Journey, not the destination

Each and every one in our church intergenerational community

The natural world, of which we are all but a tiny part

People's generosity

Individual search for meaning

Good actions that advance Justice and Equity

How misunderstanding fuels polarization

by David Cycleback

Polling and studies, including by the University of Pennsylvania and Penn State University, reveal that political polarization in the United States extends beyond growing animosity—it is also fueled by widespread misunderstanding. Many Democrats and Republicans struggle to understand the perspectives, motivations, and reasoning of those on the opposite side.

Among Republicans, only one in four believes that most Democrats sincerely vote in the country’s best interests. Instead, they often attribute Democratic motivations to selfishness or manipulation, citing reasons like being "brainwashed by the mainstream media" and seeking "undeserved welfare and food stamps." A Republican voter from Florida described Democrats as wanting "cradle-to-grave assistance. In other words, Mommy!" About one in six Republicans claim Democrats vote for “free” benefits like healthcare, college, and welfare, though no Democrats polled described their motivations in such terms.

Democrats often hold similarly skewed views about Republicans, attributing their voting behavior to misinformation or selfishness. Republicans are frequently described as “VERY ill-informed,” voting because “Fox News told me to,” or being influenced by “what the right-wing media is feeding them.” Democrats also perceive Republicans as motivated by selfishness, claiming they think, “I’ve got mine, and I don’t want the libs to take it away.” Some Democrats describe Republican motivations as stemming from racism or authoritarianism, with statements describing Republican motivations as “I’m a racist, I hate non-whites,” and “I like a dictatorial system of government.”

This divide makes empathy and understanding difficult. A 77-year-old Republican woman admitted, “I cannot even wrap my mind around any reason they [Democrats] would be good for this country.” Similarly, a 33-year-old Democrat from California struggled to identify Republican motivations, speculating it might be about “moral values” or “protecting jobs from immigrants.”

Research from the McCourtney Institute for Democracy highlights a significant perception gap—the disparity between what partisans believe about their opponents and reality. For examples, both sides vastly overestimate the number of extreme members in the other party, Democrats vastly overestimate how many Republicans deny the existence of racism (most Republicans acknowledge it exists), while Republicans overestimate how many Democrats want a socialist country. Both sides underestimate the diversity of opinions within opposing parties.

The politically extreme—devout conservatives and progressive activists—exhibit the greatest distortions. By contrast, those in the middle and politically disengaged have more accurate perceptions of their opponents.

Frequent political news consumers tend to have larger perception gaps than those who follow the news occasionally, particularly when relying on partisan outlets.

Higher education also plays a role, especially among Democrats. Democrats with postgraduate degrees often have a more distorted view of Republicans than Democrats with less formal education. Republicans’ perceptions, by contrast, remain largely consistent regardless of education level, likely because universities are predominantly liberal leaning.

As Johns Hopkins University political science professor Yascha Mounk writes:

“Perhaps because institutions of higher learning tend to be dominated by liberals, Republicans who have gone to college are not more likely to caricature their ideological adversaries than those who dropped out of high school. But among Democrats, education seems to make the problem much worse... It is deeply worrying that Americans now have so little understanding of their political adversaries. It is downright disturbing that the very institutions that ought to help us become better informed may actually be deepening our mutual incomprehension.”

Social media exacerbates the issue. While most social media users do not post about politics, those who do tend to have significantly wider perception gaps. This results in others being exposed to distorted political narratives from the most polarized voices.

The consequences of these misperceptions are profound. People with larger perception gaps are more likely to describe their opponents as “hateful,” “ignorant,” and “bigoted,” fueling hostility and creating a vicious cycle of polarization.

Despite these challenges, there is hope. More than three-quarters of Americans believe the country’s divisions are not insurmountable. Many across the party divide share common values and agree on more issues than they realize. However, false narratives about the “other side” amplify division, making the nation feel more fractured than it is.

The core issue is not merely differing opinions but profound misunderstanding. Ironically, the institutions meant to educate and inform—universities, media, and social platforms—often worsen the divide. Bridging this gap requires confronting these misperceptions and finding the common ground that unites most people.

