The UU Post-Theist City Councilman

You have to love the Unitarian Universalists, they’re the only religious denomination that’s includes more theological diversity than the modern Pagan movement does. Pagans, Christians, Humanists, Buddhists, and Jews mix and mingle freely at UU churches across the country. So when I heard about the controversy over the election of Cecil Bothwell, a writer and avowed “post-theist”, to the Asheville city council, I wasn’t at all surprised to hear he’s an active member of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Asheville. What’s the controversy? He’s making national headlines because local Christians are arguing that he can’t serve because he doesn’t believe in God.

“North Carolina’s constitution is clear: politicians who deny the existence of God are barred from holding office. Opponents of Cecil Bothwell are seizing on that law to argue he should not be seated as a City Council member today, even though federal courts have ruled religious tests for public office are unlawful under the U.S. Constitution. Voters elected the writer and builder to the council last month … Article 6, section 8 of the state constitution says: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” Rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution trump the restriction in the state constitution, said Bob Orr, executive director of the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law.”

The story has made On Faith, Fox, the Associated Press, the Chicago Tribune, and Rachel Maddow (among other outlets).

Naturally, any legal actions to remove Bothwell are ultimately doomed to failure thanks to this thing called the United States Constitution, where Article VI, section 3, states that:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

That not only allows atheists and post-theists to hold political office despite local laws and prejudices, but also allows Pagan politicians like Dan Halloran and Jessica Orsini to do so as well. This right of freedom from a religious test for government office or employment was strengthened by the 1961 Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins, that ruled:

“We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person “to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.” Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

In short, it doesn’t matter if you are a theist, post-theist, atheist, or polytheist, you can’t be denied government office or position, at any level, due to your belief, or lack of belief, in divinity. A level playing field that infuriates those who continually insist that America belongs to Christianity alone. A win here for this UU post-theist is a win for all religious minorities, and those concerned about maintaining a separation of church and state.

“I’m fielding e-mails from dozens of people around the country—so far all supportive—and the writers include Christians as well as atheists and Quakers and Muslims and pagans and more. I’ve read some of the thousands of comments posted on blogs and the vast majority of folks support the separation of church and state that has figured so prominently in the history of this country. It is reassuring to me that there is such a broad understanding that freedom OF religion necessarily includes freedom FROM religion, else such a guarantee has no real meaning.”

Congratulations to Councilman Bothwell, may he serve Asheville, and its many Pagan citizens, well.

  • http://witchschool.com Ed Hubbard

    This is a breath-taking example that America is becoming ever more diverse. That we will not always need to put our politics first and pantomime and mouth religious platitudes to get elected. This is another piece in the pattern of a potentially syncretic American belief in divinity, that may blur the lines between all this faiths. Certainly the UU are a example of this potential future American faith.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/BryonMorrigan BryonMorrigan

      It's also a breath-taking example of the Christian Supremacist movement in the USA, and their bizarre and anti-freedom view of America. Just listen to some of the stuff that comes from the mouths of the people supporting the NC constitution.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Baruch Baruch

        The best news is that this guy won a popular vote. The Dominionists are running up against not only the federal constitution but the will of the people.

        Baruch Dreamstalker
        (proud to be a UU Pagan)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AlexPendragon AlexPendragon

    The Christians in this country need to get this straight; they do NOT run my life, and if they try to, they are going to get bit back. If they want to take on the US Constitution, then fine, I could use the money.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Teaa Tea

    Ok I will admit, I am really confused. Why would a "post-theist", one who believes that the concept of divinity is obsolete, be involved in a religious organization like the UU Church at all? Am I completely missing something here? Maybe I just don't grok either post-theism or UU…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Apuleius Apuleius

      I used to have a girlfriend from a Jewish family who was a member of the Atheist Youth Group at the UU Church she went to. Go figure.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Teaa Tea

        Too funny!

      • lonespark

        Ha!
        Yeah, that's UU alright.

      • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

        I know tons of Jews who are atheists. Just being Jew means little. It just means you had a parent or two who was a part of that cultural heritage.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Baruch Baruch

      Tea, Unitarian Universalism is a creedless faith. It does not require any position relative to God/ess/es, and is fairly welcoming of a variety of such positions including "none of the above." In fact, in the 1990s (last time there was a survey) UUs were almost 50% Humanist (and nearly 20% Earth Centered).

      Baruch Dreamstalker

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Teaa Tea

        Interesting. So if not common worship and belief, what unifies the UUs?

        • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

          Nothing. Membership in an organization called "UU" would be about the only thing.

        • lonespark

          We have principles. 7 of 'em. And individual congregations have their own covenants.

          • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

            Is principle #1 "There are no principles?"

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Baruch Baruch

            The first principle is recognition of the worth and dignity of every person.

            The lot can be found at http://www.uua.org, search on "Seven Principles".

            BD

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Apuleius Apuleius

        Well, actually both Unitarianism and Universalism are associated with very specific ideas — as their names indicate. Trinitarians who believe in Eternal Damnation would probably not be barred as individuals from a UU congregation, but if someone wanted to set up a Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Trinitarian Damnationists, there might be issues.

        • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

          UUTD! Ahahahahha!

    • Regina

      While I don't know much about post-theism, many people join UU churches for many different reasons. Non-theists might join for community or perhaps activist purposes. UU churches (in my experience, anyway) tend to be rather liberal and spend a good deal of time pursuing political and/or community building activities.
      Someone needn't a belief in divinity to enjoy philosophy and ontology and UU churches certainly offer ontological exploration.
      As to what unifies UUs – the 7 principles are good to look to:
      http://www.uua.org/visitors/6798.shtml

      • Regina

        I meant "neen't a belief in deity" not divinity as some transcendental humanists are non-theists but I think believe in divinity of the self? I'm not sure, I am a Heathen who attended UU church for a few years for the community…not solid on the non-theism myself.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Teaa Tea

        Thanks for the info everyone.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lokisgodhi Lokisgodhi

      Isn't post-theist basically just a weasel word? A way of weaseling out of saying your an atheist because of the negative connotation?

      I have a much better definition for Post Theist. A Christian who joined the Klan but who is just too stupid to be able build a cross to burn on someone's lawn. ;-)

  • http://aheathensday.com Hrafnkell

    This will be slapped down, just as was a 1961 case in Maryland, but it's still offensive. I don't generally care what religion a candidate practices…though more recently I've become leery of those who are obvious members of the Religious Right – not because they don't have a right to their beliefs but because they don't think I have a right to mine. It's absurd we should even have to worry about such things. We need to repair that wall of separation…it sprang a few leaks during the Bush Administration.

    • Ananta Androscoggin

      On the "Right Wing Watch" website:

      H. K. Edgerton Defends His Efforts to Get Atheist Councilman Removed From Office
      http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/h-k-edgerto…

      Looking at this religious bigot's statements about the United States Constitution, I find myself hoping that if this ever gets into a courtroom, the judge will find that Edgerton had renounced his own citizenship ans a U.S. Citizen, and thus has no standing to sue.

  • bob

    UM, i kinda live in Asheville and thenormal rules dont apply here.There are a lot of hate groups around here and its kinda scary. its all right tob e high midned when you are safe behinda computer screen,but out ehre in the real world it aint safe.

    • Stacey

      OTOH, I lived in Asheville, and alongside the hate groups are a lot of very liberal-minded people. There's a lot of New Age focus as well. My aunt, who lives in a nearby town, refers to Asheville as "Sedona East." It's an interesting mix in that regard.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nope Snoozepossum

        I used to live a few miles from AC Reynolds high school. Is "Keep Asheville Weird" still a thing? I think I still have a sticker around here somewhere.

  • Riva

    "anti-freedom" That is what this group is ANT-FREEDOM.

    • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

      How funny. Your typo said "ANT FREEDOM". They are Ants. Ant-like conformity is what they want. "ANT FREEDOM" would be slavery to anyone who wasn't an ant.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/chuck_cosimano chuck_cosimano

    This why we have courts, to rein in damned fools.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Apuleius Apuleius

    The real irony is that New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris now openly demand religious tests for certain public offices.

    When Francis Collins was nominated by Barack Obama to be NIH Director, Sam Harris wrote, in the pages of the New York Times, that Collins' "credentials are impeccable", and that the only reason for opposing the nomination is that Collins' religious beliefs "should be of concern."

    Richard Dawkins was even more forthright in his abandonment of the principle of religious freedom and declared: "Isn't he disqualified, not by whether or not he leaves his beliefs outside the laboratory and the committee room, but by the very fact that he is capable of holding such beliefs at all?"

    • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

      I wouldn't piss on Dawkins if he was on fire and screaming "If you piss on me, I'll renounce my asshattery and give you a million dollars!"

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Apuleius Apuleius

        I like the image! Very poetic.

        • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

          Poetry takes many forms, friend; I try, but fail to capture it most of the time.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lokisgodhi Lokisgodhi

        Refusing a million dollars?! You are clearly not an American! Turn in your secret ring and kindly leave. ;-)

  • bharper

    I am a Pagan who attends a UU church. The congregation is 50% theist and 50% atheist. When I attended the "Newcomer Orientation",one of the long-time members, an atheist ,said he attended the church: "To get help in being the best person I can be".

  • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

    I've heard about people describing themselves as "post-racial." "Post-theist" is a new one for me. I wish the UU Church wouldn't call itself a "church"- I think that word comes with too many "Pre-Post Theist" connotations. And I really wish that post-theists would just come out and say "Atheist" or "Agnostic". Keeps things tidier and simpler. I love our secularism for this reason- everyone who wants to break ties with religion (organized religion or otherwise) is free to do it. And announce it. And piss people off. It's blissful, really. I look at it as though I were watching a wild, somewhat delirious television show called "Modern Life." There are all sorts of bizarre and crazy characters.

    It's like LOST in that way. You start out hating the Others, then you like them a bit, then new guys show up, and there are long season breaks where you don't know what's going to happen next… then more shit happens, and it stays interesting. My favorite villains in "Modern Life", currently, are the Muslim cast. My favorite reoccurring villains are Christians. These villains (muslim or christian) remind me of Tim Roth's character in "Rob Roy"- you know how you couldn't wait to see that rat bastard cut in half?

    The group of characters that amuse me the most are the "post-theists" and the atheists/agnostics who spend so much time arguing for how they can be so amazingly, deeply, authentically "moral" without any trace of religion or belief regarding things that rise above the material aspect of reality. That argument has fallen flat so many times, but they keep on introducing it as a story arc in nearly every episode. It's like an old gag by now.

    I'm glad that our constitution protects people from having to be religious to hold office, but in the end, I prefer moderate religious people- people who have enough common sense and belief in America to NOT shove their religion down people's throats, but just enough religion to believe in something higher than themselves.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Apuleius Apuleius

      I still think that as long as people are defining their religiosity with respect to Jehovah they might as well just be freaking (Judeo-) Christians – and basically are whether they realize it or not.

      And the only way to get away from Jehovah is to embrace polytheism. Jehovah is a negatively defined Deity, his only real stable characteristic is an absolute requirement to renounce other Gods.

      The fact that people get so involved in convoluted ways of defining and redefining themselves but without questioning the Thing that they are using as the centerpiece of all these definitions, just proves how completely brainwashed they are in matters of religion.

      Otherwise I do not have any strong feelings about that subject.

      • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

        You are 100% correct. And I wish more people took this stand; I'm tired of "religion" in the West being mostly a dance around the Jehova character- even if it doesn't look like him on the surface. In the course of my professional training, I've attended dozens of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and been indoctrinated with their "higher power" tactic for helping to bring about change in the lives of addicts. For some, it works- and the AA handbook makes it clear that it isn't really the Judeo-Christian God they are talking about when they say "higher power"- it can be anything, as defined by the individual in question. For 99% of them, of course, it IS "God". But even for the ones that don't self-define as "religious", they have a "higher power" that still, somehow, gives them the stink-eye if they "slip up"- their "higher power" is still testy, patriarchal, parental, and all-powerful. A rose by any other conception has thorns just as sharp!

        And this neatly brings me into another of the long list of things that piss me off- the notion of the "God of the Philosophers" (The Good of Plato, the One of Plotinus, etc) being conflated with the "God of Revelations", who is the God of Israel. Of COURSE the early church said that these two were the same, but they most certainly are not. I've met so many so-called Pagans trying to fly Jehova under the radar by saying "But look! Even the Greek Pagans had a notion of a "highest God"- as if the late-century philosophers REALLY believed anything that was representative of the earlier polytheists! Most of those so-called "philosophers" had renounced polytheism.

        Because of the "Monotheistic numbing" effect, it's almost impossible to find Pagans today who can really submit to a true polytheism. And in the non-Pagan sector, all of the people who have seen through the "God" of the West can't give him up; they just replace him with a placeholder which is annoyingly transparent. That's why I run, hissing and biting like a little vampire bitch, anytime someone uses the common line "I believe in (insert whatever here), which others call "God", or some call the "Tao", or some call "Brahman"…

        The God of Israel is NOT the "Tao". The Tao, the omnipresent and timeless "way of all things", which organically brought all things into being, does NOT GET MAD at you if you sleep around or drink or have sex with members of the same sex as yourself. "Brahman" is not concerned about whether or not you took a dude's wallet when he wasn't looking. "The ultimate absolute" couldn't care less about who you're sleeping with.

        This could go on forever. Religion has been shot to pieces by these absolutizing movements and ridiculous notions.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/AlexPendragon AlexPendragon

          I like the way you think.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Apuleius Apuleius

          "I have no use for God. In fact, the very word stinks in my nostrils. This word abounds in the Bible and the Quran, and has been responsible for the greatest crimes in human history."
          Sita Ram Goel

          But about those Greek philosophers. I'm not really sure which ones you are referring to, but none of the non-Christian Hellenic philosophers (from any period) ever renounced polytheism. Socrates and Plato were both polytheists and so were Proclus and Damascius almost a thousand years later. The Stoics were all polytheists, and the Epicureans, too. So was Aristotle and the Aristotelians.

          The late-antique Platonists were no less polytheistic than earlier philosophers. Apuleius, Iamblichus, Julian, etc. They all believed in and worshipped many Goddesses and Gods.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Baruch Baruch

      Robin, I used to know atheists who sounded a lot like this post-theist position. I daresay the atheists of the Dawkins age are so much more dogmatic that a new word had to be found to cover what "atheist" used to mean.

      BD

      • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

        If people would just allow "Atheist" to mean "rejecting the monotheistic worldview", it would be fine. If it meant "I don't believe that there is one all powerful god controlling everything", that would be super. But some people just have to split hairs… and lump all "theisms" together, which I find unfair. Let's face it- with the exception of hateful pricks like Dawkins, most of the atheists I've known didn't care if people prayed to many Gods, or to some pantheistic notion; it was the judeo-christian monotheistic claptrap they really hated or rejected.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Apuleius Apuleius

          I think what you say about most atheists is true, Robin – but is much less true today that it was 20 years ago, and will probably be not be true any more in 5-10 years. A small (originally) sub-group of very small-minded atheists have succeeded in building a very closed-minded "movement" that is based on ridiculing any and all religious/spiritual beliefs whatsoever. This movement is very media-savvy and aggressively seeks out and receives extensive exposure for their views, usually positive. This movement is also very strong among scientists, and they openly brag about their desire to silence any scientists who express any kind of religious/spiritual beliefs. This movement started out with folks like James Randi and Martin Gardner a couple decades back — especially with the formation of CSICOP. That movement peaked in the 90's, but then received a big boost from 9/11 and they have been going strong ever since. Here is an excellent article on the early (pre-9/11) history of this phenomenon:
          http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICO…

          These folks, including especially the New Atheists, are far more hostile to Paganism than they are to Christianity!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Baruch Baruch

            "These folks, including especially the New Atheists, are far more hostile to Paganism than they are to Christianity!"

