Talk:Unitarian Universalism/Archive 2

message: The first section after the intro and table of contents seems to suggest that humanism and atheism are separate beliefs, and while they certainly can be, it is certainly possible for one to belief in both. IMO, better wording is required for that sentence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.201.56 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that encyclopedia's wikipedia included, should be compiled primarily from secondary and tertiary sources and should avoid primary sources as the interpretation of a primary source would almost certainly lead to original research.  In other words, wikipedia is better served by referring to published interpretations of poll results rather than attempting to interpret them itself.  Charles (Kznf) 05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There are almost as many variations of this as there are UU churches, but it was originally written by Universalist minister L. Griswold Williams and published in 1933 in the joint Unitarian and Universalist hymnal.  It reads:
:Love is the doctrine of this church;
:The quest of truth is its sacrament;
:And service is its prayer.
:To dwell together in peace;
:To seek knowledge in freedom;
:To serve mankind in fellowship;
:To the end that all souls shall grow into harmony with the Divine,
:Thus do we covenant with each other, and with God.
If we use any variation of this, we should give credit to the original author.  But none of the variations can be considered representative or typical of Unitarian Universalism as a whole.  This one would probably feel right at home at King's Chapel (with "mankind" changed to "humankind", perhaps) but would get a lot of comments about the "G-word" at our fellowship. If we include a "typical" covenant, it should say so and give it's origin. Shoaler 13:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Covenant

message: I'm wondering if I should join the church.  They seem better than other religions, but I want some opinions.--HistoricalPisces 17:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hesitate to utter such hubris as "we are better," except in the sense that if UUism sounds better to you, it will probably be better for you. There are probably plenty of people out there who think that UUism is the worst perversion of religion ever -- but that's okay, we can get along without em. ;) And if you aren't of that school of thought... then you would probably benefit from UUism, as it would probably benefit from you.
I don't drink cofee.  I drink tea.  Is that okay?--HistoricalPisces 18:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. No, I'm afraid coffee is a UU sacrement. (joking)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.206.234 (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, he just meant to be sure to stay after the service and get to know people, 'cause the people are the best part.  One thing not everyone can cope with - they won't tell you what to believe.  You have to work it out yourself.  If that sounds good, you'll like it.  --noösfractal 06:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the UUs 

message: Can someone help me upload the Flaming Chalice on my user page at the same size it appears in the article.  I tried, but it ended up really big.--HistoricalPisces 18:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Needed 

message: I think we need one that discusses ministers and related subjects.--HistoricalPisces 17:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested subheading 

message: I have significant problems with the introductory paragraphs. The section focuses on the christian etymology of the phrase rather than providing a concise and informative synopsis of what the religion is. Instead, it simply terms it as "liberal" which has varied, contextualized meanings. In my opinion, it is inappropriate for use as a broad qualifying statement in a taxonomy of religions.  The word suggests an exclusive, dualistic, liberal vs. conservative dichotomy that is combative, not conducive to understanding relative positions and ideologies of any religion, let alone one that is actually "liberal". Furthermore, for pure clarity's sake, the increasing politicization of the terms could have unintended implications or undesired references.  From its latin origin, the use of liberal is correct, but I think it is foolish to allow ambiguity to creep into an area where it could be clearer.  At the very least, it needs to read "is a theologically liberal religion."  The UUA is careful to make this distinction/qualification in its FAQ. 
Other statements about what Unitarian Universalists ARE and what we DO value should be made before continuing on to discussion of the name. Free thinking, personal experience cherishing, inclusive, soul growing (other obvious ones are non-dogmatic, non-denominational, but those are sort of contrarian to my point against definition by contrapositive) etc... Furthermore, I do not know that a definition of the terms Unitarian and Unviersalist in the header of U.U. is at all appropriate. Link the two terms for more specific Christian origin information.  Unitarian Universalism as I understand it, never had Christian roots, it had Unitarian and Universalist roots, and those two had Christian roots. The introduction falsly implies U.U.ism to be a first-generation derrivative, which it is not.  It would be similar to the first few lines of Christianty or Islam saying, "Well we used to be Jewish, but we're not anymore."  What it says instead is that it shares the Old Testament which is true, was true, and will be true. Christian ideology has no more present significance than that of any other religion. This all belongs in the history and evolution section, and if any mention of it is made, it should be contained to a statement such as "Many congregations in New England were originally founded as Unitarian or Universalist congregations stemming from Protestantism." On the other side, it depicts U.U.'s negatively by saying they're "not very Chritianly" anymore, but ideas like being kind to one's neighbor, etc are still core values. They're simply viewed in a more humanist fashion. "Christian beliefs" should be "tenets of Orthodox Christianity" or something along those lines. Simply, I dislike the gist of the entire paragraph and am very curious as to why it is there. The "profile" section is a bit more in line, but too long for a brief intro.  My concern is if you don't make it to the profile, you don't get any really meaningful information and could leave with a very skewed perspective.
Next, there are style issues such as passive voice. Those are simple but need to change. Also, origin is not a particularly good word for the religion's development. It is for the large number of UUs who are from North America, but those overseas should be recognized and have their own developmental history as well. The chain of Puritan churches evolving into Unitarian and Universalist congregations and then the later merger into the U.U.A. should be clarified as being the course of evolution in one particular place, not as a whole. The UUA is also careful to differentiate this and include the heretical European background. 
Please respond with your thoughts comments. If there is agreement, I will rewrite an introduction and post it for consideration/review. (ImagoDei 07:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Paragraph 

