Arvid Straube, Unitarian Universalist minister, on
freedom of belief
Local Ministers Say Pagan Often Misunderstood Term
WRAL.com
February 4, 2003
DURHAM, N.C. — It's been two weeks since a Durham cellist was reported
missing.
Police are now calling the Janine Sutphen case a murder investigation.
A recent WRAL story on the case mentioned that Sutphen and her
husband, Robert Petrick, are pagans.
After all the viewer e-mail the station received, WRAL decided to take a closer look at what is
a commonly misunderstood religion.
Rev. Kara Mueller said a lot of people don't understand the religion. An interfaith minister,
Mueller said her beliefs are pagan-based. "They kind of look at you like: 'what does that
mean?'" Mueller said.
The word "pagan" means country. It originally was used to describe villagers who lived far
from city churches and were unable to attend services.
According to Mueller, pagan is hard to define. She looks at it as a classification, like the term
Christian. "It has a lot of different meanings to a lot of different people," she said. One thing
most pagans agree on is that their spirituality is earth-based. "It follows the cycles of the
year and appreciation for the earth and everything in it," Mueller said.
She said there are a lot of misconceptions. "The most common one is that we're satanic,"
Mueller said, "and that we practice animal or child sacrifices like that." Mueller
acknowledged that there is a large pagan community in the Triangle and that it's growing.
While Sutphen and her husband are practicing pagans, they also have
been regular members at the Eno River Unitarian Universalist
Fellowship.
The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship is all inclusive. It is not
synonymous with pagan, although many Pagan worshippers have a
home in the Unitarian Fellowship.
"We are a broad umbrella," Rev. Arvid Straube said. "Freedom of belief
is our main tenant."...
[Maura Larkins' comment: I think Rev. Straube most likely said "tenet"
rather than "tenant." However, the truth is that Rev. Straube, who left
Eno River to head the Unitarian Church in downtown San Diego, does
have a personal exception to this tenet. He believes that Catholics believe
in three gods, and that Catholics SAY that they believe in three gods, and
that anyone who does not accept this is not an appropriate candidate for
membership in the UU church. Such people "do not share our beliefs," he
said in San Diego in 2010. If he were using the Scientology rating method,
Rev. Straube would apparently classify such people as 1.1 (see right-hand
column about Paul Haggis.]
freedom of belief
Local Ministers Say Pagan Often Misunderstood Term
WRAL.com
February 4, 2003
DURHAM, N.C. — It's been two weeks since a Durham cellist was reported
missing.
Police are now calling the Janine Sutphen case a murder investigation.
A recent WRAL story on the case mentioned that Sutphen and her
husband, Robert Petrick, are pagans.
After all the viewer e-mail the station received, WRAL decided to take a closer look at what is
a commonly misunderstood religion.
Rev. Kara Mueller said a lot of people don't understand the religion. An interfaith minister,
Mueller said her beliefs are pagan-based. "They kind of look at you like: 'what does that
mean?'" Mueller said.
The word "pagan" means country. It originally was used to describe villagers who lived far
from city churches and were unable to attend services.
According to Mueller, pagan is hard to define. She looks at it as a classification, like the term
Christian. "It has a lot of different meanings to a lot of different people," she said. One thing
most pagans agree on is that their spirituality is earth-based. "It follows the cycles of the
year and appreciation for the earth and everything in it," Mueller said.
She said there are a lot of misconceptions. "The most common one is that we're satanic,"
Mueller said, "and that we practice animal or child sacrifices like that." Mueller
acknowledged that there is a large pagan community in the Triangle and that it's growing.
While Sutphen and her husband are practicing pagans, they also have
been regular members at the Eno River Unitarian Universalist
Fellowship.
The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship is all inclusive. It is not
synonymous with pagan, although many Pagan worshippers have a
home in the Unitarian Fellowship.
"We are a broad umbrella," Rev. Arvid Straube said. "Freedom of belief
is our main tenant."...
[Maura Larkins' comment: I think Rev. Straube most likely said "tenet"
rather than "tenant." However, the truth is that Rev. Straube, who left
Eno River to head the Unitarian Church in downtown San Diego, does
have a personal exception to this tenet. He believes that Catholics believe
in three gods, and that Catholics SAY that they believe in three gods, and
that anyone who does not accept this is not an appropriate candidate for
membership in the UU church. Such people "do not share our beliefs," he
said in San Diego in 2010. If he were using the Scientology rating method,
Rev. Straube would apparently classify such people as 1.1 (see right-hand
column about Paul Haggis.]
