I’m grappling with the religious Sources part of our proposed amendment and kind of leaning the other direction. I do like listing and including both religions and important elements we draw from them (in contrast to the current Inspirations section that seems too generic), but I am not sure that coupling them is the way to go. It risks simplifying, maybe even stereotyping religious traditions, and really, I think many of those key factors exist in multiple religions, though I do really like your emphasis on our UU history.
I think there are also both upsides and downsides to trying to group and label religious. The upside is that it is specific and acknowledges our history. The downside is that some groupings may not be that useful and/or might even feel insulting to some people. For example, “Abrahamic,” which has been suggested by me and others to replace Judaism and Christianity and include in Islam, as many have proposed, may not achieve the desired inclusivity. Likewise, there are many, many earth-centered “traditions” we are probably trying to include and in many cases, these are religions, not “traditions.”
Also, does it work to group together in a generalized way leave the desired future greater inclusivity of religions, as well as others not named in our past?
I can see why the Commission in my view sort of ducked this issue by its more generic “Inspirations” section, but for me and for many, that doesn’t work.
I have been leaning towards trying some labeling and groupings (with still to be tinkered language) and also including important key factors, but not coupling them together. My amendment originally proposed as feedback to one of the sessions held by the Commission tried to do this in an abbreviated way. See that amendment uploaded as a comment to @Janet 's proposed amendment on the Sources.* That’s the one that has been proposed to my congregation and is still being workshopped (will post it later today).