Thank you all for your work on this! I like seeing how it’s coming together. The only part of it that I’m not in liking when I read it last is " mindful of the cultures in which they evolved." As a BIPOC UU, this phrase isn’t working for me. I’ll think on it more.
I haven’t spent time in this discussion space because explaining things to white UUs can feel extractive and exhausting when the space isn’t heavily moderated to lift up and amplify voices of marginalized folks.
The sentence: ““We respect the histories, contexts, and cultures in which they were created and are currently practiced”” in the proposed revisions is not suggesting that any tradition is monolithic or that one community within that tradition has exclusive authority over that tradition of how to relate to it in a respectful manner.
It also isn’t suggesting that all aspects of any tradition are deserving of respect. If we don’t feel a tradition, or portion of a tradition, is deserving of respect we aren’t going to draw from it. If we do draw from it, it is incumbent upon us to do our best, imperfectly, with knowledge of the diverse and contested landscape of the tradition, to "respect the histories, contexts, and cultures in which they were created and are currently practiced”
I really like so much of what you are doing with this proposed amendment but I could not vote for it without the phrase "We respect the histories, contexts, and cultures in which they were created and are currently practiced”
I can’t see it that way.
“As Unitarian Universalists, we use, and are inspired by, sacred and secular understandings that help us to live into our values” is a sentence with an asterisk, a qualifier. We draw from ideas that align with, and illuminate, our values.
“We respect the histories, contexts and cultures in which they were created and are currently practiced” has no qualifier. It is a simple and clear declarative statement.
I kind of like "As Unitarian Universalists, we use, and are inspired by, sacred and secular understandings that help us to live into our values. We do our best, imperfectly, with knowledge of the diverse and contested landscape of the tradition, to respect the histories, contexts, and cultures in which they were created and are currently practiced”.
But as its written, I see it as Janet did, as problematic.
I don’t know if " mindful of the cultures in which they evolved" is the best replacement. Perhaps the line - or that portion of the line - could be struck, in the context of the full amendment.
@LeilaniDavenberry @RevLev @EmilyinMA
I am finding this latest discussion of the sentence “We respect the histories …” quite interesting and am looking forward to joining the discussion later today.
In the meantime, I am going to post what I believe is the latest accepted iteration of this amendment, so everyone can know where we are currently.
Latest version:
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 verifiable knowledge produced by communities engaged in scientific and rational inquiry;
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 by our living tradition to ever deepen and expand our wisdom.
^^^^^^^
This latest version is very similar to the previous version, the only difference being “engaged in” instead of “of” in the humanist source.
@LeilaniDavenberry @RevLev @EmilyinMA
How about this rephrasing as a possible compromise: “We honor the pluralism of our lineage, and we discern and build upon the sources of Unitarian Universalism as we move forward, striving to understand and appreciate the cultures in which they evolved and are currently practiced.”
Or "We honor the pluralism of our lineage, and we discern and build upon the sources of Unitarian Universalism as we move forward, seeking to understand and appreciate the cultures in which they evolved and are currently practiced.
As I read this I feel like you are getting at some of what is bothering me about the language. It’s better but I’m still thinking about it.
It reminds me how in my professional life there are healing practices (referred to professionally as modalities) that I practice that some other white massage therapists use/take from that have been removed out of their cultural context and without understanding of the practice’s deep cultural and spiritual contexts, without permissions and without giving back to the People’s whom the practices originate and are still practiced, without knowing the teachers and their teacher’s teachers lineage of learning, without deep gratitude for all of this and acknowledgement to the resilience of the People who were lost and who have survived ethnocide, occupation and continued colonialism and without getting to know the People birthed the practices and learning what they are currently doing and actively being in relationship with them and taking actions as directed by the People on how to be in solidarity with them.
Yes, I understand your concern about cultural appropriation and recognized that that was the intent behind the inclusion of that particular sentence in the Inspirations paragraph. And for those of us in social justice, it seems obvious that we are going to respect the elements of religions’ cultural contexts that do deserve respect and not respect those elements that are not worthy of respect.