message: I was just watching a recent episode of SNL, where they sang religiously neutral Christmas songs, and this reminded me of the UU hymn book.  Should its contents be mentioned here? They're distinctive, if amusing. Alienus 14:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The UCC is basically congregational in their freedom of worship ( as the UUs are) but UCC upholds and maintains a strong  Christian identity whereas the UUs do not require this. I can assure you that the New Century Hymnal is controversial within the UCC. I think you UUs would understand that just because the denomination says something doesn't mean it's widely held . As with UU, the UCC is a place where a healthy level of controversy is to be expected, and even affirmed, within and among congregations.  that's my two cents on the NCH.  IF it's an official hymnay you should write an article about it like New Century Hymnal's article.  MPS 22:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another thing to mention

message: Hiya, I've got a question. I'm a Quaker (and also agnostic), and having read the article on UUs here, they seem very similar to Quakers. I was just wondering what the main difference between the two are? Thankyou. (unsigned by 84.64.244.109)
:Quakers are liberal Christians.  UU's are liberal religionists, but not necessarily Christian.  As for agnosticism, it's currently tolerated among UU's but not truly accepted. By the way, to sign your post, use four "~" in a row. Alienus 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... you don't think agnosticism is truly accepted?  I've always thought of UU liturgy as being a sort of organized agnosticism.  Perhaps you meant atheism, but there are several prominent atheist ministers in the UUA, so I'm not sure you can even say that atheism isn't accepted.  When I joined my first UU congregation, I was handed an envelope full of UUA-published pamphlets on various paths in UU, such as Buddhism, liberal Christianity, neo-Paganism and atheism.  Individual UUs may not be agnostic, but the denomination as a whole seems to meet that definition.  I don't think I've ever heard the sentiment "it doesn't matter what you believe so long as you believe something," which I suppose could lead to a denomination being agnostic as a whole but disapproving of individual agnostics.  I think agnosticism, in terms of recognizing that no one path is necessarily the truth, is an important part of UUism. --TreyHarris 06:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with TreyHarris - in my humble opinion the basic idea of UUism is to allow people to explore their own spirituality - if for some people that exploration doesn't involve any kind of deity, then fine - UUs support that too.  I think as a result a derived principle that UUs uphold is that individual spirituality is not equivalent to the belief in one, many, or any gods.--Bmk 07:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, now you're bringing up something else: postmodernism.  The whole notion of there being such a thing as the truth offends many UU's.  Note how the principle that speaks of the free and responsible search for truth doesn't have a "the". Alienus 06:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.  The word "agnostic" doesn't presuppose that there is a single truth; to the contrary. --TreyHarris 19:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agnostics say that they don't know the truth about some matter in particular, usually the existence of God.  They don't deny that there is a truth of the matter, though some do deny that it can be known.  In contrast, postmodernists deny that there is truth independent of beliefs.  And, yes, I do realize that this is a self-contradictory statement, which is why I merely report it without endorsement. Alienus 22:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like "open-minded agnosticism" (there is no religious certainty but it's worth exploring) or even "spiritual agnosticism" might be better definitions than mere philosophical agnosticism that is commonly a synonym for religious indifference (not theoretically but in practical use of the word). --Jdemarcos 23:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's tie this back to the original point.  I told an agnostic Quaker that UUism doesn't really accept agnosticism, though it's tolerated.  (In hindsight, I probably should have also specified that atheism not only lacks acceptance, but is sometimes not even tolerated.)  The only varieties of agnosticism that are accepted are those that are flake-safe. Alienus 22:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa on that one, I have been a UU my whole life and an athiest since I was 8 and never got anything but acceptance from my UU church/community.  It differs from church to church I realize but I am pretty sure Hitler could walk into mine and people would still let him worship (Bad example but I hope you get my point).  Not many UU's stick to any central UU philosophy besides that of a freedom of belief.  UU is about acceptance not tolerance.
Strangely, in this month's copy of the "Good News" (the non-academic publication of the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship, a denomination-wide group of individual UUs in congregations, Christian, pluralist, non-theist or what-have-you), the UUCF President sets out what I think must be a rather common feeling-- many days he wakes up feeling pretty much like an atheist.  At best he aspires to be a Christian.  I sort of feeling the same way about being a Universalist-- I like the idea of universal salvation, and I aspire to believe in it (but many days, I wish to damn many people to hell, not that I'm proud of that, whatever a all-loving God might think or want).  It's difficult to imagine that if the President of the UUCF can speak of his atheistic tendencies that there isn't a place for nontheists just about anywhere in most UU organizations, even in liturgically Christian UU churches (belligerent and intolerant atheists of the "American Atheists" variety?  Well, no, but nor would there be room for Pat Robertson-type Christians in most UU churches, nor can one imagine why such folks would wish to attend).  It's simply not true, of course, that all "Friends" (i.e., Quakers) identify themselves as Christians (any more), there are Christ-center Friends, and there are Friends that think that George Fox was using Christian language to describe his religious philosophy because that was the religious language of the day (but that Quakerism is not limited to Christianity).  This is particularly the case amongst Philadelphia Friends.Blondlieut 19:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UUs and Quakers 

