Minor Religions in the U.S.

[Ethos]

I was looking into the breakdown of religion in U.S. census figures and found some interesting titles (to me anyway). Despite being very small (fewer members than self-identifying atheists), the following is a partial list and (inadquate to be sure) description for them:


Name and number of members (estimated)

Unitarian Universalist: 887,703
The Unitarian Universalists are the result of a merger between the Universal Church of America (founded in 1779) and the American Unitarian Association (founded in 1823). Members are not asked to profess any creed and congregations welcome theists, nontheists, pagan, Christians, and religious seekers of all sorts. An emphasis is placed upon freedom of belief and intellectual curiosity.

Baha'i: 118,54
The Baha'i is a religion which developed from the Babi movement in the 19th century. The Babis were a Persian Shi'ite group which followed the teachings of the Bab, but after he was executed Baha'ullah (1817-1892) took control of the group and most followed him. Thus, although it started out as a narrow Shi'ite sect, it eventually became a univeralist world religion, independent of Islam.

Baha'i stresses the validity of all religions and the unity of all of humanity - regardless of race, sex, religion or other traditional differences.


Skhism: 80,444
Sikhism is one of the youngest of worldreligions founded only 500 years ago by Guru Nanak. It has a following of over 20 million people worldwide and preaches a message of devotion and remembrance of God at all times, truthful living, equality of mankind and denounces superstitions and blind rituals. Ten Gurus are enshrined in the Holy Sikh Book and the Living Guru is Sri Guru Granth Sahib.


Eckankar: 36,694
Eckankar, Religion of the Light and Sound of God, is a teaching founded by Paul Twitchell in 1965. It exists in multiple countries throughout the world, and is run largely on a volunteer basis through "ECK Centers". Eckankar's headquarters are in Chanhassen, Minnesota (southwest of Minneapolis), and is home to the Temple of ECK, an outdoor Chapel, an administrative building, and the ECK "Spiritual Campus".

The teaching, while always known as "Eckankar" has had a changing descriptor. Firstly known as the "Ancient Science of Soul Travel" it then became known as "A Way of Life". It is now called "The Religion of the Light and Sound of God". Eckankar is unusual in that it speaks in terms of Love as a practical experience that will improve the individual: "Truth brings divine love. The reason for war, theft, lies, and other natural traits of humans is that no religion can drive love into anyone’s heart. When God’s love enters the heart, only then can a change for the better occur." (Harold Klemp - The Language of Soul)



Numbers obtained from: http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html
Definitions from:
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/indexes/blglossary_all.htm#B
and
http://englischlehrer.de/uk/worldreligions.php
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckankar

My apologies for using wikipedia, however the more obscure you get, the hard it is to find a thorough source.

Ethos

[burntgorilla]

All religions sound nice when you take them like that. It's the weirdos in each one that cause the problems. Jesus preached equality, humility and was against empty ceremonies. That didn't stop many people twisting his words to suit whatever political views they had.

[Ethos]

I suppose on could say that the corrupting influence of power is present in religious context?

Once a critical mass of people begin following a specific set of beliefs, they transfer a certain level of power to that faith's leadership, which is eventually concentrated and corrupting. Despite religion's general suppression of human nature, it seems some psychologies cannot be overridden.

Ethos

[burntgorilla]

I suppose on could say that the corrupting influence of power is present in religious context?

Once a critical mass of people begin following a specific set of beliefs, they transfer a certain level of power to that faith's leadership, which is eventually concentrated and corrupting. Despite religion's general suppression of human nature, it seems some psychologies cannot be overridden.

Ethos

I wouldn't put it like that. I think people mould the religion to reflect their own underlying views, maybe only slightly and maybe subconsciously. Over time there therefore is a gradual move away from the original beliefs. Each generation has only a really tiny change, but it adds all up. For example, these days no-one takes the stuff about it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven all too seriously. Instead it's viewed as an analogy or interpreted in a different way. That just reflects modern life. If you were a peasant living on the land of your feudal lord, you might interpret in a slightly different way, no? People interpret literary texts in different ways depending on their current situation, and I don't see how religious texts are any different.

[towski]

I've always heard very pleasant things about Baha'i. That's all I've got.

[Ethos]

I wouldn't put it like that. I think people mould the religion to reflect their own underlying views, maybe only slightly and maybe subconsciously. Over time there therefore is a gradual move away from the original beliefs. Each generation has only a really tiny change, but it adds all up. For example, these days no-one takes the stuff about it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven all too seriously. Instead it's viewed as an analogy or interpreted in a different way. That just reflects modern life. If you were a peasant living on the land of your feudal lord, you might interpret in a slightly different way, no? People interpret literary texts in different ways depending on their current situation, and I don't see how religious texts are any different.

It is true that people have a personal religion and that they base beliefs on differing interpretations, however it is the church leadership that defines doctrine. If the leadership emphasizes the camel and the eye of a needle, the people will adopt a greater participation in that particular concept. Granted there are times when the peoples' doctrine differs from the leadership to such a degree that a split occurs, however the eventual formation of new leadership within the consequential sect will again allow those leaders to define doctrine and agenda.

The result is a heavy reliance on polarizing concepts (homosexuality) that tend to contain and unify large congregations rather than something which might not appeal to (and therefore maintain control of) the deeper emotive responses of that group (such as poverty or wealth).

