Universism - can a "faithless" religion hold it's ground?

[Kaervek]

The following exerpt is from Universism.ORG (http://www.universism.org)'s own FAQ:


What is Universism?

1.) It is a progressive, naturalistic worldview in which all meaning and purpose is understood through personal reason and experience. This allows for belief in a supernatural first cause, as in Deism, or a conception of the universe as explaining itself, as in Atheism. Universism truly embraces the individual Search - this could not occur if answers were preset. Universism reflects the reality of metaphysical questions, which is uncertainty. Universists do not always agree on details of our understandings, but we share solidarity in valuing the questions, we value reason and experience paramount, and we agree that no one knows for certain. Universists respect each person's efforts at perceiving reality as best they can, without reliance on any faith, holy book or teacher. The Universist (pronounced "universe-ist") worldview can be shared by all freethinkers, whether they have used the term Atheist, Agnostic, Deist, Pantheist, Transcendentalist or others to describe their beliefs in the past.

2.) As an "ism" or way of thought, Universism might be defined as "the philosophy of the universe." It's a metaphysical philosophy, yet it holds out the possibility that there may be nothing metaphysical.


The question I pose here is simple: Can a religion claiming to be based not on faith, such as Christianity, but rather "the search" - something a little more concrete, I suppose - survive in today's world; and if so, can it be beneficial to it's followers and others?

Would such a religion be viewed as detrimental to faith-based religions as Christianity, or is it simply a non-threatening "fad" that will soon pass?

[mentored1]

The following exerpt is from Universism.ORG (http://www.universism.org)'s own FAQ:



The question I pose here is simple: Can a religion claiming to be based not on faith, such as Christianity, but rather "the search" - something a little more concrete, I suppose - survive in today's world; and if so, can it be beneficial to it's followers and others?

Would such a religion be viewed as detrimental to faith-based religions as Christianity, or is it simply a non-threatening "fad" that will soon pass?

Interesting information - I must admit this is the first I've heard of Universism.

It seems they don't vary that much from someone who simply doubts and wonders about all things - are they trying to make a faith out of doubting? You must have some doubt to begin searching anyway - without doubt / curiosity complacency is the alternative. People who are already in this mode - I mean true Agnostics or Skeptics - will find little comfort in Universism, for if it entails any religious aspects it is to be doubted and if it does not then they have gained no more than what they had before joining Universism. At best it seems an odd premise...

Faith will never vanish - at least not until the human psyche / spirit is profoundly changed or destroyed. The stories and myths of religion work so well because they draw from archetypes, from a pool of unconscious experiences and images that almost hypnotize people. Some of this could have been a primal past, animal instinct, or social atmosphere - the inability to identify all of the elements involved in religious symbolism keeps it mysterious for the time being.

Take care

[Kaervek]

[...] are they trying to make a faith out of doubting?

Not at all. In fact, a Universist would tell you that faith, in the sense of religious dogma, is precisely what they don't have, and more importantly, what they denounce from the get-go.

I've seen the argument before: "But denying the existence of God [as an atheist] is a faith in its own right."

This simply isn't the case.

In fact, I think it's widely accepted (and rightfully so) that "non-theism" was well established prior to any form of organized religion. After all, one has to first not believe in God to later "find" him - one isn't born a Christian. Therefore, to suggest that a person has to have faith to not believe is a logical fallacy. To be "faithless" (for the lack of a better word) is essentially the default, whereas being faithful is later instilled into the individual. Faith isn't introduced into the equation until doubt (in this case, if God really doesn't exist) is first presented.

[Shadow Phoenix]

The following exerpt is from Universism.ORG (http://www.universism.org)'s own FAQ:



The question I pose here is simple: Can a religion claiming to be based not on faith, such as Christianity, but rather "the search" - something a little more concrete, I suppose - survive in today's world; and if so, can it be beneficial to it's followers and others?

Would such a religion be viewed as detrimental to faith-based religions as Christianity, or is it simply a non-threatening "fad" that will soon pass?

Let's look at that article again.