message: I think I get what this article is about now. I am adding a disambig comment based on last edit comment by User:TreyHarris. I thought this article was about UUA but it is about an inclusive, syncretistic -ism that developed in UUA culture. I hope disambig is accurate. If not, please be bold. MPS 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relationship of all these terms, plus the non-US organizations certainly needs to be explained somewhere.  And it's changing all the time too. But it's a lot to put in a disambiguation line.  –Shoaler (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have pared it down to what hopefully is the minimum necessary. With any disambiguation link, the point is to get the reader to the page they're looking for as quickly as possible, not to contextualize, compare or contrast, except insofar as that's necessary to get the reader to the right page.  --TreyHarris 23:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UU-ism versus UUA

message: "This is not to say that the politics of UUs are not uniform in some key issues. All Unitarian Universalists believe in the power of diversity and welcome conservatives as well as liberals. Politically conservative Unitarian Universalists point out that neither religious liberalism nor the Principles and Purposes of the UUA require liberal politics."
The following is a response, however it deals with one persons negative experiences and should not be taken as general truth. I dissagree, though i won't delete it.
Oh if this were only true.  So much of this article seems like its from UUA pamphlets, rather than about UUism.  These statements above are, at best, aspirational-- things UUism should be, certainly not statements about what UUism is (and hence they are ... not encyclopedia, but simply Beacon Street propoganda).  I mean, I know UU Christians who have been asked by their fellow congregants what in the world they're doing going to church at a UU church (the idea being, gosh-golly, don't Christians have plenty of other choices-- and can't you foolish Christians just leave us alone already?)  That's hardly living up to the idea that UUs are "welcoming" of diversity, either as an ideal, or in practice.  Ditto the liberal/conservativism thing.  One doesn't have to spend 10 minutes in a pew at at UU church before one understands "Republicans are not welcomed here."  Anyone who thinks otherwise is ... not facing reality.  The UU minister in our town told the local paper there are "blue" churches and "red" churches, and then proceeded to make clear what color is his church was.  Pink, purple and blue are acceptable colors; red was acceptable only in the context of the cold war.Blondlieut 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All UUs Believe