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
Rev. Arvid Straube and Freedom of Belief among
Unitarians
by Maura Larkins
On August 11, 2010, I interviewed Arvid Straube, a Unitarian minister in San
Diego. He said that Unitarians believe in "one God at most," but then admitted
that this is not entirely true. In fact, there are Unitarians in his congregation
who are pagans, and a recent service in his congregation honored Demeter,
Persephone and Hecate. He made it clear that Unitarians in his congregation
are allowed to believe in as many gods as they wish, as long as they don't
believe in the divinity of Jesus. They can believe in three gods, But they can't
believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Well, perhaps they could if they
agreed with Reverend that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were three separate
Gods, not three persons in one God.
The Reverend insisted that the Unitarians who opposed Ralph Waldo Emerson
did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, and that Anne Woodlief was flat-out
wrong when she stated:
"Unitarians were quite unwilling to cross the line that would deny Jesus divinity. Their reason
told them they had to question the miracles and even the divine nature of Jesus in order to
exalt man and his own capacity for divinity and to respect the laws of nature. But they
resisted strongly, for fear that they would no longer be called Christians. Deep down they
were probably convinced that they would be damned eternally if they denied the divinity of
Jesus, even if to do so might increase the potential of human beings.
Also, remember that the Unitarians had had control of many congregational churches for
very short time. If their doctrine appeared to be unChristian, then they feared that they would
lose this precarious control, and they were probably right. So they became highly
conservative, fighting hard to insist that Jesus did indeed break natural laws by performing
miracles and anyone who did not agree was just not a real Christian" (see Tempest in a
Washbowl in right column).
To prove he was right, he told me, "I've had a lot of training."
Still, it seems that Reverend has not managed to construct a coherent, unified world view.
Unitarians
by Maura Larkins
On August 11, 2010, I interviewed Arvid Straube, a Unitarian minister in San
Diego. He said that Unitarians believe in "one God at most," but then admitted
that this is not entirely true. In fact, there are Unitarians in his congregation
who are pagans, and a recent service in his congregation honored Demeter,
Persephone and Hecate. He made it clear that Unitarians in his congregation
are allowed to believe in as many gods as they wish, as long as they don't
believe in the divinity of Jesus. They can believe in three gods, But they can't
believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Well, perhaps they could if they
agreed with Reverend that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were three separate
Gods, not three persons in one God.
The Reverend insisted that the Unitarians who opposed Ralph Waldo Emerson
did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, and that Anne Woodlief was flat-out
wrong when she stated:
"Unitarians were quite unwilling to cross the line that would deny Jesus divinity. Their reason
told them they had to question the miracles and even the divine nature of Jesus in order to
exalt man and his own capacity for divinity and to respect the laws of nature. But they
resisted strongly, for fear that they would no longer be called Christians. Deep down they
were probably convinced that they would be damned eternally if they denied the divinity of
Jesus, even if to do so might increase the potential of human beings.
Also, remember that the Unitarians had had control of many congregational churches for
very short time. If their doctrine appeared to be unChristian, then they feared that they would
lose this precarious control, and they were probably right. So they became highly
conservative, fighting hard to insist that Jesus did indeed break natural laws by performing
miracles and anyone who did not agree was just not a real Christian" (see Tempest in a
Washbowl in right column).
To prove he was right, he told me, "I've had a lot of training."
Still, it seems that Reverend has not managed to construct a coherent, unified world view.
"In keeping with the Rev. Anderson's example, when we speak of universalism
today, let us speak in terms of compassionate love for all people. No matter how
we interpret Bell's writing or his personal theology, let us be tolerant and kind in
our dealings with one another, regardless of our faith. Most of all, let us stand
on the side of love, always."
What Is Universalism?
Rev. Peter Morales
President, Unitarian Universalist Association
Huffington Post
March 15, 2011
The publication of Rob Bell's new book has incited heated discussions about
universalism and what it means. I welcome this.
As president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, an association of more
than 1,000 congregations that are proud to carry the universalist name, I am
fascinated and encouraged by the current public discourse around the concept
of universalism.
