Talk:Unitarian Universalism

What is the fleeting reference to the "humiliati" movement in the symbology section? Clearly not linked to the mideival pietist movement and unlinked to any further information.

Buckminster Fuller wasn't really "Unitarian" or "Universalist."

---

I asked for official permission to include the UUA Principles and Purposes here:

From: David Merrill

Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 2:37 PM

To: 'mbenard at uua.org'

Subject: Principles of the UUA

Dear Ms. Benard,

I'm a volunteer with the Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia project (see http://www.wikipedia.com), and also a UU at All Souls Unitarian in Washington, D.C. I'm working on an article on UUism for the encyclopedia, and would like to include a copy of the "Principles and Purposes" (on the UUA website at http://www.uua.org/principles.html).

What exactly is the copyright? If they are copyrighted, can I have permission to use them?

The encyclopedia is a free project (the content is free for anyone to use as they wish, subject to one primary restriction -- that they must continue to make it free for others). It is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html). This makes it hard to answer your question as to whether there is the intent to realize a profit. Under the FDL, one can charge for distribution and such, but you can't charge for the content itself because you have to make it freely available. It's like the way the Linux operating system is licensed. Feel free to write if you have any questions.

Thanks,

--

David C. Merrill, Ph.D.

Sr. Software Engineer

And received this reply (my mail was forwarded to someone else):

From: Betsy Martin <BetsyMartin at uua.org>

Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:31 AM

To: David C. Merrill

Subject: RE: Principles of the UUA

Dear Mr. Merrill,

Thank you for contacting the UUA with your permission request. Please consider this message official permission to include the UU "Principles and Purposes" in your article on UUism for Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

Betsy Martin

UUA Publications

---

It is surely a huge fallacy to call, for example, John Adams a "Unitarian-Universalist," which the article's list does. He's on the list presumably because he was a Unitarian; but I very much doubt that he would wish to be counted among the Unitarian Universalists, and if they considered his actual religious and political beliefs, I am sure today's Unitarian Universalists would not want to call him one of his own (except for the prestige of having a president among one's adherents!).

It seems to me we need a list of Unitarian-Univeralists, followed by a link to an article about Unitarianism, with John Adams on the latter list, but not the former. --LMS ---

Schweitzer's students were all Lutherans. His work certainly caused a schism among the Lutheran church. Are you -sure- he was UU? Ray Van De Walker

I pulled the initial list from www.famousuus.com/humanita.htm. I just did a search on google and found lots of other references. --Dmerrill

Contents

1 UU - religion or not? 2 Politics 3 Other Religions and UU 4 Internal criticism 5 Principles and Purposes - Cut and paste 6 Tolerance 7 Also many UUA's were influential in banning alcohol 8 Uni... 9 Chalice "universally recognized"? 10 American Unitarian Conference 11 Facts about the American Unitarian Conference 12 The UUA's position on the American Unitarian Conference

UU - religion or not?

How is UU a religion? The article states "creedless religion", but that's almost a contradiction-- check the definition on religion! A religion needs some sort of doctrine to be a religion, else it is just a philosophy or organization... - Lord Kenneth

From religion: A religion is defined as a system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to the supernatural, but what actually constitutes a religion is subject to much dispute in the field of theology and among ordinary people.

What most people expect is that one's religion and one's spirituality are identical. This is not always so with UUism. One can have a Jewish or Christian or Pagan spirituality and still be a Unitarian Universalist. Personally, I was raised Jewish, was a Pagan in my late teen and through my college years. I hold many parts of those paths close to my heart, but I am not engaged in a Jewish synoggogue or a Wiccan Coven. I attend and am a member of a UU congregation. I participate in sunday services. I advise the local youth group. I served on the board of trustees. UUism is most definitely a religion.

Did you even read the whole article, including Unitarian_Universalism#Principles_and_Purposes

UtherSRG 08:09, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't care if there are "sunday services", "local youth group", etc. To me, it seems to parody religion without actually being a religion. The definition you first supplied to me is exactly what I think of as a religion. Since UU really takes no official stance on much of anything, especially on the paranormal, it does not seem to be a "true" religion. It seems to be more of a gathering where people discuss and celebrate their religosity/spirituality, although it seems most of them are liberal humanists.

