UU makes all kinds of claims about being able to look at all sides of an issue etc. etc, but then is not so good about living up to them.
The one thing UU is not open to is conflict. It happens. Instead of dealing with things, and making decisions, and being honest about how the decisions are made…UU avoids the issues by being “open” to everything. It says…”that’s ok”, and then silently goes on smiling through clenched teeth until the annoyance goes away.
I would have tons more respect for UU if it actually stood for something besides…diversity. Having a lot of people together in a room who have nothing in common but a general discomfort with organized religion…does not constitute a purposeful, progressive group.
Be something, dammit!
The more I look into it, UUism comes off as far less of a “chosen faith” (which is the title of one of their agitprop books, btw), and ore of a dumping-ground from anybody and everybody who — for whatever reason — couldnt (or wouldn’t) actually be bothered to join a real “community” centered around their specific viewpoint:
Those who can’t (won’t?) come out openly as “atheists” or “agnostic” or whatever, and instead hide behind the incredibly hazy self-designation of “Humanist”
The whole thing just strikes me as incredibly superficial, and looks like it requires a truly mind-boggling amount of “lying by omission” (IE: pretending to “tolerate” beliefs/viewpoints you find arrogant/irrational/idiotic, etc.)
This kind of explains the “revolving door”, thing.