1.) It is a progressive, naturalistic worldview in which all meaning and purpose is understood through personal reason and experience. This allows for belief in a supernatural first cause, as in Deism, or a conception of the universe as explaining itself, as in Atheism. Universism truly embraces the individual Search - this could not occur if answers were preset. Universism reflects the reality of metaphysical questions, which is uncertainty. Universists do not always agree on details of our understandings, but we share solidarity in valuing the questions, we value reason and experience paramount, and we agree that no one knows for certain. Universists respect each person's efforts at perceiving reality as best they can, without reliance on any faith, holy book or teacher. The Universist (pronounced "universe-ist") worldview can be shared by all freethinkers, whether they have used the term Atheist, Agnostic, Deist, Pantheist, Transcendentalist or others to describe their beliefs in the past.

2.) As an "ism" or way of thought, Universism might be defined as "the philosophy of the universe." It's a metaphysical philosophy, yet it holds out the possibility that there may be nothing metaphysical.

First off, why have a search if there are no answers? That sounds like having a mystery without a culprit or a scavenger hunt where all the items on the list don't exist.

Secondly, when they agree that no one knows for certain, do they know for certain that no one knows for certain?

[Pythagoras]

ApologiaNick,

Let's look at that article again.



First off, why have a search if there are no answers? That sounds like having a mystery without a culprit or a scavenger hunt where all the items on the list don't exist.

Secondly, when they agree that no one knows for certain, do they know for certain that no one knows for certain?

Ask yourself if you're not being the consummate hypocrite.

The trinitarian position is that no one knows for certain how the trinity works, there are no answers since it's a mystery..

best wishes,

[Shadow Phoenix]

ApologiaNick,



Ask yourself if you're not being the consummate hypocrite.

The trinitarian position is that no one knows for certain how the trinity works, there are no answers since the trinity is a mystery..

best wishes,

Um. Py. This isn't the Trinity thread. This thread is on univerism. I'm just going to say this once. I challenged you in the Coach's Quarters on the Trinity, sent you a private message telling you I was challenging, posted it several times in the same thread, and you STILL never bothered to accept the challenge.

It's still there if you ever got the guts to defend your position. For now, it's awfully childish to just follow me and start your own rant where you desire.

[Pythagoras]

ApologiaNick,

Just answer my question .

Otherwise, ask yourself why I can't be bothered to take up your challenge to debate.

best wishes,

[Shadow Phoenix]

ApologiaNick,

Just answer my question .

Otherwise, ask yourself why I can't be bothered to take up your challenge to debate.

best wishes,

Py. Your question has a false assumption. Since no one knows everything about God, it can't be true? GASP! I don't know how a being can exist outside of time! IT CAN'T BE TRUE!

There are answers actually. We can understand and grasp many fine things about the Trinity.

But this isn't the thread. Go somewhere else if you want a thread.

Oh and why you never accepted my challenge?

Let me guess. Cause you're a coward?

[Pythagoras]

Hi ApologiaNick,

Py. Your question has a false assumption. Since no one knows everything about God, it can't be true? GASP! I don't know how a being can exist outside of time! IT CAN'T BE TRUE!

There are answers actually. We can understand and grasp many fine things about the Trinity.

But this isn't the thread. Go somewhere else if you want a thread.

Oh and why you never accepted my challenge?

Let me guess. Cause you're a coward?



Nice obfuscation.

You're so hypocritical you don't even fathom your own hypocrisy.

Don't you see the Universalists you're chiding are able to make the same argument you're making?

But it doesn't fly. Because to make a claim you must at least have to show it to be sensible. The trinity basically says 1X3 is 1. No matter how you want to slice it, or how many excuses you give, this is insane.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I'm ready in the Coach's Quarters when you are. Until then, stop acting like a child. This is someone else's thread to discuss universism and it should not be hijacked for your own purposes just because the fourth grade school bully was a Trintiarian and stole your lunch money.

[Pythagoras]

Do you think I'm about to waste time with someone like you on a formal debate?..Btw, I took up a debate challenge with Wiccan Justin a while back, on the trinity .....You on the other hand, can't even return a straight answer.

First learn to be honest , then I will consider debating you.

[Kaervek]

First off, why have a search if there are no answers? That sounds like having a mystery without a culprit or a scavenger hunt where all the items on the list don't exist.
You assume the search is for what you presume the have the answers for. The first requisite in this "search" is the understanding that nobody has the answers - not the Universist, and certainly not your Sunday School teacher.

Nice strawman.

Secondly, when they agree that no one knows for certain, do they know for certain that no one knows for certain?
Your play on symantecs does little for you apparent argument. A mere red herring.