message: by the by, is the use of the word "incarnation" to the describe the faith here some sort of complex theological joke, given that the incarnation is precisely what Unitarians deny?  I must say there is something just a bit ... tone-deaf (foregive my ableist language) about the whole articleBlondlieut 22:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incarnation

message: "The current head of the Unitarian Universalist Association, Rev. William Sinkford, is African-American, making Unitarian Universalism the first traditionally white religion to be headed by a member of an ethnic minority."
I know we UUs frequently say this, but the United Church of Christ makes the same claim to a much earlier time-- in the 1970s.  There's a section in their website on this--www.ucc.org, UCC "Firsts."  I know it's hard to take when others out-PC us.  We may have to give up this myth.  Blondlieut 23:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so ... This is what the folks at the UCC say:
"1976: General Synod elects the Rev. Joseph H. Evans president of the United Church of Christ. He becomes the first African American leader of a racially integrated mainline church in the United States." http://www.stillspeaking.com/about/firsts.htm
Now, this bit about the UCC being "integrated" is just .. marketing, as the UCC is 93% white, according to a 2001 CUNY study: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf
Anyway, that means ... Sinkford wasn't first (and certainly the United Church of Christ is and was "historically" white, they have descended from the same Puritans that we did).  How do we come up with these things??  I mean, I know we always think we're first ... but we're always wrong.  We claim the first female pastor, and we're wrong about that too.  Congregationlists beat us by a good 10 years (they beat .. the Univesalists, not the Unitarians, of course. or the UUs).  Blondlieut 05:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is all a bit harsh, don't you think?  So, first, schmirst, there's still a lot of good stuff going on in UUism.  Of course, correct the wiki if you have evidence about the first African American clergyman, but I don't think UUs should be called self-deluding because it turns out we had the second African American clergyman instead of the first. --Bmk 07:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First African American President

message: Hello fellow wikipedians!  You've probably noticed that some things have been moved around.  I've moved the first four items closer to the bottom, in keeping with the more widespread custom of placing newer additions toward the end of a talk page.
That, of course, means that users need to scroll through streams of older--often outdated or settled--discussion.  Also, at 103 kilobites, the talk page seems to be exceeding the suggested length, so I would also suggest that the first several items on the new TOC be archived.  I took a quick look around, and it seems that, for the most part, items "Humiliati" to "Covenant" (numbers 1-18 in the new TOC) have not been edited in several months.  My suggestion is that those specific items be archived, making "Christian beliefs" (currently number 19) the new first item.  I'd do it myself but, a) I'm still familiarizing myself with the archiving procedures, and b) it's probably best if people give some feedback beforehand.  If no one else does it over the next couple days, and if there are no major objections, I'll try to bring myself up to speed and go ahead with it.  How's that sound? Rod ESQ 22:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I've archived about 17 items.  The page is still a bit longer than what is supposedly advisable, but the remaining streams still seem to be attracting some discussion.  I imagine this will now cut a couple seconds off of scrolling time. Rod ESQ 05:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Housekeeping

message: Requesting input for the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Universalism heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Universalism's view on forgiveness?  Any help would be appreciated.  --speet 16:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help on Forgiveness article 

message: Leaving aside the matter that I don't really understand what the P&Ps are supposed to mean to indiviudal UUs (as opposed to member congregations), it seems odd to me to include the "principles" but not the "purposes," and likewise not the "sources" that come in between.  The article thus has us mentioning the latest source, but not what the other sources were before this one.  That would be fine if there were simply a link to the UUA article's P&Ps, or if there were no P&Ps, but to include half the P&Ps seems ... strange, to say the least. Blondlieut 02:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the P&Ps give individual UUs something to measure their beliefs against.  But you're right.  They're a lot more than just the seven principles.  And I personally think there's a lot of wisdom in the "sources" too.  Since the entire text of the P&Ps is covered in the UUA article and since UU congregations outside the US do not necessarity subscribe to this version of the P&Ps, I would agree that we could just have a link to the text in the UUA article.  But I'd like to hear other opinions before we take them out. –Shoaler (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: At least at the church to which I belong, the Principles receive much more attention than the Sources and Purposes.  I have modified the end of the paragraph introducing the Principles to state, "The full Principles, Purposes and Sources can be found in the article on the UUA. The Principles are as follows."  Hopefully some such wording would address Blondliuet's concerns while allowing the Principles to remain listed in the UU article. --Mikebrand 02:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In my experience as a UU I also paid much more attention to the Principles.  I think they are important enough to have in the article.  If people feel strongly, I would support 'adding' the Purposes and Sources, but not removing the Principles. --Bmk 18:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  P&Ps 

