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

Compare UU and Reform Synagogue Post-Election Sermons

by David Cycleback

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)

"How Deep is Your Love" sermon (Youtube)

Relevant to the previous thread, here is a sermon by Rev. Randy Lewis of All Souls Unitarian in Tulsa OK about a UU minister who voted for Trump.

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 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.

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

Unitarian Universalism’s Fad-Hopping Problem (substack.com)

After Hamas attack, a successful minister becomes a rabbi – The Forward

To start, UU membership and the number of congregations is at a historic low, and has historic annual losses in the last several years. Even with the national population increases, the UUA now has the lowest number of members, congregations, and RE membership in church history. There no doubt are a variety of reasons for this, including general trends of membership losses in many churches.

I am curious as to what others here believe are contributing causes?

If you wish, you can include ideas on how to help increase membership. There's little question that most congregations are comprised of aging white leftists. How to attract a younger generation, especially young adults with kids, is a pressing concern at my congregation.

Another question might be: Does it matter that UU membership and congregation numbers matter?

Thanks in advance!

The Unitarian Universalist Church of Jacksonville Florida letter (signed by the minister, board president, and Article II Task Force Co-Chairs, and approved by the Board of Trustees) explaining the reasons for the congregation's overwhelming vote of No (84 No votes to 4 Yes).

Link to letter: letter to congregations.5.13.2024.pdf - Google Drive

The text:

May 11, 2024

UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CHURCH OF JACKSONVILLE

[Address redacted]

Dear Congregation Leadership and Members,

After more than 12 months of engaging our congregation in research, in-depth discussion and discernment, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Jacksonville has voted with an overwhelming majority for our delegates to vote to reject the amendments to Article Il at the upcoming Unitarian Universalist Association General Assembly.

From its beginnings, Unitarianism has attracted individuals who seek to examine their relationship to the transcendent and have engaged in exploring their connection to spiritual practices in matters of faith. What many of these individuals have in common is the invitation Unitarian Universalism extends to them to bring their questioning minds, and their reasoning to a beloved community that values diversity in its fullest meaning (theology, religious background, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, financial status, political preferences, etc.); and to share with others their expansive hearts ready to practice unconditional love.

The Beloved Community sustains individual belief systems and practices and provides the seven principles and six sources as the glue that bonds individuals to the whole. The seven principles illuminate the path of moral and ethical living, foster personal responsibility and accountability, and call for promoting universal justice, impartiality, interdependence, and the democratic process. The six sources provide wisdom of the ages, from voices from the millennia to our current voices, that open the heart and demand action for eliminating unjust practices wherever they may be. That is why we will continue to be guided by the seven principles and six sources of wisdom.

As a matter of practice, Unitarian Universalism does not create, require, or enforce creeds or dogmas. There is no centralized seat of theological order. The absence of a hierarchical governance structure allows congregations to draft locally meaningful mission and vision statements; to choose its governance structure and practices; to hold its members accountable to its covenant; and to design justice-focused action plans focused on community needs.

We believe the proposed Article Il changes could pose grave consequences for Unitarian Universalism. We do not judge people's intentions; we look only at the facts. The change in the first line says it all. The current Article lI states, "We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association..." The proposed change begins with, "The Unitarian Universalist Association..." It is evident that there is an ideological movement to pivot the Unitarian Universalist Association from being an umbrella service body of the member congregations, to becoming a governing body that imposes its positions on congregations with consequences for those congregations and members that don't adhere to its edicts.

What we do know is our congregation and the Unitarian Universalist Association have been at the forefront of opposition to racism in the fight for racial justice. We are constantly reflecting and learning to ensure continuous improvement. However, there are accusations of being inherently racist to such a degree that we must reject our past, discount our history, and abandon the underpinning spiritual and ethical principles that guide us; replacing them with a set of nebulous values that anyone would be hard-pressed to recite, let alone define.

We are seeing concerning glimpses of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) Board plans to define the new values and to impose severe sanctions for congregations and individuals that don't adhere to them. Here are just three examples:

* Even before the upcoming vote, the UUA Board is setting up procedural policies of congregational accountability requiring congregations deemed to not be "doing the work" as defined by the UUA, to be in-need of some type of consequence.

* At the 2023 General Assembly, the delegates voted to remove the sentence "We will work to repair harm and damaged relationships" from the proposed amendment, but it was re-inserted by the UUA board, negating the vote of the General Assembly.

* The new value of "discipline of LOVE," as addressed by the Article Il Study Commission, is shorthand for "Doing the Work." According to the Commission on Institutional Change, that means focusing on fighting racism and oppression, and upholding multi-culturalism at the possible expense of other justice issues needing advocacy.

Our congregation has voted to reject the proposed amendments because the proposed changes:

* Use language that is divisive, and espouses practices based on blaming and shaming.

* Introduce a creedal approach to which all members would be required to adhere for a congregation to remain certified by the UUA.

* Expect that only individuals who share the UUA values may be welcome to join a congregation.

* Focus the reason for being a Unitarian Universalist solely on fighting racism and oppression, and upholding multi-culturalism, at the expense of other justice issues needing advocacy as determined by congregations.

* Dissolve the seven principles and six sources which have been the core of Unitarian Universalism and replace them with language that equates Unitarian Universalism to a socio-political organization rather than one that serves as a source of spiritual guidance.

