Academic literature on the topic 'Young Religious Unitarian Universalists'

The paper deals with the origins and major principles of the Unitarian religion that began to spread in Great Britain in the 18th century. The author aims to reveal the impact of the ethics of this Non-conformist (Dissent) Christian religious thought on the literary works of Elizabeth Gaskell (1810–1865), whose family background was largely Unitarian. The study shows the way that ethical principles of the Unitarian doctrine influence the problem-theme facet of her novels, which is evident in the artistic interpretation of the idea of strengthening the role of women in the Victorian society, in the author’s new approach to the solution to ‘the fallen woman’ problem, based on the possibility to atone for the sin through the service to the good of people and maternal love. The article focuses on the artistic depiction of the evil nature of a lie, the ideas of pacifism, religious tolerance, social justice, and resolution of social problems on the basis of the Christian idea of mutual dependence of humans, as presented in the novels written by Gaskell. The characters of her works, being new for Victorian literature, are also developed on the moral principles of Unitarianism. They are a socially active young woman from the middle class whose efforts are aimed at the resolution of the social conflict and a church minister (a dissenter) suffering from religious or moral doubts. The latter circumstance determines the shift from the depiction of the external social conflict to the internal one, which results in the in-depth psychological insight into the character in Gaskell’s narration. Particular attention is also given to the artistic interpretation of the key Unitarian idea of moral development and perfection of humans and continuous social progress in the novels Ruth (1853), North and South (1855), Sylvia’s Lovers (1863).

Using a succession of monographic notes, the present study reconstitutes the image of the social/ sanitary protection institutions in Cluj, during the interwar period, founded and supported by the women’s societies. The oldest such an institution, dating from the second half of the 19th century, was “Maria Valeria” Orphanage under the patronage of the homonymous society. The most numerous were the day nurseries supported by the Israelite, Reformed, Roman Catholic, Greek‑Catholic, and Unitarian women’s societies. These provided care and education for needy children for the time their parents were at work. Besides these, the Israelite and Reformed nursing homes for old ladies also worked. The Unitarian establishment and “Grinţescu” House worked for needy young schoolgirls and students; the needy young girls who came in the town were assisted by the station mission and the employment office of the Romanian University Women’s Association from Cluj. The estab‑ lishments for sanitary protec‑tion were supported by the Association for the Protection of Mother and Infant from Cluj and the “Principele Mircea” society, Cluj branch. The Charity Fund of “Principesa Elena”, Cluj branch, and “Caritatea” Society used to send the needy children and young men to spend their holidays in sanatoriums/ camps organized under their patronage. There are results which reveal the fact that the women in Cluj mainly dedicated their work, through their societies, to needy women and their children, as they understood the social responsibility as their own duty to voluntary contribute to a better society. There were founded exemplary establishments to protect ethnic and religious communities, but charity frequently ignored such limits. To continuously support those establishments, the women organized events, campaigns, and collections, generating a voluntary redistribution of welfare to the deprived persons. On the whole, the study spotlights the women’s contribution to the actions of the civil society in the interwar period, related to the social/ sanitary assistance.

“Dizzy’s attachment to moderate Oxfordism is something like Bonaparte’s to moderate Mahomedanism’, observed George Smythe in 1842. ‘Could I only satisfy myself, wrote his fellow Young Englander, Lord John Manners, a year later, ‘that d’Israeli believed all that he said, I should be more happy: his historical views are quite mine, but does he believe them?’ As a politician, Disraeli was and remains a man of mystery, an identity which he took some care to cultivate. His protean career in public life found a counterpart in his literary works, in which likewise over the years he appeared to assume a range of different positions. His religious allegiance is similarly elusive. He had attended a Unitarian school, and his theological position, with little sense of the divinity of Jesus, reflected that branch of Christianity most akin to Judaism. On the other hand, he was fascinated by the rituals of Roman Catholicism and the cult of the Virgin Mary, and it was perhaps natural that he should find his spiritual home in the Church of England, that house of many mansions which to his mind reflected the rich diversity of national life. How far there was an underlying principle in Disraeli’s life and art is a question that has intrigued numerous historians, and it will be the chief concern also of this essay in respect of two key issues: religion and national identity.

THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT OF AMERICAN HUMANISM by Stephen P. Weldon. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2020. 285 pages. Hardcover; $49.95. ISBN: 9781421438580. *The Scientific Spirit of American Humanism by Stephen Weldon recounts with approval the rise of non-theistic, and even antitheistic, thought in modern science. At the outset, I will confess to being a biased reviewer (perhaps, even, an antireviewer). If I were to tell this story, I would lament, rather than celebrate, the seemingly antireligious stance lauded in this history. I must also confess to being an active participant in this history, both as an amateur student in the fundamentalist/modernist controversy in the Presbyterian churches and in my own active involvement in faith-science discussions among evangelicals in the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA). No historical account is objective--it will always reflect its author's perspective. This is true of this book and of this review. *Weldon tells the history episodically highlighting key people who contributed to this story. He begins in chapter 1, "Liberal Christianity and the Frontiers of American Belief," with Unitarians (theists/deists who reject the deity of Christ), liberal Protestants, and atheistic freethinkers. After a few chapters, he turns to a largely secular story dominated by philosophers rather than ministers. Chapter 12 presents charts that show how the 1933 Humanist Manifesto had 50% signatories who were liberal and Unitarian ministers, while the 1973 Humanist Manifesto II had only 21%. By the end of book, humanism becomes secular/atheistic humanism. Weldon describes humanism as "a view of the world that emphasizes human dignity, democracy as the ideal form of government, universal education, and scientific rationality" (p. 5). While not explicitly mentioned, but likely included in the phrase "scientific rationality," is atheism. The 1973 Humanist Manifest II begins with this theme in its opening article about religion: "We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity." *Chapter 2, "The Birth of Religious Humanism," tells the early 1900s story of ministers John Dietrich, Curtis Reese, and philosopher Roy Wood Sellers, all who were or became Unitarians. "'God-talk' was no longer useful." Unitarianism ends up being a haven for religious humanists, even for those who have eliminated traditional religious language. These are the roots of today's secular humanism. *In many ways, this era is the other side of the religious history of America that this journal's readers may know. The ASA has roots in the more conservative and traditional end of American Protestantism. The old Princeton Presbyterians, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, and B. B. Warfield, represent a strictly orthodox Christianity, but one open to the advances of modern science. One did not have to be theologically liberal to be proscience. The phenomenon of young-earth creationism is a relatively recent development. Conservative Protestants were not as opposed to conventional science as Weldon's treatment suggests. *The Humanist Manifesto (1933) is the subject of chapter 3, "Manifesto for an Age of Science." It was written by Unitarian Roy Wood Sellers and spearheaded by people associated with Meadville Theological School, a small Unitarian seminary, originally in Pennsylvania; after relocating, it had a close association with the University of Chicago. The Manifesto begins with the words, "The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes." The first affirmation is "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." *"Philosophers in the Pulpit" (chap. 4) highlights the University of Columbia philosophy department and John Dewey, in particular. Dewey was one of the more prominent signers of the Humanist Manifesto and a leading advocate of philosophical pragmatism. This chapter also tells the story of Felix Adler, also associated with Columbia, and the founder of Ethical Culture, an organization with nontheistic, Jewish roots. *"Humanists at War" (chap. 5) and "Scientists on the World Stage" (chap. 6) recount the increased secularization of humanism. Humanists in the 1940s increasingly struggled with the religious character of humanism. Should the category of religion be used at all? During this era, natural scientists, such as evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley and Drosophila geneticist Hermann Muller, rather than philosophers, led the most prominent forms of humanism. This humanism was increasingly secular, scientific, and even atheistic. *Weldon is not hesitant to expose the foibles of this movement. Chapter 7, "Eugenics and the Question of Race," traces how selective population control became part of the conversation. In addition to Huxley and Muller, Margaret Sanger is also part of this story. Philosopher Paul Kurtz makes his first appearance in this chapter and continues to be a significant player in the rest of the book. He was the editor of the Humanist Manifesto and used its pages to explore the question of race and IQ. *Chapter 8, entitled "Inside the Humanist Counter'culture," describes a period dominated by questions of human sexuality and psychology. Weldon's use of the word "counterculture" is apt. In the 1960s, the feminist Patricia Robertson and lawyer/activist Tolbert McCarroll expressed the zeitgeist of the sexual revolution. The psychology of Carl Rogers, Erich Fromm, and Abraham Maslow moved humanism from a more objective/scientific focus to a more experiential one. They are representatives of the third force (or humanistic) school of psychology, in contrast to Freudian psychoanalysis or Skinnerian behaviorism. Although agreement was rare, by the end of the decade, under Paul Kurtz (influenced by B. F. Skinner), the public face of humanism returned to a more scientific leaning. *Chapter 9, "Skeptics in the Age of Aquarius," is one chapter where I found myself, as a traditional evangelical, to be in nearly complete agreement. This chapter describes how New Age beliefs, along with an ascending occultism, came under fire from the scientific humanists under the leadership of Paul Kurtz. Weldon even cites a Christianity Today article that makes common cause with the secular humanists in their resistance to the growing occultism of western culture. I found this chapter to be a useful critique of New Age thinking. *"The Fundamentalist Challenge" (chap. 10) and "Battling Creationism and Christian Pseudoscience" (chap. 11) recount the clash between secular evolutionists and fundamentalist creationists, especially regarding the public-school science curriculum and the teaching of evolution. Here the author clearly demonstrates his prosecularist/anti-fundamentalist inclinations. On a more personal note, the mention of Francis Schaeffer, R. J. Rushdoony, and Cornelius Van Til, strikes at my own history. While some elements of this conservative Presbyterianism were clearly anti-evolutionist, others in the conservative Reformed camp were open to the proscience (including evolutionary biology) views of Warfield and Hodge, even in the early days of anti-evolutionism among fundamentalists. While some in the ASA would count themselves among young-earth creationists or flood geologists, the majority are open to old-earth geology and even to evolutionary biology. The reaction of Weldon himself, and other critics of this era, seems more akin to a religious fundamentalism of its own--albeit a fundamentalism of naturalism. Fundamentalists are not the only ones engaging in a culture war. My own view is that old-earth geology, old universe (big bang) cosmology, and evolutionary biology should be taught as the mainstream scientific consensus even in private religious schools. But dissent and disagreement should be allowed among teachers and students alike. Sometimes it seems to me that these fundamentalist creationists and atheistic evolutionists are all more interested in indoctrination than education. *Embedded in chapter 10 is the history of the Humanist Manifesto II (coauthored by Paul Kurtz). It clearly espouses positions antithetical to traditional Christian orthodoxy, especially in the explicit anti-theistic and prosexual revolution statements. But it is striking to me how much agreement I can find with people who so strongly disagree with traditional Christian faith. This tells me two things: while fundamental religious differences may exist between people, there is something about being human in this world that brings Christians and non-Christians together on many very fundamental questions such as liberty, human dignity, friendship, and peaceful co-existence. Such values are not the unique provenance of humanists or Christians or other religious groups. The second thing is that we are much better at emphasizing differences and seeking to force others to conform to our way than we are at tolerating differences and persuading those who disagree. *The opening of chapter 12, "The Humanist Ethos of Science and Modern America," brought me once again to a personal reflection that is relevant in reviewing this book. My own love of the natural sciences can be traced to Sagan, Asimov, Clarke, Gould, Dawkins, and others who brought the wonder of science to the broader public. Without denying their a-religious, and even antireligious posture, it is noteworthy that the truths about the natural world are independent of who discovered them or communicates them. And they are wondrous whether or not you acknowledge the hand of God in creating them. The process of science works whether the world was created by God or is the result of properties of the universe that just are. It is interesting to me that a brief discussion of post-modernism appears in this chapter. Postmodernism's undermining of the objectivity of natural science leads one to wonder whether this undermines the whole book by hinting that a postmodernist perspective is the consistent non'religious/atheist view. In contrast, the ASA's faith statement states: "We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation." According to Christians, natural science is possible because creation is orderly and intelligible. Atheists and skeptics simply assert the world's orderliness and intelligibility. *Like myself, readers of this journal are likely to have a different perspective on the events traced in Weldon's book. Nevertheless, the history recounted here helps us to see why there is such a divide between science and those who continue to be influenced by more conservative religious views. As such, it is a worthwhile read and of interest to those who follow the science-faith literature. *Reviewed by Terry Gray, Instructor in Chemistry, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Thesis (M.P.A.)--Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, 1993.
Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 45-06, page: 2964. Abstract precedes thesis as [1] preliminary leaf. Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [184]-199).

