Freedom of belief (and non-belief)
is one of the greatest strengths of the Unitarian Universalist movement.
It means that we are never tied to the past.
Whatever former UUs believed does not bind us.
We are free to devise absolutely new ways of thinking.
We do not need to wrestle to reinterpret the Bible, for instance,
which is one of the major dynamics of liberal Christian denominations.

     Many readers of cyber-sermons will not understand
this freedom of belief among Unitarian Universalists
—in part because such freedom did not exist
in their own religious tradition.
So they may assume that anything said in a cyber-sermon
represents the beliefs of Unitarian Universalists generally.
This is not the case.
A disclaimer could be included at the end of each cyber-sermon
saying that no cyber-sermon represents UU beliefs.

     However, some people within UU circles
also have orthodoxy on their minds.
And they may find their minds
automatically rejecting views that feel foreign as heresy
---even tho heresy is impossible without an official system of beliefs.
The flame-catchers will notice this form of thinking
whenever a responder claims that offensive ideas are "not UU ideas".
Of course, this is an impossible claim,
unless the idea runs directly counter to a position
created by a vote of the General Assembly
of the Unitarian Universalist Association,
which are mostly on social and political matters, not religious beliefs.

     When a responder rejects something in a cyber-sermon
as "not a UU idea", that responder is probably saying
that he or she does not agree with the idea.
And such differences of opinion are entirely welcome.

     However, since there is no UU dogma,
the responder will have to find some other basis for disagreeing
than the mere claim that the thought is "not UU".

     Flame-catchers should return such responses to the senders,
asking them to explain in any rational way they can devise
why they disagree with the offending statement in the cyber-sermon.
This will advance the rational discussion of the content,
free of any claims that anyone has the 'straight truth'.
Since we Unitarian Universalists have no orthodoxy,
none of us can claim that my beliefs are UU beliefs.
We are free of any church authority telling us what to believe,
but this puts all the burden of explanation on the individual believer:
Why do I believe what I believe?

     As strange as it seems to outsiders,
as Unitarian Universalists we have no collective system of religious beliefs.
But as individuals we have the responsibility
to create our own individual beliefs,
always resisting the temptation to claim
that our individual beliefs are UU beliefs.

     The opposite of dogmatic rejection
of ideas with which we disagree is tolerance.
This open-minded attitude is a central characteristic of all UU thinking.
Yes, there are UUs who are intolerant and narrow-minded.
But even intolerant people are tolerated by open-minded UUs!

     There is no way to force anyone else to become more tolerant.
But the spirit of toleration usually prevails in UU circles.
Someone who consistently expresses intolerant views
—for example, someone who is an incurable racist—
will be removed from leadership positions by democratic means.

     Putting the same issue in another form of language:
There are such people as narrow-minded Unitarian Universalists.
This should seem almost a contradiction in terms
to people who deeply understand
the Unitarian Universalist affirmation of freedom of belief.
But there are nevertheless some people
who hold that their own views are so correct
that no other views on that subject ought to be heard.
A truly open-minded approach
would encourage all points of view to be expressed,
so that persons of good will and intelligence
can draw their own conclusions.
Censorship of unpopular views is not a Unitarian Universalist principle,
even tho it has sometimes occurred in UU congregations.

     But as said before, real UUs will even tolerate the intolerant.
We will admonish the narrow-minded to re-consider other opinions.
But we will not exclude them from the fellowship
because of their strongly-held beliefs.
Freedom of belief includes allowing
orthodox, dogmatic, and narrow-minded beliefs
as well as the beliefs that emerge
from a free and open pursuit of truth and meaning.
We can only hope that intolerant
and narrow-minded Unitarian Universalists
will eventually be able to open their minds and hearts
to people who hold contrary views.

And in such dialog,
perhaps their intolerance and narrow-mindedness
will in some way be changed.
Unitarian Universalism is not in the business of inculcating new dogmas.
Rather, we try to liberate people from dogmas they already have.
Consistent open-minded discussion
even with originally closed-minded people
might eventually encourage them
to re-examine beliefs they once held dogmatically.

     What should flame-catchers do with
narrow-minded and intolerant views?
Most such responses will come from non-Unitarian Universalists.
They might not be able to understand
the dogmatic nature of their belief systems.
But we should hope that people who are part of the UU community
are at least on the way
toward becoming more tolerant and open-minded.

It might take a genius of a flame-catcher to open a closed mind,
but in some cases it might be worth the effort.
In teaching tolerance and open-mindedness,
we should practice what we preach:
We should be open even to people with whom we disagree.
Thereby, we might even be able to turn a strong critic of some view
into a constructive member of an on-going discussion.
Liberation from all forms of dogmatic thinking
should be our long-range goal,
even tho in actual practice we will never achieve it for everyone.
First-person accounts of such liberation from dogma
would certainly be a welcome theme for cyber-sermons.

Created June 25, 2001; revised 1-7-2002; 9-11-2010; 7-5-2011; 7-31-2020;