Unitarian Universalist Churches

[+sagefemme]

With the success of my first waymark category, I feel emboldened to try another. There are Universalist Churches going back to the mid-1800s in the USA. There are Unitarian Churches as well. Today, there is a Unitarian Universalist Association that effectively joins the two. I've waymarked two of these (one each) in my area under different categories (National Register of Historic Places, This Old Church, Great Buildings, International architecture). But each of these is still a vibrant church community, and these categories barely touch on the present vitality of the church.

 

So this is a Come All call to anyone who would like to help me launch another category in the subgroup Religious Buildings.

[+BlueDeuce]

Hey. Not to detract from your post but I was raised Unitarian in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. That church building, the oldest standing church in town was just torn down three months ago.

 

Unfortunately.

[+Team Sieni]

The fragmentation of church categories kind of mirrors the myriad different denominations that exist. There are sooo many different categories. It's one of those areas that I think we'd do differently if we had the opportunity to start over again.

 

A couple of things to think about:

 

• 
   
  
• Are these global or a US only thing?
  
• Is the proposed category at all redundant? ie are the Unitarian Universalists a subset of any existing category (sorry for my theological ignorance)
  

Personally I stick to the "this old church" category if I waymark churches at all, so I'm just sounding a note of caution

 

We already have:

 

Presbyterian Churches

Anglican and Episcopal Churches

Church of the Nazarene

This Old Church

Orthodox Churches

Lutheran Churches

Wesleyan Churches

Baptist Churches

Methodist Churches

Country Churches

Roman Catholic Churches

Assembly of God Churches

Medieval Churches

Megachurches

Cathedrals

(and Wedding chapels and a few other church-related ones)

 

I'm sure there must be a fair degree of redundancy in there ... if only I knew the difference between all these -ans and -ists

Edited February 21, 2012 by Team Sieni

[+thegorilla23]

I'm sure there must be a fair degree of redundancy in there ... if only I knew the difference between all these -ans and -ists

 

I am not staking a claim to this category idea, I would support it if it were up for a vote ... I enjoy submitting in the church cats.

 

My reply is concerning the quote ... there is NOT redundancy in the church categories. The only cross-marking that would be possible would be "Country Church" and "This Old Church", as those are general categories. The others that are listed are separate sects of churches that are not related. You won't find a Baptist church in the Roman Catholic category or you won't see a AOG church in the Presbyterian listings.

 

In other words, this concern shouldn't be a thought, as there is no crossing over between them.

[+BruceS]

I'm sure there must be a fair degree of redundancy in there ... if only I knew the difference between all these -ans and -ists

 

I am not staking a claim to this category idea, I would support it if it were up for a vote ... I enjoy submitting in the church cats.

 

My reply is concerning the quote ... there is NOT redundancy in the church categories. The only cross-marking that would be possible would be "Country Church" and "This Old Church", as those are general categories. The others that are listed are separate sects of churches that are not related. You won't find a Baptist church in the Roman Catholic category or you won't see a AOG church in the Presbyterian listings.

 

In other words, this concern shouldn't be a thought, as there is no crossing over between them.

 

Both the general categories came before most of denominational categories with "This Old Church" being first. There is some cross over in denominational categories in that most of categories allow current and former churches of the denomination, I am sure I have few former Catholic churches that are now some other denomination or vice versa.

 

I do a lot of church waymarks though mostly start as either "This Old Church" or NRHP waymarks which would be the case if Unitarian/Universalist churches become a category, I have several that I will cross-post from those categories.

[+silverquill]

Well, since I have created a number of these specific church categories, I might be expected to support this one, which I do.

 

The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) was the result of a merger in 1961 of two older groups - the American Unitarian Association (1825) and the Universalist Church of America (1866). There is a separate organization for Canadian churches. There are about 1,000 churches in the U.S. with a few scattered elsewhere. A bulk of them are in New England, as Boston is the HQ. Some are indeed historic churches (including First Parish of Plymouth, the first church founded by the Pilgrims in 1620, and First Parish Boston, that city's first church - both now UU). But, there are many congregations in newer buildings, so there is a lot that is not cross-over of any kind. There are several other church groups with similar sounding names, so the category needs to be carefully defined, but it is in keeping with the groups we have.

 

So, it is not very international and there will be some crossposting, but I see neither of those factors as barriers. (There is already a lot of potential crossposting with churches - old churches, NRHP, country churches, churchyard cemeteries, stained glass windows, bell towers, town clocks, , steeples, outdoor stations of the cross, possibly some of the art categories, etc. And, not every category has to be evenly distributed around the world, which should be an obvious fact.

