By definition from Dictionaty.com, Unitarian �(initial capital letter ) is a member of a liberal religious denomination founded upon the doctrine that God is one being�, rejecting the Trinity of Christians . So being a self-identified Unitarian, who publicly concedes that he does not believe in a Supreme Being, would this be a liberal unitarian?
The Nevada requirement would deny a marriage license to a Christian, who through special circumstances is “not tied to a religious congregation�. This could include our president elect, after the Wright controversy.
Law is extremely vague, for which many laws have been struck down.

Jews make up less than 2% of the population. going 8.2% of the congress isn't progress, it's a sign of a more entrenched aristocracy. Mormons make up even less.

Congress doesn't look like America, Congress looks like Georgetown. Thats pretty much a summation of why our country is declining into a third world shithole for everyone but the wealthy and privileged.

Steve Benen wrote: "... there are two Muslims and two Buddhists who began serving in Congress in 2007 ... For the record, there is still only one member of Congress, Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a self-identified Unitarian, who publicly concedes that he does not believe in a Supreme Being."

For the record, Buddhism does not entail any belief in "a Supreme Being". Indeed, the Buddha taught that there is no "first cause", and that all things are without an independent self and impermanent, ideas which tend to preclude the existence of "a Supreme Being" as conceived in monotheistic religions.

Buddha was also very critical of the religious authorities of his time, describing them as "the blind leading the blind". And throughout his four decades of teaching, he consistently said that no one should accept his teachings "on faith" but should put them into practice and see for themselves whether or not they produced the results that he claimed.

In the Triple Gem ritual in which an individual formally becomes a Buddhist, the individual publicly "takes refuge in" the Buddha (the teacher), the Dharma (the teachings of the Buddha) and the Sangha (the community of Buddhists) and commits to practicing the Five Precepts of ethical behavior. Buddhists are not called upon to express any belief one way or the other about the existence of "a Supreme Being".

So with Rep. Stark and the two unnamed Buddhists, there would presumably be three members of Congress who do not have any belief in "a Supreme Being". Or, if the two Buddhists do have such a belief, it arises from something other than Buddhism -- but they should not, simply by virtue of being Buddhists, be assumed to have such a belief.

I got married in the lounge at Harrah's by "Elvis". The officiating religious affiliate was a lesbian minister from a gay church. I was considering the drive-thru venue but we didn't have a big enough car to take all our friends.

I wonder if the concern for the sanctity of marriage is really just a smoke screen? I assume churches etc. make big bank for weddings so it would make sense they would want to keep it in-house, and *sacred*.

Pagans.

We need more pagans.

How else can you celebrate the Winter Solstice properly?

Solsticians Unite!

Jesus saves.

MissMudd wrote: "I wonder if the concern for the sanctity of marriage is really just a smoke screen?"

The interesting thing is that those who speak of the "sanctity" of marriage, or of marriage as a "sacrament", are saying that the government has absolutely nothing to say about it whatsoever.

If marriage is a "sacrament", then it is by definition an "establishment of religion", and the Constitution prohibits the government from making any law regarding it -- which would most certainly include any law restricting who may or may not be married.

Indeed, if marriage is "sacred", if it is a religious "sacrament", then the government is really prohibited from recognizing marriage at all. In that case the government can no more grant special rights to those who are "married" than it can grant special rights to those who, for example, receive Catholic communion.

Religious authorities can "marry" whoever they want, or deny "marriage" to whoever they want, and the government cannot say anything about it. But neither can the government recognize such marriages in law.

Now legal marriage, so-called "civil union", as opposed to sacramental marriage, is another matter. It is a legal contract between individuals and therefore is by definition an establishment of law rather than an establishment of religion. And it is the only sort of "marriage" that government has any business recognizing or regulating.

And of course, the government is prohibited from arbitrarily denying legal marriage a.k.a. "civil union" to individuals on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation or any other irrelevant basis.

If there are same-gender couples who are religious and want to have a sacramental church wedding, then that's between them and their church and the government has no role.

And anybody who wants to be legally married, with the rights and responsibilities of a legally married couple as defined in law and contract, must have "equal protection under law" and an equal access to legal marriage, regardless of their gender, race or other irrelevant factors.

And no atheists in government at all.
At least no mention in the article.
Just magical thinkers.
Why don't they just spend there time praying for god to work miracles instead of actually doing their job.
Since they don't do that either.

Captain Dan, you're obviously not familiar with the reality of today's Unitarianism vs. parsing the etymology of a name.

There are Unitarian congregations that, as congregations, have declared themselves secularist, or pagan, or other things. In some cases, there's been congregational contretemps over the issue.

We had a Unitarian congregation here in suburban Dallas that officially declared itself pagan-oriented about five years ago and it caused a big contretemps. Older, more traditional Unitarians felt it was rejection of Unitarianism's traditional, rational, Enlightenment-based focus.

What is the difference between the invocation and the benediction (that Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery will be giving)at the inauguration?

Personally, I think neither is necessary, but it's a very Christian country after all, I suppose.

...it seems like the "war on Christmas" nonsense seems a lot quieter this year.

I think that is human nature, when things are going good, there seems to be a lot more pointless things to squabble about. We're just a bunch of spoiled kids. If'nwhen things get turned around, all the toldyaso's will get deafening.

The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion. -Arthur C. Clarke

Jesus saves. -save yourself

Passes to Moses...he shoots, he scores!

The Nevada requirement would deny a marriage license to a Christian, who through special circumstances is “not tied to a religious congregation�.

You misread. The requirement refers to licenses to officiate at marriages.

go to the website- the presidential inaugural committee- to see the pictures of who sits on the committee!!!

I think the War on Christmas garbage is something conservatives do when they're feeling their oats. I remember noticing it in a big way in 2004. It felt like they were twisting the knife.

"Just lose the election? Think that was bad? Watch while we ruin your Christmas and blame it on you! We'll convince your dittohead uncle to chew you out because you greeted him the wrong way, and he'll call YOU the politically correct one. Suck on that, liberals!"

" smaller religious groups, notably Catholics, Jews and Mormons"

Roman Catholics are the largest single religious denomination in the US, to say nothing of the world. Since when did they become one of the "smaller religious groups"? That's an utterly bizarre thing to say.