References:

Americans not only divided, but baffled by what motivates their opponents - The McCourtney Institute for Democracy

The Perception Gap

Republicans and Democrats Don't Understand Each Other - by Prof. Yousha Monk

Democrats and Republicans vastly underestimate the diversity of each other's views

I would love to connect. Thinking about moving to the area in the next couple years…

Compare UU and Reform Synagogue Post-Election Sermons

I am Sephardic Jewish and attend both a Unitarian Universalist (UU) congregation and a reform synagogue. Reform Judaism is a liberal denomination, the largest Jewish denomination in the world, and is comparable in religious liberal philosophy to traditional Unitarian Universalism.

I was struck at the difference in the sermons at the first services following the U.S. Presidential election. One, the UU minister’s sermon, was politically partisan and overtly anti-Trump. On the other hand, the rabbi’s words were nonpolitical and warmly welcomed Jews whatever their political beliefs or votes.

Although Unitarian Universalism is theoretically non-creedal and open to a diversity of viewpoints, it has become increasingly politically narrow, with the national organization, the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), becoming politically radical and doctrinal. Many UUs, even those who are politically left and active in social justice work, have voiced concerns that they joined a church—not a political party—and feel that the national organization now resembles a political action committee more than a spiritual organization.

As I wrote in the below linked post, this trend toward political partisanship and ideological narrowness is harmful to the UU church. It closes minds and regularly transforms UU spaces into tribalistic “us versus them” echo chambers— the opposite of what a spiritual community and liberal religion should be about.

 What Unitarian Universalism loses as it becomes politically narrow 

After the UU minister’s partisan, anti-Trump post-election sermon, one congregant wondered aloud if such sermons could endanger the congregation’s nonprofit status.

In contrast, below were the opening words from the rabbi at the synagogue:

"Shabbat shalom. We started with those iconic words from the prophet Isaiah: “For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.” It's one of the opening songs we do all the time, but I think it's especially resonant and important tonight. It reminds us of something that we feel very keenly and importantly here, which is this conviction that there must be spaces where people of good conscience and character can come together after being political opponents. That we can continue to live and work and pray together.

For those of you who are disappointed or devastated at the outcome of this election, remember we are Jews. Our people have marched through millennia. We've seen leaders come and go, all the while holding on to one mandate of ‘Be a light unto others.’ So if the world feels darker to you after this election, you and your light are needed more than ever.

For those of you who are joyful and celebrating the outcome of this election, remember we are Jews. Our people have marched through millennia. We have seen leaders come and we have seen leaders go, all the while holding one mandate of ‘Be a light unto others.’ So if the world feels brighter to you after this election, you will need to continue to illuminate the world around us. And perhaps one way to start is to find a neighbor who feels themselves sitting in darkness and to try to brighten up their world in the weeks ahead.

But no matter how you feel about the election results, we're Jews and we have one task, it's been our task for thousands of years and we're going to keep on doing it."

The New UUA Movement by John Stowe

Since 2017, when the Unitarian Universalist Association’s (UUA) Board declared that UUism and the Association were complicit with white supremacy culture, there has been a concerted, top-down effort to transform UUism from its historical theological foundations into a social justice, anti-racist, and anti-oppression movement. This Guest Reflection provides a perspective on the UUA’s attempt to transition the denomination from its historical foundations to what the author calls the “new UUA Movement.”

Historical Foundations

During the 1700s, empirical criticism led Congregational Calvinists to revisit their beliefs more rationally, starting with a rigorous examination of the Bible.

A new awareness of “natural philosophy” (science) influenced these early thinkers, who were proto-Unitarians and laid the foundation for the modern UU consciousness. Starting with their biblical criticism, they proposed a progressive evolution that developed a carefully crafted religion. These first non-doctrinal Congregationalists later became known as Unitarians. The term was intended as a pejorative for those questioning Christian dogma. Universalists traveled a similar path through their Calvinistic Baptist traditions. These proto-liberals could be considered the first to be declared “out of covenant.”

Once the free and responsible search for truth was initiated, it was unstoppable. Our UU forebears developed faith systems ranging from Semi-Arianism (Jesus is not divine) in the 1700s to Christian Humanism and Universal Salvation in the early 1800s, the Transcendentalism of Emerson and Thoreau, and late 19th—and early 20th-century Pragmatics and Objective Ideology. Each exploration was a natural development from the one before.

