William Adam and Rammohun Roy

William Adam was born in 1796 in Dunfermline, Fife, Scotland, and began his ministry as a Baptist missionary in India. Whilst in India, he met Rammohun Roy, who converted him to Unitarianism.

The story of William Adam represents in microcosm the conflict between the universalising view of religion and the particular and cultural view of religion.

The view that there are universal and perennial themes in religion is usually viewed as a good and liberal view – it can allow for interfaith dialogue, and promote tolerance.

However, there is a darker side to this universalising tendency – the idea that one faith is universally the right faith for everyone. Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism have all claimed that they are religions for the whole of humanity.

Particularism is often derided as a narrow and sectarian view that one’s own tradition is the one true way; but in fact, particularism at its best can involve engaging deeply and faithfully with one’s own tradition, whilst recognizing that others’ particular traditions are right for them. Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Paganism (as well as many liberal Christians) all recognize that they are embedded in a particular culture and mythology, and derive meaning and depth from their particularity.

William Adam sincerely believed that Christianity was the one true faith, and that the lives of the people of India would be improved if they adopted it. Rammohun Roy succeeded in converting him to the doctrine of the Unity of God, rather than the Trinity, and thereafter, Adam was an enthusiastic advocate of the Unitarian Christianity of his day.

Rammohun Roy, on the other hand, never relinquished his Hindu faith, despite being a Hindu Unitarian. When he came to England, he brought his Brahmin cook, and continued to wear the red cord of his Brahmin status, and was eventually buried in a Vedic tomb constructed by Hindu stonemasons. Roy wished to reform Hinduism by purging it of superstitious practices – especially widow-burning.

Both Adam and Roy wrote to American Unitarians to enlist support for missionary efforts in Bengal; however, Roy never expressed support for conversion of the people to Christianity; he emphasized the importance of education. Adam, on the other hand, wanted to convert Hindus and Muslims to Christianity, and thought that Unitarian doctrines were more rational than Trinitarian ones, and therefore had more chance of succeeding.

So Roy, in continuing to be a Hindu, effectively supported the particular tradition of Hinduism, which was embedded in Indian culture and philosophy. In a letter to Henry Ware, an American Unitarian, Roy wrote:

Adam, on the other hand, wanted to convert people of other religions to Christianity, taking the view that it was universally true for everyone, regardless of their cultural context.

He did not get much support for his efforts at evangelism from Unitarians in Britain and America, however, either because they were disorganized and preoccupied with their own affairs, or perhaps because they shared Rammohun Roy’s view that every nation had its own form of worship, and all those forms were acceptable to God.

Eventually Adam gave up trying to spread Christianity in India, and turned his efforts to the abolition of slavery instead. Here I find myself much more in sympathy with his efforts, especially as he insisted that women should be allowed to fully participate in the meetings of the World Anti-Slavery Convention in June,1840, in London. He had first got involved in the anti-slavery cause in 1838, and subsequently joined the abolitionist cause in America, too.

He became a Unitarian minister in America and then Canada, where he was Toronto’s first Unitarian minister, but financial difficulties made his position there untenable as he fell out with the congregation. He then moved to Chicago and became a minister there.

He returned to England without his family around 1855, and by 1861, had renounced Unitarianism and ceased his involvement with it. Instead he was writing a book criticizing Auguste Comte, who had attempted to create his own universal religion, a sort of precursor of Alain de Botton’s religion for atheists.

William Adam died in 1881, and left his money to Dumfermline Grammar School for University scholarships, stipulating that the funds should be distributed "irrespective of sex or creed or no creed, parentage, colour or caste, nationality or political allegiance".

He was clearly a complex man, fairly typical of the Victorian period, believing in the superiority of Christianity, but also embracing equality for women, the abolition of slavery, and the importance of education. He is also noteworthy for having been converted to Unitarianism by Rammohun Roy, a Hindu, who persuaded him that the Unitarian interpretation of the gospels was the correct one.

Andrew Hill writes:

Roy convinced Adam that the meaning of the Greek preposition dia required that John 1:3, a verse of the prologue to John's Gospel, be translated as the Bengali equivalent of the English words, 'All things were made through the Word. . .' not 'by the Word'. Translators of New Testament Greek in later generations would come to agree, but in 1821 the view of nature of Christ, supported by this translation and espoused by Adam and Rammohun, was rejected by orthodox Christians as the Arian heresy (named for the 4th century CE dissident, Arius). For this reason colleagues nicknamed him 'the second fallen Adam'.

Unitarians have been chortling at this joke ever since; but poor William Adam brought his evangelical zeal across intact from his Baptist faith, and was met with lukewarm enthusiasm by his new Unitarian colleagues.

Ultimately he was disappointed in Unitarianism and turned his considerable energies towards other causes, mainly education and the abolition of slavery. By all accounts he was a bit of a difficult man to get along with; but he was clearly intelligent and enthusiastic, having learnt Sanskrit and Bengali in preparation for his time in India, and having committed himself to his chosen causes with dedication and zeal; even being prepared to stick his neck out on behalf of the women excluded from the anti-slavery convention of 1840.

It is also likely that without his efforts, the fledgling Brahmo Samaj would not have gained such widespread support as it did.

William Adam was an interesting character and an illustration of the many conflicting currents of Victorian activism, moving as he did from evangelical circles to abolitionism; a minor character in the drama of Rammohun Roy, but worthy of study nevertheless.

