Reddit reviews The Gadfly Papers: Three Inconvenient Essays by One Pesky Minister

I'm a total asshole normally, but I can clarify:

The UUA and the UUMA (the governing organization and minister organization respectively) of the Unitarian Universalist religion have embraced Robin DiAngelo's approach to understanding race relationships in the United States. The idea behind this has typically been referred to as "Critical Race Theory". It is derived from the post-modern critical approach used by Harvard law professors to pick apart and change laws.

DiAngelo's approach states the following:

1. A white person is inherently racist
   
2. Denying that fact is racist
   
3. IF you accept that you're racist, and try to ask for help - you aren't doing it right, and are racist
   
4. IF you shy away from even having the conversation, then you're racist
   
   That's what is generally known as a Kafka Trap. The denial of the charge is proof of the charge. It's also circular reasoning. As a result, the UUA has started calling the Unitarian Universalist church a "White Supremacist Organization".
   
   Yes. The UUA, one of the most liberal churches in the United States is the equivalent of the KKK in the minds of the UUA. They deny that, but most are hearing it that way.
   
   And this is going beyond race relations. It's embracing the full spectrum of intersectional oppressions. Who is allowed to speak is based off the "Oppression Calculus" - gay? one point. Trans, Queer, Black? 1,000 points! YAY!
   
   If you read r/TrueOffMyChest, you'll see all those posts regarding lesbians hating on the LGBTQ communities on here. Some are saying that the posts are fake - but in the UU church? Those are actual debates being had. It isn't a joke.
   
   At our recent GA (General Assembly) a minister wrote a book ("The Gadfly Papers" - here). This book has resulted in a total firestorm. You can google it, but a good summary can be found by Rev. Scott Wells.
   
   What is sad, is that - in general - your average UU supports things like fighting racism. The minister who wrote the book, Rev. Todd Eklof, actually has a successful history of fighting for generally liberal positions (gay marriage, prison reform). However, he has been labbled a bigot, a racist, and been formally censured by the UUMA for his "bad" beliefs. His bad belief is that the anti-racism model proposed by DiAngelo isn't working and we should find better tools to combat racism.
   
   That's it.
   
   As a note, the UU church has dealt with pedophiles, abusive ministers and more - and never given a public censure like they did to Eklof. Writing a book, however, was worthy of a public censure.
   
   In a religion founded on the right to read (See: "Edict of Torda" - here).
   
   Back to the OP.
   
   In 1995, if you had asked me to go to a UU church I would have enthusiastically told you yes. Now I'm not certain. Is the church "liberal"? No, not any longer. My concern is that if the OP is classically homosexual, i.e. male with a male partner, or female with a female partner - they'll be generally seen as "supporting hetnormative and oppressive sex organ preference". I want to say I'm kidding but that's a direct quote from a queer trans minister who was at May Memorial right here in Syracuse. Edit to add: That these attitudes are also directed at trans people who want to just live their life. It's very sad - hence why I said fetish. Any variance will result in you being treated like a fragile religious idol - you aren't welcome for you as an individual, you'll be welcome for you as a symbol of a group - and if you deviate from your supposed groups "opinions" you'll be shunned as if it was discovered the idol actually had been made unclean. Your group identity is more important than yourself as an individual - and now, you as a person do not matter - only your group matters. And I don't think that's right. Liberalism was founded on the ideal of the individual - being trans or gay or black or Hispanic are certainly important qualities of the individual, but they do not subsume the individual. Two trans people, two gay people, two black people, two Hispanic people can all hold different beliefs and ideals. It doesn't make them less in their quality as people. But in the UU church today, it does.
   
   So yeah, go but 1) I'd recommend First UU over May Memorial, and 2) be VERY careful with what you say - any deviation from the anti-racist DiAngelo work WILL get you labeled as an alt right firebrand on par with Trump and Hitler. No, I'm not joking. If you want to learn more check out both r/UUReddit for the pro-UUA camp, and r/UUnderstanding for my take (DISCLAIMER: I'm a mod at UUnderstanding).
   
   However, I'd start with the Rev. Scott Wells. I'm biased. He actually doesn't like the Gadfly Papers, but also doesn't like how Eklof was treated. He also is much closer to the action and gives better insights into the sausage making processes within the UUMA.

This doesn't sound like a truly open mind and heart to me. When he hears marginalized people (where he puts marginalized in scare quotes) asking him to listen to their viewpoints, he thinks he's being silenced completely. He sounds like he's against being asked to be mindful of his privileges and of the way his actions come across to others and the harm they may cause others.

I am still completely baffled that there's backlash against the idea that we should be more inclusive, that we should listen to voices that are often pushed to the margins, and that we should strive to understand the systems that benefit us that others don't have the benefit of.

​

>get ready to be told that:
>
>Disagreement is injury
>
>Books can be condemned by people who haven’t read them
>
>People can be condemned for expressing “hurtful” ideas
>
>Those of us who don’t meet the accepted definition of “marginalized” should be silent to leave more “room” for the marginalized
>
>The UU Ministers’ Association can define the meaning of “responsible” in the Fourth Principle about a “free and responsible search for truth and meaning.”
>
>The UU Principles and Sources need to be examined and revised in favor of something more “covanental”
>
>We who are white need to be careful not to welcome persons of color too warmly into our congregations lest they think “our” means white (a “microaggression”)
>
>The UU hymnals need to be scoured for any references that might not be all-inclusive enough (like Standing on the Side of Love)
>
>If we don’t like something, it’s part of the white supremacy culture
>
>We all need to read White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo even though it makes sweeping generalizations not backed by research
>
>We should not bother reading books like The Gadfly Papers by Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof and The Self-Confessed “White Supremacy Culture” by Dr. Anne Larson Schneider because some people’s feelings might be hurt
>
>White people need to acknowledge their “privilege” and their “benefit” they get from racism and white supremacy