“Quiet orthodoxy.” I wonder if it could be called a “comfortable orthodoxy.” That is how I experienced it for 12 years. I was among my people, which is no small thing in an age when they are hard to find!
I was in “one-off” discussion groups: we’d discuss a topic for a meeting and move on to another one next time. We never went deeper. No risk of drowning. I was on service committees, doing good work for other members. I was invited to join the social justice training program, and that's when I discovered that there was an orthodoxy that I had not been aware of and I started asking questions. I slowly became aware that my questions tagged me as problematic, and people in my subgroup began telling me that my questions and comments were making them uncomfortable. The format of the training did not allow for exploring the discomfort, so the orthodoxy was safely intact.
I like the term “comfortable orthodoxy” because it captures the subtlety of how easy it is to fall under its influence. I count myself as a sometime victim. In my search for community, one thing I highly value is comfort within the community.
So how do we have both, heterodoxy and community? The social justice training, in my judgment, was teaching a point of view instead of creating opportunity for dialogue. (I might have missed that intention at the start.) But if dialogue is the goal, a vision statement for the program might have gone like this: “We value truth-seeking because it leads to growth, and we've learned that communities, like individuals, either grow or stagnate. We choose growth, knowing that it is the result of both pain and aspiration, which our community will support.”
Communities that grow welcome and need heterodoxy and diverse viewpoints. There are churches that have orthodoxy and dogma, and that is fine for those who want that type of religion. But UU is not supposed to be one of them.
The primary problem with UU's recent "anti-racism/anti-oppression" program is that it didn't work. The percentage of racial minorities in UU has dropped! The program should have been questioned, including by people like you.
Was the purpose of the “anti-racism/anti-oppression” program to draw in more racial minorities? That sounds a bit transactional… If anything, I’d say it was to affirm the church’s core commitment to social justice and racial equality. The program should not be “questioned” simply for the numbers. It should not be treated like some revenue engine. If committing to anti-racism and anti-oppression is at the heart of the church’s mission, then I see nothing wrong with it. The merits of the program shouldn’t be defined by how many racial minorities it attracts. Committing to anti-racism and anti-oppression is just a matter of principle.
If racial and ethnic membership is dropping in the UU church, and the church is one of the whitest and most racially monolithic churches in the country, I don't see how that can be described as a positive thing. One of my problems with the church is that it is so racially and ethnically monolithic, and that its policies and positions make the church and many congregations unwelcoming to most racial and ethnic minorities. The UUA's 2024 membership report showed that the percentage of racial minorities in the church has dropped in the last decade and a half.
I describe UU in current practice as "a church for white progressives." It is, if unintentionally and unconsciously, designed to attract white progressives, not racial and ethnic minorities, which is why it is so white and becoming whiter.
A church that proclaims itself to be “anti-racist” yet the vast majority of racial and ethnic minorities have no interest in joining it, and its minority membership is dropping, should be seen as a clear indication that it is approaching the whole issue in the wrong way.
I believe UU can create a more racially diverse membership without compromising their core liberal principles. That means remaining committed to social justice, and especially championing the rights of LGBTQIA+ people, women, and immigrant communities unconditionally and without question. While theological diversity is important, this cannot come at the expense of the church’s core liberal values.
From a personal perspective, I dislike UU and my congregation being so white, and wish for a church and congregation with more racial and ethnic diversity. Not only am I Sephardic Jewish, but my partner (who is not a UU and does not attend services) is Iranian, and she has commented on the lack of racial minorities at the congregation.
That the church and my congregation are only becoming whiter and more monolithic is troubling to me, and I would hope that trend would be troubling and thought-provoking to most UUs.
Perhaps your church needs to do better marketing and community outreach to racial minorities. But it is absolutely false to suggest that progressive values or beliefs are pushing them away. The statistics on their voting patterns do not bear out that assumption.
It happened recently. My late mother joined UU in 2012 or 2013. She quit about 2020, noting how much it had changed in that short time, both at the national and congregational level.
I miss the UU congregations of even 15 years ago, when they were more independent of the UUA, and chose their own focus. One minister in particular (T.B.) left us with more questions than answers after sermons, which I valued. UU could do with more of the "We need not think alike to love alike" mindset.