Yvonne Aburrow



Sources:

Abidullah Al-Ansari Ghazi (2010), Raja Rammohun Roy: Encounter with Islam and Christianity and the Articulation of Hindu Self-Consciousness. Google eBook.

Andrew M Hill, William Adam. (in Dictionary of Unitarian & Universalist Biography) http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/williamadam.html

The complexity of marriage law - update

Legal (permitted by law and recognised by the state):

• Opposite-sex church weddings (couple legally married and registered)
• Same-sex civil partnerships in a register office / registered premises for weddings
• Opposite-sex marriages in a register office / registered premises for weddings
• Religious civil partnerships (civil partnership ceremonies in a religious building)

Being made legal soon:

• Same-sex weddings in register offices and those churches & synagogues that want to do them (couple legally married and registered)
• A transsexual person married to a person of the opposite sex to their original sex wanting to change their birth certificate to reflect their new sex will no longer have to divorce their partner (because when same sex marriage is legal, they can stay married).
• A transsexual person civilly partnered to a person of the same sex will be able to change / "upgrade" to a marriage (8.5 on page 27 of the consultation outcome document)
• Pagan same-sex handfastings in Scotland

The new arrangements for trans people are still not very satisfactory, as the conversion from one type of legal recognition to another will cost them money. This is particularly annoying for people who have already had to change their relationship status under the previous arrangements.

Not forbidden by law, but not recognised by the state

• same-sex blessings in a church / synagogue
• Pagan handfastings (weddings) in England & Wales
• Blessings of polyamorous relationships
• Humanist weddings - both same and opposite sex

Illegal (not permitted by law):

• Opposite-sex civil partnerships in a register office / registered premises for weddings
• Marrying more than one person

Legal (permitted by law and recognised by the state) in Scotland only:

• Pagan opposite-sex handfastings where the celebrant says the required form of words (the same as for all other legal weddings)

What is a Christian?

Unitarian Christians (and others) have been trying to broaden the definition of Christianity since the 1830s, when the publication of Rammohun Roy's The Precepts of Jesus caused a furore among conventional Christians of the day. Rammohun Roy could not accept the doctrines of mainstream Christianity. He also called into question what is meant by Christianity in his writings, which were published in England by the Unitarian Society. Roy's story also raises the issue of what religion is – is it the original form or impulse, or the "accretions" which subsequently accumulate, or a combination of these? Is it about values, beliefs, or practices, or a combination of these? All of these issues were raised by Roy and his contemporaries over his views and those of the Unitarians, and the issues are still being debated today in many contexts. There was considerable dispute (between the Baptist missionaries of Serampore and the Unitarian Thomas Aspland) over whether Unitarians were Christians, and whether Roy himself was one; this depended on whether Christianity was defined according to values and monotheism, or by belief in the divinity of Christ. In declaring Roy to be a Christian, early nineteenth century Unitarians perhaps sought to broaden the definition of Christianity to include themselves. Roy used the same techniques and sources as the Unitarians to answer his critics: German biblical criticism, the history of the Arian controversy, the discourse of radical dissenters, and rational scepticism.

In the 1950s, apparently, it looked for a while as if Christianity was going to be defined as a broad movement of people who subscribe to the values of Jesus - but then two things happened: an upsurge of secularism, and an upsurge of evangelicalism. After that, it became increasingly difficult to define Christianity as anything other than conservative evangelical fundamentalism, belief in Jeeesus as your Personal Savior^TM, and belief in penal substitution theology (the idea that he died for your sins).

James Martineau once famously wrote that he didn't want to describe himself as a Unitarian, because that was the name of a doctrine; instead, he wanted to be called a Free Christian.

This is at the root of the reason why the full name of the Unitarian tradition in the UK is the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. A bit of a mouthful, isn't it?

But what is a Free Christian, or a liberal Christian? They are usually people who are working out their theology for themselves, and consider Jesus' moral example, and his teachings, to be more important than doctrines about him as a Saviour who died for people's sins. (I am sure there are more complicated explanations than that, but that will suffice.) They are also usually inclusive of LGBT people and tolerant of other religions, seeing them as equally valid paths to God / the Divine.

A Unitarian Christian is a slightly different critter, as this is someone who is both Unitarian and Christian. Again, they are working out their own theology, inclusive towards LGBTs and consider other religions equally valid; but they are also likely to hold Unitarian views of God, meaning that Jesus is not viewed as the second person of the Trinity.

But the name "Christian" does encapsulate a doctrine: it expresses the view that Jesus was Christ.

But it depends what you think a "Christ" is, and whether you think he was the only Christ, or whether there are more of them. The word Christ just means "Anointed One" and is a Greek translation of the Jewish word Messiah, also meaning "Anointed One". Some Jewish thinkers have suggested that there may be a messiah in every generation.

James Martineau also famously said:

“The incarnation is true, not of Christ exclusively, but of Man universally, and God everlastingly. He bends into the human to dwell there; and humanity is the susceptible organ of the divine”

 Buddhism is a project to make more Buddhas. Buddhism does not claim that Buddha was the incarnation of a deity.

What if Christianity was a project to make more Christs? Well, funnily enough, there is a very ancient form of Christianity that is exactly that. In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the rite of baptism is called chrismation (anointing), and the aim of the Christian life is theosis (becoming divine).

Many, if not most, liberal Christians, Unitarian Christians, and Free Christians reject the notion that Jesus was "Very God of very God" and emphasise the human Jesus, his moral example, and his teachings.