There was much disagreement. Yet, for all the dissension, “wrong” turns, and occasional backsliding, the net result was a decent, realistic attempt to reconcile our highest aspirations with the empirical knowledge of the day (science, technology, aesthetics, experience). Where orthodoxy remained frozen in dogma, liberals achieved a symbiotic relationship with expanding knowledge—something no other “organized” religious tradition can claim on a consistent historical basis.

Cluttered Spiritual Palate

In the latter half of the 20th century, liberal Protestant contributions to religious thought faltered. Thought leaders such as Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, and our own James Luther Adams (Unitarian) and Clarence Skinner (Universalist) were still highly respected. Yet the cumulative effect of waves of radical skepticism nurtured by postmodernism began to make us all uncomfortable with religion itself, perhaps seeing it as an irrelevant relic.

Our own UU religious humanism gradually morphed into a “secular humanism with some religious trappings” that has kept us comfortable for far too long.

I grew up in a church forever hearing that UUs were “too intellectual.” Yet, for all our collective power, we haven’t contributed anything intellectually respectable to religion for more than a half-century.

In the 1970s, humanism was under attack and was seen as lacking the substance to deal with “real life” problems. Spiritually hungry UUs began to appropriate tasty bits from other traditions in the vacuum. As we claimed more sources for inspiration, these acquisitions were rationalized to indicate our religious “sophistication.” Our spiritual palate was becoming ever more cluttered.  A little new age here, a bit of liberation there, a dash of Buddhism, a touch of spiritualism, add a bunch of social awareness. Mix it all up; throw it in the oven. Heat until half-baked.

The hard truth is we have borrowed far too much, far too freely, and created far too little. As a result, there has been a hole in the center of UUism for decades.

Ripe for Takeover

The new UUA Movement, promulgated by the UUA, filled this vacuum. The 2017 declaration to decenter “white supremacy culture” had an appeal in its uncluttered singularity.  The Commission of Institutional Change (COIC) and its 2020 report, Widening the Circle of Concern, gave the decentering campaign a feel of thoughtful legitimacy.  The June 2024 passage of the new Article II language intentionally severed our connection to our past. The new UUA Movement required this severance since our past was deemed to be the source of our alleged white supremacy tendencies.

The new Article II language expressly rejects the liberal-humanist foundations as racist. Thought leaders need not apply. We now have a “top-down” creedal approach based on a proscribed form of social action.

Welcome to the new UUA Movement.

The New UUA Movement

Beloved Community

Our current UUA leadership proclaims that a “beloved community” characterized by “liberating love” is the existential centerpiece of its new UUA Movement. But what does the new UAA movement say these terms mean?

Let’s start with the concept of “beloved community.” That concept has authentic meaning in the work of the American philosopher Josiah Royce (1855–1916), who originated the concept. He was building on an array of Enlightenment philosophers, such as Emmanuel Kant, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, David Hume, and Baruch Spinoza. While none of these philosophers explicitly discussed a “beloved community,” their contributions provide ethical foundations for a society based on love, respect, justice, and mutual care. Royce envisioned the “beloved community” as an ideal society rooted in mutual care, understanding, and moral harmony, where people work collaboratively for the common good, transcending individual self-interest.

Royce worked during a period of remarkable UU-inspired thinking. He stressed the fundamental importance of community as well as individual consciousness. He believed the relationship between individuals and groups creates deeply improved thinking and social quality. Royce explains how loyal truth-seekers can act as a transcendent moral source and witness.

As interpreted by the Bylaws Renewal team, created in June 2022 to “reimagine” the UUA through a complete rewrite of the Association’s bylaws, the concept is perverted to make “beloved community” exist over and against the problem of individualism, which emphasizes the idea that each person should have the freedom to make their own choices, pursue their own goals, and develop their unique identity, often placing personal success and fulfillment above collective goals or societal norms.

In the effort to bring about the Beloved Community, we often err on the side of the individual as the primary agent of change over and against systemic change.

This perversion of the beloved community is repeated throughout the COIC report. It utterly fails to appreciate Royce’s work and contradicts the original meaning of the beloved community. There is little evidence that the new UUA movement knows the origin of the concept they’ve appropriated or can appreciate its philosophical pedigree and meaning.

Liberating Love

In the Article II revision, the new UUA movement defines “liberating love” as a dynamic, action-oriented principle that promotes social justice through equitable relationships and the healing of historic injustices.

