I'll not hide the lede: Unitarian Universalism is not heresy, even when it's not right.
It's hurtful and vexing that it's a common assertion that Unitarian Universalism is a heresy, and that it is built on heresies. [Here's a link to a Google search for "unitarian universalist heresy" to underscore my point.] At worst, this claim demonstrates an adolescent rebellion against ghosts of authority. At best, it's an assertion of choice in religion, with faulty etymology that overlooks the possibility of bad and harmful choices. Somewhere in between, proud heretics radiate the message "doesn't play well with others" and "is impressed with own self." Little wonder we're the butt of jokes: we don't even know when we're insulted, or insult ourselves.
And you can see, off to one side, the more shark-like of opponents nodding in agreement. Unitarian Universalism is a heresy, and surely a damnable one, and their own opinions are -- of course -- true and edifying. That's some deflective cover for their own shortcomings.
I don't think it's too controversial -- though I've been wrong before -- to say that people do make choices, so far as they are capable, and intend to choose the right. Praising heresy isn't about valuing good choices, but devaluing the possibility of making the right choice, sticking to it and building from it. And I think that's why so many people who enter Unitarian Universalism by the front door leave by the back. If one choice is as good as another, there's a better chance the right answer is out there. Because if one choice is as good as another, then Unitarian Universalists -- collectively -- won't work to cultivate it among ourselves. And if a spirit of heresy is true, why is there such little high-level discussion about theology, or indeed any serious disagreements?
Harsh words, perhaps, but look around our general fellowship. What do we have to show for ourselves? Are you satisfied with that?