I agree with @beccaboerger : It’s important to explicitly acknowledge that we need to be respectful of other traditions and wisdom, and careful to avoid about cultural (mis-)appropriation and (mis-)appropriation of other faith and spiritual traditions.
@MarianneJ Would you like to work together to write a proposal that expresses this idea while acknowledging that not all histories are worthy of respect?
@Janet
@beccaboerger
@MarianneJ
@KHyde
I appreciate what you are working on here. Thank you. If you choose to develop an amendment, I encourage you to consider keeping the current sources with a few modifications. In particular, consider combining the third and fourth sources as Katherine Hyde suggested in her reply to submission #71 by Jay Kissell:
Wisdom from world religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and more, which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
To honor and include all within our circle, there is value in naming and placing the world’s major religions on comparable footing (I added Hinduism with 1B+ adherents to Khyde’s list), while also acknowledging earth-centered traditions in the last source.
I also encourage you to consider tightening up the introduction Janet proposed to read,
As Unitarian Universalists, we honor the pluralism of our lineage, and we are inspired by the full depth and breadth of sacred and secular human experience:
Here, I used Janet’s original language with some rearrangement and substituting “experience” for “knowledge,” since there is some disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. There may be a way to incorporate honoring / respecting cultures not our own in this introductory sentence, but I couldn’t come up with anything that worked for me.
And, of course, there is the issue of incorporating science without bumping up against any of the concerns already raised in this thread. I don’t have an immediate suggestion for that.
1 Like
Currently, our Article II puts more weight on science than on, say, New Age thinking. Judging by your all caps and exclamation points, I’m guessing that you don’t want to see science given higher status than, for example, New Age thinking. Am I reading you right?
I don’t know how you extrapolate “New Age thinking” from caps and exclamation points. I read @CSTownsend 's comment as not wanting to give science higher status than other already named sources UU also draws on (such as theist).
@beccaboerger - Yes, I’d like to work together. I’m new to all this amendment process – should we talk on the phone/Zoom?
Let’s connect on Zoom. That way we can have a shared screen to write changes. Do you have a paid account (or access to one)?
I would start with the language from the proposal. I’d like to add the new language to my suggested amendment, #85, as well.
Thanks for your in-depth comment. On the question of religions – whether or not they should be individually listed – I am personally more or less neutral. Being an atheist (yes, I claim that identity rather than humanist), I have a hard time caring about which religions are listed and in what order. However, I think the problem others have in listing the major religions individually is that it seems to give those religions more prominence than non-major religions to which some UUs are very committed (Earth-centered traditions; Native American spiritual traditions, etc).
At one point, you mention “my original language.” To be honest, I am no longer sure (off the top of my head) which was my original language and which words came from KLusignan who wrote the first draft of this amendment and posted in on the FB group Blue Boat Passengers. Just FYI.
I am going to go back and look at the objections to the “humanist” part of the amendment. However, I can already say that I really like what BobMuir has to say about “falsifiability” vs “verifiability.” I would agree with that. I have long thought that the prime value of empirical inquiry is telling us what is not true vs. telling us what is true. What this means for us as UUs is a complicated issue though. I think UUs should be free – as individuals – to believe whatever they want to believe – as long as they are not harming others.
When you start talking about beliefs at the institutional level though I am not so sure. The example I like to give is: If someone in my congregation believes that crystals have healing powers (I mean beyond the placebo effect) and wants to treat their cancer by placing pieces of malachite around their bedroom, that is their choice. They can believe what they want to believe (no matter what science says). That tolerance should end though, in my opinion, when it comes to institutional policies and education. I would not want someone in RE teaching this to our children or heavens our congregation as a whole promoting something like that.
1 Like
I think that is a good idea. I’m all for connecting on Zoom. However, maybe sometime after next Monday (May 8th) as I am pretty booked up until then.
1 Like
Thanks for thoughtful discussion on this topic, @Janet @rholmgren @beccaboerger and everyone else.
I do not think there is a perfect or right answer to either of these considerations: (1) How to do we list–or leave out–religious faiths in a way that feels inclusive? (2) How do we describe secular sources to describe accurately their particular contribution that is important to many UUs and in my view, still a pretty distinctive feature of UUism?
To my thinking, our freedom of belief and welcome do require including these Sources, even if there is no perfect way to express them. While my amendment has not posted yet, and I didn’t come up with final answers either, after much pondering of feedback from fellow congregants and others, this is the direction I went in (for now, until further revision/amalgamation hopefully occurs!).
I changed “Abrahamic” back to Judeo-Christian because the grouping was not welcoming as I hoped it would be and seemed awkward in trying to serve purposes of acknowledging both our origins in Christianity and the growing movement to include Islam. However, I used the word “origins” to denote that this is our past (for those who are not both Christian and UU). I also included “earth-centered” because that was explicitly added to our Sources, and for the rest, I just left “world religions” without trying to name or group them. I included some key factors we draw from religious sources and leaders, but did not couple them with specific religions.
My secular sources still use “verifiable” for science (and mathematics is also still included). I liked the many good points made about the scientific and empirical processes, but reached no conclusion of just the right concise wording to incorporate these considerations. I removed “truth” from this Source in response to concerns about language that might imply setting this Source above others.
If nothing else, I think great discussions about the nature of our inquiry into the world around us have come out of this process!
When my own amendment is posted, we can cross-reference them with links, as there is a chance these similar amendments may end up combined into one.
2 Likes
I like the succinct way this proposal summarizes where we find wisdom but what about making the sources broader to where we find inspiration? Where do we get energy and grounding from? What do @Janet @KLusignan and others on this thread think about our proposal here #290 | Jennifer Courtwright | Proposal is too Generic to be Meaningful - #2 by courtwrightj01 and would y’all be interested in collaborating on an amendment
1 Like
Thanks for the invite and for also posting your version into the Blue Boat Passengers group! In principle, I’m interested in ongoing discussion about ways to include and group the Sources. Two caveats though (well, three, as scheduling also may be tricky for me).
