That sounds pretty much like most churches, socially, at least.

This was helpful. Thank you.

@Organist1 You are correct. Unitarians, are much like Christians or Catholics, same human nature and personalities, just without the religious belief.

Even a 1 hour walk a day.

@CuddyCruiser ....welll..its realistic.

Thank you.

i did. total zip.

Who do you think you are to tell me to repair my marriage?? You know nothing about it and are therefore not qualified to comment on it. This question was about the UU church, not my marital status. Stay in your own lane and out of my business.

@Emerald of course i dont. no one knows anyone here. take it as a probe from across the galexy. if it can be used to spur you to repair love, then do that. don't be a superficial empty asshole just because your surrounded by same on this cite. you, and they, and me too, we can all maybe espape our separate assholeish dooms just by taking a flying run at the door. give that a try. for the sake of your kids soul. try the impossible. i will leave you now, forever.

@holdenc98 While she's repairing her marriage, can you learn to spell?

@JeffMurray .......... brace yourself jeff...spelling is of no importance. its the thinking thats important. worry about spelling and you waste precious brain power better used for thinking. as a kid i came under the influence of george bernard shaw regarding spelling. hopefully he can still grab you. youre too smart to raise such a childish issue.

here's shaws wiki article

[en.wikipedia.org]

@holdenc98 This is the kind of person you wish to emulate:
"he promoted eugenics and alphabet reform, and opposed vaccination"
"often wrote and spoke favourably of dictatorships of the right and left—he expressed admiration for both Mussolini and Stalin"

The funniest part of your linked article is:
"In his will, Shaw ordered that, after some specified legacies, his remaining assets were to form a trust to pay for fundamental reform of the English alphabet into a phonetic version of forty letters.[7] Though Shaw's intentions were clear, his drafting was flawed, and the courts initially ruled the intended trust void."
HA HA HA! What an idiot. I wonder if it was 'flawed' because of his use of his idiotic notions of reform.

Agreed upon definitions of words and proper usage of punctuation are how we clearly and effectively communicate. To intentionally misuse them only serves to confuse your reader, show you have no regard for their time, and out yourself as a total fucking asshole. And that, sir, you need no help with.

@JeffMurray .and just when i was going to broach the idea to you, andthe likes of you, that the modern cadre party, obviously with some major reforms added and checks put in place so that hitler, stalin, sadam and their like revealed the necessity for. a way to replace now thoroughly discredited mass democracy, so dysfunctional that its falsity and complete failure to govern humanity now threatens directly the very biosphere we live in. maybe something like the actual intelligencia, but real. and out in the open. of course no feminists or blm tpyes need apply. one of the biggest problems with it would be erasing 250 year of mass indoctrination with the poisonous baloney of
"equality". maybe china will make it work, i think that is what is at the core of them. likely its too late, but nothing that china has done to date, insane as much of it was, compares to the fiasco america has made of modern life.. the old greek idea of a leadership academy to produce a philoshopher ruling class was streangled in its crib 2500 years ago, going back to resurect it and perfect it may be a longshot, but may be our best chance to avert the looming doom. the doom is already largely complete. as they see it themselves, a cadre party serves the vital function of rationaly recruiting true natural aristocrats through merit. corruption checked as priority 31., jeffersonian style aristocrats if you will. despirate thoughts for despirate times.

see jeffery? this is just one raw but origional idea. maybe, with your demonstrated ability to think creatively, you could have contributed to developing it, improving it, maybe demonstrated some critical fallacy in it. i don't know. but you have a narrow spectrum, and its not on it, even to think about. i do know that good will is a critical ingredient in the cooperative exercise of intelligence, and sadly, you aint got none, beyond a very narrow band of orthodoxy masquerading as free thought. so imagine my serious disappointment when i saw your hysterical and deeply offensive response here. is it eugenics that set you off? if this is how the best of our minds react to challenges to thier conditioned dogmas, we truly are doomed. it you represent the limits of free thought, "god" help us. manufacture of consensus and concent, by proclarations from the l;ikes of you and a coterie of fellow travelers, is bullshit or maybe the apparent best thinkers on this whole website are a filtered collection of mal adjusted psychological rejects of various sorts. if so, we should all still be worried by who you showed yourself to be. but not overly so.

ps--- see e.e. cummings on punctuation and capitalization. at the risk of setting off another senior tyrade. and g.b. shaw was a fine mindin his time, and still worth reading. must everythin pass throughthe progressive filter whole or be spit out whole? what are you, the joe mccarthy of the turn of the 20th century? im not seeing that.

@holdenc98 I'll grant you, you are correct about it being too late. Too late for everything. Too late to solve the climate crisis. We live in a world that is run by greed.
It would have been nice if humans had exploited the false notion that they had free will (and the belief that they are innately moral beings) and actually transcended petty human emotions like jealousy and greed and built a sustainable society. It is apparently so that we could have had a philosopher king that could have [would have tried to] guide us in that direction, but likely only as equally possible as the masses would have metaphorically killed him and replaced him with what we have now anyway. It doesn't matter if it's raw or original (it's not) though because...
It's too late to solve our political divide. We live in a post-fact world. There is no way to convince someone who doesn't share common definitions (essentially, a common language) of the things you know. It would be as impossible as proving to someone that the sky is "blue" who defines "blue" as red. (This is another reason to conform to spelling and grammar rules. It doesn't make you special in any way to rebel, it just makes you an impediment to progress regardless of how famous or successful you think the others are that have done it.) Do you honestly think you're going to convince 80 million people that "an elite" intelligent person could solve our problems (let alone how that person would be chosen)?
And of course democracy is a failure; people are stupid. Democracy was just the best of the ideas we could come up with that the stupid masses would go along with. I don't think that's in any way a profound thought though.

I believe these things were inevitable, of course, and realize there is no "saving" something that was doomed from the start, but certainly not given the fact that you cannot even convince people of things that are readily apparent. I suppose all that's left to do is "join 'em" and run out the clock.

@JeffMurray ....... nice. the old insightful, intellegent, sophisticated, critical, but civilized, and not dyspepsic semi postal jeff has decided to return to the fold. welcome back jeff! ......but you still need a helping hand tone wise, thats where my decency and gentleness move my intelligence to the side for a moment and steps in to give you the help you deserve:. ............

1 - almost nothing is original these days. my stuff is original in my knowledge base, quasi original, and that puts me way ahead of the mostly squawking parrots on this cite.

2 - relax about my spelling and grammar. its a minor concern. im 82, ive always lived with dyslexia, my genius shines through anyway, unless you let your spelling goblin obscure it.

3- i appreciate your insights, almost as much as you do. but never forget: in the final anal ysis, this webcite is about me, me, and me. only after that is it time to consider me, and then me.

@JeffMurray ..i was talking abot philosopher cadre parties, not philosopher kings. philosopher cadre parties is where the "raw but origional" new idea comes in.