But what if, as Martineau said, the Incarnation was true of humans universally? In Judaism, Isaac Luria taught that we all contain a divine spark; and Judaism has always taught that people are made in the image of God.

If the Incarnation is true of humans universally, then we must all develop our inner Christ (or Buddha, or Aradia).

If Christianity was a project to make more Christs, that might be interesting.

Further reading on liberal Christianity:

• Caute 
• The Herald 
• The Man they called the Christ by David Doel
• The Progressive Christianity Network
• Inclusive Church
• Changing Attitude 
• Atheist Christians 

I am not a Christian and I never will be one (Wicca is my dharma, my sangha, and my tribe), but I am delighted that there is a strong liberal movement within Christianity. It provides an alternative to those who don't embrace exclusivism, homophobia, and intolerance of other faiths, and shows that another way is possible.

it would make a lot more sense if people talked about Christianities instead of Christianity. (And what about all those Christian churches that dissented at the Council of Chalcedon?)

What's wrong with the Incarnation?

Many Christians think that other religions don't like the idea of the Incarnation because they're offended by the idea of God becoming human.

The thing that is specifically offensive about the idea that Jesus is the only way to God is the idea that stems from it that all other religions are wrong, and that unless you have "accepted Jesus as your personal Saviour" you will go to hell. So according to this insane and offensive theology, that means Gandhi and other great luminaries are in hell.  (Then there's penal substitution theology, which is also offensive, but that is a separate issue.)

I don't have a problem with the idea of Jesus being divine. I do have a problem with the idea of his being the one and only incarnation of the godhead. As far as I'm concerned, we are all divine.

In polytheist religions, the idea of humans becoming divine, or the divine becoming human, crops up frequently. There's Krishna, who is an incarnation of Vishnu. There's Oðinn, who is either a deified human or a god who became human. There's Aradia, who was Diana's daughter and came to earth to teach Tuscan witches their craft, and how to resist oppression. There are many, many deities who became human, and humans who became deities. So the idea that other religions have a problem with the Incarnation because they don't like the idea of God becoming human is laughably ignorant.

In Judaism, the soul has three components - the nefesh (the animal soul, which disperses at death), the neshamah (the divine part, which returns to God at death), and the ruach (the breath of God, which gives life). The more spiritually developed you are, the greater the neshamah becomes. When Jesus told his disciples that he would send his ruach (his Holy Spirit) to be with the disciples at death, he meant he would send that component of his soul to be with them. This insight must have got lost in the early centuries of Christianity when the Judaic elements were eradicated from Christianity by opponents of "Judaizing".  Anyway, the point here is, that in Judaism, everyone is a child of God, and has God within them. (For more on this, see my earlier post, The Trinity and Jewish theology).

In the Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers), they say that everyone has "that of God" within them, and refer to the Inner Christ or the Inner Light. The idea is to uncover that light (not hiding it under a bushel) and let it shine.

In Unitarianism, which rejected the doctrine of the Trinity back in the 16th century, the view is usually that everyone has the Divine within them, too. James Martineau, a great 19th century member of the tradition (who actually identified as a Free Christian), said:

The incarnation is true, not of Christ exclusively, but of Man universally, and God everlastingly. He bends into the human to dwell there; and humanity is the susceptible organ of the divine.

What a truly great concept - the incarnation is true of all humans. Or as Shakespeare (religious beliefs unknown) so memorably put it:

What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals

Hamlet, Act II, Scene II

In Buddhism, we all contain the potential to become enlightened, to become a Buddha, to become divine. We are all Future Buddhas.

In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, although they believe that Jesus is the one and only divine incarnation, they also have the concept of theosis, which means that because Jesus opened the way between the human and the divine, we can all become divine. Indeed, Jesus himself said, "I have said, ye are gods."

So, no, the thing that annoys people about the Incarnation is not the idea that God became human - it's the idea that it only happened once.

Everyone has "that of God" within them - the neshamah, the ruach, the seed of a Future Buddha, the potential for theosis.

Does this stuff actually work?

So then, religion and spirituality - do they actually work?

Paganism claims to put its adherents in touch with Nature by celebrating the seasonal cycle of festivals (or at least that used to be its claim - this seems to have been largely sidelined in favour of talking to deities). Does celebrating the seasonal cycle of festivals really put you in touch with Nature? Does it really transform the psyche? Do the rituals actually have a beneficial effect on the practitioners? (If not, at least they are fun.)

Unitarianism claims that it is building the beloved community, and that by being in community together, we can model a microcosm of the world, and create meaningful connections and communities. Does hanging out with people, some of whom one doesn't actually like, really make you a better person? Possibly, in that it is supposed to rub off the corners and make you more tolerant by exposing you to different viewpoints. But you have to really hang out with them and make actual community, not just see them on Sundays.

Buddhism claims that meditation is the transformative ingredient. I do know that the metta bhavana meditation really helped me to avoid conflict with someone I found incredibly annoying - but then maybe I could have saved myself an awful lot of trauma by just having the conflict with the person, because I was damaged by acquiescing to their nonsense.

Quakers claim that their gathered silence transforms the participants. At least Quakers do engage directly in social justice work, and attempt to allow their values to permeate every aspect of their lives. The trouble is, I couldn't actually be a Quaker, because it wouldn't suit me.