[+Team Sieni]

The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) was the result of a merger in 1961 of two older groups - the American Unitarian Association (1825) and the Universalist Church of America (1866). There is a separate organization for Canadian churches. There are about 1,000 churches in the U.S. with a few scattered elsewhere. [...]

So, it is not very international and there will be some crossposting, [...] And, not every category has to be evenly distributed around the world, which should be an obvious fact.

Personally I'm disinclined to support a category where the target WMs are only in one country. I realise that not many (any?) categories are evenly distributed globally, but (with the exception of specific local ones like survey markers, historic markers) all should at least open the possibility of finding waymarks elsewhere.

 

I did a very brief bit of research on this and found that there is a Unitarian church in the UK and there's an International Council of Unitarians So I would oppose this category if it excludes such churches and limits itself to those in the US, to the exclusion of those in Canada, Europe, Asia and elsewhere.

 

My opinion - for what it's worth - is that if the targets for a category are limited in area then the first thing one should do is to consider broadening the category definition so that it becomes more inclusive. If it's the case that at present the proposed cat is limited to the US, but by widening the criteria it becomes more global, then I would make my support conditional on doing such widening.

 

If, however, the UK and international bodies would be included in the definition anyway (I'm not sure I understand this) and provided that Unitarianism isn't a subset or offshoot of one of the existing church categories (I have no knowledge of this area) then I'm OK with it.

 

In the past I have supported geographically limited categories and I think that was a mistake. I resigned from the Victorian Postboxes group because a perfectly valid Victorian era box outside the UK was declined on vote.

 

I realise that I may seem like a bit of a nit-picking killjoy over this, especially as I'm unlikely to submit any WMs to this category, but that's just my three ha'pence worth. All IMO of course.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Team Sieni

[+silverquill]

Personally I'm disinclined to support a category where the target WMs are only in one country. I realise that not many (any?) categories are evenly distributed globally, but (with the exception of specific local ones like survey markers, historic markers) all should at least open the possibility of finding waymarks elsewhere.

 

In the past I have supported geographically limited categories and I think that was a mistake.

 

This is an important matter to consider. In this particular case, it is true that there are very few UU churches outside the US, but there are perhaps a half dozen countries with a few. And, although there is a separate organization for the Canadian ones, there is no reason these could not also be included. Some examples of this approach that come to mind are Legion Post, where there are separate American and Canadian organizations. Or Automobile clubs - not just the AAA familiar in the U.S., but also similar auto clubs in several other countries which are represented with waymarks.

 

My understanding of the "global" criterion is that a category cannot be -arbitrarily- limited geographically, such as having Mexican Fountains instead of the global Fountains category. There are fountains in nearly every country. That does not mean, however, the ALL categories must have potential waymarks in a wide number of countries, and we have dozens like that. For instance, Route 66 is confined to the US, but it is still a legitimate category. One can go down the list and see that there are dozens of categories where waymarks can be found in only one country, or one region of the world. This is part of the rich tapestry that makes up Waymarking and gives it its international flavor!

 

Then, there are other categories that more logically should be separated out based on geography or country. It is easiest to see this in the historical markers category. The first of these were created long before we had group management and peer review, and the original idea was to have one category for historical markers, but the volunteer he headed the category thought that would be overwhelming, so the first one of these was for one state. Others were added over time, and then ones for specific countries. This has proved to be a wise approach, partly because the numbering systems, and criteria differ from US state to state, and country to country, and partly because lumping them all into one omnibus category would be too unwieldy and impossible to manage, with a resulting chaos.

 

There is also something to be said for logical organization of some categories, even if it means geographic limitations. Here, post offices are a good example. I think it is obvious that a separate post office category for each US state would be crazy, but that one for all US post offices works well. It also seems obvious that to have one huge category for all post offices in all countries in the world would not work well.

 

So, there needs to be a balance, depending on the nature of the category. I think the general principle of making categories as inclusive as possible is a good one. If there is a way to broaden a category to be more global and international, then that's probably the way to go in most cases, but there might still be exceptions. Each one must be judged on its own merits. And, just because the target waymarks for a category do not have worldwide distribution, that does not necessarily mean that it should be disqualified, even though it is an important consideration.

 

So, in the case of UU churches, I think there are enough to make a good category, and many are of historic interest as well. If representation, however small, can be had from other countries, then even better. But, I would not exclude such a category on the basis of limited geographic representation alone.

 

That's my 10 won worth . . .

[+sagefemme]

This feedback is really good and really useful!