Though James Luther Adams (1901–1994) never used the phrase “liberating love,” there is abundant evidence the new UUA’s use of that phrase is deeply indebted to this prominent Unitarian theologian. His theological work emphasizes the transformative power of love within communities, fostering a more just and compassionate society.  Adams aligns closely with the concept of love as a liberating force. However, no evidence exists that the new UUA Movement acknowledged its debt to Adams for originating the concept.

The Values of the UUA Bylaws Renewal Team

• Interdependence over individualism
• Ending the centering of white culture
• Trusting leadership over fear of authority
• Freedom to act over risk avoidance
• Strategy, objectives, and plans over monitoring and oversight
• Clarity and simplicity over complexity
• Decisions located organizationally based on importance to mission

Let’s examine just three of these values.

“Interdependence over Individualism”

Let’s be clear: “Interdependence over Individualism” is a false choice. UUs do not subscribe to individualism. They value individuality and personal conscience, not individualism. Individualism is the idea that an individual’s wants and values are more important than collective needs and that organizations exist solely for the benefits they provide to their members.

UUs believe all persons’ ideas, cultures, capabilities, and experiences are essential to forming a good society and, when taken at their best, result in a collective far greater than the sum of its parts. Our Seventh Principle stresses this “deep consciousness of community” in the phrase respect for the interdependent web of all existence. Thus, interdependence and individuality are inextricably linked, and our 1st Principle, which honors the “inherent worth” of individuals, is an absolute necessity for healthful interdependence. Royce would agree.

Ending of White Culture

UUA leadership has used the term “white culture” as a proxy for Enlightenment values. The legacy values of the Enlightenment are the foundation of Western culture—a legacy of a community constituted by liberty and democracy, equality and social justice, individual rights, and reason. The UUA logic is simple: White men conceived of such ideas; ergo, they are racist ideas.

An irony of the new UUA Movement is that it centers on the beloved community as an existential centerpiece in its campaign to fight racism. That is, Royce’s “beloved community” is itself a product of those same white culture/Enlightenment characteristics of logic-based and closely reasoned processes that UUA leadership now so roundly decries must be decentered!

Remember, too, that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a Black man, incorporated Royce’s “beloved community” concept into his 1960s Civil Rights movement to provide an image of a future, more harmonious multi-racial society. Does the UUA now demand that the Civil Rights Movement and King himself be decentered and declared invalid?

These contradictions beg the question, “Is UUA leadership aware of these glaring contradictions? If they are, then they are morally dishonest. If not, then they are intellectually incompetent.

The same criticism of dishonesty or incompetency leveled at the use of “beloved community” can also be leveled at the new UUA Movement’s appropriation of James Luther Adams. He was a straight white male. Should Adams and his theology be decentered and now declared invalid?

Instead of the obsession with “end the centering white culture,” why not contextualize Euro-centric and American culture so that the best of its informing values, shorn of the discredited “scientific racism” and eugenics, can be used productively toward the goal they have always had—social and racial justice?

Trusting Leadership over Fear of Authority

By “trusting leadership over fear of authority,” the new UUA Movement intends to shift moral and spiritual leadership away from individuals and congregations to the UUA national leadership. Effectively, “liberating love” is a coded attempt to obtain unearned authority and unaccountable control. Add the requirement for personal confessions of privilege—guilt and the demand for unquestioned acceptance of the new UUA Movement, and you get the loss of democratic governance and the imposition of authoritarian top-down control.

Despite the rather blatant attempt to restructure power away from individuals and congregations, UUA leadership continues to insist it operates under a democratic mandate from the General Assembly election process. It does not.

It is ironic that the Bylaws Renewal Team even quotes from the UUA’s 2009 Fifth Principle Task Force Report, which advocated for strengthening democracy at the UUA’s yearly General Assembly. The General Assembly is not democratic, and delegates are neither representatives of their congregations (other than being members) nor accountable to them.

After three attempts by individuals through the petition process to be genuinely elected to the UUA Board of Trustees, that body now contains only appointed trustees. General Assembly remains as broken today as it was in 2009.

“Trusting leadership over fear of authority” is just a mechanism to gain power without scrutiny or accountability.

The Theological Wasteland of the New UUA Movement

Where is the transcendence, humility, or devotion in the new UUA Movement writings?