Ethos

[Ethos]

I've always heard very pleasant things about Baha'i. That's all I've got.

Really this wasn't mean to be a debate thread so much as informational. I hadn't known (or only vaguely heard) of some of these groups, so I thought to share the variety with others on the forum.

Ethos

[towski]

Really this wasn't mean to be a debate thread so much as informational. I hadn't known (or only vaguely heard) of some of these groups, so I thought to share the variety with others on the forum.

Ethos


That's why I was just sharing. I've always heard they are very pleasant, very tolerant people.

[Ethos]

That's why I was just sharing. I've always heard they are very pleasant, very tolerant people.

Considering their doctrine, I would hope so. Do you know any personally?

It's curious that a few of these seem to be similar in their apparent "backlash" against more restrictive religions. Perhaps showing a basic need for spirituality, but without the demonizing aspects of the larger faiths.

Ethos

[Atticus]

I know almost nothing about Eckankar, but one my very best friends is Bah'ai, my dissertation director is a UU, and I've taught lots of Sikhs. The largest Sikh temple in North America along with the largest concentration of Bah'ais is in my area. I could tell you a bit more about any of these if someone's interested.

[Ethos]

I know almost nothing about Eckankar, but one my very best friends is Bah'ai, my dissertation director is a UU, and I've taught lots of Sikhs. The largest Sikh temple in North America along with the largest concentration of Bah'ais is in my area. I could tell you a bit more about any of these if someone's interested.

I would be interested to know more, actually.

[towski]

Considering their doctrine, I would hope so. Do you know any personally?

It's curious that a few of these seem to be similar in their apparent "backlash" against more restrictive religions. Perhaps showing a basic need for spirituality, but without the demonizing aspects of the larger faiths.

Ethos

I have never had the pleasure. It's been more of a friend of a friend kind of thing.

[Atticus]

Ok--

The UU's are a combination of Unitarians and Universalist traditions. Unitarians were highly intellectual, largely rationalist Christians (John Adams was a Unitarian and Emerson was a Unitarian minister) who stressed the universal nature of the universe, both physical and spiritual. The Transcendentalist movement in 19th century American literature grew (in part) out of this tradition. Unitarians were the "liberal" main-line denomination in 19th century America and grew out of the many small, splintered religious groups that formed in England among Dissenters during the Restoration and Enlightenment periods, after religious restrictions were eased.

The Universalists were another such group, whose major tenet of belief was the the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for all people, everywhere, regardless of belief. In my debate with Whatever in another recent thread, her argument that an unconditionally loving God would save EVERYONE was basically the position of the Universalists.

Today, they're probably the church that accepts the widest group of congregents. If you were to show up at a service, you might hear a message based on any one of the many sacred texts or even secular ones. About half of UU's believe in no God at all. Virtually none of them take a strictly doctrinaire view of some specific belief as the key to anything. They often put the symbols from all the world's major religions as decorations in their sanctuaries.

UU churches often take a role in political activity, always on what might be called the left side of the spectrum. They will be strongly anti-war, for example. My local UU church has a sign at the entrance declaring it a "Nuclear Free Zone;" in fact, that's the first thing you see as you approach the building.

[Atticus]

Bah'ais are sort of analogous to Christians, in that Christianity is a sort of revision and extension of Judaism while Bah'ai plays the same role to Islam. Muslims consider it a heretical sect because it introduces a new prophet to the Islamic tradition, while Islam claims that Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets" and there could be no more. As your link says, they are decidedly undoctrinaire--in fact, one of their "hard and fast" tenets is that hard and fast tenets are a bad idea. They place anti-racism among the most important elements of their faith, and they stress the wide points of intersection among the world's religions. They're prophet spent a lot of time in an Ottoman jail in Haifa, in what is now the West Bank, and so they consider that city as sort of the geographical center of their faith (as Jerusalem is for Christians and Jews).

[Atticus]

Almost all Sikhs are Punjabi. Sikhism formed about 600 years ago in the Punjab, an area basically on the border between Islamic and Hindu civilizations, and in some ways it looks like a hybrid combining both of them. They believe in the law of Karma and in reincarnation, but they also believe in one God. They reject the caste system. In important part of their religious practice is a common meal that they observe together (and to which anyone, even non-sikhs, are invited). Unlike Muslims and Hindus, they have no dietary laws, so among the peoples of South Asia, they are the ones most likely to appear well-fed. In fact, strength and martial prowess in the defense of justice and their religion play paramount roles in Sikhism. In British India, the Brits used the Sikhs in the police force and used Sikhs as buffer between the larger Muslim and Hindu communities.

Like some other religions, Sikhs have several outward signs that identify them as Sikhs and that are very important to them. These are 1) uncut hair (some Sikh men actuallly roll their beards into a netting that they tie behind their heads and they mostly wear turbans to keep their long hair clean, though the turban itself is not a sign), 2) a bracelet worn on the wrist of their working, 3) a wooden comb worn in the hair, 4) a special kind of cotton underware, and 5) a sheathed sword (often just a small dagger) that can be sown into clothing if necessary. Sikhs are to keep these five things with them to demonstrate their faith.

I remember one religious studies professor remarking, "I never met a Sikh I didn't like."