message: We're getting too many "notable" congregations that aren't particularly notable.  (Maybe I should add our fellowship because the ending of Fatal Attraction was filmed there.)  This should be a list of other WP articles, not a bunch of external links.  If a congregation is not notable enough to have an article, it shouldn't be in this list. So again, I am encouraging people who think a congregation is notable to write at least a stub about it.  Otherwise, I'm going to drop them from the list. –Shoaler (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, very much an invitation for local vanity. Articles can still be linked, but no external links, as like you say, if it is really that important, it should have an article.--Analogue Kid 16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Congregations (again)

message: It is innappropriate to change the recognized flaming chalice emblem to the new one currently in use by the UUA. Unitarian Universalism exists outisde the UUA, and changing the primary image here whenever they change their logo is hinting that they are all of Unitarian Universalism. The earlier image wasThe new logo is controversial at best anyway.  Canæn  06:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fair enough.  I changed it because the current image was the official logo of the UUA.  I think the ideal solution might be for an altogether different chalice image, perhaps a photograph of an actual flaming chalice. Charles (Kznf) 13:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chalice Image 

message: Singing the Living Tradition needs it's own entry.  http://www.uua.org/bookstore/product_info.php?cPath=2&products_id=490 Mathiastck 18:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is important in Unitarian Universalism, but is it notable? Aleta 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singing the Living Tradition 

message: The Religion in the United States has some interesting stats on UU in the US, which I've added to the article. It might help to have some synthesis explaining why the US has numbers in the half-million range and the world is so small (the difference, at least in part, being the difference between current membership and self-reported identification.)--Prosfilaes 18:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: At my congergation, whenever the kids reach the 8th grade, they begin affirmation, where they affirm what they believe (comparable to confirmation or a bar mitzvah, but they choose what to believe themselves). I noticed none of that was mentioned in this article or in the discussion. Is this typical of all UU congregations, or is this mine specifically? If its typical, I'm prepared to write a section for it. Thank you, and please respond soon. CaptainP 03:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to contribute to Coming of Age (Unitarian Universalism).  Many UU congregations have Coming of Age programs but they may differ from congregation to congregation. –Shoaler (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affirmation 

message: I think some mention of the Unitarian Jihad movement should be made here.  Mathiastck 15:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unitarian Jihad 

message: Has anyone ever heard of Trinitarian Universalism outside of Wikipedia?--GMS508 18:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall seeing the T capitalized, but in the earlier years, as I understand it, most Universalists were trinitarian.  So, yes, in my readings on UU history I, for one, am familiar with the concept and can understand how it could be attractive to Christians.  --Mikebrand 18:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ever Heard of Trinitarian Universalism?

message: I would very much be interested if anyone knows of the term Trinitarian Universalism being used in a notable publication.--GMS508 00:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: I found the previous intro paragraph to be very poor for many reasons.  First, I don't know what scholars someone was referring to, but UUism is not a Protestant denomination - to say so is simply inaccurate.  To say that it is "new" is not entirely accurate either, since it grew out of other religious traditions.  Perhaps what the scholars referred to actually said made more sense in context.  To say that UUism "probably has a closer resemblance to Mainline Protestantism" (closer than what? - a "new" religion?) is both an unsubstantiated opinion and imprecise: UUism does retain some of the traditions of its Christian roots, but doctrinally is not a Christian religion.  The previous intro implied otherwise.  UUism's status in the National Council of Churches is not really very important information for an introductory paragraph - I imagine someone wanted to refute the claim about Mainline Protestantism.  Also, I really don't know why someone wrote that UU Sunday services resemble Reformed church services - certainly, they resemble Protestant services, but there is very, very little connecting the modern-day Calvinist Reformed tradition with UUism, either theologically or historically.  
Given these many problems, and taking into account other comments left about the paragraph, I felt that a new introductory paragraph which tried to retain as much as possible the relevant information from previous versions was necessary.  Reading of the synopsis of UUism at the Religion Facts website (http://www.religionfacts.com/a-z-religion-index/unitarian_universalism.htm), I am encouraged to see that the editors there have briefly defined UUism in a rather similar way.  I think that it now gives readers a much clearer, more precise, more accurate, and shorter summary of the topic.
If you do change it, please post your reasons.  Thanks. Cloweste 01:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see your comment on this talk page until after I had reverted you anonymous and undocumented changes to the first para of the article.  You are welcome to revert it back, but I would suggest first working out the changes on this talk page, then posting the revised para with a reference to this discussion.  --Mikebrand 05:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mikebrand, we already addressed many of these issues in part 7. I am going to make some edits to the introduction to reflect the tone established there and here. In no religious taxonomy is Unitarian Universalism considered a Protestant denomination. It is by definition non-denominational. If you have objections, please read Part 7 of the talk. I had this discussion months or years ago on here and feel like we already reached a solid consensus to omit these type of Christian references which do not belong while including notes regarding origin and many common beliefs. (ImagoDei 20:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nevermind, Cloweste got there first. After a cursory read they seem much more accurate and representative. (ImagoDei 20:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My rewriting of the Intro Paragraph 