While I have seen the word “humility” occasionally used, the authors of the new UUA Movement are 100% self-righteously assured of the rectitude of their beliefs. The UUA offers one and only one valid path to social justice, with its “beloved community” and “liberating love.” All UUs must follow this path exclusively. Questioning or disagreeing will result in censure or worse.

The new UUA Movement offers no foundation comparable to our religious Unitarian and Universalist heritages. Unitarianism and Universalism emerged from a long progression of thoughtful consideration of scripture, philosophy, science, and aesthetics. There is simply no way that a constructive theology can be developed in our modern era without using the best work that the Western religious, intellectual, aesthetic, and scientific traditions have produced.

Instead, the new UUA approach is simplistic. It is based on crude generalizations, replacing nuanced thought with a checklist of proscribed “either-or” positions.

The fact that the new UUA Movement beliefs fall on the left side of the social/political spectrum—or, better said, the “far left”—does not remove the permanent stain of illiberality.

A theology of “liberating love” has been assembled from cherry-picked bits of post-modern standpoint theory, liberation theology, and critical race theory, with a pretense of intellectual heft attempted by a whisper of Josiah Royce and lip service to the work of James Luther Adams. Royce and Adams have real potential value, but our UU leadership has failed to do the hard work of developing a coherent narrative.

By itself, “love” is not a theology, “liberating” or not, nor is a pretty picture of a flower with values petals. The preoccupation with reordering power structures is disturbing, and no amount of quasi-theological gloss can cover its true intent.

The extreme emphasis on power dynamics between groups in the “theology” of the new UUA movement and the rigid hierarchy of righteousness (based on the marginalization of race, heritage, class, or ability) are, for want of a better term, “neo-Calvinistic.”  We have effectively been returned to the same power structures that Unitarians and Universalists fled in the 1700s.

"Religion is the vision of something that stands beyond, behind, and within the passing flux of immediate things; something that is real and yet waiting to be realized; something that is a remote possibility and yet the greatest of present facts; something that gives meaning to all that passes, and yet eludes apprehension; something whose possession is the final good, and yet is beyond all reach; something which is the ultimate ideal, and the hopeless quest. " (A. N. Whitehead)

So I know that comes off negative. I really resonate with the ideals of UU, but my local UU feels sooooo pretentious ever time I go. It's like they try sooo hard to be PC that there is no real message other than "be pc" I'm asking this question, because I live in a very affluent and educated town. So, I'm wondering if the prevention comes from that or the UU itself??? I appreciate your help, I'm looking for my place, but though I want this to be it,it doesn't feel right. Thx

Background: I have been an agnostic for as long as long as I can remember. Growing up I would constantly see people around me self ascribed as religious be just as mean or cruel as anyone else. I saw mega churches reinvesting their wealth into themselves and leadership, and a total lack of community outreach that went past gaining more members. I was always interested in religion but throughout the years I saw that is was being used primarily a tool being used to manipulate. As far as i could tell this was against the teachings of any of these religions.
^(I realize these people do not represent all people of religion, I have met far too many people who uphold the positive teachings of their religion to believe that.)

All of this to say I really enjoy the ideals of UU, they align to a T with what I believe, but I have been having trouble convincing myself to attend a service. I think due to my past, and years of seeing the dangers of religion, attending something that resembles these same service fills me with dread. I am so concerned that the feel of a service is just going to make me horribly uncomfortable, in the same way I feel uncomfortable during the ceremony's of funerals and weddings. However at the same time I feel like I have a hole in my life where community is supposed to go.

Does anyone have any advice? Maybe there is a way to be apart of UU that is not an actual service, but a social thing?

From high school up until my mid-20s, I had typical atheist beliefs on life after death. At the time, I was able to be calm with the prospect of nonexistence and believed it was fair, since I was thinking mostly of myself, my friends, and people in the modern developed world, who usually live long and fulfilled lives and are ready to rest afterwards.

However, the concept of everyone getting nonexistence has felt more and more unfair to me the past several years as I’ve learned more about the history of the world.

All kinds of societies have practiced human sacrifice. Which would mean the victims would go: short and usually painful life —> extremely painful death —> permanent nonexistence. Is that fair? Where do they get to cash in or get pleasure? Nowhere.

