@RevLev thanks for spelling out your reasoning and context. It is certainly true that our congregational context, whether a Rev. like you, a Board member like @Janet or an “ordinary UU” like me, the opinions, wishes, and wellbeing of our own congregation is probably our most immediate and persuasive context.
I should reclarify that I am the original author of this amendment in an earlier incarnation and, as you may or may have not gleaned from reading earlier comments, it was presented separately at both @Janet’s and my congregation, reworked or tweaked at both (my delegates were elected quite late, so some are only chipping in now), and then recombined and reoffered for further input, both from our own congregations, the people who workshopped several amendments in an email chain derived from the “Inspirations” workshop, and general comment here.
@Janet has offered the information in the Blue Boat Passengers Facebook group (created to continue the discussions started during the Commission’s feedback sessions) that her congregation is divided on the vote for the revisions and will vote proportionately. This was something I had suggested back when I started hearing about movements to “win” this vote, so I was delighted to find it among the suggestions Dr. Rev. Sofia Betancourt offered in the excellent delegates’ guide.
While our congregation has not taken a poll, I can tell you from my past five years’ experience that we are also divided. Indeed, we have also lost members on both sides of the issues that are at the core of the differing views about Article II and its revision. We passed the 8th Principle by a wide margin, but we did it in a way that, even though this may have contributed to a few people leaving, allowed all issues to be aired and all voices to be heard. We then continued with congregational involvement and consent as we began work to carry out the promise of the 8th Principle.
Because I have been listening widely and doing my best to understand “both” or all sides of these issues, I can share a perception that the divisions are both more far-reaching–as in affecting more and more congregations in a destructive way–and deeper, as in based on some profound, and thus far irreconcilable conflicting frameworks, than we may realize.
I understand that any group that feels confidence in its ethical position may be willing to construe that the opposition are “outliers.” You very creditably made the point that you yourself may be in the outlying group. But this is not the way I see this numbers game, either in this vote or in the larger context of congregational life. It is not merely which group may have the ethical justification, willpower, resources, and numbers to “win.” It is that a failure to try hear all voices and see if we may reach common ground, whoever may be in the minority, is not in keeping with our principles or values and at this point, the fallout may be irreversible.
Article II revisions, which we are attempting together as a living tradition, to me represent an unparalleled opportunity to bring our best minds and our best hearts to bear on this very thorny dilemma.
Thus, while I believe I have understood everything you have said so far, I am going to ask for one more clarification about the language, and if my impression that you want the language exactly as it is, with no changes, or you would not support the amendment, is accurate.
I think it was @EmilyinMA above who made a reference to the sentences being a sort of “code.” Another way to say this might be “shorthand.” In disability circles, the slogan “Nothing about us without us” could be said to be shorthand for quite a lot, and we know what it means.
In my earliest draft of proposed changes, I solicited feedback from others before submitting my feedback on all the sections. I looked at the words “dismantling racism,” which I know are seen as shorthand or code, but in different ways, by people with opposing views. I wondered if there might be less dividing language that would accomplish the same thing. I tried moving “dismantle” in front of “obstacles” (I have always hated, in a literal sense when I imagine the image, not its intended meaning, replacing obstacles with ever-widening circles.) And I used some other word with racism that I thought might represent the same wish or process without potentially triggering knee-jerk reactions from some who read this language differently. But Patrick McLaughlin kindly explained to me that this phrasing is inseparably linked from long history of antiracism work, and why, so I changed the wording back before submitting my feedback.
Here, I think I may grasp the contextual/content/historical reason for the main words you wanted added back. And its true that the “depth and breadth” language in some sense was replacing that. But is there such a reason for “live into our values”? I can understand that this phrasing is common and maybe best words to some, but to others, it isn’t, and as noted, for me, this expression can very quickly become dated, and we want these revisions to last for a while, even if we are “on time” to review again in 15 years.
Another language example. I support respecting people’s preferred pronouns and using my own to show support. I support doing this in writing as well. For e, the jury is still out on Latinx because I’ve heard mixed opinions and reasons on both sides. But for me, I will never spell folks “folx” because there is no gender association with the word folks, and for me it is fine and even an exemplary gender-neutral word.
I hope some of this is making sense. I truly want Article II revisions to be a successful effort to bring our minds, hearts, and souls closer together and cause all kinds of needed healing in UU’ism. I want to advance the goals of the new language, and respect the beauty of much of the old language. I still think we can get there, even if we are running out of time and may not have adequate time in the period offered during GA to get there. If we manage to combine, condense, and winnow it down to 40 great amendments, I would really love to see all of those presented, because that is our last chance to hear a representative, numerically tabulated weighing in of our UU siblings.