Some decades ago, I could sense the de-facto "political creed" coming down the chute in the supposedly "creedless ' UUA. I'm glad I left it when I did - it doesn't sound like I've missed out on much. Meanwhile, the basic religious teachings or concepts which were introduced to me in the UUA are essentially the same ones which I still believe. Nobody ever explained to me what (if anything) those teachings have to do with left wing politics. To this day, nobody ever has.
I don't think the problem is that UUs are close-minded and unimaginative. I know many intelligent and curious UUs willing to sincerely consider different and even opposing ideas and viewpoints. The problem is that most UUs these days largely have the same political views, so it's become a bubble of people both with similar views and who assume everyone in their congregation thinks like them.
I know very few, if any. . . intelligent and curious UUs who are willing to sincerely consider my different and even opposing ideas and viewpoints regarding UU clergy misconduct that includes child sex abuse, and the past and apparently ongoing mishandling, minimization, and cover-up thereof.
The vast majority of UUs, including top-level UUA leadership and dozens if not hundreds of UUA clergy, prefer obstinate willful ignorance to a free and genuinely responsible search for the truth and meaning of what I have to say about those subjects and some other serious problems in the Unitarian Universalist "church". As if that was not bad enough, most UUs try to silence me using various forms of censorship and suppression of my free speech when I raise issues they would prefer not to know about and address.
Most recently, the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Houston deleted my comments on their Facebook account and YouTube account that, irony of ironies, warned them against engaging in censorship and suppression of not only my own comments about the Sade Perkins fiasco, but those of many other people. They ignored my warnings, continued to delete people's comments, and suppressed commenting by turning off commenting on Facebook and YouTube. Finally, facing an onslaught of public criticism in the wake of Sade Perkins' deeply offensive and abusive rhetoric, the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Houston set its Facebook & YouTube videos to "private" and put up a "firewall" on its website.
How do you value your membership in Westside? What factors push one to consider accepting UU's demise and which lead you to continue to value identifying as a UU or a member of your congregation?
I'm not a member, having given that up some time ago. I attend the congregation, though more and more infrequently. There are occasional classes, such as on spiritual topics, and discussions that interest me. Plus, I have some friends there.
What concerns me most is it sets itself up and advertises itself as a "safe space for progressives," so attracts the same types of people (white progressives, mostly white women) and the narrowing of culture and views is only going to more pronounced-- "a closed and close-minded church" as I describe it in the post. Many of the independent thinkers and classical liberals have already left the church, something I've called "a brain drain."
At the congregation, you will not be punished or chastised for expressing unorthodox views. However, it does not engage with or platform viewpoint diversity, so there is organizational groupthink.
Agree- its why I left the UU after 49 years. My minister took so many political positions that were simplistic to the point of stupidly. As a lawyer who earned my livelihood by writing laws, i was infuriated by the ineffective slogans, that divided us- rather than the 7 principles which united us. I was essentially told to shut up or leave. So far, I am in alignment with your perspective.
Being “liberal” doesn’t necessarily mean being open to competing viewpoints, but rather taking a politically liberal stance on most issues. So it’s important to distinguish between epistemic liberalism and political/social liberalism. UU may not be a monolith, but they are certainly grounded in a shared commitment to social justice and equality. I think you’d be better off joining an interdenominational or non-denominational congregation, as UU is technically its own denomination, and with that comes a certain set of fundamental values that members are expected to uphold, for both community-building purposes and the integrity and resilience of the denomination. Ideological pluralism is good, but a church is not a proper forum for debate or parliamentary deliberation. That type of discernment and existential sense-making happens at national conventions. Embracing or simply platforming any beliefs or perspectives that threaten those values would be self-defeating. It’s like making a case for racial equality and in the same breath calling for “tolerance” or understanding of the KKK. I think it would trouble most UUs to see the values and beliefs of the KKK being entertained at the pulpit. And to be clear, the majority of progressives are people of color, not white women. White men and women make up the biggest shares of conservatives.
Classical liberalism and political liberalism (in the common American definition of it) are different things. UU being a liberal religion doesn't mean leftist but classically liberal.
Also, you are using a slippery slope logical fallacy argument. There are parameters as to what is acceptable in beliefs and expressions in UU, as defined by the first principle of "The worth and dignity of everyone."
Neither I nor any UU is recommending that any view, such as by Nazis or the KKK (Which defy the first principle) should be platformed in UU congregation. I am Jewish, and would quit any congregation that platforms Nazis.