Now, excuse me if I failed to sift through the off-topic and flame-baiting posts you two have been submitting for other possible comments that may have been relevant to the thread's topic.

[Sparko]

Kaervek has requested that this thread remain on the topic of Universalism. Please stick to that topic ONLY in this thread. If you wish to discuss other matters, start your own thread. I hope this thread will return to the topic voluntarily or the thread will begin to be moderated and those posts that do not comply may be deleted.

Note: This thread was in unorthodox theology. As the thread starter is a nontheist and UT is for theists only, I moved the thread here.

[Shadow Phoenix]

You assume the search is for what you presume the have the answers for. The first requisite in this "search" is the understanding that nobody has the answers - not the Universist, and certainly not your Sunday School teacher.

Nice strawman.

Alright. I had a hard time with the grammar. There's an extra the in there somewhere or a word left out. Anyhow, my point is that if you're going to search for something, there has to be something to search for. Imagine being given a map to hidden buried treasure, but being told that there is no treasure but have fun searching. The only reason we search for answers is because there are supposed to be answers out there.


Your play on symantecs does little for you apparent argument. A mere red herring.

Does this count as a refutation in some circles? The claim is self-refuting. "We know for certain that no one knows for certain."

Now, excuse me if I failed to sift through the off-topic and flame-baiting posts you two have been submitting for other possible comments that may have been relevant to the thread's topic.

Well I reported him anyway for that. The thread should be for your topic and not someone else's personal rant.

[mentored1]

Not at all. In fact, a Universist would tell you that faith, in the sense of religious dogma, is precisely what they don't have, and more importantly, what they denounce from the get-go.


Excellent thoughts... Thanks for the replies... I'll try to be civil :wink:

I see this is a battle of symbols more or less... Having faith in religious dogma or absence thereof is still faith - a trust, a hope that one's view is the correct view. The very act of denouncing something implies that a faith is inherent: that one's hope and wish for reality is better than anothers. Otherwise why bother denouncing it?


I've seen the argument before: "But denying the existence of God [as an atheist] is a faith in its own right."

This simply isn't the case.


Faith emerges from belief.. Belief is simply wish or desire that something might be true... Faith is taking action or creating evidence of that wish or desire... It can be applied to anything... When we're talking about systems of thought and abstract concepts such as this it always comes down to uncertainty which is then devolves into quibbling (faith) over whose uncertainty (belief) is best.


In fact, I think it's widely accepted (and rightfully so) that "non-theism" was well established prior to any form of organized religion. After all, one has to first not believe in God to later "find" him - one isn't born a Christian. Therefore, to suggest that a person has to have faith to not believe is a logical fallacy. To be "faithless" (for the lack of a better word) is essentially the default, whereas being faithful is later instilled into the individual. Faith isn't introduced into the equation until doubt (in this case, if God really doesn't exist) is first presented.

Methinks you might want to be careful with that... I'm not an expert so forgive me for saying but there is precious little we know about the thought life of primitive man... He may very well have been incredibly superstitious and thus believed in an unseen realm or forces of some sort...

Logical fallacy? Faith is the manifestation of Belief... so how can a person have faith to not believe? Faithless is the fallacy... You believe there is no God or that religion is absurd and your manifestation via argument, lifestyle and so forth is the equivalent of a believer's faith... The terms can be displayed however you choose but the underlying premises are the same.


Take care

[Scruffy]

The question I pose here is simple: Can a religion claiming to be based not on faith, such as Christianity, but rather "the search" - something a little more concrete, I suppose - survive in today's world; and if so, can it be beneficial to it's followers and others?

Would such a religion be viewed as detrimental to faith-based religions as Christianity, or is it simply a non-threatening "fad" that will soon pass?

I have spent a bit of time at the universist forum - it's a fad whose days are numbered.

They are too hateful and philosophically inconsistant to last long. They lack vision, good leadership, and any sort of benefit to followers or society.

It's a hate cult, it'll be gone in a few years.

[Hail Mary]

I have spent a bit of time at the universist forum - it's a fad whose days are numbered.

They are too hateful and philosophically inconsistant to last long. They lack vision, good leadership, and any sort of benefit to followers or society.

It's a hate cult, it'll be gone in a few years.