Unitarian Universalists have been examining the very questions Bell has raised
for more than two centuries. In the 1770s, John Murray brought his belief in
universal salvation from England to America and went on to found the first
Universalist church in this country in Gloucester, Mass.
Building on Murray's theological foundation, Hosea Ballou penned his Treatise
on Atonement in 1805, a stunning theological work that became the defining
document of universalism in America. In his book Ballou put forth a truly radical
concept: That a loving god would never condemn any of his beloved creatures
to an eternity of damnation. Ballou's belief that humans stand in union with the
godhead was a transforming theological concept and a hotly debated topic more
than 200 years ago.
Universalism continued to change over time. In the early 20th century, pacifist
and Universalist minister Clarence Skinner reinforced the connection between
spirituality and social justice that is a hallmark of today's Unitarian Universalism.
Good works and our own ethical choices, he posited, marked the path to a
"Kingdom of Heaven" here on Earth.
In keeping with our openness to changing notions of theology, our
understanding of universalism is still evolving. Today, we see it embodied in the
work of Unitarian Universalists like the Rev. Kaaren Anderson of First Unitarian
Church in Rochester, NY. She and her parishioners felt called to launch an
abortion hotline that listens without judging. Without blaming. Without pushing
away those who simply need a kind soul to hear them.
In keeping with the Rev. Anderson's example, when we speak of universalism
today, let us speak in terms of compassionate love for all people. No matter how
we interpret Bell's writing or his personal theology, let us be tolerant and kind in
our dealings with one another, regardless of our faith. Most of all, let us stand
on the side of love, always.
today, let us speak in terms of compassionate love for all people. No matter how
we interpret Bell's writing or his personal theology, let us be tolerant and kind in
our dealings with one another, regardless of our faith. Most of all, let us stand
on the side of love, always."
What Is Universalism?
Rev. Peter Morales
President, Unitarian Universalist Association
Huffington Post
March 15, 2011
The publication of Rob Bell's new book has incited heated discussions about
universalism and what it means. I welcome this.
As president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, an association of more
than 1,000 congregations that are proud to carry the universalist name, I am
fascinated and encouraged by the current public discourse around the concept
of universalism.
Unitarian Universalists have been examining the very questions Bell has raised
for more than two centuries. In the 1770s, John Murray brought his belief in
universal salvation from England to America and went on to found the first
Universalist church in this country in Gloucester, Mass.
Building on Murray's theological foundation, Hosea Ballou penned his Treatise
on Atonement in 1805, a stunning theological work that became the defining
document of universalism in America. In his book Ballou put forth a truly radical
concept: That a loving god would never condemn any of his beloved creatures
to an eternity of damnation. Ballou's belief that humans stand in union with the
godhead was a transforming theological concept and a hotly debated topic more
than 200 years ago.
Universalism continued to change over time. In the early 20th century, pacifist
and Universalist minister Clarence Skinner reinforced the connection between
spirituality and social justice that is a hallmark of today's Unitarian Universalism.
Good works and our own ethical choices, he posited, marked the path to a
"Kingdom of Heaven" here on Earth.
In keeping with our openness to changing notions of theology, our
understanding of universalism is still evolving. Today, we see it embodied in the
work of Unitarian Universalists like the Rev. Kaaren Anderson of First Unitarian
Church in Rochester, NY. She and her parishioners felt called to launch an
abortion hotline that listens without judging. Without blaming. Without pushing
away those who simply need a kind soul to hear them.
In keeping with the Rev. Anderson's example, when we speak of universalism
today, let us speak in terms of compassionate love for all people. No matter how
we interpret Bell's writing or his personal theology, let us be tolerant and kind in
our dealings with one another, regardless of our faith. Most of all, let us stand
on the side of love, always.
An
Antihistamine
For Evil
Rev Kathleen Owens
Feb 27, 2011
1st UU Church of SD
Kathleen elaborates
on Sue's sermon from
last week and talks
about how each of us
has the potential for
Evil, and how the
opposite of Evil is not
as simple as "good."
She talks about how
much more complex
the opposite of Evil is
and how we can
conquer Evil through
clarity, courage and
love.
Antihistamine
For Evil
Rev Kathleen Owens
Feb 27, 2011
1st UU Church of SD
Kathleen elaborates
on Sue's sermon from
last week and talks
about how each of us
has the potential for
Evil, and how the
opposite of Evil is not
as simple as "good."
