Hi guys,
A long reply, but here goes…
There’s a link to what Sinkford said in more detail: Sinkford speech. I have to say that this speech completely sucks ass and I totally disagree with the sentiment expressed in it.
Atheists and humanists make up around 40% of the membership of the Unitarian Universalist Association, and I would say that the proposal that we add a new principle recognizing God hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of passing at a General Assembly of the UUA.
Just for background, the UUA has no doctrine and no set of beliefs that are binding on any member. However, we have something called the “Principles and Purposes of the Unitarian Universalist Association”, which states a number of issues on which there is broad consensus among different UUs. Here’s a link to the statement of the Principles and Purposes . As you can see at that site, there is also a statement called the “Sources” statement, which mentions the historical sources of Unitarian Universalism. God gets mentioned there, but in a semantically intensional context:
The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:
…
Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves.
Since “God” appears in the complement of “call us to”, an atheist can assent to this formulation without assenting to the existence of God. A parallel statement is
“I have several ancestors
…
My mother, who taught us to respect unicorns.”
(from this you can’t conclude that the speaker believes unicorns exist.)
It’s true that Unitarian Universalism has X-ian roots historically, and it’s true that X-ianity teaches about God’s love. So this part has never bothered me particularly.
Of course, the reason it is there was to pacify theists within the denomination. But if you choose to be a UU, then you’re saying that your agreement with other people about human rights, respect for the environment, social justice, peace, etc. is more important than your disagreement with them about the existence of God. That’s probably an area where we would disagree.
Sinkford’s speech is in my view a dangerous one; it threatens to unbalance the “peace accord” that exists between theists and non-theists in the denomination. He is completely free to make his elevator speech about God as his own opinion, but a large majority of us won’t stand for turning that speech into any statement for the UUA as a whole.