Pick and mix spirituality - once memorably characterised as 'a glowing and useful term in search of a meaning' - where, at its worst, you get to do all the bits you like and avoid the rest - just makes people disappear up their own bottoms, lost in a welter of crystals, pastel colours, dolphins, quantum vibes, and Mayan prophecies. Yes, it is necessary to seek rest and refreshment before re-entering the fray of activism - but maybe that would be better gained by going for a nice walk in the woods or listening to a really good piece of music. It certainly isn't gained by paying megabucks for some dubious bullshit.

There's a joke in the Pagan community: "Q. What's the difference between Paganism and the New Age? A: a couple of extra zeroes on the end of the price."

The trouble is, there is no objective way of testing the effectiveness of religion and spirituality. I've done lots of  stuff, and I have become more relaxed and learnt to like myself, but did that happen because I practiced religion and spirituality, or would it have happened anyway? When I think of all the heartbreak and angst I have experienced over various aspects of religion and spirituality, I sometimes wonder if it was worth it. I do know that I have got spiritual burnout and need a rest.

I do not use my religion as a "crutch" - because it does not offer me the consolation of believing in life after death. I sort of believe in reincarnation, but I have no idea what form it might take, or whether the individual personality survives the transition; so there's very little consolation available there.

I guess I have been looking for "spiritual experiences" but I do not think they are really the point of spiritual practices; though they are an agreeable by-product of the process. The point of spiritual practices is (supposedly) self-development.

I started out on my journey because I decided the point of existence was to make the world a better place, and the most effective way to do that was to start on the self. The trouble is, it is very easy to get side-tracked into the whole self-development thing, and forget about the activism for social justice. I am an armchair activist, signing petitions, blogging and tweeting about LGBT issues and other causes - but I don't actually do any direct social justice work.

I think anyone who practices religion and spirituality should be constantly asking themselves, why am I doing this particular practice? Does it benefit me, and/or the wider community? Does it make anyone unhappy? Does it create false hope? Will it build up expectations, only to dash them later?

I think Walt Whitman really hit on something when he wrote:

I think I could turn and live with the animals, they are so placid and self contained;
I stand and look at them long and long.
They do not sweat and whine about their condition;
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God;
Not one is dissatisfied-not one is demented with the mania of owning things;
Not one kneels to another, nor his kind that lived thousands of years ago;
Not one is responsible or industrious over the whole earth.

I also think that the Abraham Lincoln quote that I used as the strapline of this blog is a good acid test of whether a religion or spirituality is any good: "I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it."

Perhaps also my favourite Carl Sagan quote:

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later such a religion will emerge.

I do think that living by a particular set of values, rather than a particular set of beliefs, is a way forward, because beliefs about 'spiritual' matters are generally  not very testable or falsifiable, whereas values and practices can be tested empirically, and discarded if they do not work.

To be perfectly honest, I have got just as much benefit (possibly more) out of long walks in the countryside, making music, creating art, and reading novels.

Unitarian Earth Spirit and Paganism

Recently Tony McNeile gave a talk at the Unitarian Earth Spirit Network at the General Assembly meetings in Keele, entitled Forward to Paganism.

My thoughts on Tony's article (as a Wiccan and a Unitarian):

Gerald Gardner was not a loony, whatever people might have thought at the time. He had some ideas which were based on erroneous history (such as the idea of an ancient witch cult, which he got from Margaret Murray), and his ideas about women and homosexuality were a bit off, but he tried to give women respect and equality. And very importantly, he contributed to the return of the idea of the Goddess.

What Tony describes as Paganism is more like Pantheism. But it doesn't really matter what label you give it.
I don't think worshipping the Goddess (or goddesses) is a prerequisite for Paganism, but I do think that being aware that the Divine (or deities) includes both genders, and transcends gender, is important. Women have been disadvantaged by being regarded as second class citizens because of not being reflected in the Divine, and the return of the Goddess has been incredibly important for women.

Very few Wiccan covens are women-only (only a few lesbian separatist groups exist, mainly in the states, and they are not really Wiccan). Men are welcome and equal.

Ritual nudity is liberating.

Magic does not have to be part of Pagan spirituality, but when it is, it is usually used for healing, and it is not irrational. People who practice magic usually have an understanding of it that they have squared with their rational side.

The pagan origins of Easter are now regarded as rather dubious. There is only one reference in Bede, and it's very likely that he got it wrong.

Support marriage equality

Now is a good time to write to your local county councillors to ask them to support marriage equality.

Here is the letter I have written to my local councillors:

I am writing to ask you to support marriage equality in Oxford County Council.

Thanet has become the first local authority in the UK to endorse the government’s proposals for marriage equality.

Some county councils have not yet made available information on how churches and synagogues that wish to do so can register for religious civil partnerships, and the registration fee is higher than for registering as a marriage venue. Please could you lobby for Oxfordshire County Council to do this.

In addition, I want to see marriage equality in the UK, and would hope that Oxfordshire's county councillors would support this. I want to see religious same-sex marriage made available for those religions and denominations that wish to perform these ceremonies (namely Unitarians, Liberal Judaism, Reform Judaism, Quakers, and the Metropolitan Community Church). Pagans would also like to be able to perform same-sex marriages, but as Pagan opposite-sex weddings have no legal standing in England and Wales, the nature of the obstacle to Pagan same-sex weddings is more complex.

Please also support the option for same-sex civil marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships. This is important as many same-sex couples would like the opportunity to be married, and many opposite-sex couples would prefer the less traditional option.

This is also important for transgender people, who may be in either a civil partnership or a marriage currently, and in order to register as the opposite sex to the one they are currently labelled as, would have to divorce their partner and get either a civil partnership or a marriage.

