Nice. Thank you for sharing.
To this, I might add (Tao Te Ching – Verse 18 -19, edited):
"When people forget the Tao,
goodness and piety appear.
Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier."
1 Like
@EmilyinMA I appreciate the sharpness and clarity of your post. It draws to a head the implications of closing out those who (seemingly) do not share our values.
At the same time, in doing so, it also awakens in me an impulse to hear the nuances of those who feel threatened or unwelcome (such as @Hosea-Hulla-Ballou above) by the act of including people who do not share our values of equity or inclusiveness or who may actively sustain oppressive norms or systems. And, if such norms or systems dominate society as a whole, which safe spaces can marginalized people turn to, if not places like UU, that affirm a certain “affirmation” that they will not feel yet again shunned, discriminated against, or unwelcome?
I don’t have an answer and I don’t think insisting on shared values at the UUA level to enter the door provides an answer. But I do think that whatever path one takes, we remain with the challenges implicit in loving and welcoming those who don’t lovingly welcome, flourishing among those who deny our dignity and worth, covenanting with those who neither take nor grant responsibility, and opening our doors at the risk of getting shot at (literally and/or metaphorically).
And sometimes, those who opt to leave the door open (myself included) don’t bear the same risks as those who request it shut.
Again, thank you for your clarifying post.
2 Likes
Thanks for playing out the implications – yes, this is quite nuanced.
I just keep thinking about how the UU has changed in the past 6-7 years, and all the talk we’ve done about being willing to sit with discomfort. The value of growth and transformation that comes from listening. And the damage done by complacency in UU spaces.
There the recent candidate for the UUA board who said “I acknowledge the desire of many, especially younger and/or marginally identifying members, to take our religion in a profoundly different direction… I wholeheartedly support forming another branch of UUism to be form that is more attractive to the aforementioned folks”. When I read about a conditional welcome, I think of her. And I imagine how it would be weaponized in our spaces against our own members.
Who does a conditional welcome protect? I don’t know. But the proposal to strike the line about who we welcome and who we don’t - while affirming that "we pledge to replace such barriers with ever widening circles of solidarity and mutual respect. - works for me.
Thanks for the appreciation. My point is that we should welcome everyone. Just because someone does not support our principles does not mean we reject them in turn. Quite the opposite. Being a welcoming congregation means we welcome everyone - no ifs, and or buts. There have been reports about people who have left hate groups because people listened to them nonjudgmentally. Jesus pointed out that it is easy to love your friends, but you should also love your enemies. This does not give them license to be disruptive, but it does allow for them to participate and for us to have the opportunity to lead by example. Therefore, I support this change.
2 Likes
Yes! Also, what does it say if we propose to “transform the world through liberating Love” but don’t think we can transform individuals who walk through our doors? How can we be a “safe space” and purport to also “transform the world?”
Obviously, fear that congregations will be forced to allow Nazis into the congregation, or that Nazis would want to join a UU congregation, is a silly argument that cannot be taken seriously.
Any slippery slope argument can be taken to infinity. Let’s keep arguments within the realm of reality.
1 Like
It reminds me of censorship and the strong desire to “protect” people from abhorrent views, comments, and ideas. I understand the temptation. In a local, specific, or short-term context, it can seem very useful. And yet, as with the restrictive “welcome”, it can get weaponized in both directions (and often more effectively by those in power).
2 Likes
@vandermude Well put. To me, this actually lends further weight to the argument that some people on this forum have posed to stick with principles in the bylaws and scrap the attempt to list shared “values” altogether.
I don’t know if a values-and-based discourse necessarily lends itself to a less welcoming stance than focusing on the 7 Principles but I have also yet to see a compelling argument for how emphasizing values in Article II would plausibly resolve more problems than it might create.
I agree that something needs to change here.
Could we just change it to welcome all persons “who seek to learn about our values”? or who want to share beloved community"?
I’m also not sure about the word “marginalized.” Some in my Fellowship who might be considered marginalized actually say they feel marginalized by that word! I think the first sentence makes it clear that the problem is not the identity itself, but the barriers. And the second sentence already says we pledge to replace the barriers. So the last phrase of the paragraph seems redundant. “Everyone” means “everyone.”