She talks about how
much more complex
the opposite of Evil is
and how we can
conquer Evil through
clarity, courage and
love.
Wikipedia
"...Members of [Eno River UUF] represent a range of beliefs and interests. In
addition to the Buddhist Community, groups include a humanist group, a
meditation group, a depression support group, a West African drumming
group, A Course in Miracles, and a Taoist tai chi group, among others.[10]
ERUUF is inclusive of different theologies; many pagans are members.[11]
According to Rev. Arvid Straube, 'We are a broad umbrella. Freedom of
belief is our main tenant.'..."
"...Members of [Eno River UUF] represent a range of beliefs and interests. In
addition to the Buddhist Community, groups include a humanist group, a
meditation group, a depression support group, a West African drumming
group, A Course in Miracles, and a Taoist tai chi group, among others.[10]
ERUUF is inclusive of different theologies; many pagans are members.[11]
According to Rev. Arvid Straube, 'We are a broad umbrella. Freedom of
belief is our main tenant.'..."
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Scientology and freedom of
belief
The Apostate: Paul
Haggis vs. the
Church of
Scientology
by Lawrence Wright
February 14, 2011
The New Yorker
Asked how high he got in
Scientology’s levels of study,
Haggis said, “All the way to the
top.”
On August 19, 2009, Tommy
Davis, the chief spokesperson
for the Church of Scientology
International, received a letter
from the film director and
screenwriter Paul Haggis. “For
ten months now I have been
writing to ask you to make a
public statement denouncing
the actions of the Church of
Scientology of San Diego,”
Haggis wrote. Before the 2008
elections, a staff member at
Scientology’s San Diego church
had signed its name to an
online petition supporting
Proposition 8, which asserted
that the State of California
should sanction marriage only
“between a man and a woman.”
The proposition passed. As
Haggis saw it, the San Diego
church’s “public sponsorship of
Proposition 8, which succeeded
in taking away the civil rights of
gay and lesbian citizens of
California—rights that were
granted them by the Supreme
Court of our state—is a stain on
the integrity of our organization
and a stain on us personally.
Our public association with that
hate-filled legislation shames
us.” Haggis wrote, “Silence is
consent, Tommy. I refuse to
consent.” He concluded, “I
hereby resign my membership
in the Church of Scientology.”
Haggis was prominent in both
Scientology and Hollywood, two
communities that often
converge. Although he is less
famous than certain other
Scientologists, such as Tom
Cruise and John Travolta, he
had been in the organization for
nearly thirty-five years. Haggis
wrote the screenplay for “Million
Dollar Baby,” which won the
Oscar for Best Picture in 2004,
and he wrote and directed
“Crash,” which won Best Picture
the next year—the only time in
Academy history that that has
happened.
Davis, too, is part of Hollywood
society; his mother is Anne
Archer, who starred in “Fatal
Attraction” and “Patriot Games,”
among other films. Before
becoming Scientology’s
spokesperson, Davis was a
senior vice-president of the
church’s Celebrity Centre
International network.
In previous correspondence
with Davis, Haggis had
demanded that the church
publicly renounce Proposition 8.
“I feel strongly about this for a
number of reasons,” he wrote.
“You and I both know there has
been a hidden anti-gay
sentiment in the church for a
long time. I have been shocked
on too many occasions to hear
Scientologists make derogatory
remarks about gay people, and
then quote L.R.H. in their
defense.” The initials stand for
L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of
Scientology, whose extensive
writings and lectures form the
church’s scripture.
Haggis related a story about
Katy, the youngest of three
daughters from his first
marriage, who lost the
friendship of a fellow-
Scientologist after revealing
that she was gay. The friend
began warning others, “Katy is
‘1.1.’ ” The number refers to
a sliding Tone Scale of
emotional states that
Hubbard published in a 1951
book, “The Science of
Survival.” A person
classified “1.1” was,
Hubbard said, “Covertly
Hostile”—“the most
dangerous and wicked level”
—and he noted that people in
this state engaged in such
things as casual sex, sadism,
and homosexual activity.
Hubbard’s Tone Scale, Haggis
wrote, equated “homosexuality
with being a pervert.” (Such
remarks don’t appear in recent
editions of the book.)
In his resignation letter, Haggis
explained to Davis that, for
the first time, he had
explored outside
perspectives on
Scientology. He had read a
recent exposé in a Florida
newspaper, the St.