I can tell you what Buddhists believe, what Christians believe, what Scientologists believe, etc. I cannot tell you what UUs believe-- if anything, it's just a philosophy on how to treat people, which cannot count as being a religion. Also, UUs can still be "Wicca", "Christian", whatever, keeping the name of their old religion. Members of UU can be broken down into those terms, because those terms are religions. I still think UU is not a religion, but an organization.

(Also, UU describes itself as a "faith". Faith in...what?)

- Lord Kenneth 3:04 CST Jan 1 2004

Sorry for not responding sooner. The definition of religion that I first supplied is common, but narrow. It assumes that all religions want its adherants to think exactly alike, to believe in all the same things. UUism is not about that at all. We believe there are many paths to Truth, and that each person must find their own path. That is the kind of faith UUism talks about. Because none of us (UU or Christian or Jew) knows if there are any real Paths, we only believe we know "a" path or "the" path.

But for the most crystalized version of what UUs believe, the link into the UUism article I provided says it best. (Oh, and the word "principle" means much the same as the word "creed".)

- UtherSRG 13:20, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I might point out that strict Buddhism also does not believe in gods in the same sense as "western" religions. Does that make it not a religion? In any case, UUs clearly have a statement of moral doctrine, and, in my opinion, that's all that's needed to define a religion. Religions fundamentally are, after all, systems of guidance for living life. I might also point out that many people are UUs because they are disgusted with other religions -- they've thought things through and have come to the conclusion that they need an atmosphere which is more realistically based on ethical morals. That's UU. And, frankly, more than a few UUs are members precisely because they want a sound moral platform from which to oppose many of the more vicious agenda of fundamentalist religions. jaknouse 15:54, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Chiming in late on this discussion, Merriam Webster (copyrighted, here quoted for "fair use") includes this definition of religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". Thus, I think that UUism is well within modern usage of the word "religion". Gwimpey 07:10, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

"Religions fundamentally are systems of guidance for living life"--questionable. The word "religion" doesn't have a clear-cut definition, but as ordinarily used, the word strongly connotes the following:

-A comprehensive picture of the nature of reality and our place in it

-A focus on nonphysical things or conditions

-A set of often idiosyncratic behavioral codes

-Exclusiveness, i.e. you cannot have two religions at the same time

-A large number of adherents (say, 100 million)--otherwise it's called a "sect" or worse yet a "cult"

The first of these is the biggest difference between Unitarian Universalism and pretty much anything else bearing the name of "religion". Whether a community with a shared general ethic but without a shared worldview counts as a "religion" is probably a futile argument; UU is a borderline phenomenon. Unitarianism has been described as "a feather bed to catch falling Christians"--a kind of halfway house for people on their way OUT of "religion" in the normal sense. In that capacity, among others, UU is very valuable.

And not to forget...it counts as a religion for tax purposes, in the US at least. That's where the exact word really matters.

-Daniel Cristofani.

It never ceases to amaze me what people think about a religion without having firsthand knowledge of the religion. - UtherSRG 18:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You had assumed I didn't have firsthand knowledge of Unitarian Universalism? I've attended about fifty services at three different churches, plus youth group, personal discussions, and a couple candlelight vigils. No big surprises. I repeat: the organization is valuable, but it is right on the borderline of what most people, educated or not, would call a "religion". The biggest thing that would make people hesitate about using the word is UU's lack of a set of mandatory doctrines forming a unified worldview.

Now it might be argued that UU's lack of dogma, its commitment to freedom of belief, its fostering of individual inquiry, are virtues--and that since the word "religion" has positive connotations, UU's virtues cannot stop it from being a "religion". But the providing of a worldview is more central to people's idea of "religion" than the positive connotation is--the phrase "creedless religion", though not outright inconsistent, will raise more eyebrows than "false religion" or "harmful religion". In fact, the connotation ultimately stems from the meaning--if people think "religion" is good, it's partly because people think dogma is good, and that, more than the use of words, is what needs to be changed. Insofar as UU is not a religion, it is better and more legitimate than a religion if anything.

