This article makes me simultaneously sad for what the church of my childhood has become, and grateful that my husband and I left a couple years ago (mostly to protect our child from the cult-like thinking). I was flabbergasted to read that they no longer believe in the inherit worth and dignity of all humans. That seems so basic; it never even occurred to me that that was under assault. Thanks for the reporting.
A question arose that no one had an answer for. What happens if the changes are approved and the congregation chooses to ignore them and continue as they please? Is the congregation allowed to still call itself Unitarian Universalist?
It irked me that the controversy about "Standing on the Side of Love" was deflected into the word "Standing," which was changed to "Being." Utterly missing was any critique of it being emotionalized ju Jitsu, assuming that any valuing of the traditional marriage as between a man and a woman in order to mark the paternity and assure support for spouses and children was to be accused of being not loving. This insults those who value traditional marriage as unloving and ignores their rationale. It is presumptuous, dismissive, unkind, and unwise.
This article makes me simultaneously sad for what the church of my childhood has become, and grateful that my husband and I left a couple years ago (mostly to protect our child from the cult-like thinking). I was flabbergasted to read that they no longer believe in the inherit worth and dignity of all humans. That seems so basic; it never even occurred to me that that was under assault. Thanks for the reporting.
HUUBRIS
If the UUA isn't already the most irrelevant church in America, it soon will be.
It's relevant as the butt of jokes
A question arose that no one had an answer for. What happens if the changes are approved and the congregation chooses to ignore them and continue as they please? Is the congregation allowed to still call itself Unitarian Universalist?
It irked me that the controversy about "Standing on the Side of Love" was deflected into the word "Standing," which was changed to "Being." Utterly missing was any critique of it being emotionalized ju Jitsu, assuming that any valuing of the traditional marriage as between a man and a woman in order to mark the paternity and assure support for spouses and children was to be accused of being not loving. This insults those who value traditional marriage as unloving and ignores their rationale. It is presumptuous, dismissive, unkind, and unwise.
Thanks for the quote.
One minor nit: Our first principle USED to read:
"the members of the Unitarian Universalist Association, dedicated to the principles of a free faith, unite in seeking:
1. To strengthen one another in a free and disciplined search for truth as the foundation of our religious fellowship;"
Our decline started, when this core principle was demoted.
I joined in 1982. Curious when was this change adopted?
UUA does seem to be seriously radicalizing.