Petersburg Times, which
reported, among other
things, that senior
executives in the church
had been subjecting other
Scientologists to physical
violence. Haggis said that
he felt “dumbstruck and
horrified,” adding, “Tommy,
if only a fraction of these
accusations are true, we are
talking about serious,
indefensible human and
civil-rights violations.”
Online, Haggis came across an
appearance that Davis had
made on CNN, in May, 2008.
The anchor John Roberts
asked Davis about the church’s
policy of “disconnection,” in
which members are encouraged
to separate themselves from
friends or family members who
criticize Scientology. Davis
responded, “There’s no
such thing as disconnection
as you’re characterizing it.
And certainly we have to
understand—”
“Well, what is
disconnection?” Roberts
interjected.
“Scientology is a new religion,”
Davis continued. “The majority
of Scientologists in the world,
they’re first generation. So their
family members aren’t going to
be Scientologists. . . . So,
certainly, someone who is a
Scientologist is going to respect
their family members’ beliefs—”
“Well, what is
disconnection?” Roberts
said again.
“—and we consider family to be
a building block of any society,
so anything that’s characterized
as disconnection or this kind of
thing, it’s just not true. There
isn’t any such policy.”
In his resignation letter, Haggis
said, “We all know this policy
exists. I didn’t have to
search for verification—I
didn’t have to look any
further than my own home.”
Haggis reminded Davis that,
a few years earlier, his wife
had been ordered to
disconnect from her parents
“because of something
absolutely trivial they
supposedly did twenty-five
years ago when they
resigned from the church. . .
. Although it caused her
terrible personal pain, my
wife broke off all contact
with them.” Haggis
continued, “To see you lie
so easily, I am afraid I had to
ask myself: what else are
you lying about?”
Haggis forwarded his
resignation to more than twenty
Scientologist friends, including
Anne Archer, John Travolta,
and Sky Dayton, the founder of
EarthLink. “I felt if I sent it to my
friends they’d be as horrified as
I was, and they’d ask questions
as well,” he says. “That turned
out to be largely not the case.
They were horrified that I’d
send a letter like that.”
belief
The Apostate: Paul
Haggis vs. the
Church of
Scientology
by Lawrence Wright
February 14, 2011
The New Yorker
Asked how high he got in
Scientology’s levels of study,
Haggis said, “All the way to the
top.”
On August 19, 2009, Tommy
Davis, the chief spokesperson
for the Church of Scientology
International, received a letter
from the film director and
screenwriter Paul Haggis. “For
ten months now I have been
writing to ask you to make a
public statement denouncing
the actions of the Church of
Scientology of San Diego,”
Haggis wrote. Before the 2008
elections, a staff member at
Scientology’s San Diego church
had signed its name to an
online petition supporting
Proposition 8, which asserted
that the State of California
should sanction marriage only
“between a man and a woman.”
The proposition passed. As
Haggis saw it, the San Diego
church’s “public sponsorship of
Proposition 8, which succeeded
in taking away the civil rights of
gay and lesbian citizens of
California—rights that were
granted them by the Supreme
Court of our state—is a stain on
the integrity of our organization
and a stain on us personally.
Our public association with that
hate-filled legislation shames
us.” Haggis wrote, “Silence is
consent, Tommy. I refuse to
consent.” He concluded, “I
hereby resign my membership
in the Church of Scientology.”
Haggis was prominent in both
Scientology and Hollywood, two
communities that often
converge. Although he is less
famous than certain other
Scientologists, such as Tom
Cruise and John Travolta, he
had been in the organization for
nearly thirty-five years. Haggis
wrote the screenplay for “Million
Dollar Baby,” which won the
Oscar for Best Picture in 2004,
and he wrote and directed
“Crash,” which won Best Picture
the next year—the only time in
Academy history that that has
happened.
Davis, too, is part of Hollywood
society; his mother is Anne
Archer, who starred in “Fatal
Attraction” and “Patriot Games,”
among other films. Before
becoming Scientology’s
spokesperson, Davis was a
senior vice-president of the
church’s Celebrity Centre
International network.
In previous correspondence
with Davis, Haggis had
demanded that the church
publicly renounce Proposition 8.
“I feel strongly about this for a
number of reasons,” he wrote.