1 Like
I offer we strike “Systems of power, privilege, and oppression have traditionally created barriers . . .”
This language is not inviting.
1 Like
Yes, it is language that bristles
A congregation should welcome people who believe in “The inherent worth and dignity of every person” (The first principle).
2 Likes
I would agree that “who share our values” seems abrupt (although unlikely intended to be) and along the lines of Kara’s suggestion, I think about replacing the phrase with "who respect our engagement in the practice of shared values (or just “who respects our values). And this leads me to consider the broadest use of “share” - willing to take part of. So I go back to consider, do we spell it out " who are open to learning to recognize UU values in their own search for truth and meaning.” I believe “respect,” if that is what works to move Inclusion to a consensus, is a reasonable choice.
The only changes to Inclusion I am left with is to strike “historically” from the last sentence as marginalized is broad to include contemporary and historical marginalization and “traditionally” and “historical” appears in the first sentence of “Inclusion”. I would add “race” (in the first sentence). to persons and groups who have been oppressed for clarity (and not for exclusion of other oppressions as some have argued for elsewhere.)
Amended
Inclusion
Systems of power, privilege, and oppression have traditionally created barriers for persons and groups with particular identities, races, 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 are open to learning to recognize UU values in their own search for truth and meaning 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.
I have landed on replacing “show share our values with”
who will embrace UU values in their own search for truth and meaning.
I would support an amendment with this change. Others have described why “who share our values” is possibly presumptive and unwelcomeing. Others have said why some statement that shows accordance with our values is needed.
further reason for amendment
I feel the above satisfies that some/many who arrive at UU, or want to associate with UU, don’t know if they are in accord with our values (goes for existing members too 
The inclusion of “in their own search for truth and meaning” recognizes the individual and their freedom to hear, interpret and act on those values is theirs to embrace. The word “will” is to look at the future of the bond between individuals, congregations and the UUA. That we covenant to grow together and embrace our values and that not doing so, for the congregation, is then a question for that congregation as to what they want to be.
The amendment recognizes that to not embrace UU values does put someone on a different path - association or community - and at the same time the amendment provides ample room for differences while people/associations work it out for themselves.
@Steward Are you submitting this as an amendment? It seems like a reasonable compromise.
The short answer is that a version of what I wrote was submitted.
Below is what my fellow delegate from UUCD submitted this morning.
“who are open to learning to recognize” was honed down to “who will embrace”, a more elegant version with the same objective to communicate openness, personal change and growth and a recognition of communal responsibility.
We left out “races” as an addition as other parts of Article II address race and we did not feel that the addition would add to the original. We left in “historically” because the further we got into the discussion, knowing that marginalization knows no timeframe, there were enough voices that said we need to emphasize those historically marginalized - for a while - and then we can consider moving on from “historically”.
2023 GA Amendment Submission Form
|Proposed Amendment – Include the line numbers and exact language proposed for your amendment if applicable.|50 Section C-2.4. Inclusion.
51 Systems of power, privilege, and oppression have traditionally created barriers for persons
52 and groups with particular identities, ages, abilities, and histories. We pledge to replace
53 such barriers with ever-widening circles of solidarity and mutual respect. We strive to be
54 an association of congregations that truly welcome all persons who will embrace [share our] UU values in their own search for truth and meaning . We
55 commit to being an association of congregations that empowers and enhances everyone’s
56 participation, especially those with historically marginalized identities.
To my ear, this is a good change. Thank you for your work on it.
I really appreciate the version of this amendment that was submitted. It is a subtle change, but it does turn what some might experience as a barrier into more of an invitation.
As we live more fully into this, I hope we will be mindful of the difference between “embracing our values” and “endorsing a particular linguistic expression of our values.” The former is something we should all strive to do in our own ways; the latter will be especially difficult for those whose educational and other life experiences are different from the majority. Such persons will likely experience certain expressions as offputting or confusing for entirely unintended reasons. So it is important that the first message they hear is one of unconditional welcome!
1 Like
While I didn’t have a problem with “share values”, I understand how it can feel unwelcoming to folks figuring out what they think. Congregation’s Covenants of right Relationship address how we behave with each other.
In a recent focus group at our church retreat with 18 people in attendance, many had the same thought to remove the sentence starting with “We strive…”.