-Daniel Cristofani.

Of course it's a religion! I'm a born-and-raised UU with a deep spiritual life. The confusion over status of "religion" is driven by the lack of a dogma or creed (i.e. a set of statements in which belief is required for membership). UUs do not tell others "This is true, you must believe it" in spiritual matters (though most are activists in the secular world). However, there is a common set of values that all UUs agree to promote within their own lives and the world: the principles and purposes. Just because many people agree that these are (in principle) good things does not mean that UU is not a religion. In fact, one of the most controversial and radical aspects of UU is embedded in the 1st, 3rd, and 4th principles: "help others on their own spiritual paths, even if that path is not your own". There are any number of religions that reject this idea, but UUs support it. -- Tim McCormack 23:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

As another born-and-raised UU, I beleive that it is fairest to describe it as an organization of religious and spiritual people rather than a religion, in other words a denomination. Most denominations are orginizations of religious people that require their members to agree to a creed or a particular way of being religious. Often they are heirachical so that members give up some responsibility to decide what to believe and how to practice their beliefs. The fundamental difference between UUism and other denominations is that UUism tells its members that all the responsibility for their beliefs and their practices rests on themselves There is no outside authority (book, sage, revelation) that they can look to to answer their questions. The individual must use their own reason and conscience to find their direct relationship to the divine. People come to a UU congregation not to find answers, but rather to find support in their individual quest. When people say that UU is not a religion, they mean that it supplies no answers. They're right. This is precisely why we come to UU congregations. Edwinstearns 13:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's a difference between a denomination and a religion. In denominational religions, denominations hold authority over their congregations, while in associational religions it is the congregations that hold authority over the larger body. The relationships extend a certain viewpoint of theology - those of us in denominations ascribe higher worth to common, immutable beliefs, while those of us in associational religions find more value in our individual spiritual journeys. This brings me to another point - there's a difference between religion and spirituality. Spirituality is an inherently personal entity accumulated though experience and reflection. Religion (re-lig... re link) is the bindings of common ritual and words that creates an organization out of a group of spiritual people. One can be spiritual alone, but to share one's experience with another is religious. (Sharing is a linking.) - UtherSRG 14:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Tim McCormack 17:36, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Politics

The section on politics ought to be heavily revised and retitled. The claim that UUs are "very active in liberal political activism" is fundamentally counter to the UU principle of freedom of thought and belief. A less sweeping statement, like "most Unitarian Universalists oppose the death penalty", is less offensive, but I still don't think a section on politics really belongs in any discussion of UU spirituality. I would reduce much of this section to a new title "Historical Activism", which could describe the tradition of liberal activism that most UUs are proud of. The rest of the current section can, and probably should, be reduced to simply "UUs tend to be politically liberal". The rest can be inferred without making it seem like liberalism and activism are UU dogma. Particularly strong cases like anti-death penalty (based on principles 1 and 2) and environmentalism (based on principle 7) could be mentioned as they relate fairly unequivocally to the base principles.

I would be wary of the easy assertion that UUs are activists. Although Service is widely considered fundamental to UU, this is not the same thing as activism, and particularly UUs of Buddhist and Taoist background are likely to be irritated by claims of fundamental UU activism.

We can all acknowledge, and it's obvious from the rest of the article, that UUs tend to be liberals, but the current politics section simply perpetuates the UU image of liberal cheerleaders and political activists using a "church" as a staging point. This image is unfair and non-inclusive of at least a significant minority of UUs.

I'll wait for further comment, then proceed to fix things if appropriate. --Chinasaur 11:06, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

I don't have your read of this at all. I do not see "very active in liberal political activism" as "fundamentally counter to the UU principle of freedom of thought and belief". I do agree that the general majority are not "very active" in activism, but are rather more supportive in other ways. There are many UUs who are activists, others lend support in less active ways. I wouldn't suggest rewriting the whole section, though.

I'm not sure I got my point across quite right on this. I wasn't trying to argue that being "very active in liberal political activism" is counter to being a UU. My objection is that the sentence as written in the current article seems to assert that being "very active in liberal political activism" is an integral (and requisite) part of UU. I don't think this is, or should be, true, and I think the implication that all UUs are acitivists is offensive. The fact that many UUs *are* activists is something I, personally, am proud of. But activism should not be presented as a fundamental characteristic of UU. --Chinasaur 20:28, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Which congregation in the Bay area do you go to? My wife goes to Oakland while she's at Starr King. I'm in NJ and go to Montclair. I ask because there's a great variety of activism levels depending on which congregation you are in. You're viewpoint may be different depending on what you know your congregation has done, and what other congregations do. Many congregations have folks who march at Pride. Many have folks who lobby in "city hall". This isn't done by mandate from the congregation. Rather, it is the spirituality that inspires people to people to become active.

Your point here is well taken. The point I'm insisting on is, as you state: "this isn't done by mandate from the congregation". The beginning part of the current article politics section implies that it is, or at the least the article section is likely to present an unwelcoming picture to people who support the UU principles but do not want to be political activists.

Again, the fact that UU spirituality can inspire people to act on their beliefs is great. But I always believed that it is equally legitimate within the UU framework to support the principles without trying to sway politics. As I note, there are some backgrounds, such as Buddhist or Taoist that are ideologically disinclined to support the kind of activism described in this section. So that activism shouldn't be presented as integral to the religion. --Chinasaur 20:28, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

- UtherSRG 12:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I might note that I've been a UU for thirteen years, during which I've been a member of two very different congregations, and I've met no more than a handful of UU Republicans. But congregations are VERY different. Some UU congregations, for instance, are still explicitly Christian. jaknouse 15:54, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

All true, and furthermore my point went beyond just defending UU Repulicans. I was more getting at the idea that even though most of us are liberal, we don't all make activism part of our religious life. --Chinasaur 20:28, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but I think we're more active, on average, than most other denominations. We'd be powerful if we grew our numbers to the size of the Southern Baptist Convention! How about making the changes here? - UtherSRG 20:39, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My wife is a UU ministerial student at Starr King. I asked her to take a look at this discussion and to take a stab at rewriting the Politics section. I've filled it into the link above. I think it's long enough for an article of its own, with a summary of it used in place of the Politics section, and renamed Political Action and Unitarian Universalism. Comments? (No need to mention it needs to be wikified....) - UtherSRG 16:02, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for getting input on this! Sorry I haven't been able to work on it; probably won't have time until Thursday (not just because of taxes...). I like the wording in the new version better, but I still have concerns that I'll deal with on the edit page when time allows.

As a temporary fix, I've put in a link to Conservative Forum for Unitarian Universalists and tried to include at least a mention that one can be conservative and UU (I'm a "liberal", but don't want to exclude conservatives). As an example, our congregation includes an aide to a prominent Republican senator. Gwimpey 06:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Gwimpey. I like what you've done. - UtherSRG 11:50, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks guys for working on this; sorry I haven't had a chance to go over it yet; I guess it's partly recognition that it's a tough issue that I just haven't felt like I've had time to sit down and deal with it yet... --Chinasaur 18:36, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Other Religions and UU

I've got a question. I've read that a large number of Unitarian Universalists are Christians. Does that mean that members of other religions can be UUs too? For example, I'm a muslim, so can I be a Unitarian Universalist too? Thanks

In short: Yes. UUism is about finding and living your spiritual path (which it seems like you've done) in a pluralistic community. While each congregation may have one or more particularly noticable spiritual flavors, not only will people not mind that you are muslim, they'll hope that you might share your understandings of the world with them, and they'll expect that you are open to accepting their understandings in a similar light. (No expectation of converting in either direction, just a free sharing of understandings.) - UtherSRG 15:56, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Internal criticism

Removed text:

Rev. Earl K. Holt III, minister of King's Chapel in Boston, the nation's first Unitarian church has recently been at the lead of offering internal criticism of the direction of the UU Church. In a recent interview with the Boston Globe he stated

"I'm ready to defend now the hypothesis that Unitarian Universalism as it presently exists is not in any meaningful way...a continuity of either of the traditions" [Christian and monotheistic from which it originated from]. He notes that the UU Church now officially has no theological beliefs that adherents must have, and it is tolerant of nearly any belief system. He concludes that "at some point, pandering would not become too strong a word" his church has lost unity.