However, many UUs and even many UUs who care about social justice but do not have an academic background read that sentence in a very different way in turns out.
Personally, I was taken aback by the very negative reaction of one of our members to that sentence.The first thing she thought of when she read that was: “Absolutely no way am I going to respect that histories and context of certain Western religions.” She didn’t come out and say Catholicism, but I read that into her quite emotional rejection of the sentence.
I can also imagine that UUs who are recovering from religious abuse (e.g. sexual abuse in the Catholic church) are extremely sensitive to anything that even implies some kind of automatic respect for the histories, contexts and cultures of the religion they are fleeing.
I like the phrase “understand and appreciate” because it implies at least some level of discernment without the judgmental connotations of the word “discernment.”
The word “appreciate” for example, has lots of positive connotations, but also some connotations of discernment.
Janet, I am glad you continue to respond to some feedback, but as can be seen by my former comments here, sometimes you add words to this amendment that I fundamentally could NEVER support. In the last version that I was presented by a delegate, you singled out science by describing it as “rational”, which clearly implies that other ways of seeking truth are irrational. So before I, as a delegate, could indicate my support for your amendment I would have to know EXACTLY what your final version is WORD for WORD. How can I find that?
Hi Cynthia,
I heard from Kerry about your objections and we are working on it. So, there is no completely finalized draft as of yet.
True, I do find cultural appropriation in UU spaces but more than that I also see the settler narrative lens of erasure and further often folks think understanding to mean is it’s ok to take what we like.
An example: Land Acknowledgements which are a great start as they are an invitation of truth and an act of resistance to the erasure of Indigenous People who are still here. I believe we should do more than acknowledge and appreciate. For example: I wish to amplify Indigenous voices and their work to raise awareness about MMIWG2S (Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and Two Spirit), the National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition and the LandBack Movement. Indigenous People protect 80% of the Earth’s biodiversity in the forests, deserts, grasslands and marine environments in which they have lived for thousands of years. Colonialism is not an event in the past, it is ongoing.
I wish to do more than be thankful and appreciate. I want to act in solidarity. I’m not suggested a deep dive into the history of Catholicism though it’s legacy of harms maybe. It’s so hard to find words that work because I find white folks who are actively culturally appropriating often defend themselves saying they are appreciating or inspired by ___ People or culture. I am not suggesting specific language but rather giving examples of my discomfort and why, and I have to balance how much labor and how extractive that can feel as a BIPOC UU in predominately white UU spaces. I’m going to be offline for the rest of the day if you reply I won’t get a chance to look at it until later. Thanks.
I’m going to suggest a mini-timeline for the last few days of this amendment process.
I suggest comments no later than June 2 or June 3, so people have a couple more days to comment but can see the finalized language that is submitted, and then still have a day or two to sign onto the support document.
Does that sound good, all?
I believe to use the word “understand” would be incorrect. Do we understand? I like, “We respect the histories, contexts and cultures in which they were created and are currently practiced.”
But how do we pretend to respect something if we don’t understand it, at least in part? Is it really ethical to insist on respecting something that we don’t understand?
In regards to a timeline: I have an all-day commitment on June 3rd, as well as a commitment tomorrow afternoon and evening, but will be free for discussion, word-smithing, etc. the rest of today as well as tomorrow morning.
I would really like to submit this late on June 3rd (after I come home) or on June 4th. I don’t deal with stress well (due to a chronic illness), so would really really like to avoid submitting this on June 5th. Besides, I think it is dangerous leaving things to the last minute like that.
You are still focusing intensely on Indigenous Peoples and what we should do to acknowledge their presence, concerns, history, traumas, cultural viewpoints, etc. And this is extremely worthwhile.
However, not everyone in UU is looking in the same direction that you are. In other words, it is not sorely a matter of lens (respect vs. the settler narrative lens of erasure), it is a matter of object of concern. Surely, you don’t think that people should be concerned with Indigenous Peoples all the time and nothing else matters.