message: The link to Humiliati doesn't go to any 1950s group...  — coelacan talk — 11:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  12th century? 

message: The following was added to the Politics section of the UU article.  The info would be more relevant to an article on Sinkford.  I cannot vouche for its accuracy so am posting it here rather than merely deleting it.--Mikebrand 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinkford bio 

message: As a Canadian UU I find this article very American (i.e. UUA) slanted. Ok I know that must UU’s reside in the USA and are thus served by the UUA. Also it is true that Canadian UU’s wear historically served by the UUA but today they mostly run their own show throw their head organization the CUC, this needs to be more clearly stated. Frothier more I do understand that the creation of UUism as we all know it today went hand in hand with the creation of the UUA, but this is not an article on the UUA, or is it? And if this article is going to take so much time talking about the UUA it out to touch on some of the other UU organizations around the world like the CUC and the importance of these groups on the fostering and growing of the UU movement around the world. Also it would be helpful to clarify the point that in different countries there head UU body may us a different set of principles and sources then the UUA, and that even if they us the same one as the UUA they may have their own process for up dating it, see , for an example of this. --Devin Murphy 07:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I find this article very American

message: How are these sentences relevant or notable?  
Individual Unitarian Universalists are involved in opposing the death penalty, supporting environmental protection, peace, feminism, gun control, free speech, safe and legal abortion, and animal welfare. Others work to end homelessness, racism, domestic violence, homophobia, sexual assault, and HIV/AIDS. 
I can't imagine that this sort of listing would be included in other Wikipedia religion listings.  This is an article about UUism, not individual UUs and their causes.  These two sentences should be deleted.  --Chutney 19:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of individual social justice efforts?

message: :Image:UUA Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:UUA Logo.svg

message: Why doesn't the history section talk about UU roots in Romania and Hungary? That is where UUism came from, and now those two countries have the most Unitarian Universalists in the world. Can someone help and write a passage about that in the history section? --24.245.58.36 22:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the people there are mostly traditional Unitarians, not modern UUs.--Mikebrand 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Unitarianism that has its roots in Transylvania. Modern Universalism started in England. Those historical references belong to those articles rather than to Unitarian Universalism. People may refer back to the other articles for more information. --jofframes 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UU history

message: Just a reflection: when you do the various tests on Internet to find out your religion, "Unitarian Universalist" always comes on second place if a believer of the Baha'i Faith answers the questions in the test. --Caspiax 00:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close to the Baha'i Faith 

message: There has been a suggestion over on the WikiProject Religion talk page to create a work group consisting of folks interested in articles related to Unitarian Universalism. So would anyone here be interested in joining in such an effort. --Devib Murphy (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since I raised the idea at the other page, I'm all for it! Anyone else? Aleta 19:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unitarian Universalism work group?

message: It has been proposed that this article be the first official collaboration for the newly formed Unitarian Universalism work group. And the reasoning is this, “seeing as it’s the main article of this work group and the fact it has a few cleanup tags”. So do go discuss this on their talk page. --Devin Murphy (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: UU work group official collaboration

message: Substituted at 20:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment