Submission 185 Regis Sabol Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Erie ¶
What is your suggestion or idea?
Scrap the entire thing. We don’t need it. We don’t want it. This is the antithesis of how we view Unitarian Universalism. You scrapped the search for truth and meaning and replaced it with pablum you call ““values.”” This is a radical document that will alter the nature of our denomination and do it much harm…
What is the reason for your amendment idea?
I can’t make it any clearer.
Have you discussed this idea with your congregation or other UUs?
Yes, we have talked in-person and via-email with a number of our members. They all share our concerns. Do you want names? That sounds like the opening scene in ““Viva Zapata.””
I believe Regis is expressing the sentiment of many UUs. “Scrap the entire thing.”
The effort to rewrite Article II appears to lack a guiding compass. Centering “Love” is by no means unique. Most denominations will claim the same central thought. What make UUism so unique is an embrace of individual freedom of belief. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning.
The fact that the Article II Study Commission has received nearly 200 recommended changes just a few weeks before an initial vote at June’s General Assembly should alarm the Commission.
I do not understand this insistence on rewriting Article 2.
" …individual freedom of belief. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning" is uniquely powerful and empowering. It seems worthy of everything Unitarian Universalism stands for. If UUism needs or could use a boost, this is just the opposite. It will do no good to shoot it down like this.
Proper marketing would be much more helpful.
This I believe.
I think they should start over. I didn’t hear about this until late last year. I attended one of the Zoom sessions and was extremely surprised they did a complete rewrite. It was uncalled for. I’ve grown to like what we have now over the last 20 some years. It was on my refrigerator, and it makes me think.
I hope it gets voted down so we can have a pause and a do-over.
I’m concerned that even if the amendments make it palatable to me, that the entire process is problemmatic. For instance, in my congregation’s delegates vote their conscience, so even if the majority might prefer to keep article II as it is or at least not engage in a wholesale overhaul, their views wouldn’t necessarily be representated. I think it’s fair to say that most UU’s have only had a vague idea that this is an entire rewrite. And it’s likely to result in many congregations being divided on this issue. How is that serving the needs of our congregations? We may be devoting so much of our attention to healing internal wounds that it detracts from our ability to live our values in the world.
So it points to bigger problems–that the UUA leadership doesn’t truly believe in democracy. The deficiencies were identified in the 2009 5th principle commission, but not adequated addressed. An appropriate starting place would have been to hear from a range of UU’s and congregations, and not limit input to the identified stakeholders, and learn what we are seeking to better live our vision.
Neither the UU World nor uua.org have featured a range of views on what this means or even whether it’s necessary. When people don’t feel heard, they often feel less invested. This lack of the diversity in opinion is problematic, particularly in a religion that distinguishes ourself by freedom of thought.
Clearly a significant percentage of people are here are opposed to such dramatic.