 

Team Sieni's research suggesting a UK and an International association, and Silver Quill's info about Canadian UU churches suggests to me that concerns over geographic limits are easily overcome.

 

For my part, I only seek to add subcategories because the more generic church categories don't work very well in my area. "This Old Church" category is fine if it's 100 years old, but I came across a church, built by Louis I. Kahn in 1962, that I waymarked under subcategories of "Architecture" ("Master Architects - International Style " and "Great Buildings of the World"), but couldn't waymark as a church per se. I'm not saying this particular church needs cross-marked again, but why shouldn't such a fine church be represented in the religious buildings category? I don't know all the ways waymarkers use this database, but if I wanted to visit a church in my travels outside my home church, I would look up churches on Waymarking.com at my destination. The most generic of church categories doesn't cover enough ground to serve as a "catch-all", nor should they ... right?

 

And what about interfaith chapels? At present, they can't be waymarked anywhere, again, because there is no catch-all subcategory. Some interfaith chapels are among the finest architecture out there. I'm thinking of the chapel at the Air Force Academy in Colorado for example.

[+fi67]

Your thoughts are reasonable and I think you carn turn these ideas into a successful category.

 

However, the plan to use the Waymarking site as a reference for travels might not be a good idea. Even highly successful categories cover less than 10% of the potential locations, what is in the database is completely random and will stay like this for maybe many years. Use Waymarking for posting and visiting! Be happy about every submission coming in and learn about many locations, but trying to build up a complete reference guide will most probably not work and only lead to frustration.

[+sagefemme]

fi67, I certainly take your point. My own habit is to waymark one outstanding example within a category/subcategory and leave other examples for other waymarkers (in the event that they might have similar goals. Sometimes I don't get the best example... sometimes, it's just the closest to my home, or the first one I come across. Be that as it may, as new people come into this hobby, they ought to be able to find something to waymark in their areas of interest. Some day, though... saturation point will be reached. Certainly if Waymarking becomes as popular in my area as geocaching is, Waymarking will become more about visiting than posting...

[+NorStar]

As an officer and one who lives in a 'hotspot' of UU churches, I would welcome the category. I understand the issues of geographic appeal, but I feel that regional Waymarking categories should be accepted, as well. Plus, I'm for waymarks that illustrate history - there is a deep historical significance to UU (in particular, Unitarian) churches in New England: Unitarian churches were the first major split from the old Puritan religion, which is today's Congregational church. Literally, congregations were split - often bitterly. There are rich stories that can be told about Unitarian churches, many of which were heavily involved in the abolotionist movements and other civil movements. Not having them would be a serious 'hole' in Waymarking categories. In having a category for that subject, you get a better sense of the 'flavor' of that group if you read these waymarks in succession. So, I support this category.

 

I view other categories of building 'parts' differently. Stained glass windows are about the windows, not the church buildings, and can be found in government buildings and private homes as well as churches. Bell towers - the same. I've logged steeples on buildings no longer used as churches. So, though they overlap, I don't view them as the same, and I usually write the description a little differently for each category - that's one reason why I don't have 5,000 WM.

 

By the way, a major denomination mission is the United Church of Christ, which includes the Congregational churches. I'm not sure what their geographic distribution is, but it at least covers the US and Canada.

Edited March 22, 2012 by NorStar

[+silverquill]

As an officer and one who lives in a 'hotspot' of UU churches, I would welcome the category. I understand the issues of geographic appeal, but I feel that regional Waymarking categories should be accepted, as well. Plus, I'm for waymarks that illustrate history - there is a deep historical significance to UU (in particular, Unitarian) churches in New England: Unitarian churches were the first major split from the old Puritan religion, which is today's Congregational church. Literally, congregations were split - often bitterly. There are rich stories that can be told about Unitarian churches

 

I quite agree. Just because a category doesn't have a wide geographical distribution doesn't mean that it is not valid. We have many, many such categories. There is certainly enough of a pool of potential waymarks to make this a very viable and fascinating category.

 

In regard to splits - I recently got some insights from a pastor of a congregation that split from the First Plymouth Church, and it turns out that much of what has been surmised and written about the split is actually not totally accurate. The original church eventually did become UU, but that was not the reason for the original split. And, I was on staff at a historic Boston church that avoided such a split, even though the pastor was at one point physically blocked from ascending into the pulpit. So, yes, there are some interesting stories there, for sure. But, I have a friend who is a member of a UU church in Idaho, which has a more modern story to tell, and an interesting building, though not as old.

 

Anyway, it will be good to see this category go forward.