Revisiting Unitarian Universalism Rich Barlow, The Boston Globe, July 17, 2004

While I agree that Rev Holt's criticism has merit, I wonder why this was placed in the article as a direct quote. I don't believe other religions have such direct criticisms on their articles. I could understand a brief summary of various criticisms. - UtherSRG 06:27, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your comment and question is fair enough! It turns out that other Wikipedia articles do have substantial sections on internal criticisms. Within the Judaism and related articles, there is plenty of dicusion of internal criticism; the same is true for many of our articles on Islam (see especially the sections on Shiite versus Sunni forms of Islam.) I think that all of our religions and social movement articles should include sections on internal criticism, especially when such internal criticism is openly discussed among many adherents of that movement. Some examples that I think should be discussed include: RK

Why some members of the UU movement have criticised it, as it has broadened to the point where it includes nearly any faith, or none at all.

Why many members of Conservative Judaism have criticised their own movement for not cultivating an observant layity.

Why many members of Reform Judaism have criticised their own movement for creating a new definition of who is a Jew, thus creating a schism that may create two separate Jewish peoples.

Why many members of Orthodox Judaism have criticised their own movement for not taking seriously the role of women as equals, the way that Orthodoxy understands homosexuality, or the increasing uses of churmras (legal stringincies).

Why many members of Catholic Christianity have criticised their own movement for not allowing priests to marry, and for not policing their own priesthood enough vis-a-vis the child abuse scandal.

Including external criticisms are another issue entirely, and I think we should avoid this whenever feasible. I am sure that one could write a long section full of polemics on why Christians think that Jews and Muslims are wrong, and why pagans are worse than wrong; similar, one could write a long section full of polemics on why Muslims think that Christians and Muslims are wrong, and why pagans are worse than wrong! Generally, any well-known religion has been the subject of a vast critical and polemical attack from many people outside that religion. We need to extremely careful about this. But the subject of internal constructive criticism is a different issue altogether. RK

My concern was more about the direct quote vice a summary of various internal criticisms. Are you a UU? I am. I'd be willing to work on a section of internal criticism for this article with others. But... define "many adherents". *grins* - UtherSRG 21:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a UU; My belief system is most closely described as Jewish, theologically liberal religious rationalism, in the vein of Conservative Judaism. I've done reading on many religions, and was prompted to add this info merely because I've heard about this criticism in the past, but this is the first time I've seen it written about in a major newspaper. Apparently, Rev. Holt is on an important UU commission that may have some say in definining what UU is. RK 00:06, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

In order to maintain the NPOV, wouldn't it be a good idea to include apolgetics with criticisms? Also, another issue perhaps worth mentioning is the debate about evangelism. Tydaj 20:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Principles and Purposes - Cut and paste

Even with direct permission to copy the principles and purposes section, I think it's better to briefly summarize them or, at worst, to move them to another article, say Principles and Purposes of Unitarian Universalism. This cut and paste job on the article right now isn't encyclopedic, and looks ugly and out of place. I'd rework it, but I'm not a UU so I'm afraid I'd remove something important. Can someone else give it a go? --Ardonik 21:14, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

It is my feeling that the principles are as concise as possible without losing anything important. I'd say to keep the text verbatim, altho formatting is another issue. Tydaj 20:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tolerance

The Unitarian Universalist congregation I am a part of and the congregations/fellowships of many others distance themselves from the word tolerance, and see it as being a negative word. My congregation usually employs words such as celebration or acceptance. A sentence such as "I can tolerate them" suggests work, or unease involved in what they are doing, but comprimising one's thoughts, opinions, morals etc. to let someone else be peacefully. Words such as celebration, or acceptance, suggest that you understand and are comfortable with what the other person is doing. However this is the discussion page and I would like to read the opinions of everyone else here, and their experience with UUism. --machinebuster

Also many UUA's were influential in banning alcohol

http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/adamiserkepley.html

UUP's also played a key role in the Prohibition.

