Submission 186
Barbara Kidney
UU Congregation of the Catskills, Kingston NY
What is your suggestion or idea?
My main idea cannot be and is not limited to a single section of the proposal (sorry!)
My main idea-- the elephant in the living room, if you will-- is that in order for consideration of A2 to be inclusive and democratic, the first crucial step is to consider what changes, if any, UU members and UU congregations want to make to A2. That was the process used in previous revisions of A2, and thus it was a process that took time for careful consideration and for organic development from the grassroots membership.
I find it unfortunate, as I perceive that it has violated principles of democracy, that this current revision came from decisions made by only a few people (the Board and the few people the Board appointed to do a re-write), rather than from the UU membership.
So, in all honesty, the text that I would like to delete is the entire revision, and I would like to replace it with our current version of Article 2.
Further, besides this major issue of the undemocratic process used to develop this revision, I find the text of the revision to be quite inferior to the current Article 2. The current Article 2 is eloquent and elegant, and states my principles clearly & succintly. Makes no sense IMO to destroy something of great utility and beauty, and replace it with writing that is often ambiguous and mediocre, especially in comparison to current A2.
RE C-2.1 What is the desired transformation of the world?
RE C2.2 Every religion claims to be centered on love.
RE Justice - so the main activity of UU is to dismantle racism. A worthy enterprise, but seems we are to become an anti-racist org, & other oppressions do not even have to be named.
What is the reason for your amendment idea?
From the instructions on your website, it is stated that these submissions are not amendments: ““Submitting suggestions and ideas through this form is for the
purpose of public discussion, and does NOT submit an amendment which
could be voted on at General Assembly.””
As I stated above, my reason for my idea is that, in order for consideration of A2 to be inclusive and democratic, the first crucial step is to consider what changes, if any, UU members and UU congregations want to make to A2. That was the process used in previous revisions of A2, and thus it was a process that took time for careful consideration and for organic development from the grassroots membership.
I find it unfortunate, as I perceive that it has violated principles of democracy, that this current revision came from decisions made by only a few people (the Board and the few people the Board appointed to do a re-write), rather than from the UU membership.
Have you discussed this idea with your congregation or other UUs?
Yes, I have discussed this with other UUs, both members of my congregations and members of other congregations. I do not think it is appropriate for me nor for anyone to be reporting private conversations or group/congregational discussions on an internet form like this.