I have already mentioned the UU’s who are dealing with religious trauma. How about Islam? Can we respect that religion and yet apply some kind of discernment to which cultural practices we are to respect or not? Most Muslims, for example, believe that a woman should be submissive to her husband. Do you believe that? Do you think it is OK for others to believe that? Let’s say a Muslim woman rejects that part of Islamic culture and still sees herself as a Muslim. Would you support her? Might she have some problems if she read the generalized “we respect the histories …” sentence?
How about Judaism? Many reform Jews are strongly attached to their heritage and yet do not respect all the practices of Orthodox Judaism. Might they have a problem with the “we respect the histories …” sentence?
We can also turn back to indigenous peoples. Some tribes had fluid gender roles while some did not. Do we simply reject all the spiritual traditions of the latter, while embracing and respecting the former? Do we just say that strict gender roles are fine for them but not for us? How do we know that? Can we pick and choose? Or must we absolutely refrain from any cultural judgment whatsoever?
It is not just me and the one woman in my congregation who found that “We respect their histories …” highly problematic, quite a few others have as well.
Originally, our congregation wanted to leave that sentence out altogether. We wound up compromising with “mindful of their histories.” Now we are compromising further with the very strong, yet still reasonable “striving to understand and appreciate” phrase.
If you do not like this phrase, maybe you can come up with something else that takes into account everyone’s concerns?
I don’t have time to give all these thoughts the attention they deserve right now, but I just wanted to say that yes, all the time, we should be trying to respect things we don’t understand. Because we don’t understand most things, not fully, not the way they are experienced directly by others. There is similar reasoning for me in stating we welcome all who “respect” (rather than “share”) our values.
We haven’t agreed on any values that are shared by all and are still debating that, so to me this phrase has a really chilling effect. But if we say we welcome all who “respect” our values, we are saying it’s fine for someone to walk through the door who isn’t learned in UUism, raised in UU, who has other beliefs (maybe identifies as Catholic first, UU second), who is attracted to certain parts of our published principles or values or whatever, but has a different take on others, but they are not walking through the door to attack other people’s beliefs.
I attend a cool “visit other houses of worship” series put on by a local cathedral where I used to sometimes go for Taize services. (I told them in the first session, "You’ve already reached out to those with other beliefs, because I am not Catholic!) We went to listen and yes, try to understand as best we could their beliefs and traditions explained to us, and in most cases, attend a service. We respected their traditions without necessarily truly understanding them and usually without sharing them. Sadly, we didn’t make it to a synagogue, because the rabbi got sick, but we attended I think it was an Orthodox Christian church, a mosque, a Buddhist temple, and a Vedanta temple. Come to think of it, this was probably the start of me becoming UU!
Anyway, I appreciate very much all this circling around and honing in on the right language.
I am very much for you not waiting to submit the amendment until the last minute and suggest you set the timetable that works for you logistically, as you are the one who actually has to upload everything.
Thanks to everyone who is participating.
We just used the “understand and appreciate” verbiage in the longer amendment we just submitted because that was where the discussion landed at the time we submitted it and we needed to go ahead and submit. We dont have opinions one way or another but were trying to match your verbiage.
I think the hardest, hardest parts of this word-smithing is when there are “Janus” subjects, looking in two directions at once. Science is important and it is important that UUs have this as a source BUT it is not MORE important or more true than other sources! Honoring and valuing religious is important BUT is is also important to honor those who have suffered from religious-justified abuse. I am not sure any words are perfect or adequate for these dilemmas.
I am kind of now thinking what a corner Star Trek painted itself into, plotwise, by having the “Prime Directive,” because of this very dilemma!
OK, Kerry. I concede your point on trying to respect things we don’t understand. Yes, we do this all the time and we should.
But back to the question of implied blanket respect. You related that you went around to different houses of worship to try to understand their beliefs and traditions (although Cynthia is objecting to the “seek to understand” formulation). We all want to be open-minded. But do you concede it is possible to actually understand a religion (say, having grown up in it and experienced it first hand) and absolutely not respect much about it. Is that possible, in your view?
Is it possible to have read and heard a lot about a certain form of a certain religion and decide that you do not respect it and you have good reasons for not respecting it?