Sad, but so true! Many in our congregation feel the same.. the UUA is a top down organization and dissent is not welcome!
The new president, undemocratically elected, is an ideological person who is very much into “ covenant”. When I heard her questioning the First Principle of the inherent worth and dignity of every person , because it was first mentioned by Emmanuel Kant , a WHITE MAN!!!!,
I absolutely couldn’t believe my ears! Really ?! The belief in morality of Kant is suspect because Kant was White??? White men can’t be moral in her opinion, it seems, while trans people are” sacred”! This is such restrictive thinking , if it’s thinking at all! Moreover, it goes against everything that UU’s ever stood for!
UU Churches are, in theory, Covenantal Congregations, with Congregational Polity (Autonomy), bound together by a covenant & operating in accord with Roberts Rules. Unfortunately, there has recently been a push toward "recovenanting" - rewriting covenants and implementing them by majority vote - kind of like one person, unilaterally rewriting marriage vows, or one party rewriting a contract with the concurrence of the other parties.
This happened to my congregation of 30+ years - at the instigation of a short-term minister, who went on to head training or some such at the UUA. A few committee meetings, and then a razor-thin congregational vote and we went from "covenant to live together in peace, seek knowledge in freedom, serve humankind in fellowship.." to a mealy-mouthed set of bullshit, along the lines of what the UUA "leadership" is trying to impose on all of us.
Since then, I've no longer felt like we actually exist as a congregation. The place still meets, but I sure don't feel like we're actually a congregation that's bound to each other anymore.
I think I probably questioned everything, not intentionally but just because I didn’t know what I was suppose to think or feel. I was focused solely on my mental health and late development of my voice. I survived quite a while before they came for me (as they came for other people) and used my own trauma based guilt, shame and fear against me. Claiming that talking about my trauma to what I thought was a spiritual leader and confidant only to have it used against me, and out of covenant. I realized that they were perpetuating my trauma, so I finally left after a few years of trying to leave, but couldn’t because of my voice being too weak.
I thought the covenant would be a good thing, but instead it created a process to punish people for things they can’t control, especially if they do everything they know how to do to explain their voice disorder like I did, ultimately to avoid having my disorder misunderstood as intentional speech patterns.
A possible topic for discussion (maybe a "discussion or a future day," as they say) is whether, and to what degree, a denomination can embrace both the "liberal" and the "covenantal." What shapes or forms might this take, and what "trade offs" there might be. I left the UUA some decades ago, before the current ideological takeover. Even so, I could sense such things coming. If anything, I'm surprised that they didn't happen sooner.
That being said, my activity in the UUA did help me conceptualize and embrace the religious beliefs which I still hold today. Those concepts have been elaborated and deepened since then, and they helped guide my subsequent religious "trajectory." They are the same basic beliefs which I still affirm. (Nobody ever explained to me what those concepts have to do -in any required or mandatory sense - with leftist political ideology. To this day, nobody ever has.)
Right on, David. Have you sent this essay to the UUA Board? I'd challenge them to respond to your documentation that the UUA can no longer claim to be a liberal religion. Or simply call for a UUA-wide dialogue on this question.
This thinking has taken over my congregation, and no one seems concerned. Though a few have said they were. Any ideas about how to stir ppl into action?
This thinking has taken over my congregation, and no one seems concerned. Though a few have said they were. Any ideas about how to stir ppl into action?
Sad, but so true! Many in our congregation feel the same.. the UUA is a top down organization and dissent is not welcome!
The new president, undemocratically elected, is an ideological person who is very much into “ covenant”. When I heard her questioning the First Principle of the inherent worth and dignity of every person , because it was first mentioned by Emmanuel Kant , a WHITE MAN!!!!,
I absolutely couldn’t believe my ears! Really ?! The belief in morality of Kant is suspect because Kant was White??? White men can’t be moral in her opinion, it seems, while trans people are” sacred”! This is such restrictive thinking , if it’s thinking at all! Moreover, it goes against everything that UU’s ever stood for!
Yes, as Todd Eklof said, it’s time for a divorce!
UU Churches are, in theory, Covenantal Congregations, with Congregational Polity (Autonomy), bound together by a covenant & operating in accord with Roberts Rules. Unfortunately, there has recently been a push toward "recovenanting" - rewriting covenants and implementing them by majority vote - kind of like one person, unilaterally rewriting marriage vows, or one party rewriting a contract with the concurrence of the other parties.
This happened to my congregation of 30+ years - at the instigation of a short-term minister, who went on to head training or some such at the UUA. A few committee meetings, and then a razor-thin congregational vote and we went from "covenant to live together in peace, seek knowledge in freedom, serve humankind in fellowship.." to a mealy-mouthed set of bullshit, along the lines of what the UUA "leadership" is trying to impose on all of us.
Since then, I've no longer felt like we actually exist as a congregation. The place still meets, but I sure don't feel like we're actually a congregation that's bound to each other anymore.
I think I probably questioned everything, not intentionally but just because I didn’t know what I was suppose to think or feel. I was focused solely on my mental health and late development of my voice. I survived quite a while before they came for me (as they came for other people) and used my own trauma based guilt, shame and fear against me. Claiming that talking about my trauma to what I thought was a spiritual leader and confidant only to have it used against me, and out of covenant. I realized that they were perpetuating my trauma, so I finally left after a few years of trying to leave, but couldn’t because of my voice being too weak.
I thought the covenant would be a good thing, but instead it created a process to punish people for things they can’t control, especially if they do everything they know how to do to explain their voice disorder like I did, ultimately to avoid having my disorder misunderstood as intentional speech patterns.
A possible topic for discussion (maybe a "discussion or a future day," as they say) is whether, and to what degree, a denomination can embrace both the "liberal" and the "covenantal." What shapes or forms might this take, and what "trade offs" there might be. I left the UUA some decades ago, before the current ideological takeover. Even so, I could sense such things coming. If anything, I'm surprised that they didn't happen sooner.
That being said, my activity in the UUA did help me conceptualize and embrace the religious beliefs which I still hold today. Those concepts have been elaborated and deepened since then, and they helped guide my subsequent religious "trajectory." They are the same basic beliefs which I still affirm. (Nobody ever explained to me what those concepts have to do -in any required or mandatory sense - with leftist political ideology. To this day, nobody ever has.)
Right on, David. Have you sent this essay to the UUA Board? I'd challenge them to respond to your documentation that the UUA can no longer claim to be a liberal religion. Or simply call for a UUA-wide dialogue on this question.
This thinking has taken over my congregation, and no one seems concerned. Though a few have said they were. Any ideas about how to stir ppl into action?
This thinking has taken over my congregation, and no one seems concerned. Though a few have said they were. Any ideas about how to stir ppl into action?