Also, you kind of made my point about platforming Nazi viewpoints being antithetical to UU’s core principles. There are certain viewpoints in political discourse today that many view as neo-Nazi or ultra-conservative, so why would UUs try to meaningfully engage with them? They’re fully aware of the different arguments and perspectives out there, and I think you have the impression that they don’t. Trying to make them appear more tolerable or sensible would threaten the church’s prevailing progressive bent.
Classical liberalism isn’t actually a political ideology but a philosophy about the way government should behave in relation to its people. Here is the technical definition: “Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and economic theory emphasizing individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. It champions individual rights, including life, liberty, and property, and advocates for minimal government intervention in the economy and personal lives.” This actually aligns most with political conservatism. But political liberalism is what the UU uses as its core framework when deciding which stances to adopt. I’m not exactly sure what you’re looking for, but you’re not going to find UUs endorsing classical liberalism. It’s fundamentally at odds with their progressive values and beliefs, which emphasize the role of the government in protecting and advancing people’s civil rights and liberties, especially those of historically marginalized groups, like transgender youth and undocumented immigrants. When you have no intervention at all, you risk leaving the door open for exploitation. So classical liberalism most definitely does not align with UU core values.
You are incorrect, including in you conception of what is liberalism. I wrote about the topic earlier, in the post "Different Definitions of Liberalism" (Link below)
Further, UU is a liberal (as in classical liberalism) religion. That's how it's been defined and self-defined throughout the church's history. Minister Rev. Sean Neil-Baron said, “We are a liberal religion, not a religion for liberals.”
The definition I provided for classical liberalism isn’t my own. I didn’t make it up. And it also doesn’t align with what the UU believes today. Almost all of its official stances are politically liberal. So of course if you’re more politically conservative, or even just moderate, then it’s not really a place for you. According UUA’s own website, “ UUs reject any violations of the human rights and dignity of immigrants, regardless of citizenship status.” This is a progressive stance. “Grounded in our religious beliefs, Unitarian Universalists are compelled to speak out against the moral failure of the U.S. government for its military involvement in the expanding conflict between Israel and Iran.” This is a progressive stance, not even a traditionally liberal one. Classical liberalism is simply about theological diversity, but this diversity at UU contains mostly liberal elements. Because UU isn’t just liberal in the sense of being theologically diverse. There is a progressive bent to it. So if you’re looking for something more conservative or moderate, I would look elsewhere.
"UUs reject any violations of the human rights and dignity of immigrants, regardless of citizenship status" and "Grounded in our religious beliefs, Unitarian Universalists are compelled to speak out against the moral failure of the U.S. government for its military involvement in the expanding conflict between Israel and Iran” aren't stictly or exclusively progressive stances. Many non-progressives will agree with those statements.
Further, a UU, including a progressive UU, is not required to agree with the second quote. There is no UU dogma on what is correct policy vis-à-vis Iran and Israel. UU is not the Catholic Church, and has no Vatican that decrees papal bulls for all UUs. An administrative body in Boston releasing decrees of what "all UUs believe (or must believe)" on particular geopolitical topics is un-UU.
Being anti-war has historically been a progressive stance, while traditional liberals and conservatives in general have been pro-war, or neo-conservative. So while there may be non-progressives who agree with UUA’s official stances on those two issues, those stances are overwhelmingly and historically championed by progressives. If you see a pro-Palestine demonstrator on the streets, do you really think they’re a conservative? If anything, I’ve seen the most hostility against these demonstrators by conservatives, even attacking universities for not doing enough to suppress the demonstrators and overall support for Palestinians. And many traditional liberals, especially those funded by pro-Israel special interest groups, either stay silent or join the attacks. So this is very much a progressive issue. And on the topic of immigration, the political fault lines could not be more stark, so UUA is forced to pick a side. If you’re asking UUA to moderate their stance to placate your more conservative sensibilities, then that won’t happen anytime soon. They’ll be open to hearing your viewpoints, but are under no obligation to endorse them.
These aren’t “decrees.” They’re official stances of the church. You’re not obligated to adopt the same stances, but this is how churches build community, by rallying around certain causes. If those are not causes you believe in, then perhaps you haven’t found the right community for you.
“Quiet orthodoxy.” I wonder if it could be called a “comfortable orthodoxy.” That is how I experienced it for 12 years. I was among my people, which is no small thing in an age when they are hard to find!