I spent a little time in the universalist unitarian "church" (or was it unitarian universalist?). Although different organizationally from the OP, it sounds very similar to the "Universism" organization. I disagree that they are a "hate cult" but they have some problems:

Since Church attendence is strictly optional, the attendence is very low, actually among the lowest of any belief systems,
They're usually so far out in the left wing of politics, normal people don't want to attend,
Being in left field, their abortion rates are very high, thus reducing birth rates with fewer children to whom their faith is passed down

[Duder]

After reading the Universist site's introduction and FAQ, my impression is pretty much the same as what some of the evangelical members have said.

After years of deep thought and long meditation in the quest to find a "safe" religion, they succeeded. The result is safe because it hasn't got very much to say about anything.

The best thing it has to say is that we must pursue answers to the questions that are of ultimate concern to us using our rational faculties, our intuition and our personal experiences.

Like, duh! I knew that already.

What if I like to reason about what it says in ancient scritures? Is that allowed? What if my personal experience involves an irrational, mystical experience which leads me to claim something I cannot prove? Is that okay in the Universist religion?

It also says that each person is responsible for his or her own findings with regard to the questions of ultimate concern.

Well, duh! I knew that, too.

If you ask a Universist a question concerning metaphysical truth, he will tell you how things are set up in his own private universe. *Your own universe may vary. **Some assembly required.

What do they tell the pilgrim who comes and expresses his thirst for perennial wisdom and his ache to explore the transcendant mysteries? "Great! So get cracking. But do forget about all those silly traditional religions and sacred scriptures, and don't peek at your neighbor's notes."

This looks like a flash fad that will soon die from lack of interest - unless some of those guys come up with something really interesting that might be of value to you and me.

[mickiel]

[QUOTE=Duder]After reading the Universist site's introduction and FAQ, my impression is pretty much the same as what some of the evangelical members have said.

After years of deep thought and long meditation in the quest to find a "safe" religion, they succeeded. The result is safe because it hasn't got very much to say about anything.



Strange, in my studies of them, I find them more well versed than all other religons combined. To each their own impression. Christians are narrow-minded in their evaluation of other beliefs anyhow. When the human mindset thinks it holds the monopoly on something, it will discredit the "other". To ask a christian to evaluate a universalist understanding, is pure contridiction, to which no proper evaluation could even survive the Christian mind. And I would say that about any religon christians evaluate, because christianity views itself as the only true religon, from that delusion, nothing relevant can even exist in their minds towards others experience with God.

[Duder]

Strange, in my studies of them, I find them more well versed than all other religons combined. To each their own impression.

I was going from the introductory material at the universist site, and I don't have the benefit of being aquainted with any universists. Maybe you are right in this - that persons attracted to universism tend to be interested in metaphysical matters and educated. Thus, perhaps the average universist does know something about the religions of the world.

My point is that the organization doesn't seem to make commitments to any positions. I don't mean that they should adopt a detailed and hyper-dogmatic creed like the Nicene or anything - but at least offer some general guidelines to some kind of metaphysical ideology.

Christians are narrow-minded in their evaluation of other beliefs anyhow.

This goes a little too far, I think. There are Christians who have a very deep understanding of the important philosophical issues and who are well versed in comparative religion. There are other Christians who are as you describe them. Christians are like anybody else - they come in a variety of flavors.


When the human mindset thinks it holds the monopoly on something, it will discredit the "other". To ask a christian to evaluate a universalist understanding, is pure contridiction, to which no proper evaluation could even survive the Christian mind. And I would say that about any religon christians evaluate, because christianity views itself as the only true religon, from that delusion, nothing relevant can even exist in their minds towards others experience with God.

You mentioned a "universalist" understanding, which is a different deal altogether. We've been talking about this organization of "universists" (no al in the word).

It happens that I am a universalist - which is the point of view that in the end God will reunite all things back into Himself, and that there won't be any regions forever seperated from Him (like the eternal fires of hell). I am also gravitating very strongly to the teaching of Jesus of Nazereth, but for a number of reasons I do not call myself a Christian. You discussed one of those reasons - the prevailing Christian view that the truth comes only to Christians.

The Christ says "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but by me." That may be so. But believing it does not mean you have to take the view that Christians are in a special and exclusive club of heaven-bounds, if you can assimilate the idea that the Christ is not embodied only in the personage of Jesus of Nazereth. I find the spirit and teaching of Christ in the Upanishads, the Vedas and the Sutras, too, only expressed in a manner appropriate for the times and cultures to which they were respectively revealed.

It seems to me that the universist (no al) rejects the insights of the traditional world religions, and asks the pilgrim to make up his own religion. Well, they have a point there. We all need to own our beliefs. But there is such a thing as taking relativism and skepticism too far. When an organization is so relative and skeptical that it has nothing at all to say about the nature of metaphysical truth, how can it call itself religious?

[mickiel]

It seems to me that the universist (no al) rejects the insights of the traditional world religions, and asks the pilgrim to make up his own religion. Well, they have a point there. We all need to own our beliefs. But there is such a thing as taking relativism and skepticism too far. When an organization is so relative and skeptical that it has nothing at all to say about the nature of metaphysical truth, how can it call itself religious?


I understand, but why should a search for truth need to define itself as religous? Religon is just mans effort to reach God, and they have organized that effort, each in their own way. If your way matches a particular group, then usually they walk together in unity. That is relative, but I still am skeptical as to how the traditional grouped together minds of men have defined God, and I mostly disagree with their findings. So why adhere to what one disagrees with? And that is perhaps what you see as rejection of religons. And I understand that.

If I go to purchase chicken for dinner, I go where I like the way it is cooked best, to my taste. If the populus or the majority goes elsewhere, then that is their taste. I cannot judge them according to their likes, and they not mine. Although I hold to no religon, I like much of the way universalist view God. Still, each man must search for truth if he is dissatisfied with what is traditionally availible. I am not satisfied with any of the worlds religons definition of God, and Gods true intent for his creation of humankind. I believe in the total rehabilitation of all of mankind. I believe that is the reason God sent Jesus to earth, is to save us all, not just those who believe.

God sent Jesus to save the world, not just christians. That is what I see in 1John 4:14; "The Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of THE WORLD." Universalism is believing that Jesus has not failed to do just that. World religons, in my view, has not properly defined the desires of God. Job 23:13, what and why has God created humankind? What is he going to do with us? " But God is unique and who can turn him ( from his desires) What his soul desires, that he does. What does God desire? 1Tim. 2:4; "He desires ALL men to be saved and to come into the knowledge that this is true". This kind of grace is blasphemus to the mind of most world religons, they cannot accept this. But I understand, neither can I accept their view of salvation. They have bypassed the true mission of Christ, and interpited salvation to be in the choice of the individual. Turning the free gift of God into a thing that must be earned by human performance. Which by the way, if that was true, it effectively dooms the vast majority of humankind, something I do not see God desireing.

There is just too much to cover in a few words usage. Jesus didnot suffer and die, so that humankind will suffer forever. He was not beaten so that we can be beaten throughout eternity. Our fathers have simply inherited lies about God. And those lies are being taught as truth.

Peace, Mickiel.

[Kaervek]

I have spent a bit of time at the universist forum - it's a fad whose days are numbered.

They are too hateful and philosophically inconsistant to last long. They lack vision, good leadership, and any sort of benefit to followers or society.
Interesting.

What exactly is so "hateful" about it? Where has any hate been preached - care to provide some direct links or sources of this? I'm curious. Universism doesn't promote stoning those who think differently than themselves, let alone sending them to an eternal pit of fire, but I digress.

Also, whether or not their leadership is worthy of praise is quite subjective, wouldn't you think? Especially from somebody that would be particularly biased against the cause of Universism. Thoughts?

It's a hate cult, it'll be gone in a few years.
A cult? What exactly makes you think Christianity isn't a cult, since we're tossing that particular word around now?

I spent a little time in the universalist unitarian "church" (or was it unitarian universalist?). Although different organizationally from the OP, it sounds very similar to the "Universism" organization. I disagree that they are a "hate cult" but they have some problems:

Since Church attendence is strictly optional, the attendence is very low, actually among the lowest of any belief systems,
They're usually so far out in the left wing of politics, normal people don't want to attend,
Being in left field, their abortion rates are very high, thus reducing birth rates with fewer children to whom their faith is passed down


Universism and Universalism are two completely different worldviews, and as such, have absolutely no similarities to each other. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear earlier - I understand they're easily confused with one another, based on their names alone.

What do they tell the pilgrim who comes and expresses his thirst for perennial wisdom and his ache to explore the transcendant mysteries? "Great! So get cracking. But do forget about all those silly traditional religions and sacred scriptures, and don't peek at your neighbor's notes."