Not to be offensive, but one should mention the 'good' (opposition to slavery, women's right's) with the 'bad' (restricting freedom).

Uni...

Is there any way we could make a disambiguation page or something for all of the religions that begin with "Uni"? I've had people confuse us with the Universal Life Church. Heck, just the other day I confused the Unity Church with the Unification Church. This isn't the orthodox use of a disambig, tho. And IMO, posting references to all the other "Uni" religions on their article pages would be unattractive. I can't really find any precedent here... Ideas? --Tydaj 02:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is a good idea. Perhaps a tag we can put at the top or bottom of each of the articles via a template that says "Was this the article you really wanted? People often mix up the following religions:" - UtherSRG 03:13, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

How's this look? --Tydaj 15:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chalice "universally recognized"?

The change in the caption of referring to the flaming chalice from the "official symbol" to the "universally recognized symbol" of Unitarian Universalism is decidedly odd. Judging from how often I was asked "what's that?" when I wore a faming chalice necklace, the recognition is definitely not exactly "universal". --TreyHarris 21:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that other symbols exist for UUism. --Tydaj 14:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

American Unitarian Conference

This is really not the place to discuss the American Unitarian Conference. It should only be mentioned here if UUism is also mentioned in the AUC article in an unbiased fashion. Also, at least try to be NPOV in Unitarianism. --Tydaj 15:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how including an actually relevant see-also link can be POV. The sentences that were there at one point ("In 2000 a group of UUs founded the American Unitarian Conference (AUC) for the purpose of promoting the classical Unitarian tradition. The AUC is independent of the UUA.") seem like a non sequitur, but that could be easily fixed (by noting that it's a breakaway group from the UUA, if that is the case—I know nothing about this group).

From a quick reading of their website, the AUC appears to be a rival denomination to the UUA, with UU fellowships as communicating members. If this is the true story, then the see-also link definitely belongs here, as does some sentence explaining the relationship of the AUC. Tydaj, please explain your argument as to why it should be left out? (Reciprocality is not a facet of NPOV, by the way—articles stand alone.) TreyHarris 18:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right, that was a bit reactionary of me. The user seems to have been doing most of it for advertisement purposes. At the time it felt (s)he was trying to "win converts" as it were (see their edits of Unitarianism. I'm not arguing that info on AUC should be left out, but that if it is to be mentioned in this article UUism should also be mentioned at American Unitarian Conference. I actually made this edit before I saw that someone had placed a link to this article there. Anyway, I think that something should be written up about the relationship of the two on both articles for clarity's sake. Is there anyone outside of AUC that can confirm the info found on their website (re: founding)? --Tydaj 20:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(S)he has been adding links to the AUC on numerous articles, many out of place or downright irrelevent. See: William Ellery Channing, Deism, Philosophical theism, Panendeism, Transcendentalism, Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship, Jonathan Mayhew, James Freeman Clarke, Jesus & Natural theology. --Tydaj 20:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the person who has been placing the American Unitarian Conference links here and on other pages. Please know that I only did so only because I thought it WAS relevant. The pages on William Ellery Channing, Deism, Philosophical theism, Panendeism, and the rest noted above are all relevant to the AUC and vice versa. And I do know for a fact that the AUC was founded by Unitarian Universalists: David R. Burton and Dean Fisher are the founders; each one was involved with the Conservative Forum for Unitarian Universalists. That's how they met and ended up sharing the same passion for creating the AUC. This was not an attempt to try to "convert" people to the AUC (the AUC is NOT a religion or a denomination, it is a religious organization, a missionary and publication society, a network for people of all denominations who have a unitarian theology). I only wanted to match the AUC to as many relevant topics as possible, and there are plenty of more that I could match it with, but perhaps that would bug some people. So I will cease and desist. But I will always make sure that the AUC is mentioned on the Unitarian Universalism page because it IS relevant (by the way, UUism IS mentioned on the AUC wikipedia page). --someone, June 1, 2005

The AUC is not promoting "19th century Unitarianism" as someone has beligerently stated here and on the AUC wikipage as if it was a thing of the past. There is a fowl attempt among anonymous UUs here who wish to silence and defame the American Unitarian Conference. Why?