“You and I both know there has
been a hidden anti-gay
sentiment in the church for a
long time. I have been shocked
on too many occasions to hear
Scientologists make derogatory
remarks about gay people, and
then quote L.R.H. in their
defense.” The initials stand for
L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of
Scientology, whose extensive
writings and lectures form the
church’s scripture.
Haggis related a story about
Katy, the youngest of three
daughters from his first
marriage, who lost the
friendship of a fellow-
Scientologist after revealing
that she was gay. The friend
began warning others, “Katy is
‘1.1.’ ” The number refers to
a sliding Tone Scale of
emotional states that
Hubbard published in a 1951
book, “The Science of
Survival.” A person
classified “1.1” was,
Hubbard said, “Covertly
Hostile”—“the most
dangerous and wicked level”
—and he noted that people in
this state engaged in such
things as casual sex, sadism,
and homosexual activity.
Hubbard’s Tone Scale, Haggis
wrote, equated “homosexuality
with being a pervert.” (Such
remarks don’t appear in recent
editions of the book.)
In his resignation letter, Haggis
explained to Davis that, for
the first time, he had
explored outside
perspectives on
Scientology. He had read a
recent exposé in a Florida
newspaper, the St.
Petersburg Times, which
reported, among other
things, that senior
executives in the church
had been subjecting other
Scientologists to physical
violence. Haggis said that
he felt “dumbstruck and
horrified,” adding, “Tommy,
if only a fraction of these
accusations are true, we are
talking about serious,
indefensible human and
civil-rights violations.”
Online, Haggis came across an
appearance that Davis had
made on CNN, in May, 2008.
The anchor John Roberts
asked Davis about the church’s
policy of “disconnection,” in
which members are encouraged
to separate themselves from
friends or family members who
criticize Scientology. Davis
responded, “There’s no
such thing as disconnection
as you’re characterizing it.
And certainly we have to
understand—”
“Well, what is
disconnection?” Roberts
interjected.
“Scientology is a new religion,”
Davis continued. “The majority
of Scientologists in the world,
they’re first generation. So their
family members aren’t going to
be Scientologists. . . . So,
certainly, someone who is a
Scientologist is going to respect
their family members’ beliefs—”
“Well, what is
disconnection?” Roberts
said again.
“—and we consider family to be
a building block of any society,
so anything that’s characterized
as disconnection or this kind of
thing, it’s just not true. There
isn’t any such policy.”
In his resignation letter, Haggis
said, “We all know this policy
exists. I didn’t have to
search for verification—I
didn’t have to look any
further than my own home.”
Haggis reminded Davis that,
a few years earlier, his wife
had been ordered to
disconnect from her parents
“because of something
absolutely trivial they
supposedly did twenty-five
years ago when they
resigned from the church. . .
. Although it caused her
terrible personal pain, my
wife broke off all contact
with them.” Haggis
continued, “To see you lie
so easily, I am afraid I had to
ask myself: what else are
you lying about?”
Haggis forwarded his
resignation to more than twenty
Scientologist friends, including
Anne Archer, John Travolta,
and Sky Dayton, the founder of
EarthLink. “I felt if I sent it to my
friends they’d be as horrified as
I was, and they’d ask questions
as well,” he says. “That turned
out to be largely not the case.
They were horrified that I’d
send a letter like that.”
Freedom of Belief
Apr 4, 2011
How Ayn Rand
ruined my childhood
My dad saw
objectivism as a
logical philosophy to
live by, but it tore my
family apart
Salon.com
...What is objectivism?
If you'd asked me that
question as a child, I
could have trotted to
the foyer of my
father's home and
referenced a framed
quote by Rand that
hung there like a
cross. It read: "My
philosophy, in
essence, is the
concept of man as a
heroic being, with his
own happiness as the
moral purpose of his
life, with productive
achievement as his
noblest activity, and
reason as his only
absolute." As a little
kid I interpreted this to
mean: Love yourself...
Then he discovered
objectivism. I don't
know exactly why he
sparked to Rand. He
claimed the
philosophy appealed
to him because it's
based solely on logic.
It also conveniently
quenched his
lawyer's thirst to
always be right. It's
not uncommon for
people to seek out
belief systems,
whether political or
spiritual, that make
them feel good about
how they already live
their lives. Ultimately,
I suspect Dad was
drawn to objectivism
because, unlike so
many altruistic faiths,
it made him feel good
about being selfish...