No, Universism would tell this proverbial pilgrim that he should compare his notes with those of his neighbor, but to understand that he shouldn't expect any "metaphysical truth" (aside: do you really suspect that this "truth" could ever be found, anyway?) to come from either source. The best that he could probably hope for is a mid-point with which he can become comfortable with. For some people, this mid-point is having somebody tell them what a "metaphysical truth" is; for others, their mid-point lies in simply not knowing and being 100% satisfied with that. But however satisfied one might be in his so-called mid-point, that doesn't mean that the questions should cease, and that the personal search for these answers will/should no longer provide any solace.

I don't mean that they should adopt a detailed and hyper-dogmatic creed like the Nicene or anything - but at least offer some general guidelines to some kind of metaphysical ideology.

Perhaps that's where the disconnect lies - Universism isn't here to provide any answers. You seem to think that there needs to be a "metaphysical ideology," when in all reality, metaphysics is in and of itself purely subjective. To say that "this is how metaphysics is" is completely missing the point and the drive behind the Universist philosophy.

[Kaervek]

Oh, and one more thing:

They lack [...] any sort of benefit to followers or society.

How about you visit Hands On Humanity (http://www.handsonhumanity.org) and donate some of your money to the cause, or does it's "lack of benefit to society" prevent you from doing so? ;)

[Hail Mary]

Universism and Universalism are two completely different worldviews, and as such, have absolutely no similarities to each other. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear earlier - I understand they're easily confused with one another, based on their names alone.

Well, that's what they want you to think, right? However, if you read their site, it could have been cut and pasted from any UU literature. If you don't agree, then what exactly are the differences?

[Kaervek]

Well, that's what they want you to think, right? However, if you read their site, it could have been cut and pasted from any UU literature. If you don't agree, then what exactly are the differences?
Did you even read the Universism welcome-page? The idea of a "freethought religion" doesn't strike you as a stark contrast to Universalism?

Universalism, regardless of whether it adheres to any particular religion or not, still holds a "higher being" (i.e. God) as not only the supreme being, but also as a requirement for "eternal salvation."

Universism has no requirement for such a deity, let alone such a salvation. In fact, a great portion of people claiming Universism as their religion are either in denial to the presence of or indifferent to the presence of a deity (i.e. Atheists and Agnostics). Others, while not necessarily adhering to Christian dogma, still feel that such a "higher power" exists, but don't claim to know that power's purpose, if any purpose exists at all (i.e. deists).

So you see, Universism and Unitarian Universalism are nothing alike in philosophy. The only similarity I can even grasp at would be their willingness to accept those whom don't share a common worldview - but even then, certain assumptions are made on either side's part with regards to what those worldviews should/should not contain (i.e. God vs. No God).

[Hail Mary]

Did you even read the Universism welcome-page? The idea of a "freethought religion" doesn't strike you as a stark contrast to Universalism?

Spend some time looking over the Unitarian Universalism stuff. It has evolved into pretty much the same thing as Universism. Atheists are welcome at the UU, as are agnostics, or any one else that exists in our universe. Its not really about a deity at all. Its just kind of a place for people to go and share beliefs.

It may not have started that way, but that's how UU has evolved.

[Kaervek]

Spend some time looking over the Unitarian Universalism stuff. It has evolved into pretty much the same thing as Universism. Atheists are welcome at the UU, as are agnostics, or any one else that exists in our universe. Its not really about a deity at all. Its just kind of a place for people to go and share beliefs.

It may not have started that way, but that's how UU has evolved.
I'm quite certain Christians are "welcome" to Universist gatherings also. Just like "all are welcome" at the vast majority of any mainstream religious gathering. Whether or not you're accepted or not preached at is a whole 'nother story, of course.

[Hail Mary]

I'm quite certain Christians are "welcome" to Universist gatherings also. Just like "all are welcome" at the vast majority of any mainstream religious gathering. Whether or not you're accepted or not preached at is a whole 'nother story, of course.

During my stay in the UU 'Church' everyone was accepted, but I was only 'preached at' by atheists, agnostics, and some not even sure if they were agnostic or not. Anyone could preach about "free thought" as long as your "free thought" didn't involve Christianity, that was a "free thought" which was off limits.