            Unsurprisingly. They thought polytheism had been vanquished and they had only one god to go before nobody believed in any of them. How dare polytheism make a comeback!?

            Baruch Dreamstalker

  • Cole Gillette

    UU elected officials are a heartening sign of societal health; unfortunately, I see a larger trend in exactly the opposite direction.

    Enforcement of the Constitution experienced some troubling setbacks during the Bush regime’s grip on this country, to be sure. But in all fairness, President Obama’s choice of the creedist, anti-civil rights huckster Pastor Rick Warren (whose megachurch complex is located within ten minutes’ driving distance of my home) to participate in his inauguration was a fairly good indicator of the extent to which Obama, the “Constitutional Lawyer in Chief”, appears to care about righting the wrongs of the past: a year of all but ignoring the plight of America’s gay citizens, an order to surpress information about the government’s historical use of illegal torture, an extension of immunity to private corporations that collaborated with the Bush White House to spy unlawfully on American citizens, a significant escalation of an illegal war of agression, and a delay in closing an overseas extra-judicial military prison later, the President seems to be keeping firmly on the unfortunate course he set nearly a year ago on that chilly day in Washington.

    As a then 18-year-old man, I cast my first vote for a Presidential candidate in 2008. I voted for Barack Obama.

    As a Pagan and a civil libertarian, it is my assessment that the President’s performance to date can be considered nothing short of abysmal, and certainly not significantly distinguishable from the actions of his predecessor.

    Even if the President had not recently squandered his best opportunity to reform the American healthcare system and save countless thousands of lives without the “help” of conservative obstructionists like Lieberman and the rest of that sorry lot, I could not bring myself to support him again three years. Now that he has proven his incompetence as a leader of a party and of a nation yet again, this young Pagan voter will be looking outside the “Democrat Party” for hope and change in 2012.

    (Pardon my mostly off-topic rant; I’m recovering from an emergency appendectomy, and the pain medication has me feeling a bit loopy.)

    • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

      What, you're 19? You're rather well spoken and quite thoughtful for a man so young. You may just end up being one of the new brain trusts and megamonsters of the Pagan world one day. I'll be watching you.

  • Cole Gillette

    Thank you, Robin! Provided I continue keeping the engaging, erudite and thought-provoking online company to be found here on The Wild Hunt Blog and elsewhere, I’m sure my personal and intellectual growth is only a matter of time.

    I’m currently a criminology student, and I plan to seek employment as a police officer. But if any opportunities to more directly serve the Pagan community arise, I would not be averse to pursuing them.

    • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

      I replied to you below. I thought I had hit "reply" to your comment, but obviously I didn't.

  • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

    Criminology? Really! I obtained an MA in Criminal Justice myself, some years back. But my field is Systems-Theory based Therapy. We could use intelligent Pagans in law enforcement positions, no doubt, but you'd be more valuable as an administrator of some kind. To be an administrator in a law enforcement agency, you will have to do dirt duty on the streets, carrying guns and wearing kevlar, at least for a while. You're young yet, and most young men don't mind that idea much; adventure and glory is a legitimate goal for the energy of youth, and I support you, while wishing for your safety. But your greater service, I think, would be to gain a high rank in the administrative levels one day.

    Of course, the law enforcement world is conservative and it doesn't change quickly. And, I've noticed, it drags people down, changes them in ways I qualify as harmful more often than not. I have friends on various forces that have just… over time…. changed in odd ways. Can't help but change when you see some of the shite they have, and I'm not against the omnipresent and unavoidable reality of "change", it's just that this isn't what I'd call healthy sorts of changes. Now Law, on the other hand, is a great field for social movers and shakers, like some Pagans. We could use more Pagan lawyers! Of course, I have a friend who's a lawyer too, and well, he's been dragged down in a different way, though to be fair, he's hardly what I'd call focused on anything spiritual in his life.