Abstract The Worcester stagecoach clattered along the Shrewsbury road. It was a cold January night in 1798 and the occupants of the vehicle would normally have been shivering as well as uncomfortable. But on this occasion they were warmed by the non-stop conversation of the young, dark-haired man before them. It was the 26-year-old Samuel Taylor Coleridge, already a noted figure in the intellectual world, renowned for his political and religious lectures as well as his poetry. He was to take up the position of Unitarian minister at Shrewsbury in succession to John Rowe, recently appointed to a new position in Bristol.

Abstract The Victorians had a soft spot for novels about the ‘agony’ of religious uncertainty. The most popular, by far, was Robert Elsmere (1888) by Mrs Humphry Ward. Mrs Ward’s hero is a young Anglican minister, tormented by spiritual anxiety –– ‘doubts’. Specifically, Robert cannot accept Christ’s divinity, the biblical miracles, or the ‘damnatory psalms’. Yet, the Revd Mr Elsmere ‘believes’. Elsmere is a product of Oxford in the 1850s. The university had been, since Newman’s first ‘Tract for the Times’ in 1833, the epicentre of religious doubt and what Gladstone (reviewing Robert Elsmere) called ‘the battle of belief’. After much spiritual battling, Elsmere moves towards a Unitarian position on matters of theology. He resigns his country living, and starts a ‘settlement’ for the poor (‘The New Brotherhood’) in the East End of London. At the end of the novel he dies of consumption. His monument, the New Brotherhood, lives on.