Rev. Joe

As I noted before, a replay of a Karen Armstrong interview was on yesterday and she noted she was a type of free range monotheist (and was starting to love the Buddha too ... that was a decade ago, so who knows now? she might just be a free range -ist now).  She was open to finding meaning where it could be found, rejecting the ability of one person (like the pope) or group finding the ultimate truth.  Religion for her also was basically a release of the ego to something higher.  Armstrong also welcomed a symbolic understanding of religious experience, dealing with psychological needs, a too literal approach something of an immature one.  Her short book on Genesis covered some of that ground well. 

I like that sort of thing.  I do not like when people who generally agree with me on public issues disdain "religion" per se.  As Armstrong notes, "atheists" were traditionally seen as those who did not properly believe in God.  They did not generally disbelieve in God, just the form the common people recognized as the true one.  Do the critics of "religion" find fault with Karen Armstrong types? What about Unitarian-Univeralists:

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Now, I reckon Rick Santorum (h/t Chris Hayes) might not recognize this sort of "mainstream" Protestant trend (shared by many lay Catholics) as the true cross, shall we say.  When "secular" is tossed around, it seems to me to often apply to the sorts who do not go to church regularly or have strong sectarian religious beliefs akin to the type found in the Nicene Creed but these people are not "atheists" nor do they in the least all have no "religion" as such.  Many have deep beliefs that objectively sound religious in another context and some even belong to certain communities with rituals and the like that some believe "religion" must have.

Some rather give this sort of thing, at least outside the likes of UU or some Society of Ethical Culture context, other names like "conscience" or "spiritual" subject matters.  A rose by another name is still sweet.  If one wants, we can see this sort of thing as a respected alternative to religion, a choice on such questions, or an aspect of religion that should be protected in its own right without being religion freestanding.  I personally don't know if we can pigeonhole things so neatly and wonder how much it ultimately matters. The personal believer can have a "religion" even without a physical church attached to it.  And, I am not talking basketball or some limited political or economic theory here. 

Individual conscience, finding meaning and truth as you can.  

---

* I referenced a NY Court of Appeals ruling on a state contraceptive requirement that was applied to the Catholic Charities.  I'm not a big fan of Oregon v. Smith, but think this state alternative is a good idea for general applicable laws. A broad view of "religion" is proper, and if we do so, some balancing of interests will be necessary.  I'm being somewhat repetitious but the issue is important and repeatedly I have seen coverage of the issue that does not cover all the bases, though happily many do get the basic idea of a middle ground when no malice is intended.