be better that they be performed by people trained in moral philosophy. Just saying.
I think it's the worst idea to have people who are full-time members of the clergy. Better clergypeople than lawyers!
You've reminded me that I'd like to learn more about the Quakers though. I should attend some of their services and decide how I feel about their way of doing things only after that... I really like the Quakers I've known.
I did an interview with a family friend who's a Quaker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCIqqhHWUdg
Unfortunately, the majority of Quakers fell for the 2020 psyop, and before that refused to look at the evidence of the 9-11 psyop, though a few did and were outspoken about it. That’s what I meant about the co-opted left. Quakers and UU are leftist, and they were sucked in by identification with “leftist” and Democrat politics.
I checked on the local Unitarian chapter, and was disgusted to find that they "strongly recommend" all participants in the in-person services have accepted the latest greatest needle infections, er, injections.
In the spirit of Mad Magazine... Bleeeecccchhhhh!
I once spoke at a Unitarian Universalist church in Ottawa (which is how I know anyone about the UUs)... I was involved with the Occupy movement and the UUs invited some of us to talk about what we were doing there... I was welcomed in a really nice way and people listened to what we had to say...
But yeah, most churchs of whatever liberal, ¨progressive¨ persuasion still exist in Canada mostly drank the Kool-Aid... which shows to me that they believe the CBC more than in their religion... As far as Im aware, the Mennonite Church (which I grew up in) didnt say a peep when ministers were getting locked up for holding church services. Shameful.
Yes, sad.
Ahhhh very disappointing! I was blown away when I found out that the Jehovahs Witnesses, who have fought many court cases for the right to prevent doctors from giving their kids blood transfusions, went along with the whole psy op... If anyone would have had a well established legal right to refuse unwanted medical intervention on religious grounds, it would probably be them... Makes no sense to me... youre against potentially life-saving blood transfusions but not completely unnecessary experimental biotech? Someone please explain how in the hell that makes sense...
JW literature is propaganda. Unfortunately, they follow the Psience.
The co-opted Left!
A dissertation on not what’s really goin on..anarchism religion ? How about fascism and tyranny..maybe you can get a job with the nEW York slime
Or the compost. I here their firing..
How devastatingly witty! Thanks for your input. But the market on anarcho-tyranny has already been cornered by the ¨anarchists¨ who supported lockdowns, vax mandates, etc... And here at Nevermore Media we like breaking new ground. But please send deets for the New York Slime position! I need some money.
It might interest you to know that Mary Wollstonecraft, Henry David Thoreau, and Utah Phillips
were all Unitarians.
😜🫡🇺🇸