#168 | Laura Gilliom | Reword to focus on the future instead of the past

2023 Article II Amendment Idea Submissions Amendment Ideas
1

Submission 168
Laura Gilliom
The Community Church of Chapel Hill UU (Chapel Hill, NC) 6626

What is your suggestion or idea?

Section C-2.4. Inclusion.
Systems of power, privilege, and oppression have traditionally created barriers
for persons and groups with particular identities, ages, abilities, and histories.
We pledge to replace such barriers with ever-widening circles of solidarity and
mutual respect. We strive to be an association of congregations that truly
welcome all persons who share our values. We commit to being an association
of congregations that empowers and enhances everyone’s participation,
especially those with historically marginalized identities.

Reword above paragraph as follows:

Section C-2.4. Inclusion. We strive to be an association of congregations that truly
welcome all persons regardless of identity, age, ability, and history; and that fosters ever-widening circles of solidarity and mutual respect. We commit to being an association
of congregations that empowers and enhances everyone’s participation,
especially those with historically marginalized identities.

What is the reason for your amendment idea?

I feel the revised wording is more uplifting, focusing on the future instead of the past. There are many shameful events in human history and in the present that we could mention, but I would prefer that our religion promote our liberal and progressive values by emphasizing shared humanity and ever expanding love.

Have you discussed this idea with your congregation or other UUs?

Not the specific wording, but I discussed the general idea at a discussion with other members of our congregation. Their response was positive.

6 Likes
2

Laura, I share your desire to have an uplifting message. The “systems of power…” language feels more like a warning than a welcome.

Thank your for this submission feedback.

BTW: this section was the only section in Article II not revised. Hoping that your suggestion will encourage the Article II team to reconsider this language.

1 Like
3

I like it! People like positive things more than negative things.

1 Like
4

I’m in favor of retaining the reference to “[S]ystems of power, privilege, and oppression” in the current version of the Study Commission’s proposed revision, and to the fact that these systems have “traditionally created barriers” for some persons and groups, as delineated. The trouble with not naming this is that, since these systems are “the water we swim in,” we can’t see them if we can’t name them. And, if we can’t see it, we won’t undo it. I don’t believe we can be truly welcoming to all people unless we’re willing to name these sources of exclusion.