#212 | Gene Slothour-Hudnall | Changes are Too Flawed

Submission 212
Gene Slothour-Hudnall
The First Unitarian Church of Baltimore (Baltimore, MD) 4031

What is your suggestion or idea?

This proposal is so deeply flawed that it is basically impossible to edit into something good. Is that the point? We had a Honda Civic, and now we’re being presented with two skateboards nailed to a 2x4 and an ““H”” painted on it. It’s a neat religion this document is describing, and I’m sure UUs could hang out with members of this new faith, same as we would with Quakers or liberal Presbyterians, but it’s not Unitarian Universalism. It’s not evolution or growth, it’s just something different.

So strike it all, re-insert the whole text of Article II as it currently exists, and try again. I believe you have the capacity, if nothing else.

What is the reason for your amendment idea?

If speaking to the GA:

""We should reject the A2 revision. So much is wrong here, no amendment could repair it. This document is a how-to on navel-gazing, full of weasel words. Consider: ““We support the use of inclusive democratic processes””. If we’re going to wedge ““inclusive”” before democratic, what does that mean? No more GA representatives, direct democracy instead? Fine! It’s 2023 after all. But what if it means some votes count more than others in the interest of inclusivity, as some chapters of the DSA have done? Compare it to the clarity and tension of the 5th: ““To affirm and promote: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large””. The revision is full of such ambiguity.

““Affirm and promote””, over and over we say it. To ““affirm”” that all people have inherent worth. Not a single person is without it. That’s amazing. More than love, that’s a metaphysical declaration of war against every religion that promotes the lie of ““hell.”” That’s more than centering ““love”” could ever do. Love is a great value, I agree, but you don’t have to be a UU convert to recognize the insidious threat of the term. Speak to someone outside your milieu and you quickly see that ““God is Love”” is a phrase punctuated by a knife.

Then to ““promote””, as in the 2nd, ““justice, equity, and compassion in human relations.”” There’s been a meme birthed somewhere that our principles aren’t anti-racist, that they don’t compel action. It’s false. From Selma to the southern border to the Supreme Court, we’ve fought for justice over and over again, compelled by our values. Values that this revisionism scrambles to no clear end. Vote no.“”

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

My congregation doesn’t have a forum to have these kinds of discussions. The A2 revisions haven’t been brought up.


Gene, Thank you for your comments. I think you have it right

1 Like

Thank you. Evolution may be called for; revolution is not.

I was drawn into Unitarian Universalism after being introduced by the existing 7 Principles. How wonderful they are.
What is happening with the total replacement of Article 2 is incredibly sad and surreal.

I like that the commission tried really, really hard to herd the responses they heard from fractious UUs into a document. But I don’t think it reflects what UU is, at least not to me, and not to most that I have talked to about it. I do think we could start over with a conversation that doesn’t feel like they have us over a deadline/barrel.