My faithlessness has also been tested by movie characters such as Trevor in Pay It Forward. Was it fair for him (or a real-life person like him) to get nonexistence after 15 years, a good contribution to philanthropy, and almost no rewards? Absolutely not in my opinion.

My mind is having trouble sitting still on this anymore, and I’m considering officially becoming a Unitarian Universalist because of their doctrine that everyone can get to success.

I still don’t believe in a literal fluffy-cloud heaven, but I do think there are physics-based ways in which living again is possible, e.g., the Poincaré recurrence theorem or spontaneous quantum decreases in entropy. Heaven, in my mind, is nothing more than someone who got dealt a bad hand being given a chance to try again.

This in mind, do you guys think UU is a good choice for me? Do these beliefs jive with those that are followed by UUs?

I’m also a gay man and appreciate the “kindness and volunteering” aspects of religion and spirituality but not usually the “moral code” ones, and I know UU heavily emphasizes the former.

Stay strong against all the craziness ahead.

- AM702

Las Vegas, NV, USA

I stand with Veterans For Peace!

I like Back To The Future so I gave mine an orange vest and a pink hoverboard. Thanks AI machine!

Hi, hope you are all doing well. Heres the basics of what i believe and hopefully someone here can tell me if it sounds similar to something they have heard of.

I believe the bible to be a book of wisdom written by people through stories that was passdd on. Like the first self help book. A very usefull guide.

I dont believe there is an actual god and his son and their spirit looking over us. I dont believe there to be an after life in hell or heaven. But rather the collection of choices you make in daily life leads you to existing in a state of heaven or hell.

Thanks in advance and i apologise if i offend anyone!

https://wagingnonviolence.org/2024/11/10-things-to-do-if-trump-wins/

"Sorrow is better than fear. Fear is a journey, a terrible journey, but sorrow is at least an arrival. When the storm threatens, a man is afraid for his house. But when the house is destroyed, there is something to do. About a storm he can do nothing, but he can rebuild a house." – Alan Paton

UU Doug Muder posted this quote today. I was disappointed several days ago when UUA posted some things in anticipation that were based more in fear than in rebuilding. I think we have gotten into power rather than trying to understand everyone's needs and fears. Eight years ago, we responded with fear and loathing. This time I hope we will respond with love and understanding for everyone, instead of condemning half of the country as foolish or evil.

Talking with UUs recently, I've heard many comments about UU's Protestant Christian formats, and often language of the services. While pluralistic, and perhaps with most UUs not being Christian, U and U were original Christian denominations, and UU has preserved the Christian service format.

In the other UU forum, the moderator posted the below discussion from from an Ex Christians reddit forum where commentors also brought up the Christian formats of UU services, and how it is Christian without the Christianity.

Has anyone tried going to a Universalist Unitarian church? : r/exchristian

I'm thus curious about what folks here think about it? Do you like it? Do you wish it was different? How would you change it? Mix it up with other format? What do you think of the Christian language (worship, faith, etc.)

I note that I'm Jewish and my partner is from the Middle East. She dislikes the Christian format of UU services and won't attend, while it it is fine with me. I do find the Christian format without Christian theology to be a bit ironic and performatively hollow. However, my practical philosophy is a service has to have some format. Also, if you attend a Reform Jewish Shabbot service, you know that they are not so much different than a UU service.

I myself am remembering my grandmother on my father's side.

She was a very courageous woman. She was the one who courted my grandfather in a time and place where doing such was a huge taboo for women to do.

She taught me to be bold and to persevere.

"Funny Thing About Death” will be the irreverent theme for a Sunday service at a small Unitarian Universalist Church. Rev. Phillip Schulman said, “I had a wild idea to break from the dominant pattern of solemnity & somberness.” He’s inviting humor & free expression of the “bizarre or unreasonable aspects of death.” John Prine’s song has the spirit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bzJtYFHZF0

I went to my first service last week, as I mentioned in a previous post, and I really enjoyed it. One question I had but didn’t get a chance to ask—and I’m hoping someone here might be able to answer—is about the very beginning of the service when the reverend lit a candle in a chalice. Could someone explain the significance of the flaming chalice in basic terms?

Also, shortly after that, the congregation was invited to come up and light a small candle on what looked like a metal tree, with one on each side of the sanctuary. During this time, there was a beautiful piece played on the piano, which made the moment feel even more meaningful. I’d love to understand the meaning behind this practice as well.

Thanks in advance for any insights.

I'm looking for feedback from anyone whose congregation has taken part in the UU Climate Justice Revival. Our congregation is doing our revival weekend in January, and I am on the social action committee which is facilitating, so I would love some insight from anyone who has already taken part either as a facilitator or an attendee.

Which parts did you find worked best or were not so great? Did you rely heavily on the provided videos/stick to the script or was it more free flowing? Anything come up that you wish you had prepared for or done differently?

So once upon a time I applied to a job at a protestant church and I get the ocassional email from them listing events and services. Anyway I saw 2 events they've done that I'd like my UU congregation to consider doing.

I saw that this other church puts together harm reduction kits and they also had a service that focused on sex work and sex workers. Both of these are things I'd like to see in my UU church/congregation but there's a part of me that feels it may be too radical for some but at the same time I feel they're the kind of topics that we should be talking about and spreading awareness, reducing stigma etc.

I don't know if this post makes sense but those are my thoughts.

Celebrating the triumph of light over darkness, good over evil, and knowledge over ignorance, we extend our warmest Diwali wishes to you. At this historic juncture in human history, may Diwali illuminate our lives with joy, prosperity, and peace. May the shifts we undertake, individually and collectively, guide us toward ancient, wise values, like love for one another, collaboration, kindness, and grace.

Yet, facing new challenges the ancients couldn’t have imagined, may we move forward with the curiosity that has propelled our species, the responsible and ethical use of knowledge, and a fearless determination to collaborate with one another. May we become wiser and kinder. May these virtues continue to light our world.

Happy Diwali!

https://preview.redd.it/2cbqxzv8e5yd1.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=00a69d20298efd29ee31b86de8027571a7423f4c

While he is talking about politics, I think it is also applicable to UUism, which is increasingly aligned with progressive ideology (and we embody the educational elite he describes - not religious group in the US but Hindus has more education or post-graduate degrees).

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/trumpism-republican-party-exile-david-brooks/680243/?gift=UyN9DCjOc2Mh2mDsMFTgT3fwf4P78eZ5OvQd6nw4Olw&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

#ConspiracyTheories #DeepPolarization #BuildingBridges

I think this minister is onto something:

"What if the most absurd conspiracy theory could reveal profound truths about our deepest human needs? In a world where divisions run deep and conversations can feel like battlegrounds, how do we reach across the chasms that separate us? Join us as we uncover surprising insights into why we cling to certain beliefs, explore the power of love that stretches beyond comfort zones, and discover whether the bridges between us are closer than they appear."

https://youtu.be/qDyNXgj5pGk

I and others regularly notice that alternative viewpoints on this and the other UU forum are regularly mass downvoted in what I assume is a attempt to collapse or hide them. For just an example, the below comment by another user was hidden:

Thank you for sharing! I realize that many out there do not like the concept of diversity of thought and opinion. But Michael Servetus provided a beacon of hope for those like me that enjoy diversity by willing to stake his life on it. I will stake my reddit karma on it here! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus It will be good for the UUA to have some friendly competition to help provide the organizational support and ministerial search support that all congregations benefit from.

This all reflects poorly on the the forums and UU, which is supposed to be a liberal, pluralistic, noncreedal church and welcomes and listens to diverse viewpoints. It represents bad trends in UU these days, and trends that have driven many from their congregations and UU.

I make this an OP, because I know it can be downvoted but not hidden from view.

strict church theory is that strict conservative churches grow while leniant liberal churches decline because of their austere demands of congregants. uu is declining, unity church is declining, united church of christ is declining, church of the prismatic light was a flash in the pan, mainline protestant churches are declining but evangelical, amish and mormon churches are all growing like kudzu. southern baptists got the lion share of congregants from the split northern baptists are like "american baptist who?" even though northern baptists are a lot less effed up.

but maybe it's not so bad we're small? why does liberal religion need a single institution to be big? i think the biggest u in uu isn't unitarian or universalist, it's unchurched, meaning folx that have the same beliefs as uu's but don't want to participate in organized religion. and i think uu's leniance is a virtue cos imo the difference between a religion and a cult is how they treat folx who left the faith, a test uu passes with flying colors. i think instead of concentrating on numbers for one religion uu should foster more interfaith stuff with like-hearted believers of all institutions and of none at all. it might even help uu get more folx since most people don't even know uu doesn't do dogma and that in this historically christian religion you can even be pagan (most pagans don't tell anyone they are pagan, let alone do so in a place that looks like a christian church).

tldr, love over numbers, many institutions over one

I am a person who professes another religion but I like to attend the services of Unitarian churches, especially when I am away from my community. In addition to the CLF services, do you know of other churches with online services?