[+Torgut]

Today, while reading the book The Post-American World, I learned that in a single country there are 700 Christian churches. Do we really want 700 categories? Once I mentioned it would be good to have Ethnographic Museums. No, not good because there is History Museums (am I missing something? Last time I looked these were different departments in any university). But it's a great idea to create hundreds of Christian churches... be coherent then, stick to Christian Churches. If, as said by the grand masters of Waymarking, there is enough of supermarkets chains - lets not repeat the mistakes of the past, I would love to see the same words applying to to Christian churches.

[+silverquill]

Today, while reading the book The Post-American World, I learned that in a single country there are 700 Christian churches. Do we really want 700 categories? Once I mentioned it would be good to have Ethnographic Museums. No, not good because there is History Museums (am I missing something? Last time I looked these were different departments in any university). But it's a great idea to create hundreds of Christian churches... be coherent then, stick to Christian Churches. If, as said by the grand masters of Waymarking, there is enough of supermarkets chains - lets not repeat the mistakes of the past, I would love to see the same words applying to to Christian churches.

 

This is the perpetual question for which there is not good answer: "How do we slice the pie?"

 

We have examples of huge, all-encompassing categories like "Cemeteries of the World," and categories that are very small pieces of a pie such as "Insect Sculptures." A lot has to do with the order in which categories were created. So, denomination specific categories were created first. Then there was the category for "Baptist Churches," which to me is totally illogical as it lumps together dozens of distinctly different denominations as well as thousands of independent churches. But, to say that we would have 700 separate categories, or more, is not realistic either. These individual categories came into being as people had the interest in creating and managing them. It is unlikely that the smaller groups of churches would have such an interest. Then, of course, we have other specific categories based on other criteria, such as "This Old Church," "Megachurches," etc. Then there are common elements of churches that show up frequently in other categories such as Stained Glass Windows, Town Clocks, Bell Towers, Unique Weather Vanes, Dated Buildings and Cornerstones, Churchyard Cemeteries, among others.

 

Museums might be another good example. We could have one master category for "Museums of the World." Instead, we have a lot of individual categories for just about every type of museum in existence. Which approach is better? Could we divide these museum categories even further? I guess we could have categories for different types of history museums, and in fact we do to some extent since "War and Military Museums" really are history museums. Many other museums deal with history in one way or another. Again, it sometimes depends on which came first. Usually it is easier to create a more inclusive category that may include a specialized category than to pull a small group of sites out of a larger category to make a more specialized one. Some broad categories are written to exclude sites already included in a smaller category, although this is really illogical.

 

And, so the debate goes on . . . .

[+Ianatlarge]

I have come a little late to this discussion and I am not sure that I have anything to say, but this has never stopped me before...

 

The number of Christian church categories does seem to be multiplying (go forth...). To give a different take on this discussion, there is only one Buddhist category, "Buddhist Temple and Public Shrines". This category covers the entire globe and includes the full gamut of Buddhist sub-groups (of which there are a goodly number), plus shrines, not just buildings.

 

Perhaps we should have a discussion on the question of Christian church categories overall? If every denomination (Torgut mentioned 700) has a category then there will be lots of categories (though not all of those 700 will have enough buildings to qualify, some might hope). Of course then this would lead to a discussion of Waymarking categories and how they are organised ("outhouses" and "religious buildings" in the same master category of "buildings", for example). This would then lead into a discussion of...

 

Generally, I am happy to let a group explore a Waymarking idea, but my concern then becomes is the category viable over a longer term or merely the interest of a small interest group, that will attract a few dozen waymarks and then become moribund? I seem to recall a category for abandoned cars?! This then leads to the question, just how many active waymarkers are there versus the number of categories in active use? Are there enough of us to go around? So many waymarks, so little time.

 

So, what am I saying? Not much, really. If the UUCC goes ahead I would most likely vote to support its existence. Good luck.

 

* congrats to sagefemme for the use of "emboldened". I like.

* Torgut, you really should not read books like that, you never know who might be watching.

[+Torgut]

Funny that "Museums" are noted as a category of places with many sub-categories (or "categories" in Waymarking) as it happens exactly the opposite. There is space for plenty of subjects which were never created. I provided an example. Ethnographic Museums are an obvious case. Anyways....

 

Ianatlarge... I didn't mention 700.. the author of the book did so... let me see in my Kindle if he mentions which country is that, I think I made a notation. Nah.... couldn't find it now.

[+Max and 99]

I'm sure there's a logical explanation, but I'm curious why one of the four officers has zero waymarks posted and zero waymarks visited. That's not enough Waymarking experience to be reviewing waymarks (in my opinion).