Comments on: Putting the Religious in Religious Naturalism

By: Ash

Ash — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:05:32 +0000

Glad to have you! We love comments around here and look forward to hearing your voice.

By: Ash

Ash — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:04:40 +0000

Thanks so much, Dr. Goodenough! You have been a real inspiration for me and for others I’m sure. This site is a proto-effort in putting RN into practice as an actual worldview. As you know, much of RN writing is academic and/or philosophical, talking about RN rather than speaking from an RN perspective. As I’m finding, doing the latter is a messy business and I’m learning as I go. My real wish is for other voices to pitch in…I don’t want Sacred River to be about me personally. If you ever want to contribute a little something, I’d only be too happy to post it *hint hint*

By: Katharine

Katharine — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:52:59 +0000

Ash,
Thanks for a fascinating site. In a tiny, homegrown, non-academic and experiential way, my work is similar (I, too, was raised UU, actually Universalist, before the merger).
I’ll check back often!
K.

By: Ursula Goodenough

Ursula Goodenough — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:52:01 +0000

Hi — A friend just directed me to your site — had no idea, and it’s beautiful! Thanks for lifting up some of my work, and I hope we can figure out many ways to swim together.

By: Ash

Ash — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:10:25 +0000

Hiya Kat.

I’ve never liked too much the concept of adding someone who doesn’t claim a philosophy/religion as belonging to that philosophy/religion.

Me neither, and this shouldn’t be read into either Goodenough’s or my writing. This isn’t about sticking labels onto people who don’t want them, but to let folks know that those who do happen to have this basic orientation are not alone. This was actually true for me—I was almost shocked to find that there were people who saw things like I did.

By: kat

kat — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:18:03 +0000

I’ve never liked too much the concept of adding someone who doesn’t claim a philosophy/religion as belonging to that philosophy/religion. People sense how that can be irritating when they get annoyed or angry when the Mormon religion does that, as if maybe they were Mormon and didn’t know it. I’ve felt similar awkwardness when I’ve heard people talking about adding some Saints to the EGC list who if or when given a choice, wouldn’t attend a Liber XV Mass.

If someone is added as belonging to a more general concept is claimed to be a Saint in such philosophy, doesn’t take offense to this, and shows up regularly, gets invited along and involved themselves to said philosophical or religious events if they are currently or recently living and are of such rapport that not calling them would be equally or more rude – that’s rather tolerable. Also, if it is in the context of honoring one’s spiritual ancestry and that person. In other words, name-dropping and adding done courteously and with a sense of cooperation and care of that spirit or being. Otherwise not done.