I was in “one-off” discussion groups: we’d discuss a topic for a meeting and move on to another one next time. We never went deeper. No risk of drowning. I was on service committees, doing good work for other members. I was invited to join the social justice training program, and that's when I discovered that there was an orthodoxy that I had not been aware of and I started asking questions. I slowly became aware that my questions tagged me as problematic, and people in my subgroup began telling me that my questions and comments were making them uncomfortable. The format of the training did not allow for exploring the discomfort, so the orthodoxy was safely intact.
I like the term “comfortable orthodoxy” because it captures the subtlety of how easy it is to fall under its influence. I count myself as a sometime victim. In my search for community, one thing I highly value is comfort within the community.
So how do we have both, heterodoxy and community? The social justice training, in my judgment, was teaching a point of view instead of creating opportunity for dialogue. (I might have missed that intention at the start.) But if dialogue is the goal, a vision statement for the program might have gone like this: “We value truth-seeking because it leads to growth, and we've learned that communities, like individuals, either grow or stagnate. We choose growth, knowing that it is the result of both pain and aspiration, which our community will support.”
Communities that grow welcome and need heterodoxy and diverse viewpoints. There are churches that have orthodoxy and dogma, and that is fine for those who want that type of religion. But UU is not supposed to be one of them.
The primary problem with UU's recent "anti-racism/anti-oppression" program is that it didn't work. The percentage of racial minorities in UU has dropped! The program should have been questioned, including by people like you.
Was the purpose of the “anti-racism/anti-oppression” program to draw in more racial minorities? That sounds a bit transactional… If anything, I’d say it was to affirm the church’s core commitment to social justice and racial equality. The program should not be “questioned” simply for the numbers. It should not be treated like some revenue engine. If committing to anti-racism and anti-oppression is at the heart of the church’s mission, then I see nothing wrong with it. The merits of the program shouldn’t be defined by how many racial minorities it attracts. Committing to anti-racism and anti-oppression is just a matter of principle.
If racial and ethnic membership is dropping in the UU church, and the church is one of the whitest and most racially monolithic churches in the country, I don't see how that can be described as a positive thing. One of my problems with the church is that it is so racially and ethnically monolithic, and that its policies and positions make the church and many congregations unwelcoming to most racial and ethnic minorities. The UUA's 2024 membership report showed that the percentage of racial minorities in the church has dropped in the last decade and a half.
I describe UU in current practice as "a church for white progressives." It is, if unintentionally and unconsciously, designed to attract white progressives, not racial and ethnic minorities, which is why it is so white and becoming whiter.
A church that proclaims itself to be “anti-racist” yet the vast majority of racial and ethnic minorities have no interest in joining it, and its minority membership is dropping, should be seen as a clear indication that it is approaching the whole issue in the wrong way.
I believe UU can create a more racially diverse membership without compromising their core liberal principles. That means remaining committed to social justice, and especially championing the rights of LGBTQIA+ people, women, and immigrant communities unconditionally and without question. While theological diversity is important, this cannot come at the expense of the church’s core liberal values.
From a personal perspective, I dislike UU and my congregation being so white, and wish for a church and congregation with more racial and ethnic diversity. Not only am I Sephardic Jewish, but my partner (who is not a UU and does not attend services) is Iranian, and she has commented on the lack of racial minorities at the congregation.
That the church and my congregation are only becoming whiter and more monolithic is troubling to me, and I would hope that trend would be troubling and thought-provoking to most UUs.
Perhaps your church needs to do better marketing and community outreach to racial minorities. But it is absolutely false to suggest that progressive values or beliefs are pushing them away. The statistics on their voting patterns do not bear out that assumption.
Really good post. Humans do like being in insulated, safe tribes.
AFAIAC insulated tribes are not safe tribes, far from it. . .
Great post, thanks.
Thank you, David!
I like to call it "information silos" I have no idea what or how this happened to UUism. It's sad but it was an interesting experiment for many years.
It happened recently. My late mother joined UU in 2012 or 2013. She quit about 2020, noting how much it had changed in that short time, both at the national and congregational level.
I miss the UU congregations of even 15 years ago, when they were more independent of the UUA, and chose their own focus. One minister in particular (T.B.) left us with more questions than answers after sermons, which I valued. UU could do with more of the "We need not think alike to love alike" mindset.
