Someone commented on my Unitarian Universalism article. I am even *less* enthusiastic about UUism than before:

So, the individual who commented described UUism as a basically a gaggle of:

  1. “LGBTQ Scholarly types”
  2. “Liberal” Christians
  3. Wiccans (who may — or may not — be affiliated with a coven)
  4. Those who consider themselves Buddhists, but who “can’t — or shouldn’t” go to a Buddhist temple
  5. Atheists
  6. Jews

Now, right here is the first problem:

I’m pretty sure that ALL of these demographic “communities” are represented most other places that I could go.  For example, I’m pretty sure there is probably a gay guy, and/or a Jewish person at our local Winn-Dixie Supermarket, on occasion.

So, it’s a “community” which cuts across various “demographic” lines.

Except, of course, that UUism is STILL overwhelmingly “White”:

http://www.uuworld.org/articles/racial-ethnic-diversity-unitarian-universalists

Take a look at that statistic:

As of 2008, estimates indicate  that the membership of  UUism is overwhelmingly “White”.

89% of “Unitarian Universalists” are “white”, (as opposed to 65.6% of the general population).  There’s something hinky about that.

Now, according to the Wikipedia article, around 800,000 people identify as Unitarian Universalsts.

If 89% of that total is “White”, then guess what: 712,000 self-identified “Unitarian Universalists” are white.

So much for their vaunted “diversity”.

Now, let’s look at their “beliefs” (as expressed in their “100 questions” pamphlet):

What do Unitarian Universalists believe?

  • Every individual should be encouraged to develop a personal philosophy of life.
  • Everyone is capable of reasoning.
  • We do not need any other person, official or organization to tell us what to believe.
  • We should be able to present religious opinions openly, without fear of censure or reprisal.
  • All people should be tolerant of the religious ideas of others.
  • Truth is not absolute; it changes over time.
  • Everyone should continue to search for the truth.
  • Everyone has an equal claim to life, liberty and justice.
  • People should govern themselves by democratic processes.
  • Ideas should be open to criticism.
  • Good works are the natural product of a good faith.

http://www.uucnc.org/100q.html#ch1q

 

Well, goody gum-drops – a morass of nearly-contentless bromides mixed with the worst sort of “postmodern” bullshit.

I’m not sure UUists are actually intelligent enough to notice this, but (to paraphrase Sesame Street): “one of those things is not like the others”.

Notice this one:

 

  • Truth is not absolute; it changes over time.

Now, IF this relativist canard were actually true, then guess what?  That fact would completely and utterly invalidate EVERY SINGLE ONE of their other bromides:

 

  • Every individual should be encouraged to develop a personal philosophy of life.
  • Everyone is capable of reasoning.
  • We do not need any other person, official or organization to tell us what to believe.
  • We should be able to present religious opinions openly, without fear of censure or reprisal.
  • All people should be tolerant of the religious ideas of others.

Exactly which of the above truisms do UUists consider “not to be absolute”?

For example: let’s take the bromide about how “We should be able to present religious opinions openly, without fear of censure or reprisal”.

Is that an “absolute?”  Or does it “change over time?

If it “changes over time”, then (for example) the Spanish Inquisition’s attempts to torture and slaughter “heretics” simply cannot be condemned, since “truth changes over time’.

See, that’s the thing: UUism is a self-contradictory hash of shiny-happy bromides, none of which they can actually defend, because they claim to believe that truth “changes over time”.

(Meanwhile, various manifestations of a self-proclaimed “Global Caliphate” are more than willing to torture and slaughter their way toward either global domination, or the collapse of civilization itself.

Is the value of mutual tolerance a “non-absolute” which “change(s) over time?”

Now, IF Uuism was something other than a particularly shitty parody-religion for (White) Hipster pseudo-intellectuals, they could actually think about these kind of issues — in which case they would (probably) come up with the notion that the ideas for which they stand ARE “absolutes” — within the relevant context (as opposed to being mere fads which “change over time”.)

(Not) sorry if the above happens to offend one (or more) of the 712,000 hipsters involved with that specific parody religion.

Not sorry at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s