Religious inclusiveness And Universalism.

• Posted by Daniel Arendt October 22, 2009 - 1,036 views

  A lot of religious dictionaries and such don't even mention any ULC branch, and just lump "Universalism" in with "Unitarianism" (no real relation to any ULC main), but that's not the biggest challenge to Universalism.

  It has been said that Universalism, likening certain Absolute cultural perceptions so closely as if to say “water is water everywhere”, is still a type of comparative mythology or comparative religion as it minimally affirms there are differences notwithstanding common goals.

   

  Criticisms of even, then, Universalism (like comparatives outright) range from alleging comparatives de facto touch upon non-Absolute/Divine psychological faith regimens to alleging that comparatives (including Universalism)rob cultural differences through claiming in nature that one religion is just another name for another religion.

   

  But consider how a number of governments, heading ex officio or otherwise directly influencing/funding/setting orthodoxies of faith within their realms, actually do all things and even run faiths in their globally recognized non-person abstracted sovereignty, no matter what else (secular or religious) relevant officials attempt to admix in; especially where global sovereignty respect is that a relevant land is not by its Constitution or other lawfulness a theocracy.

   

  Now let’s say a relevant sovereignty has subscribed to one or more human rights or liberties treaties, and has never entered a lawful retraxit to same. Let’s say at least one such treaty or law subscribed to acknowledges that there be a degree of religious freedoms.

   

  Suppose a group of religious Universalists, united in a belief that each person chooses their own faith, non-faith, or religious expression, together with union of belief that their members should eternally strive to do ethically and legally right things, observed that world national leader “A” insisted all or parts of a faith not being one they choose is dedicated to the ruin or subjugation of all sharing the “affronted” leader’s exemplary faith; further, suppose such Universalists further observed that neither the “offending” nor “offended” faiths made sense per a complaining leader’s interpretation; further still, suppose any leader exhorting, e.g., that one be a Ladenist or one be a Crusader or anything else of non-constructive purpose were to be insisting upon faith appeasements based on religious views so extreme even their own religious didn’t agree that it’s “A” versus the world, or “A” has a credible opinion so let’s appease them, or both.

   

  Where even some Universalist simply makes the case their faith includes that all people are permitted by the Absolute to have the faith or non-belief they choose, this does not seem to manifestly scream: “Aha! Politicians, K-Street/KGB cult clergy! What psychology against government policies or whatever, what malcontents against one or more sovereigns!” One never knows what any particular person(s) in anything will do, but just by being a Universalist the odds of becoming a problem don’t increase any more than just by being a Chicago Bears fan. 

   

  It’s equally incoherent to assert that any subject Universalist(s), suggesting it’s an invasion of State into Church to do all things possible to quash expression of other than a favored slim non-constructive faith view by one’s own people or otherwise (where a sovereignty is not a theocracy), would thus be “robbing cultural differences” , or calling one faith better than another, or calling one faith the re-named copy of another, etcetera…seems such Universalist(s) would just be engaging in apologetics for their own faith dynamic that each person has an obligation to not break the spirits of law, and has a right not only for any unbelief(s) but belief in the constructive peaceful religious expression(s) of one’s choice.

   

  In our own case,  ULC Monastery minister may bring whatever belief or non-belief they may have, retain any appointment or membership in any other peaceful faith, speak or withhold as the Spirit moves or minister elects, and be responsible in their own unique instances for their own unique legal responsibilities; the ULC Monastery seems organized for promoting such religious freedom and includes belief in Scriptural forgiveness of sins but not their definition(s) , together with non-exhaustive belief in the sacrament of marriage and belief God calls all to His vineyard. How this could be deemed “psychology” or “a bona fide slap to other religious” is beyond my power to estimate.  

   

  In contemplating this, it should be recalled that even some of the world’s leading faiths over millennia (“faiths”, not religions) experienced moments of sacred text controversy, and in every case…complete within themselves as autonomous texts and faiths…the vast majority of each faith’s adherents and clergy together and separately have come down solidly of perception in spirit against any interpretation or post-founding add-ons which advocate(s) any nature of malevolence, oppression, or repression, internationally or intra-nationally, on religious or any other grounds.