    Law, friend. Raw intelligence like yours can be the wind in the sails of words that can change the world. I know law sounds a bit inglorious and desk-jobby, but hey- the pay's much better and you can really affect more people's lives in deeper, longer lasting ways. And there's always adrenaline sports, which you'd be able to afford being a lawyer.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Erynn Erynn

    I'm heartened to see this and hope that the challenge to the North Carolina constitution manages to excise this bit of rot from its verbiage. Separation of church and state on a national level trumps local mandates for a religious test for office.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nope Snoozepossum

    Sigh . . . welcome to North Carolina, home of windsculpted beaches, misty green mountains, and severe outbreaks of brain hemorrhoids.

  • http://www.facebook.com/CecilBothwellforCityCouncil Cecil Bothwell

    I prefer to call my church a congregation, but "church" fits too. Our secular world is organized around religion in many ways – for example, Sunday afternoon football games are popular because people generally have the day off because of religion. Our calendars were shaped by religious belief (as well as the solar and lunar years, which fed the religious myth making.)

    I'm active in the congregation because as a social organizing unit it helps me be more effective in the community. I helped start a jail ministry, initially because I was working on exposing a corrupt sheriff and as a reporter I couldn't get inside the jail. Three years later we continue it, and I feel I've helped a good number of inmates rethink their lives and work toward making better choices when they are eventually released. This Saturday we are hosting a Memorial Service for the homeless who died in Asheville during 2009 (19 in all). So the institution and building permit us to show respect for the poorest among us, offer food and some music to lighten the lives of the homeless who join us for the service, and help highlight a serious social problem. We provide food for women in an alternative sentencing program, collect toys for children who would otherwise have no holiday gifts, blankets for the shelters, and much more.

    All of those community organizing efforts could be done under different auspices, but the social aspect of sharing efforts with like minded people makes "church" an important part of my life.

  • Dawn

    It's interesting that people consider athiests immoral people, yet it seems to be the heavily devout, those who scream about their religion and look down upon those who don't share the same beliefs who are proven to be less than holy–cheaters, liars, swindlers, predators who hide behind their righteous façade. Your religion does not make you a good leader or a bad leader. Your overall character does. And being religious does not necessarily mean you are of good character, just as being agnostic or athiest does not mean you are of bad character. Put 10 people in a room. Shake their hands, hold a conversation, talk about family and life goals. I bet you wouldn't' be able to guess their religion. They are people, good and bad. Religion is only one small part of who you are.

    • lonespark

      "Jesus loves you, everyone else knows you're a jerk?"

    • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

      It depends, I think, on what you qualify as "moral" or "good". What makes a person those things? Is it simply a matter of those people not killing others, robbing, or raping, or stealing from them? I mean, does "refraining from harm" make you "good"? I'd say it made you harmless, or less likely to harm, but that's not what I mean by "good" or even "moral". For me, goodness and morality derives from deep perspectives held by a person that tells them a story about the world- a story in which things are wisely viewed. An atheist who renders themselves harmless isn't a "good person". There are plenty of non-good reasons to be harmless, such as fear of punishment. I don't believe that people who refrain from harm because of fear of punishment, or hedonistic calculus, nor people who do positive things for other people for hope of reward, are "good" people in the most authentic sense. They are more like controlled circus animals or machines.

  • DESIREE

    U KNOW I KNOW THE PERFECT THEME SONG FOR THIS ARTICLE…. GO TO YOU TUBE AND TIPE IN " SMAKE THEM CHRISTIANS DOWN" U WILL LAUGH SO HARD U'LL CRY

  • curt steinmetz

    I'm curious to know when exactly the UU's decided to make Christianity and even belief in God optional??