This is me coming back to update everyone on my experience! Last week, I made a post looking for guidance on whether Unitarian Universalism would be a good fit for me and how to attend a service. Many of you responded with kind words of encouragement, and today, I finally attended.

When I say my experience was incredible, I truly mean it. I arrived at the parking lot about 10 minutes before the service, which was scheduled to begin at 11 AM. Guest parking was clearly marked and easy to find—especially since my anxiety had me checking it out on Google Earth beforehand! The lot was packed, which was definitely not what I had expected. The campus itself is shaped like a large “U,” with a massive courtyard in the middle.

As I followed others into the courtyard, two older women approached me right away, asked if I was new, and kindly showed me to the welcome table outside the sanctuary. There, I met one of the greeters, who was incredibly welcoming. He explained how the service would go, offered me a name badge, and handed me the order of service. After that, he led me into the sanctuary and told me I could sit wherever I felt comfortable.

The sanctuary was beautiful—filled with natural light and high wood ceilings that felt inspirational. And the smell… it was like honeysuckle or fresh flowers. Just amazing. Today’s service focused on remembering our loved ones who have passed, which tied into Día de los Muertos. The music was moving, the readings from the reverend were thoughtful, and I even appreciated the part when all the new guests were asked to stand so the congregation could welcome us. Several of us stood, and the applause we received was so heartwarming. It was a wonderful feeling.

There was also a moment during the service where everyone greeted their neighbors, which I enjoyed. Several people came over to introduce themselves to me, making me feel even more at ease. After the service, they had food and coffee available for everyone. A woman came up to me and asked if I’d be interested in a UU 101 course, just to learn more about the religion and what it means. She wasn’t pushy at all, just kind and informative, so I agreed.

The course itself was great—there were a few other people joining too. The two women leading the course were knowledgeable and passionate, but never in a way that felt intimidating. Afterward, they gave us a tour of the campus, showing us a library filled with books by philosophers, social justice authors, and writings on the UU faith. They encouraged us to explore the campus freely and made it clear that we were welcome back anytime.

What struck me most was that, throughout the entire experience, no one was trying to impose their beliefs on me. It was clear that everyone holds their own beliefs, and the focus of the UU faith is to support individuals in finding what they believe in. I will definitely be back next week!

to add* yes, they had coffee. 🤣 It was offered both before and after the service. The courtyard had a covered patio and if I had to guess, I would say around 40 people were gathered, drinking coffee and eating pastries, while chatting with others.

Hi everyone! I’m seeking some guidance or insight from those who may have walked a similar path. I grew up in a large family that occasionally attended a Pentecostal church, though we weren’t deeply committed to it—it was more of a convenience. After I came out, my family was essentially pushed out of the church, and we haven’t returned since. These days, my parents will still mention God or talk about Christ, but it’s not as fervent as it was during my childhood.

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve found myself grappling with my faith and spiritual identity. I’ve always had so many questions about religion, but more often than not, my questions were either dismissed or left unanswered. Now, nearing 30, I know I believe in something, but I’m not entirely sure what. Recently, I came across Unitarian Universalism (UU), and it really piqued my interest.

There’s a UU church less than 15 minutes from me here in Texas, and I’m curious about attending a service. Do you simply walk in and take a seat in the sanctuary? I’m a bit cautious about attending because I’ve never been to a place like this, and I’m unsure what to expect.

Could anyone explain, in simple terms, what UU believes? What texts, if any, are used? And as someone who might identify as agnostic (I don’t deny the existence of a higher power, but I feel it may be impossible for humans to fully understand it), do you think UU would be a good fit for me? I’d really appreciate any insights or experiences!

North American Unitarian Association hosts its first conference at Spokane church with focus on political division from keynote speaker John Wood Jr. | The Spokesman-Review