Our congregation’s amendment isn’t posted yet, and did go somewhat the opposite direction, of condensing the Sources and retaining or combining some of the proposed Inspirations section. Final feedback I got was about restoring some of the Inspirations language, which, I did in the closing. More feedback from our congregations (and presumably @Janet and @beccaboerger’s (even more succinct) would probably be needed to try to combine what is quite a lot of language in your amendment, though actually I really love the thinking and discussion that has clearly gone on here. If yours doesn’t make it as an amendment AND if the Article II Revision doesn’t get passed this year, I feel like your longer, deeper version would make a great jumping off point for continuing the conversation through the next two years, as I personally feel we should not lose momentum, even if this version “fails” to pass.
But yes, it is very possible that intensive ongoing collaboration could result in an agreed on “Sources and Inspirations” (or however named) amendment that finds favor with the delegates!
The second caveat is that (aside from my congregation needing to have the chance to weigh in on whether our amendment would go in a different direction), it is my hope that the next stages of conversation will get passed off to our GA delegates, whom I believe are about to be named (yes, we’re a bit behind!). Unfortunately I cannot be a delegate this year (although there is a chance I might be an alternate or backup support if I am available).
The third caveat is just finding scheduling opportunities for those of us who want to discuss the Sources together. My schedule is a bit tricky right now, but I’m on the West Coast. It is conceivably possible that I might make a slot that is early morning here. Y’all would need to take up scheduling with a delegate or delegate(s) in my congregation if this gets handed off though.
@rholmgren and others-- Thanks for this thread. I’d be interested in a call, with timing after May 8 as @Janet suggests.
Meanwhile I’ve been wondering if the term “world religions” in my earlier suggestion is too narrow. It’s succinct, which I like. But it could be read as a ranking (“major” faiths, “important” faiths, etc.), which is kind of incompatible with wanting to extend a wide welcome.
Maybe try something like “Wisdom from religious faiths practiced widely in the world, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and more, which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;”–?
Katherine Hyde
1 Like
Our (WSUU’s) version finally went live today, although all my formatting was lost (couldn’t get strikethrough to work on the form), and the redline I tried to upload did not work, but I’ll try to make it clear with a version below this post in a comment. Also tagging @CSTownsend from my congregation:
2 Likes
I will be attending the discussion sessions on May 11th and 21st if folks are interested in collaborating. I agree it might be difficult to get consensus on language but I definitely like themes across these posts. I too will not be representing my congregation at GA but we have 8 delegates that are prepared to submit the amendment. I just don’t know what requirements are to get enough interest to be prioritized for discussion.
1 Like
I will be attending the meetings on the 11th and the 18th, so yeah, the 11th would work
1 Like
I have worked up an amendment that combines Kerry’s reworked Inspirations amendment (#460) and mine.
New Combined Amendment:
We are inspired by the full depth and breadth of sacred and secular human knowledge. We honor the pluralism of our lineage, and we discern and build upon the sources of Unitarian Universalism as we move forward, mindful of the cultures in which they evolved.
These sources include:
Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which renews our spirit;
Religions and wisdom traditions which inspire us in our ethical and spiritual life and which center love, justice, and harmony with one another and with nature;
Humanist teachings, which counsel us to honor the verifiable knowledge produced by communities of scientific and rational inquiry;
The creative arts, which reveal to us the face of life’s beauty and joy, its struggles and sorrows, and its enduring truth and meaning, and which open our hearts to emotions of joy, solace, and gratitude.
These sources ground us and sustain us in ordinary, difficult, and joyous times. Grateful for the religious and cultural ancestries we inherit and the diversity that enriches our community, we are called to ever deepen and expand our wisdom.
I may have time later to add editing marks to show how I combined the two amendments, but for now, I can say that I just took Kerry’s reworked amendment and: 1. Changed the first sentence; 2. Changed the second source so that it does not list specific religions and 3. Changed the third source to make it less wordy and to refer to “communities of scientific and rational inquiry.” instead of “the sciences and mathematics.”
5 Likes
I happily and strongly support this combined amendment. I appreciate the work you put into it, Janet.
3 Likes
Posting my comments here for the benefit of readers who may not be on the email thread about this section; they have been edited slightly in response to a comment from Betty Johnson:
Hi all-
(1) Possible Edit to the Mid-Length Version: I wanted to say that I think the mid-length version is beautifully crafted–a huge thank-you to everyone who has written and/or contributed edits on it so far! I am very likely to support it. (I am 1 of the 4 delegates at Westside UU in Seattle, Kerry L.'s congregation.)
I do stumble a bit on this phrase: verifiable knowledge produced by communities of scientific and rational inquiry
Strictly speaking, scientific and rational inquiry would not form a community, the people engaged in them would form a community. Another thought is that in some cases, these types of inquiries might be accomplished by a single individual. I wonder whether the following language might be acceptable as an alternative:
verifiable knowledge produced by communities engaged in scientific and rational inquiry ?
(2) Submission Date for Proposed Amendment: If the amendment is submitted by June 2, will it still be possible to sign on as a delegate between June 2 and June 5? Our congregation was very late (last week) to vote in its delegates, and we will not even be able to meet to discuss what needs to happen pre-GA until June 1 (tomorrow). Having a couple of extra days for the other delegates to consider signing on would be very helpful.
Thanks for listening,
Kerrie
We can push the submission date back to June 3rd or maybe June 4th. but I worry about submitting any later than that. I certainly don’t want the stress of trying to submit on the very last day (June 5th).