Some decades ago, I could sense the de-facto "political creed" coming down the chute in the supposedly "creedless ' UUA. I'm glad I left it when I did - it doesn't sound like I've missed out on much. Meanwhile, the basic religious teachings or concepts which were introduced to me in the UUA are essentially the same ones which I still believe. Nobody ever explained to me what (if anything) those teachings have to do with left wing politics. To this day, nobody ever has.
I don't think the problem is that UUs are close-minded and unimaginative. I know many intelligent and curious UUs willing to sincerely consider different and even opposing ideas and viewpoints. The problem is that most UUs these days largely have the same political views, so it's become a bubble of people both with similar views and who assume everyone in their congregation thinks like them.
I know very few, if any. . . intelligent and curious UUs who are willing to sincerely consider my different and even opposing ideas and viewpoints regarding UU clergy misconduct that includes child sex abuse, and the past and apparently ongoing mishandling, minimization, and cover-up thereof.
The vast majority of UUs, including top-level UUA leadership and dozens if not hundreds of UUA clergy, prefer obstinate willful ignorance to a free and genuinely responsible search for the truth and meaning of what I have to say about those subjects and some other serious problems in the Unitarian Universalist "church". As if that was not bad enough, most UUs try to silence me using various forms of censorship and suppression of my free speech when I raise issues they would prefer not to know about and address.
Most recently, the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Houston deleted my comments on their Facebook account and YouTube account that, irony of ironies, warned them against engaging in censorship and suppression of not only my own comments about the Sade Perkins fiasco, but those of many other people. They ignored my warnings, continued to delete people's comments, and suppressed commenting by turning off commenting on Facebook and YouTube. Finally, facing an onslaught of public criticism in the wake of Sade Perkins' deeply offensive and abusive rhetoric, the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Houston set its Facebook & YouTube videos to "private" and put up a "firewall" on its website.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S58B9ClbnU
How do you value your membership in Westside? What factors push one to consider accepting UU's demise and which lead you to continue to value identifying as a UU or a member of your congregation?
I'm not a member, having given that up some time ago. I attend the congregation, though more and more infrequently. There are occasional classes, such as on spiritual topics, and discussions that interest me. Plus, I have some friends there.
What concerns me most is it sets itself up and advertises itself as a "safe space for progressives," so attracts the same types of people (white progressives, mostly white women) and the narrowing of culture and views is only going to more pronounced-- "a closed and close-minded church" as I describe it in the post. Many of the independent thinkers and classical liberals have already left the church, something I've called "a brain drain."
At the congregation, you will not be punished or chastised for expressing unorthodox views. However, it does not engage with or platform viewpoint diversity, so there is organizational groupthink.
There are a number of spaces like this anymore.
Agree- its why I left the UU after 49 years. My minister took so many political positions that were simplistic to the point of stupidly. As a lawyer who earned my livelihood by writing laws, i was infuriated by the ineffective slogans, that divided us- rather than the 7 principles which united us. I was essentially told to shut up or leave. So far, I am in alignment with your perspective.
Being “liberal” doesn’t necessarily mean being open to competing viewpoints, but rather taking a politically liberal stance on most issues. So it’s important to distinguish between epistemic liberalism and political/social liberalism. UU may not be a monolith, but they are certainly grounded in a shared commitment to social justice and equality. I think you’d be better off joining an interdenominational or non-denominational congregation, as UU is technically its own denomination, and with that comes a certain set of fundamental values that members are expected to uphold, for both community-building purposes and the integrity and resilience of the denomination. Ideological pluralism is good, but a church is not a proper forum for debate or parliamentary deliberation. That type of discernment and existential sense-making happens at national conventions. Embracing or simply platforming any beliefs or perspectives that threaten those values would be self-defeating. It’s like making a case for racial equality and in the same breath calling for “tolerance” or understanding of the KKK. I think it would trouble most UUs to see the values and beliefs of the KKK being entertained at the pulpit. And to be clear, the majority of progressives are people of color, not white women. White men and women make up the biggest shares of conservatives.
Classical liberalism and political liberalism (in the common American definition of it) are different things. UU being a liberal religion doesn't mean leftist but classically liberal.
Also, you are using a slippery slope logical fallacy argument. There are parameters as to what is acceptable in beliefs and expressions in UU, as defined by the first principle of "The worth and dignity of everyone."