How Ayn Rand
ruined my childhood
My dad saw
objectivism as a
logical philosophy to
live by, but it tore my
family apart
Salon.com
...What is objectivism?
If you'd asked me that
question as a child, I
could have trotted to
the foyer of my
father's home and
referenced a framed
quote by Rand that
hung there like a
cross. It read: "My
philosophy, in
essence, is the
concept of man as a
heroic being, with his
own happiness as the
moral purpose of his
life, with productive
achievement as his
noblest activity, and
reason as his only
absolute." As a little
kid I interpreted this to
mean: Love yourself...
Then he discovered
objectivism. I don't
know exactly why he
sparked to Rand. He
claimed the
philosophy appealed
to him because it's
based solely on logic.
It also conveniently
quenched his
lawyer's thirst to
always be right. It's
not uncommon for
people to seek out
belief systems,
whether political or
spiritual, that make
them feel good about
how they already live
their lives. Ultimately,
I suspect Dad was
drawn to objectivism
because, unlike so
many altruistic faiths,
it made him feel good
about being selfish...
“Compassionate Life”
Reading Group with
Arvid
Join a “Twelve Steps to a
Compassionate Life”
Reading Group. Using
Karen Armstrong’s new
book, we’ll explore the
meaning, cultivation, and
practice of compassion in
our everyday lives.
Compassion is a
practically acquired
knowledge, practicing
diligently day-by-day.
Based on the Charter for
Compassion...
[Maura Larkins
comment: Actually,
Arvid, compassion
comes naturally for
some people.]
Reading Group with
Arvid
Join a “Twelve Steps to a
Compassionate Life”
Reading Group. Using
Karen Armstrong’s new
book, we’ll explore the
meaning, cultivation, and
practice of compassion in
our everyday lives.
Compassion is a
practically acquired
knowledge, practicing
diligently day-by-day.
Based on the Charter for
Compassion...
[Maura Larkins
comment: Actually,
Arvid, compassion
comes naturally for
some people.]
Reverend Arvid
Straube, Minister
Rev. Straube says, “I have a
passion for Unitarian
Universalism. I know that it
can save people - from
shallowness, loneliness and
meaninglessness. Our
communities heal people. I
have seen it happen
hundreds of times. There is
no greater privilege, for
minister or lay person, than to
be involved in seeking
wholeness for ourselves and
using our gifts to bring that
wholeness to others.”
Before coming to San
Diego in 2004, Rev.
Straube served in
Durham, North
Carolina, for 20 years.
When he was called to
Eno River Unitarian
Universalist Fellowship
in Durham in
September 1983, it was
a lay led fellowship of
170 members. Twenty
years later, after three
building projects, it is a
church of 700
members with an
associate minister in
addition to the Senior,
a diverse staff of
professionals, and a
large and active
Religious Education
program whose motto
is: "Nothing less than
saving the World."
Rev. Straube's
bachelor’s degree is
from Ball State
University, his Master’s
of Divinity from the
University of Chicago,
and his Dr. of Ministry
from Meadville
Lombard. He has been
married to Sonya
Prestridge since 1991.
He plays golf and he
cooks.
Straube, Minister
Rev. Straube says, “I have a
passion for Unitarian
Universalism. I know that it
can save people - from
shallowness, loneliness and
meaninglessness. Our
communities heal people. I
have seen it happen
hundreds of times. There is
no greater privilege, for
minister or lay person, than to
be involved in seeking
wholeness for ourselves and
using our gifts to bring that
wholeness to others.”
Before coming to San
Diego in 2004, Rev.
Straube served in
Durham, North
Carolina, for 20 years.
When he was called to
Eno River Unitarian
Universalist Fellowship
in Durham in
September 1983, it was
a lay led fellowship of
170 members. Twenty
years later, after three
building projects, it is a
church of 700
members with an
associate minister in
addition to the Senior,
a diverse staff of
professionals, and a
large and active
Religious Education
program whose motto
is: "Nothing less than
saving the World."
Rev. Straube's
bachelor’s degree is
from Ball State
University, his Master’s
of Divinity from the
University of Chicago,
and his Dr. of Ministry
from Meadville
Lombard. He has been
married to Sonya
Prestridge since 1991.
He plays golf and he
cooks.