* Reject an individual's right of conscience, the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large, and the free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

* Imply an authoritarian, hierarchical governance structure with UUA leadership at the top with the authority to judge congregations and declare congregations to be out of covenant setting up procedural policies of congregational accountability with consequences for congregations deemed to not be "doing the work."

* Conflict with congregational polity and the rights of congregations to democratically choose their mission, covenant, their minister, and governance structure.

The importance of your congregation's discernment regarding the proposed changes to Article Il cannot be overstated.

Sincerely, Meg Rohal President Peter Racine Lay Minister Marge Powell Article II Task Force Co-Chair Fresie Tessie Bond Article Il Task Force Co-Chair

Excerpt from the below-linked essay:

The current UUA, the two UU seminaries and some national UU groups are trying to transform UU from a liberal church into a fundamentalist utopian political collectivist movement.

Collectivists prioritize the movement's goals over individual rights, freedoms and liberties. Thus, throughout history, utopian collectivist religious and political movements have employed various methods that dehumanize their members. These methods include considering members primarily as generic categories and cogs in the system rather than unique individuals, removing basic civil rights and individual liberties, authoritarian governance, dogmatism and propaganda, undermining basic democratic rights, suppressing viewpoint diversity, and shaming and guilt-tripping members into compliance.

The classic book on this topic is social philosopher Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.

The Unitarian Universalist Association’s systematic dehumanization of laity

How covenants are used as ideological weapons in Unitarian Universalism

​

'In his open resignation letter from the UU Ministers’ Association (UUMA), longtime UU minister Rev. Alex Holt wrote: “In a few short years, the ‘rules’ (so-called ‘guidelines’) have been radically changed to fit a new norm of covenant and accountability that seems to forget the foundations upon which they were based.”'

​

Educational psychologist Patricia Mohr Ph.D., who criticizes the UUA's new approach, writes, “Covenants are dangerous when there are no rules for veracity, when the only ‘fact’ is the perception of the victim-- and the victim is always the most marginalized/oppressed person. It's a recipe for resentment and division, not diversity. This is why any organization needs rules for addressing conflicts. It's why empiricism, reliability, and validity are the heart of science.”

​

​

What Unitarian Universalism loses as it becomes politically narrow

Two quotes from the online piece:

"The narrowing of political perspectives within the Unitarian Universalist community poses significant harm to the church and its members. This trend towards ideological homogeneity often transforms UU spaces into monoliths, fostering echo chambers characterized by groupthink and intellectual laziness. Such insular environments exacerbate extremism and 'us versus them' tribalism, not just within UU but in greater society."

"In many respects, the national church has transformed into a partisan political organization rather than a religion. Even many UU laity who are politically left and social justice activists have expressed discomfort with the idea of the church functioning as a political platform. They come to a church for spiritual growth and an oasis from the toxicity they get from the news and social media in their daily life."

What Unitarian Universalism loses as it becomes politically narrow

Two quotes from the online piece:

"The narrowing of political perspectives within the Unitarian Universalist community poses significant harm to the church and its members. This trend towards ideological homogeneity often transforms UU spaces into monoliths, fostering echo chambers characterized by groupthink and intellectual laziness. Such insular environments exacerbate extremism and 'us versus them' tribalism, not just within UU but in greater society."

"In many respects, the national church has transformed into a partisan political organization rather than a religion. Even many UU laity who are politically left and social justice activists have expressed discomfort with the idea of the church functioning as a political platform. They come to a church for spiritual growth and an oasis from the toxicity they get from the news and social media in their daily life."

​

Two example from the below post:

The large majority of blacks and Latinos polled said that they did not find offensive so-called microaggressions such as, "America is a land of opportunity," "Where are you from?," "I don't notice people's race," and "Everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough." Commenting on the poll, Columbia University sociologist Musa Al-Gharbi wrote, "(M)any whites, in their eagerness to present themselves as advocates for people of color and the cause of antiracism, neglect to actually listen to ordinary black or brown folk about what they find offensive, or what their racial priorities are.

​

In 2020, Minneapolis activists vigorously pushed for defunding the police, leading to the city council to endorse the idea. However, when they later surveyed the black community, a large majority did not support this cause. As a result, a ballot proposal to defund the police was overwhelmingly rejected, with 75% of black voters opposing it. National polls consistently indicate that the majority of black Americans want an equal or increased police presence in their neighborhoods.

The Consequences of Ignorance and False Assumptions in Activism

​

Unitarian Universalism's Jewish Problems Continue

In a recent interview, Okun says that too many have been misinterpreting and misusing her famous '15 Characteristics of White Supremacy Culture.'

Tema Okun decries the misuse of her ‘White Supremacy Culture’ list

A quote from her interview includes:

“The way it’s misused is that people turn it into a checklist to assess or target someone and say: Look, you’re exhibiting these characteristics. And that means you’re colluding with white supremacy culture, and you’re a bad person, you’re a terrible person. Or to accuse them of being a tool of white supremacy culture.

And generally, what I find is that when people misuse it in that way, they haven’t actually read it, or they certainly haven’t read the website, because there’s no way you could read the website and come away feeling like it’s meant to be used as a checklist in that way.”

How UU Became a Church of Shaming, Bullying and Coercion

How UU Became a Church of Shaming, Bullying and Coercion (substack.com)