Um... you're the anonymous one.... the rest of us have user accounts. Those articles you mention may be relevant to the AUC article, but the AUC is not relevant to most of the articles you have editted th AUC into. Your organization is teeny-tiny compared to the UUA (which admittedly is a small denomination). Most of those don't even mention UUism in general. As for "19th century Unitarianism", perhaps that was a little overboard, although "historic Unitarianism" is as much a POV stating that the UUA has gone too far astray. - UtherSRG 03:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

......OK, it's me again. How about a compromise: we keep Unitarian Universalism, Unitarianism, and American Unitarian Conference wikipages linked together. Any other page that contains the AUC because of me I will remove it. Fair enough? oh, and the Facts section below was done by me for your own benefit and clarification....

.....................Alright, the last time I'll post here I swear.....the AUC is linked to Unitarian Universalist Association, Unitarian Universalism, Unitarianism, Nontrinitarianism, and Jesus. Fair enough????

The point is that (for example) Channing may be relevent to the AUC, but the reverse is not so. Therefore a link to Channing from the AUC atricle would make sense, but not vice versa. Another thing that strikes me is that on many of these articles UUism is linked to, but not the UUA. The UUA is an organization whereas UUism is not. Similarly, the AUC is an organization of Unitarians.

I would actually wish that you continue to post on this, so that we may come to a compromise. We're not trying to censor information on AUC (I, in fact, made the first mention of it in Unitarianism), we're concerned with Wikipedia protocol. It occurs to me that since you are an anonymous user and we can't tell if you've made any contributions prior to this, you may not be familiar with a lot of this protocol. If so Wikipedia:FAQ & Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not may be helpful. (Heck, even seasoned users could brush up) I apologize if I have insulted you. --Tydaj 15:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Facts about the American Unitarian Conference

1. The AUC was founded in September of 2000 as the "American Unitarian Association" by two practicing Unitarian Universalists, David Burton and Dean Fisher, along with a handful of supporters.

2. The individuals involved in founding the AUC did not break away from the UUA or UUism. However, the AUC is independent of the UUA.

3. Most people affiliated with the AUC are also members of UU congregations.

4. It was made explicit at the very beginning of the AUC's founding that it was possible and very much welcome for individuals to be associated with both the UUA and the AUC. The AUC was envisioned as being a reform group, not a schismatic group.

5. The UUA filed a lawsuit against the group in 2001, citing reasons of identity theft. David Burton, the co-founder of the AUC, who comes from a legal background, claimed that he and Dean Fisher did all the proper legal research and made documentation of such work before they made the decision to incorporate. The UUA, however, demanded that the name "American Unitarian Association" not be used. Rather than spend time and money on further litigation, the UUA and the AUC decided to settle by changing the group's name to "American Unitarian Conference."

6. As of June 2005, the AUC has three "Member Congregations," and four "Open Door Congregations," two of which are also affiliated with the UUA. The AUC also has 16 additional "Exploratory Committees" intent on creating churches or fellowships under the AUC name.

7. Much of the AUC's membership is made up of clergy and pastoral care professionals.

8. The editor of the AUC's quarterly journal, "The American Unitarian," David Miano, is an emerging biblical scholar and college professor.

9. Individuals who have spoken at AUC annual meetings in the past have included Rev. Carl Scovel (King's Chapel, retired), Professor David Noel Freedman (Hebrew scholar), Rev. Robert Jordan Ross (UU Christian Fellowship), Ellen Heron (Dead Sea Srolls curator), Rev. Arpad Csete (Transylvanian Unitarian), and Rev. Earl Holt III (King's Chapel), among others.

10. The AUC is a Faith Group Member of the Association of Clinical Pastoral Education.

11. The AUC is currently involved in publishing religious education material for use by AUC members and friends. It is also planning on publishing the complete works of William E. Channing in the near future. A hymnal is also in the works.

The UUA's position on the American Unitarian Conference

This link (http://www.uua.org/newcomers/newcomerbb.html#auc) from the UUA's Newcomers Bulletin gives the UUA's position regarding the AUC.