The background to this is that Thanet County Council has endorsed the government's plans.

Thanet has become the first local authority in the UK to endorse the government’s proposals for same-sex marriage. Please ask your councillors to pass a motion supporting same-sex civil marriages & opposite-sex civil partnerships. Find out your local councillors & email them via this website: www.writetothem.com

BBC report 

Pink News report 

Please ask councillors to support same-sex marriage for those religions who want to do same-sex marriages too.

Religious considerations

Interestingly, there's a poll on the Telegraph website to find out if people support same-sex marriage.

The options are as follows:

No - It would be too offensive for many religious people 8.41% (2,927 votes)
No - And I think that even civil partnerships go too far 10.81% (3,762 votes)
Yes - Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else 43.61% (15,182 votes)
Yes - Religious considerations have no place in a modern society 37.18% (12,945 votes)

I selected "Yes - Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else".

I am a secularist because I think that it is the best way to guarantee religious freedom (the freedom to profess whatever religion you choose, or not to profess any religion). But is it true that "religious considerations have no place in a modern society"?

So people who don't think that religious considerations have any place in a modern society obviously think that people of religion should not criticise abuses of power by the rich and powerful, then? (Well, obviously not if the churchmen concerned are themselves rich and powerful, because then they would just be hypocrites.) Many people seem to have conveniently forgotten that many reforms and freedoms were won because of campaigns by people from liberal religious traditions.

• Unitarians have campaigned for women's education since the 1840s.
• Unitarians campaigned for the humane treatment of prostitutes.
• Methodists and Quakers (and many Unitarians) campaigned against slavery.
• Unitarians, Quakers, Liberal Jews, Pagans and the Metropolitan Community Church are campaigning for same-sex marriage.
• Missionaries in China campaigned against foot-binding.
• Rammohun Roy (Brahmo Samaj) campaigned against widow-burning (sati).
• Many Christians who support equal marriage support it because they believe that God loves everyone equally, or that everyone, LGBT or straight, is created in God's image

Anyway, for whatever reason, I am pleased that over 80% of respondents support same-sex marriage.

Missing the point (again)

PZ Myers and most of his commenters appear to have completely missed the point of Religion for Atheists.

They also completely exaggerate the importance of belief in religions. Alain de Botton is right that whether or not God exists is a boring question. It's been pretty well settled that God does not exist. Some theologians have got round this problem by saying that this is because God is existence, or the Ground of All Being, but then that leaves the question of what that might mean.

I'm glad that the New Atheism has raised the stakes in the theological game, and brought non-realist and apophatic theology to the fore again, but I dislike the way some New Atheists dismiss all religion as harmful rubbish.

Most religions are centred around practice rather than belief. In Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism, Taoism, Unitarianism, Quakerism and Judaism, belief is not central to whether you count as a member of the religion or not. What counts is either values or practices. The question for Jews is not "Do you believe?" but "Are you observant?" For Pagans, what counts is your attitude to nature, the earth, and/or the land. There are many different schools of thought in Hinduism, Taoism, Paganism, Buddhism, Taoism, Unitarianism, and Quakerism, ranging from theists to non-theists. For Buddhists, deities may well exist, but they are irrelevant. Many Pagans and Unitarians would agree with the Buddhists on this. Many Unitarians are atheists and humanists.

So if it is not about providing an explanation of how the world works or how it came into being, what is religion for? It is about providing a system of shared meaning, and a set of spiritual practices (meditation and ritual), and a community to share ideas, joys and sorrows.

In liberal religions, you don't need to sign up to a set of axioms or propositions which may offend against your reason in order to be part of the community and make use of a collection of stories, mythology, symbols and practices.

Religious community also inspires people to band together to create social justice (although non-religious groups do this too). By consistently encouraging members to treat others with compassion, religious community can be a powerful tool for creating change. Think of Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, and others who were inspired to change the world.

Christo-Pagans

So, is it possible to be a Christo-Pagan?

It depends on what kind of Christianity and what kind of Paganism you are trying to merge.

One approach to Christo-Paganism emphasises that Yahweh had a consort, the goddess Asherah. Another way to do it might be to regard Jesus as a dying and resurrecting god along the same lines as Attis, Adonis, Dumuzi, Tammuz, etc. Or you could be a henotheist who worships Yahweh and family whilst acknowledging the existence of other deities.

Certain kinds of Christianity are not compatible with Paganism. The type of Christianity that says we are all inherently sinful and fallen, and need an atoning sacrifice to save us, seems to me to be completely antithetical to Paganism.

But the kind of Christianity that emphasises compassion and forgiveness does seem compatible with Paganism. These virtues were extolled by ancient Roman polytheism.

I'm not sure if Gnosticism is compatible with Paganism, because Gnosticism was world-denying and Paganism is world-affirming - but I know people who identify as both. It's certainly possible to believe in gnosis alongside earth spirituality.

Personally, I could never call myself a Christian because too many people have been murdered in the name of Christianity, and because I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the only "anointed one" - but others feel that the name can be reclaimed. Good for them.

It could also be pointed out that ancient pagans (in the form of Roman state religion) murdered a lot of Christians. But Christianity's record of genocide is considerably larger in both geographical scope and historical duration.

It's certainly possible to be a Unitarian and a Pagan - but then not all Unitarians are Christians. Even the ones who identify as Christian don't believe in vicarious atonement (Jesus dying for your sins) or Jesus being part of the godhead. They also respect other religions.

(Just in case you were disappointed that the previous post wasn't about Christo-Pagans.)

Atheism 2.0 and liberal religion

So, I finally managed to watch the whole of Alain de Botton's TED talk on Atheism 2.0, because I finally got broadband installed. Yay!

Pharyngula raised the objection that learning by rote is a bad thing. Well, I am sure that's true at advanced levels of science, but the reason the Japanese are so good at maths is because they still learn their times tables by rote. And it's very difficult to speak German properly if you don't learn the declension of the definite article, indefinite article, and adjectival endings, which also involves rote learning.. You can then go on to see how they operate in different contexts, but unfortunately there are some things that do need to be learnt by rote. However, that's not what Alain de Botton actually said - he said that repetition was good. Also there's a difference between learning something by heart and learning it by rote. And de Botton is not talking about the repetition of a creed or dogma, but the repetition of learning how to forgive, how to be compassionate, how to meditate - yes, these require practice and repetition. You have to meditate every day to get any good at it - and it has effects that can be measured by science. These effects are not caused by any supernatural thing - they are caused by the calming down of the brain and moving into a more relaxed state. Obviously.

Anyway, I reckon Atheism 2.0 sounds a lot like Unitarianism. Unitarians have been welcoming atheists (without trying to change their minds about being atheist) since the 1920s. Unitarians have been non-creedal (that is, each person is free to seek their own understanding of the truth) since the earliest days of the movement in Poland. Unitarians also draw inspiration from literature (yes! praise Shakespeare!), science (Darwin came from a Unitarian family), and reason.

Atheists 2.0 would also be welcome in Buddhism (a non-theist religion), Quakerism (includes many non-theists and atheists) and much of Paganism.

What did surprise me was that de Botton did not mention spiritual practices like meditation. These, to my mind, are the most effective bits of religion - not because they inculcate you with morality, but because they make you a calmer and less aggressive person.

When the compère asked him why he didn't mention spiritual experience and de Botton replied that you can have spiritual experiences without religion, that rather missed the point. Of course you can have spiritual experiences without religion, but religion provides you with techniques that allow you to access that level of consciousness on a regular basis. In my view, religion is spirituality practiced in community.

Also, he was talking as if Atheism 2.0 was a new idea, but as I said, Unitarians have been welcoming atheists since the 1920s; Buddhists have always been non-theist; and Lao Tsu just refers to the ultimate mystery as the Tao (the Way) and leaves it at that. He also says "The tao that can be named is not the true Tao." So as soon as you try to give it a name, it disappears. In a way, the same truth is pointed to when Moses asks the burning bush who it is, and the reply is "I am that I am". The Mystery has no name. There's a lovely hymn by Brian Wren, a member off the Iona community, which begins "Name Unnamed, hidden and shown, knowing and known" which is about the ineffability of the great Mystery.

Apophatic theology is really important here, too. Apophatic theology is the idea that anything you say about the divine can be negated - it is not light, it is not darkness, it is not wisdom it, it is not love. It is like all these things,  but it is not them. I think the reason atheism became so popular in the first place is because people lost all sense of the mystery of "God" and tried to define it as a person, or as three persons, and got bogged down in all the literalness; whereas if you just regard God as a metaphor for the mind of the universe, that's a lot easier.

De Botton also says "it's obvious that God doesn't exist - let's move on" -- but wait, there have been some really interesting theological ideas around that non-existence. Spinoza with his idea of God as Nature; Tillich with his theology of the Ground of All Being; Eriugena with his view that God cannot exist in a material universe; Pagans and pantheists with talk of energies and immanent deities.

Another thing he suggests is that if all religious belief systems are equally untrue, then pick and mix is OK. Well, yes, up to a point, but the problem is, how do you know whether you're rejecting a particular symbol or practice because it is objectively bad, or because it pushes up against an issue that you have? For example, in Wicca, we call the quarters with the four elements, which are seen as symbols of aspects of the psyche. (Earth = sensation; Air = intellect; Water = emotion; Fire = passion and intuition). So if someone was just picking the bits they liked, they might pick the element which most closely corresponded to their psychological makeup. But if they work with all four elements and their symbolism, it might create a balance in their psyche.

I think Atheism 2.0 is an idea whose time has come - apart from the fact that's it's already been invented several times before.

A hopeful sign

I was delighted to see that, in Scotland, the Unitarians, Quakers, Metropolitan Community Church, the Pagan Federation and Liberal Judaism are backing members of the the Scottish Youth Parliament in the campaign for same-sex marriage.

In England, the campaign for religious civil partnerships brought together the Unitarians, Quakers, Metropolitan Community Church, and Liberal Judaism - but sadly did not include the Pagan Federation. The issues surrounding marriage for Pagans in England (whether same-sex or opposite-sex) are slightly more complicated, in that Pagan celebrants are not licensed to perform opposite-sex marriages. Whereas in Scotland, where the marriage laws are different, Pagan celebrants have been licensed to perform weddings. But still, I hope that the Pagan Federation will also get included in the English campaign.

Anyway, it's great that liberal faith groups are getting together to campaign on this issue (which, as any regular reader of this blog will know, is one I consider to be important), and I hope it signals a move towards campaigning together on other areas of common ground. A liberal interfaith alliance for peace and social and environmental justice - just think what that could achieve. And I hope it will soon include other religious liberals too.

Putting the riots in context

The first thing that occurred to me when I heard about the riots was that this has happened before. There were riots in the 1830s over the Corn Laws and the need for parliamentary reform. The flames of Bristol burning after the 1831 riot could be seen from Cardiff. Rioters tore down the jail, freed the prisoners and burnt a large number of houses.

Research by The Guardian has shown that there is a strong statistical link between government austerity measures and outbreaks of unrest (riots, revolutions, and so on). We must see these riots in the context of the widening gap between rich and poor (notwithstanding a few high-profile cases of rich people joining in with the looting), the scandalous facts that the bankers have got away with wrecking the economy and the parliamentary expenses scandal has resulted in very few MPs being imprisoned for fraudulently claiming for their extravagant lifestyles. Clearly the looters are simply emulating the bankers and MPs.

It is of course very sad that people were killed in the riots, and the murderers must be brought to justice. But the disproportionate punishments meted out to some people involved in the riots seem ill-considered and likely to fan the flames of unrest. Right-wing social commentators have sought to blame poor parenting, single mothers, and the usual list of tired clichés.

There clearly has been some sort of breakdown in values, but it is not confined to the rioters and looters. The moral bankruptcy of the MPs and the banks is merely a middle-class version of the more blatant tactics of the looters. One looter, when asked what she thought she was doing, said that she was getting her taxes back. This implies that there has been a breakdown in the social contract - the consensus that we pay taxes and the government represents us and delivers services.

Many people remarked on the role of social media in spreading the unrest - but people managed to riot just as much without social media in previous centuries. The Luddites who smashed machinery in the 18th century did not have social media. In fact, it was heartening to see how social media (especially Twitter and blogs) was used to comment on and discuss the riots, and to gather people together to clean up after the riots.

What can we do as religious liberals in response to the riots? We must keep trying to build community and counteract the effects of social exclusion. The efforts of Bolton Street Angels (an initiative of which Bolton Unitarians are part), of Oldham Unitarians in helping asylum seekers, and of many other Unitarians up and down the country, are the sort of thing we need more of. The lack of cool places for youth to hang out in (since most youth clubs were closed) must be a contributory factor in the disaffection of youth. The prospect of unemployment and homelessness looms large for increasing numbers of the population as the gap between rich and poor grows wider. The increase in the activities of far-right groups such as the English Defence League is also disturbing, and we must join with other liberal groups to present an alternative view. We must also put pressure on the government to recognise that compassion and equality should be the central values of our society and its response to these riots and the the worsening economic situation, not retribution and increasing inequality.

God Collar

I am currently reading God Collar by Marcus Brigstocke. It's brilliant, hilarious, witty and heartfelt. I laughed out loud at several bits, especially the one about the turgidity of school assemblies, and the bit about the desire to fart in church and mix up the shoes in the foyer of mosques. I also agreed wholeheartedly with his views on The God Delusion.

The main premise of God Collar is that the author experiences a "God-shaped hole" but can't manage to actually believe in God (especially not the smitey "Old Testament" God), which is quite understandable - I can't manage to believe in a supernatural creator deity, especially not the smitey variety. I can manage a sort of mystical energy (but not a person) or maybe it's just an experience, like love - in which case, should we even call it God?

I was quite surprised at the degree to which the book focusses on the vengeful deity depicted in the early books of the "Old Testament", especially as the author acknowledges Karen Armstrong in the introduction, and Karen Armstrong has done much to bring biblical criticism to the non-specialist, and to point out how you get a different picture of God from different authors of the Bible.

The author wishes that there was a religion where his atheism would be respected, and that the religion was just about being nice to people. He quite likes Jesus but cannot see why Jesus' death is supposed to save anyone. He would like to have a religion that is compatible with reason and science, where the wonder of the universe as discovered by science is appreciated. He would also like a religion that does not consider all the other religions to be doing it wrong. And he would like a religion that doesn't persecute women and gays.

Well several such religions exist. There's Unitarianism (welcoming towards atheists and humanists since at least the 1920s, ordaining women since 1904, respecting other religions since it began in the 16th century, and welcoming LGBT people since 1970).

Alternatively, if you don't like Christian symbolism served with your religious smörgåsbord, try Paganism (LGBT-friendly, has priestesses and goddesses; respects other religions; though Pagans are less inclusive towards atheism).

And if you don't like singing, try the Quakers.

Or if you like meditation, try Buddhism (most Buddhists are non-theist).

None of these religions mind if you're an atheist, and they won't try to change your mind about it. They also acknowledge the validity of other religions, are welcoming towards women and gay people, politically left-leaning and environmentally friendly.

Creation

I have just been watching the film Creation on BBC iPlayer, and found the portrayal of Emma Darwin a bit too orthodox, considering that she was a Unitarian (though of course Unitarianism was different then to what it's like now), so I decided to Google for background information. Although the family attended the local Anglican church, Emma made them turn around when the Nicene Creed was recited, because it is Trinitarian. She also enjoyed discussing evolution with her husband, although she believed in creation.

It seems really bizarre now that millions of ordinary people actually literally believed in God creating the Earth in 7 days and all that.

The film also seems to me to have made Darwin's inner struggles a bit too anguished and laudanum-fuelled. It's true that he feared the impact that publication of the theory of evolution would have on the world, but it did not abolish trust, hope, love and altruism, as he is portrayed in the film as fearing.

And why wasn't the film called Evolution? (I suppose because less Americans would have gone to see it...)

What is tolerance?

I have been complained at more than once for being sharply critical of aspects of other religions that I consider to be abusive, and people have said that this is intolerant of me.

For example, if a tradition has a doctrine that women are less valuable than men, or that LGBT people are less moral than straight people, why shouldn't I (or anyone else) criticise it? And if that tradition has a doctrine that its leaders can do or say no wrong, then that doctrine is clearly going to lead to abuses of power, because there are no protections in the structure of that tradition for the laity. Or if the tradition has a cult of personality around one person, that can also lead to abuses of power. (I am thinking of more than one tradition here.)

It is supposedly the role of religion to speak truth to power, so if one's own tradition or another tradition is abusing its power, then there is nothing wrong with saying so - provided one couches one's criticism in constructive terms, and backs it up with facts. I dislike the intolerant view of some atheists that all religions are completely barking mad, because they can't be bothered to sort out the facts, or distinguish between traditions; or the view of some Pagans that all Christians are intolerant fundamentalists; or the view of some Christians that all Pagans are bad (and so on).

Being tolerant does not preclude criticising other traditions, provided it is done in a constructive and nuanced way (and I would be the first to admit that I do not always live up to the ideal of being constructive and nuanced in my utterances, although I hope my underlying views are constructive and nuanced). I would not want to give offence to anyone, because apart from the desire not to hurt people's feelings, giving offence just puts people on the defensive, and then they cease to hear what was actually being said.

Tolerance does not mean turning a blind eye to abusive practices, or ignoring the doctrines and power structures that give rise to those abusive practices. It does not mean sweeping things under the carpet and pretending they don't exist. It does mean engaging in constructive dialogue between groups, and acknowledging their right to exist and form associations with like-minded others. It also means acknowledging and celebrating the good aspects of different traditions, and not always picking on the bad stuff. It does not mean passive acceptance of things one disagrees with.

Also, tolerance goes hand-in-hand with freedom and reason. The freedom to reach different conclusions about things by using one's reason; to debate them in a courteous manner; and to engage in constructive dialogue rather than just projecting stereotypes on others.

The complexity of marriage law

The subject of marriage and what is legal and what is not is getting increasingly more confusing, especially since a Liberal Jewish synagogue was in the news recently for performing a same-sex marriage (which is recognised by Liberal Judaism but not by the state). Apparently Scotland is just about to begin a process of consultation about same-sex marriage. So here's a list of what is and is not currently legal:

Legal (permitted by law and recognised by the state):

• Opposite-sex church weddings (couple legally married and registered)
• Same-sex civil partnerships in a register office / registered premises for weddings
• Opposite-sex marriages in a register office / registered premises for weddings

The law allows, but there's no mechanism for implementing:

• Religious civil partnerships (civil partnership ceremonies in a religious building)

Not forbidden by law, but not recognised by the state

• same-sex blessings in a church / synagogue
• same-sex marriages in a church / synagogue where the marriage is recognised by the church / synagogue  but not by the state
• Pagan handfastings (weddings) in England & Wales - both same and opposite sex
• Pagan same-sex handfastings in Scotland
• Blessings of polyamorous relationships

Illegal (not permitted by law):

• Same-sex church weddings (couple legally married and registered)
• Opposite-sex civil partnerships in a register office / registered premises for weddings
• Same-sex marriages in a register office / registered premises for weddings
• Marrying more than one person

Another difficulty is that if a transsexual married to a person of the opposite sex to their original sex wants to change their birth certificate to reflect their new sex, they would have to divorce their partner (whereas if same sex marriage were legal, they could stay married).

Legal (permitted by law and recognised by the state) in Scotland only:

• Pagan opposite-sex handfastings where the celebrant says the required form of words (the same as for all other legal weddings)

Have I missed anything?

Big Society or Bigoted Society?

In giving evidence to a Parliamentary Select Committee on the "Big Society", Derek McAuley, the Chief Officer of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, has pointed out that giving public service contracts to faith-based charities may result in discrimination against LGBT staff (particularly those who are transferred across under TUPE to the charities from local government) and clients.

Third Sector Online: Faith charities delivering public services 'could increase discrimination'

From the Unitarian Chief Officer: Faith charities delivering public services could increase discrimination

Faith leaders for the freedom to marry

Religious leaders from various traditions explain why they want same-sex couples to be able to marry.

Supporting Teen LGBTs

Many UU churches have LGBT teen support groups. There are some excellent resources on being a welcoming congregation for LGBT people on the UUA's Welcoming Congregations section.

I think at least one church in the UK has placed a LGBT rainbow flag outside their church. This is a widely-recognised sign of being LGBT-friendly. Also, at least one UK Unitarian church hires their premises to the Metropolitan Community Church. Another thing you can do is to arrange to talk to your local university's LGBT group about liberal religion - where I live, the local MCC minister has done this and I hope to do a talk this term. Reaching LGBT teens is harder because they are more isolated - but you could offer to do a talk at your local school.

Standing on the Side of Love has a section for congregational resources.

In the 1970s, Golders Green Unitarians held meetings of Integroup, a sharing group for LGBT people and allies. Dudley Cave, who was a member at GGU, was a founding member of the Lesbian and Gay Switchboard.

Stonewall also has excellent resources for schools.

Other resources

• The Trevor Project - a nonprofit endeavour established to promote acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) youth, and to aid in suicide prevention among that group.
• Scarleteen - sex ed for the real world
• We are the youth - photographic journalism project chronicling the individual stories of queer youth in the United States
• "I'm From Driftwood" 50-State Story Tour: Collecting and Sharing True LGBT Stories.