#180 | W David Buss | Drop "who shares our values"

Submission 180
W David Buss
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of the Conejo Valley (Newbury Park, CA) 2525

What is your suggestion or idea?

In the proposed Inclusion Section, I suggest we drop the words ““who shares our values”” because Universalism would potentially include those who don’t share all of our values.

What is the reason for your amendment idea?

To suggest we would not include those who do not share our values suggests conditional Universalism which I don’t believe exists. Universalism is unconditional.

Pete Seeger’s song ““All My Children of the Sun”” is a good song to contemplate relative the value of those who don’t share the group’s values.

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

This came up during a zoom meeting reviewing the proposed changes to Article 2.

At least one other person seemed sympathetic to my opinion.


Thanks. This clause seems to imply that we can start kicking out UUs who don’t conform. I don’t conform, and neither does my African America daughter. I’ve heard UU leaders say that people like my daughter and me should be excluded, so I don’t want to see this exclusionary clause added in.

1 Like

You remind me of the quote from Robert Cummins before the 1943 General Assembly: "Universalism cannot be limited to Protestantism or to Christianity, not without denying its very name. Ours is a world fellowship, not just a Christian sect. For so long as Universalism is universalism and not partialism, the fellowship bearing its name must succeed in making it unmistakably clear that all are welcome: theist and humanist, unitarian and Trinitarian, colored and color-less. A circumscribed Universalism is unthinkable.”


Thank you. I totally agree. The power of love becomes conditional if we keep these words.