Neither I nor any UU is recommending that any view, such as by Nazis or the KKK (Which defy the first principle) should be platformed in UU congregation. I am Jewish, and would quit any congregation that platforms Nazis.
Also, you kind of made my point about platforming Nazi viewpoints being antithetical to UU’s core principles. There are certain viewpoints in political discourse today that many view as neo-Nazi or ultra-conservative, so why would UUs try to meaningfully engage with them? They’re fully aware of the different arguments and perspectives out there, and I think you have the impression that they don’t. Trying to make them appear more tolerable or sensible would threaten the church’s prevailing progressive bent.
Classical liberalism isn’t actually a political ideology but a philosophy about the way government should behave in relation to its people. Here is the technical definition: “Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and economic theory emphasizing individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. It champions individual rights, including life, liberty, and property, and advocates for minimal government intervention in the economy and personal lives.” This actually aligns most with political conservatism. But political liberalism is what the UU uses as its core framework when deciding which stances to adopt. I’m not exactly sure what you’re looking for, but you’re not going to find UUs endorsing classical liberalism. It’s fundamentally at odds with their progressive values and beliefs, which emphasize the role of the government in protecting and advancing people’s civil rights and liberties, especially those of historically marginalized groups, like transgender youth and undocumented immigrants. When you have no intervention at all, you risk leaving the door open for exploitation. So classical liberalism most definitely does not align with UU core values.
You are incorrect, including in you conception of what is liberalism. I wrote about the topic earlier, in the post "Different Definitions of Liberalism" (Link below)
https://davidcycleback.substack.com/p/different-definitions-of-liberalism
Further, UU is a liberal (as in classical liberalism) religion. That's how it's been defined and self-defined throughout the church's history. Minister Rev. Sean Neil-Baron said, “We are a liberal religion, not a religion for liberals.”
The definition I provided for classical liberalism isn’t my own. I didn’t make it up. And it also doesn’t align with what the UU believes today. Almost all of its official stances are politically liberal. So of course if you’re more politically conservative, or even just moderate, then it’s not really a place for you. According UUA’s own website, “ UUs reject any violations of the human rights and dignity of immigrants, regardless of citizenship status.” This is a progressive stance. “Grounded in our religious beliefs, Unitarian Universalists are compelled to speak out against the moral failure of the U.S. government for its military involvement in the expanding conflict between Israel and Iran.” This is a progressive stance, not even a traditionally liberal one. Classical liberalism is simply about theological diversity, but this diversity at UU contains mostly liberal elements. Because UU isn’t just liberal in the sense of being theologically diverse. There is a progressive bent to it. So if you’re looking for something more conservative or moderate, I would look elsewhere.
"UUs reject any violations of the human rights and dignity of immigrants, regardless of citizenship status" and "Grounded in our religious beliefs, Unitarian Universalists are compelled to speak out against the moral failure of the U.S. government for its military involvement in the expanding conflict between Israel and Iran” aren't stictly or exclusively progressive stances. Many non-progressives will agree with those statements.
Further, a UU, including a progressive UU, is not required to agree with the second quote. There is no UU dogma on what is correct policy vis-à-vis Iran and Israel. UU is not the Catholic Church, and has no Vatican that decrees papal bulls for all UUs. An administrative body in Boston releasing decrees of what "all UUs believe (or must believe)" on particular geopolitical topics is un-UU.
Being anti-war has historically been a progressive stance, while traditional liberals and conservatives in general have been pro-war, or neo-conservative. So while there may be non-progressives who agree with UUA’s official stances on those two issues, those stances are overwhelmingly and historically championed by progressives. If you see a pro-Palestine demonstrator on the streets, do you really think they’re a conservative? If anything, I’ve seen the most hostility against these demonstrators by conservatives, even attacking universities for not doing enough to suppress the demonstrators and overall support for Palestinians. And many traditional liberals, especially those funded by pro-Israel special interest groups, either stay silent or join the attacks. So this is very much a progressive issue. And on the topic of immigration, the political fault lines could not be more stark, so UUA is forced to pick a side. If you’re asking UUA to moderate their stance to placate your more conservative sensibilities, then that won’t happen anytime soon. They’ll be open to hearing your viewpoints, but are under no obligation to endorse them.
These aren’t “decrees.” They’re official stances of the church. You’re not obligated to adopt the same stances, but this is how churches build community, by rallying around certain causes. If those are not causes you believe in, then perhaps you haven’t found the right community for you.