#242 | Richard Nida | Delete Graphic

Submission 242
Richard Nida
The Community Church of Chapel Hill UU (Chapel Hill, NC) 6626

What is your suggestion or idea?

II Idea Submission

Let’s rethink the use of the graphic, especially the Chalice, .How we use important religious symbols should be done with care. The Proposed Revision
fails in the following ways:

Confusion: The Study Commission presented not one but two versions:

  1. Long version with the values expressed and explanations;
  2. Short graphic version with no context overlaying the Chalice.

Without context, it appears what UUs primarily are multisyllabic words printed atop UUs most revered

Aesthetics: Imagine the Christian Cross,
the Jewish Star of David, or Islam’s Crescent Moon surrounded by a ““flower.”” Not coming to you? Unlike many of the world’s great religions,
UUs do not have many sacred symbols that are distinctively
its own. Once breached, especially by UUA, inappropriate use of the chalice may become
normalized. Once lost,
respect for a loving symbol will be hard to regain.

Trademark Infringement: Did anybody check with the Girl Scouts before presenting this graphic. The flower and the word, “LOVE,” look strikingly
similar to the Girl Scout cookie box logo. Should we try to compete with cookies?

Proposal: Delete the
graphic from the Proposed document.

What is the reason for your amendment idea?

The graphic representation of UU values presented in the Proposed Revision is confusing in that it offers seven words on a page without providing any context as to what the words mean. Further, the graphic is presented as an overlay to the UU chalice, which degrades the value of the chalice as one of UUs few revered artistic symbols. Plus, the graphic may have infringed on the trademark on the Girl Scouts of America cookie box.

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

I have had discussions at four learning session led by my minister and approximately 20 congregates, at a formal discussion group with eight congregates, at several lunch meetings with members from multiple UU congregations, and with my daughter who is a lifelong UU.

1 Like

I am not in favour of the new article 2 or the graphic.

Agree on all points; but my hope is that all discussion of specific amendments will become moot. I believe the proposed complete rewrite of Article II should be abandoned, and that we can instead participate in a careful and gradual refinement of the document that we have lived with up to now. Evolution may be called for; revolution is not.

I agree that the graphic should be removed. Whatever it’s pedagogical or artistic value it does not belong in the By-laws, which is a legal document for the association.